commuting as role transitions: how trait self-control and ... files/16-077_0aae29b7-b67e-402a... ·...

Commuting as Role Transitions: How Trait Self-Control and Work-related Prospection Offset Negative Effects of Lengthy Commutes Jon M. Jachimowicz Bradley R. Staats Francesca Gino

Julia J. Lee Jochen I. Menges

Working Paper 16-077

Working Paper 16-077

Copyright © 2016, 2017 by Jon M. Jachimowicz, Julia J. Lee, Bradley R. Staats, Jochen I. Menges, and Francesca Gino

Working papers are in draft form. This working paper is distributed for purposes of comment and discussion only. It may not be reproduced without permission of the copyright holder. Copies of working papers are available from the author.

Commuting as Role Transitions: How Trait Self-Control and Work-related Prospection Offset Negative Effects of Lengthy Commutes

Jon M. Jachimowicz Columbia Business School

Bradley R. Staats University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Francesca Gino Harvard Business School

Julia J. Lee Ross School of Business, University of Michigan

Jochen I. Menges WHU – Otto Beisheim School of Management

Commuting as Role Transitions 1

Running Head: COMMUTING AS ROLE TRANSITIONS

Commuting as Role Transitions: How Trait Self-Control and Work-related Prospection Offset Negative Effects of Lengthy Commutes

*Jon M. JachimowiczColumbia Business School

[email protected]

*Julia J. LeeRoss School of Business, University of Michigan

[email protected]

Bradley R. StaatsUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

[email protected]

Jochen I. MengesWHU – Otto Beisheim School of Management

University of Cambridge, Judge Business [email protected]

Francesca Gino

Harvard Business [email protected]

* denotes equal authorshipCorresponding Author:Jon M. JachimowiczUris Hall, Office 7-IColumbia Business School3022 BroadwayNew York City, NY 10027Phone: 646-647-5341ACKNOWLEDGMENTSWe thank John Monks for his generous help in setting up the first study, Andreas Wihler for helpful comments, and Ceylan Oymak, Lauren Tassone, and Greg Gozzo for excellent research assistance. This research was in part funded by a Cambridge Judge Business School small grant awarded to the first author, Harvard Business School, and The Wharton School.


ABSTRACT

Across the globe, the average commute is 38 minutes each way, and it is well known that

lengthy commutes have negative effects on employees’ well-being and job-related outcomes.

Despite the importance of commuting in the employees’ everyday life, very little is known about

offsetting such negative effects of lengthy commutes. Integrating theories of self-control and

boundary work in psychological and organizational sciences, we argue that engaging in future-

oriented thinking about specific work goals while commuting, what we call work-related

prospection, positively influences job satisfaction because it facilitates employees’ transition into

their work role. Across two field studies and one field experiment, we find that employees higher

in trait self-control are less likely to experience negative effects of lengthy commutes because

they use their commuting time to engage in work-related prospection. In a field experiment,

employees asked to engage in work-related prospection during commuting reported higher levels

of job satisfaction in comparison to multiple control groups. Although commuting is typically

seen as the least desirable part of an employee’s day, our theory and results point to the benefits

of using it as a time period to engage in work-related prospection.

Keywords: Commuting, Role Transition, Boundary Work, Job Satisfaction.


Commuting is part of everyday life. Because home and the office are often in separate

locations, most employees face commutes every workday. Globally, the mean commute time is

about 38 minutes each way (Rampell, 2011), thus an average commuter can expect to spend

almost 300 hours traveling between work and home over the course of a year, more than 10% of

the total working time (OECD, 2014). Although commute time is related to work – without

work, there is no need to commute – commuting is typically unpaid, and rarely included when

calculating work time (BBC, 2015). In addition, commutes are getting longer: for example, a

recent study found that the distance between employees and their workplaces in America grew

by about 5% from 2000 to 2012 (Kneebone & Holmes, 2015).

Evidence suggests that commuting is not an aspect of life that people enjoy. In a survey

conducted by Kahneman and Krueger (2006), for instance, respondents identified the morning

journey between home and work as their least desirable activity of the day, closely followed by

the evening commute as third worst. But commuting is not only disliked, it also bears negative

consequences for people. Lengthy commutes are associated with lower levels of subjective well-

being (Stutzer & Frey, 2008) and greater levels of stress (Gottholmseder, Nowotny, Pruckner, &

Theurl, 2009; Novaco, Stokols, & Milanesi, 1990). Lengthy commutes thus lead to outcomes

that are likely to influence people’s attitudes and behaviors on the job. Lower well-being and

greater stress reliably predict decreased job satisfaction (Gaines & Jermier, 1983) and increased

emotional exhaustion (Fox, Dwyer, & Ganster, 1993; Packard & Motowidlo, 1987).

Furthermore, lengthy commutes affect work-related outcomes: commuting longer distances to

work in the morning increases lateness (Leigh & Lust, 1988) and absenteeism (Van Ommeren &

Gutierrez-i-Puigarnau, 2011). Not only do employees dislike lengthy commutes, then, they also


have a negative bearing on employees’ experience of work.

Despite the pervasiveness and consequentiality of commuting, few organizational

researchers have attended to this part of the day. As a result, we know fairly little about why

commuting is so aversive, who is most affected by the commuting experience, and how people

could better cope with lengthy commutes. In this paper, we address these questions by drawing

on theories on boundary work (Ashforth, Kreiner, & Fugate, 2000; Nippert-Eng, 1996) and self-

control (Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Muraven, & Tice, 1998; de Ridder, Lensvelt-Mulders,

Finkenauer, Stok, & Baumeister, 2012) as frameworks for conceptualizing commuting as an

opportunity to both physically and psychologically transition between roles. We specifically

focus on the morning commute, during which employees exit their home roles (by leaving home)

and enter their work roles (by arriving at work).1

We suggest that people with high degrees of self-control use their commute to more

effectively transition from one role to another, and, as a result, are less aversely affected by the

commuting experience. Casting commuting as a boundary work situation that both demands and

benefits from self-control, we examine what high self-control employees do during their

commutes to offset the negative effects of commuting, and suggest and find that they engage in a

mental strategy that facilitates role transition. This mental strategy involves work-related

prospection – thinking ahead to envision and plan one’s work-related goals (Austin &

Vancouver, 1996; Szpunar, Spreng, & Schacter, 2014). We propose that work-related

prospection is a strategy not just accessible to employees with higher levels of trait self-control

but can instead be utilized by other employees as well to facilitate their role transition, and thus

1 We acknowledge that some employees commute to work at other times during the day, for example, if they work during the night shift. The majority of employees commute to work during the morning hours, however.


make lengthy commutes less aversive.

Our conceptual model is depicted in Figure 1. We relate commute time to job satisfaction

and turnover. We suggest that whether commute time lowers job satisfaction and increases

turnover depends on employees’ levels of trait self-control, such that those with high trait self-

control are less influenced by lengthy commutes whereas those with low trait self-control tend to

be more negatively affected. We also suggest that those with high trait self-control are more

likely to engage in work-related prospection, which ameliorates the negative consequences of

lengthy commutes, in comparison to those with low trait self-control. We test this conceptual

model in a series of three studies, including a field study at a major media company in the UK;

an online study of commuters across the US; and a field experiment with commuters across the

US during which we asked some commuters but not others to engage in work-related prospection

and tracked their job satisfaction.

-------------------------------

Insert Figure 1 about here

-------------------------------

By bringing together organizational and psychological theories, this research offers

several theoretical contributions. First, we utilize the context of employees’ daily commutes to

advance the growing literature on role transitions and boundary work (Ashforth et al., 2000;

Kreiner, 2006; Kreiner et al., 2009; Rothbard, Phillips, & Dumas, 2005). While previous

research has shown the negative effect of commuting length on job-related outcomes, we provide

insight into the mechanism through which this occurs. Specifically, we conceptualize the

morning commute as a time period for employees to shift from their home to their work role.

Viewed through this theoretical lens borrowed from boundary theory, we suggest that longer


commutes are aversive because they delay the achievement of the goal of the commute, the entry

into one’s work role, and thus keep employees in an endured state of role ambiguity. However,

employees can engage in boundary work during their commute to accelerate their role entry,

which reduces the frustration experienced from the delayed role entry associated with lengthy

commutes, and thus makes particularly time-consuming morning commutes less aversive.

Second, we suggest that some employees are more likely to intuitively engage in this type

of boundary work during their commute than others, and thus are less negatively affected by

longer commutes. Employees may not have control over their means of commute, but they have

relative control over what they think about during their commute. Role transitions are prompted

by the physical environment, such as the start and end of the morning commute, but how swiftly

role transitions occur and how fast they are completed are essentially a matter of the mind. Those

employees who have a greater capacity to regulate their thoughts during the morning commute

may be more predisposed to effectively engage in boundary work to facilitate their role transition

and complete it swiftly; others may have lingering thoughts about home until they arrive at work

or may continue to think about home while at work, indicating an incomplete role transition

(Ashforth et al., 2000). Prior research suggests that individuals who score high on one particular

personality facet, trait self-control, are better able to regulate their thoughts; we apply and extend

self-control theory to suggest that employees with high trait self-control are less affected by

lengthy commutes.

Third, we unpack how trait self-control affects people’s commuting experience by

proposing that employees with higher self-control are more likely to engage in a cognitive

strategy – work-related prospection – that involves thinking about and planning for the workday

ahead. Engaging in this form of cognition during the morning commute reflects a strategy


through which employees with higher levels of trait self-control facilitate their role transition.

However, the application of this strategy is not limited to employees with higher trait self-

control; instead, we propose and find that employees with lower trait self-control can be

instructed to apply this cognitive strategy. By highlighting to employees that the morning

commute is an opportunity for them to engage in work-related prospection, employees who are

not high in trait self-control can also reap its positive benefits and, as a result, suffer less from

commuting. We contribute to the rich body of literature on self-control by suggesting trait self-

control is comprised of strategies that employees can learn and that can be taught.

THEORY DEVELOPMENT

Commuting as Role Transition between Work and Home

Commuting, by nature of standing between work and home both physically and

temporally, is a uniquely positioned time period when employees are neither at work, nor at

home. Commuting, therefore, is a prototypical situation for role transitions – a “boundary-

crossing activity, where one exits and enters roles by surmounting boundaries” (Ashforth et al.,

2000: 472). Boundary theory suggests that there are two types of transitions: “micro” transitions

whereby individuals move between roles with regular frequency (e.g., home roles and work

roles), and “macro” transitions, more infrequent and often permanent changes (e.g., job changes).

Micro role transitions are particularly important because they occur frequently (often, several

times a day) and require individuals to engage in different behaviors and attitudes in each role.

For example, the same parent who gets their daughter ready for school in the morning must

behave very differently from the research and development manager that drives innovative

projects forward at work. The time period between these two roles – the commute between home


and work – may allow employees to move from one role to the next.

How individuals engage in role transitions may be particularly important for the commute

from home to work because the contrast between role identities tends to be large. That is, the

number of associated core and peripheral features that differ between one’s home and one’s work

identity is likely to be high (Louis, 1980), such that the magnitude of the transition – and thus the

associated difficulty of moving from one role to the next – is also increased (Ashforth et al.,

2000). Because commuting stands between home and work, commuting time can thus serve as a

time period for this micro role transition to occur, defined as the “psychological and physical

movement between sequentially held roles” (Ashforth, 2000: 7). Viewed from this perspective,

the commute may begin with an employee exiting their home role, and may end with an

employee entering their work role.

Specifically, commuting provides an opportunity for a rite of passage, which facilitates

movement of employees from one role to another (Ashforth et al., 2000; Richter, 1990; van

Gennep, 1960). These rites of passage include three steps: separation (facilitating role exit),

transition (facilitating psychological and physical movement), and incorporation (facilitating

role entry; see Van Gennep, 1960). Morning commutes, in particular, serve as an opportunity to

provide a buffer between multiple role identities as they separate employees physically and

psychologically from home. Morning commutes also allow them to transition between distinctive

role identities (Hall, 1990), by facilitating role exit (leaving home), transition (transport to work)

and role entry (arriving at work). In addition to serving as a means to travel from home to work,

the morning commute can therefore serve as a means to aid the shift from home- to work-related

roles.

Based on this conceptualization of commuting as an opportunity for effective role


transitions to occur, the extent to which the commute facilitates or impedes the role transition can

be a source of frustration for the employee. The goal of employees in commuting to work is to

enter their work role. We propose that commutes may be aversive to the extent to which they

impede the role transition to occur and delay the achievement of the goal of commuting. Lengthy

commutes in particular can delay the entrance into an employee’s work role, such that the

increased time spent on getting to work may lead to dissatisfaction and frustration due to delayed

goal achievement (Casey et al., 2011; Mischel & Grusec, 1967; Novaco et al., 1990). The

ambiguity between home and work-roles in the transition period during the morning commute

can have negative consequences (Desrochers & Sargent, 2004), especially when this ambiguity is

sustained for extended periods of time (Bacharach, Bamberger, & Conley, 1991; Rizzo, House,

& Lirtzman, 1970). Frustration is higher when individuals experience little agency in the delay of

their goal achievement (Muraven, 2008; Muraven, Gagné, & Rosman, 2008). This is likely to be

the case during lengthy commutes.

Thus, we suggest that lengthy commutes lead to higher frustration, and in turn to lower

subjective well-being, because they delay the achievement of employee’s goal to enter their work

role. Our suggestion is aligned with the commute impedance model (e.g., Stokols, Novaco,

Stokols, & Campbell, 1978), which highlights that any factor that frustrates the goal of arriving

at work, such as distance, slow speed, and congestion (referred to in this model as commute

impedance) induces strain. This can include increased blood pressure (Stokols et al., 1978),

nervousness and tension (Stokols et al., 1978), and reduced task performance (Schaeffer, Street,

Singer, & Baum, 1988). Increased strain also manifests in employee’s ratings of job satisfaction,

with longer commutes associated with lower levels of job satisfaction, both for existing

employees (Novaco et al., 1990) as well as recently relocated employees (Geyer & Daly, 1998).


Higher commuting time therefore leads to lower job satisfaction because employees’

achievement of role entry is delayed.

Trait Self-Control as a Boundary Condition

While lengthy commutes have a negative effect on employees’ job satisfaction, it is

unclear whether all employees are similarly affected by longer commutes. No prior research has

identified a boundary condition for the relationship between commute time and job satisfaction.

The identification of who is less affected by longer commutes can provide insight into how those

less affected employees manage the challenge of the delayed achievement of work role entry;

after all, the choice of how employees commute is relatively fixed, and often outside of the

control of the commuter. However, how employees spend their time when commuting,

specifically, what they think about, may differ between employees. This difference may account

for substantial variation in how effectively employees cope with lengthy commutes.

Although separation, transition, and incorporation were originally thought to be triggered

by changes in the employees’ physical environment (Van Gennep, 1960), we propose they are

essentially matters of the mind that can be prompted by employees themselves. If employees

were to use their commute in a way to facilitate role transition, and thus accelerate their role

entry to a time period possibly even before they arrive at their office, a lengthy commute would

not necessarily have to be aversive because the goal of work role entry would no longer be

blocked or delayed, and the sustained role ambiguity resolved earlier. Consistent with this view,

Ashforth et al. (2000) alluded that even lengthy commutes could be made enjoyable if they are

perceived as an “efficient way of facilitating a physical and psychological shift between roles”

(p. 473). Hence, the relationship between commute time and job satisfaction may not be uniform

across all commuters. Instead, the relationship may be influenced by how employees spend their


time commuting, such that those employees who utilize their morning commute to engage in

thoughts that facilitate role entry may not be as aversely affected by longer commutes.

Prior research suggests that the extent to which employees can gain control over what

happens during their commute may influence their commuting experience. One factor that may

make the transition into one’s work role more difficult is commute variability, the within-person

standard deviation of commute time, which influences the ability of commuters to mentally

control their commute (Kluger, 1998). The less able employees are to have control over their

thoughts when commuting, the less they may be able to influence their transition into their work

role, and the more they may be affected by longer commute times. Indeed, when controlling for

commute variability, one study found that commute time was positively related to commuters’

enjoyment of their commute, operationalized as an employee’s opportunity to relax and to

engage in time to think (Kluger, 1998). Although commuting could be viewed as a highly

“mindless” role transition enacted repeatedly (Ashforth & Fried, 1988), individuals have the

flexibility to choose subroutines that are less structured even during such a routinized transition

(Ashforth, Kreiner, & Fugate, 2001). Exerting control by way of choosing certain subroutines

thus allows employees to shape their commute experience.

In line with our argument that role transitions are a matter of the mind, we suggest that

employees’ level of control during commuting may too be a question of their psychology. What

employees think about while en route to work may facilitate their work role entry, and in turn

increase job satisfaction. But even if employees have the possibility to engage in thoughts during

their morning commute that aid their role transition, some employees may be more likely to

make use of this opportunity than others, and in turn, suffer less from lengthy commutes. These

employees need to have an especially higher capacity to regulate their thoughts and choose what


to think about during their commute, despite a variety of distractions during their commute that

might make it difficult to remain engaged in thought patterns of their choice. Prior research has

identified one personality trait that describes individuals with this tendency, namely trait self-

control. Those high in self-control have been found to have “the capacity to alter or override

dominant response tendencies and to regulate behavior, thoughts, and emotions” (de Ridder et

al., 2012: 77 – italics added). That is, individuals higher in trait self-control have a higher

propensity to consistently be able to stay on track with their intended goals (Hofmann, Luhmann,

Fisher, Vohs, & Baumeister, 2014) – this, we suggests, extends to their propensity to use their

commute time to meet the goal of work role entry.

In addition, although using commuting time as an opportunity to think and as an

opportunity to relax have previously not been distinguished (Kluger, 1998), we suggest that both

are qualitatively distinct. Using one’s commute to relax may require less effort and may be more

enjoyable for the employee. In contrast, using one’s commute to engage in work-related planning

may require more deliberate effort and may not be immediately rewarding (Alahmadi et al.,

2016). Consistent with theoretical specifications of self-control, commuters with higher degrees

of self-control may therefore be more likely to choose to engage in more effortful thinking, in

contrast to others who may instead opt for using commuting time as an opportunity to relax.

Using the commute as an opportunity to think may reflect a facilitation of work role entry, in

contrast to delaying work role entry by using the morning commute to relax.

Following this logic, we propose that employees with higher levels of trait self-control

are more likely to use their morning commute in a way as to facilitate role transition; thus these

employees are less likely to be negatively affected by lengthy commutes and, in turn, will not

suffer as much from decreases in job satisfaction. Those with lower levels of trait self-control, in


contrast, are likely to transition less effectively and more slowly into their work roles, thus

leaving them more vulnerable to the strain of commuting and, as a result, less satisfied with their

job. In sum, we propose that trait self-control moderates the negative effects of lengthy morning

commutes on job satisfaction, as follows:

Hypothesis 1: The negative relationship between commute time and job satisfaction

is less pronounced for employees who have high trait self-control, than for those who

have low trait self-control.

Trait Self-Control and Work-related Prospection

How do employees with higher levels of trait self-control use the opportunity to think

during their morning commute to facilitate their transition into their work role? Higher levels of

trait self-control are achieved in part through a variety of cognitive strategies that influence an

individual’s ability to remain on track with their intended goals and regulate their thoughts

(Inzlicht, Legault, & Teper, 2014; Magen & Gross, 2010). Some of these strategies have been

identified in prior research. For example, individuals with higher self-control are also more likely

to change how a situation is perceived, for example by reframing the meaning of possible short-

term temptations (Mischel, Ebbesen, & Raskoff Zeiss, 1972) or by altering how distracting they

perceive a temptation to be (Fujita & Han, 2009). Similarly, during their commutes, employees

with high trait self-control may use their capacity to regulate their thoughts in the face of

possible temptations experienced during their commute (such as daydreaming or listening to

music) to engage in specific thoughts that allow them to transition into their work role.

Specifically, employees with higher levels of trait self-control may be more likely to

deploy a cognitive strategy that may help facilitate work role entry during their morning

commute. This mental strategy – work-related prospection – refers to “the ability to represent


what might happen in the future” (Szpunar, Spreng, & Schacter, 2014: 18414) about the tasks

and goals embedded in the workday ahead (Austin & Vancouver, 1996). One particular

prospection cognition is planning, which involves identifying and organizing steps toward

achieving a goal. When employees engage in work-related prospection, they think through what

they have to achieve in the workday ahead. Thus, they mentally shift attention away from what

they are experiencing in the here and now – thoughts pertaining to their commute – and toward

what they will be experiencing once they arrive at work – thoughts pertaining to their work day.

Employees who engage in work-related prospection during their morning commute are therefore

more likely to think about topics pertaining to their work-role. This future focus (Benoit, Gilbert,

& Burgess, 2011; Liu, Feng, Chen, & Li, 2013) allows employees to cognitively inhabit their

work roles and thus aids work role entry.

The suggestion that employees with higher levels of trait self-control are more likely to

engage in work-related prospection is consistent with prior research that showed that levels of

trait self-control relate to how likely individuals are to plan ahead, especially for future goal-

related tasks (de Ridder et al., 2012). High trait self-control individuals are more likely to

recognize opportunities to deploy cognitive strategies that may help in regulating their thoughts

(Myrseth & Fishbach, 2009) and are more likely to acknowledge that planning is a useful activity

(Alahmadi et al., 2016). They may therefore be more likely to prefer using the morning commute

as an opportunity to think rather than an opportunity to relax. For those reasons, we argue that

employees with higher levels of trait self-control will be more likely to engage in work-related

prospection.

Hypothesis 2. Employees who have high levels of trait self-control are more likely to

engage in work-related prospection, as compared to those who have low levels of trait


self-control.

Work-related Prospection: A Strategy to Facilitate Work Role Transition

Employees who have high levels of self-control are inherently more likely to engage in

work-related prospection. However, we also propose that work-related prospection is not only a

cognitive strategy for those with high self-control, but also one that can be used by other

employees to facilitate their work role entry. Even though employees with higher levels of trait

self-control might be instinctively more pre-disposed to engage in work-related prospection,

others may also be able to learn how to engage in this type of thought during their morning

commute and reap its beneficial effects. There is evidence that cognitive strategies such as

monitoring and goal-setting, which allow individuals with higher levels of trait self-control to

regulate their thoughts, behaviors and emotions, can be learned by others (Inzlicht, Legault, &

Teper, 2014). Indeed, many of the strategies inherently deployed by individuals with high self-

control can be taught to others and help them increase their capacity to regulate themselves (e.g.,

Duckworth, Gendler, & Gross, 2016; Galla & Duckworth, 2015; but see also Miles et al., 2016).

In line with this research, we suggest that employees who are not high in trait self-control can

also engage in work-related prospection during their commute if they are instructed to do so, and

thus benefit from a more effective work role entry.

Work-related prospection serves as a cognitive strategy facilitating role transition

primarily by identifying and organizing a course of action to achieve a goal. When individuals

think ahead about their workday (or the longer term) and how to achieve their work tasks, they

contemplate how to structure their work time adequately (Locke & Latham, 2002), they consider

making a detailed plan of how they will achieve their work-related goals (Gollwitzer, 1999), and

they plan for sufficient time and breaks such that the achievement of their work-related goals are


more likely (Gollwitzer, Gawrilow, & Oettingen, 2010). Thus work-related prospection during

their morning commute may serve as a powerful cue for employees that facilitates the entry into

their work role, and may as a result reduce the strain experienced from a delayed work role entry

of a lengthy commute.

Therefore, although longer commutes are typically associated with lower job satisfaction

because the delayed work entry may frustrate employees, those employees who engage in work-

related prospection during their morning commute can accelerate work role entry and are thus

less likely to be negatively affected by the longer commute.

Hypothesis 3. Work-related prospection attenuates the negative effect of commute time on

job satisfaction.

Overview of the Present Research

We tested our hypotheses in three studies. First, we present evidence from a multi-source

multi-time point field study from the UK offices of a large global media company. Here we

investigated whether the negative relationship between the length of employees’ commutes and

job satisfaction is more pronounced for employees with low levels of trait self-control

(Hypothesis 1). In the second study, we conducted an online survey to examine what employees

think about when commuting to work. In addition to testing Hypothesis 1, this study allowed us

to investigate whether employees with high trait self-control are more likely to engage in work-

related prospection during their commutes, as compared to those who have low trait self-control

(Hypothesis 2), and whether work-related prospection moderates the relationship between

commuting time and job satisfaction (Hypothesis 3). Thus Study 2 provided a test of our full

model as depicted in Figure 1. The third study zooms in on Hypothesis 3 and offers causal

evidence that work-related prospection attenuates the negative effect of commute time on job


satisfaction. In a field experiment, we directly manipulated work-related prospection by

prompting some employees over the course of two weeks to set aside time during their commute

to think about their day ahead, and examined the effect of this manipulation on employees’ job

satisfaction.

STUDY 1

Does it depend on trait self-control whether employees with lengthy commutes are less

satisfied with their jobs than those with short commutes? To address this question and test

Hypothesis 1, we conducted a multi-time point, multi-source field study at the UK offices of a

global media firm. To empirically underpin the importance of our main dependent variable – job

satisfaction – we also assessed whether or not employees left the company six months after our

data collection. Building on evidence showing that job satisfaction and turnover are closely

linked (Mobley, 1977; Porter, Steers, Mowday, & Boulian, 1974; Tett & Meyer, 1993), we

anticipated that employees with lengthy commutes and low trait self-control would not only be

less satisfied with their jobs, but would also be more likely to quit the organization as a result.

Method

Sample and Procedures. The firm’s CEO sent email invitations to all 559 employees

asking them to participate in a study about improving their workplace. The e-mail of the CEO

included a link to Survey 1, which featured questions regarding employees’ trait self-control.

Thirty days later, the CEO sent a second e-mail to all employees inviting them to complete

Survey 2 that included questions about the employees’ commute time and levels of job

satisfaction. In addition, the human resources department of the firm provided us with

information about employees’ demographics 12 months prior to the start of the study, and

turnover 6 months after the second survey. The participation in the surveys was voluntary, and


no incentives for survey completion were provided other than that employees were informed the

firm would donate £1 for each completed survey to the Somerset Flood Relief Fund (a fund

managed by an independent foundation to support recovery efforts from a flood in the greater

London area).

Of the invited employees, 332 responded to the first survey (59.4%), and 333 responded

to the second survey (59.6%). A total of 225 employees completed both surveys and had human

resources data that could be matched (Mage = 32.72, SDage = 6.87; 57% male). Respondents had

worked in the firm on average for 2.85 years (SD = 3.37). To address a possible self-selection

issue, we compared the demographic information provided by respondents and non-respondents,

and found no significant differences in age (non-respondents’ M=31.97, SD=9.00, t(557) = –

1.24, ns), gender (non-respondents’ N = 335, 35.2% female, Χ² (1) = 3.50, ns), or firm tenure

(non-respondents’ M = 3.04, SD = 3.73, t(557)=.54, ns).

Measures

Commute Time. Employees reported the actual time taken to commute on a daily basis,

as part of the second survey. Commuting duration ranged from 2 to 240 minutes, with an average

of 50.56 minutes (SD = 31.8).

Trait Self-Control. We assessed employees’ trait self-control using a widely used 10-

item measure (Tangney, Baumeister, & Boone, 2004) in the first survey. Example items include:

“I am good at resisting temptation,” “People would say that I have very strong self-discipline,”

and “I do things that feel good in the moment but regret later on.” Participants indicated the

extent to which these statements describe them (1 = “Not at all like me” to 5 = “Very much like

me,” α = 0.77).

Job Satisfaction. We measured employees’ job satisfaction using a 3-item scale (Morris


& Venkatesh, 2010; Morris & Venkatesh, 2010; 1 = “Strongly Disagree” to 7 = “Strongly

Agree;” α = 0.81): “Overall, I am satisfied with my job,” “I would prefer another, more ideal

job,” and “I am satisfied with the important aspects of my job.” Job satisfaction was assessed in

the second survey.

Actual Turnover. The HR department provided us with turnover data indicating that 41

respondents (19.2%) left the firm during the time after the second survey, a rate that is relatively

common for firms in this sector.

Control Variables. We controlled for age, gender, and organizational tenure in the

analyses, because prior research suggests that age and gender are related to job satisfaction

(Clark, 1997; Clark, Oswald, & Warr, 1996; Hunt & Saul, 1975; Kalleberg & Loscocco, 1983).

Further, age and tenure are negatively related to turnover, and women tend to quit their jobs

fewer times than men (Griffeth, Hom, & Gaertner, 2000).

Results

Table 1 reports means, standard deviations, and correlations for the study variables. First,

we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis with maximum likelihood estimators to examine the

factor structure of the variables. The expected two-factor structure (i.e. trait self-control and job

satisfaction as separate factors) showed a significantly better fit with the data than a one-factor

structure (Δχ2 = 412.08, p < .001), and both variables had significant factor loadings in the

expected direction.

Hypothesis 1 suggested that trait self-control moderates the relationship between

commute time and job satisfaction, such that employees with lower trait self-control are more

likely to be negatively affected by lengthy commutes. To test this hypothesis, we conducted a

regression analysis entering commute time as the independent variable, trait self-control as the


moderator, and job satisfaction as the outcome variable. As Table 2 shows, we found a

significant interaction between commute time and trait self-control (B = .22, SD = .09, p = .02).

The relationship between commute time and job satisfaction was significant for employees with

low trait self-control (–1SD), B = –.30, SE = .14, p = .03, but not for employees with high levels

of trait self-control (+1SD), B = .14, SE = .12, p= .22, as depicted in Figure 2. Hence, employees

with lower levels of trait self-control were negatively affected by lengthy commutes, whereas

employees with higher levels of trait self-control were not. For every 15-minute increase in

commute time, the job satisfaction of low trait self-control employees dropped by 0.31 points (on

a 1 – 7 scale).2

-------------------------------

Insert Tables 1 and 2 and Figure 2 about here

-------------------------------

To underpin the importance of our findings, we also tested whether the moderating effect

of trait self-control on the relationship between commute time and job satisfaction influenced an

employee’s likelihood of leaving the organization. Using the application PROCESS (Hayes,

2013), we specified a moderated mediation model with a binary dependent measure. We entered

commute time as the independent variable, trait self-control as the moderator, job satisfaction as

the mediator, and actual turnover 6 months later as the dependent variable. We found a

significant indirect effect of commute time on turnover, through job satisfaction and depending

2 We also tested whether employees with longer commutes reported lower levels of job satisfaction. Contrary to previous findings from studies about the commuting strain model (Novaco et al., 1990), we did not find a significant main effect for commute time on job satisfaction: individuals with lengthy commutes were no more likely to have lower levels of job satisfaction. This finding is in line with our reasoning that the effect of commute time on job satisfaction is contingent upon a third variable – trait self-control. Furthermore, a reasonable alternative to a linear relationship between commute time and job satisfaction is a curvilinear relationship that implies that too short a commute is as bad as too long a commute. We thus tested for a quadratic effect of commute time on job satisfaction. We found no evidence for such an effect (p = .74).


on trait self control. For employees who have low trait self-control, a bootstrap analysis with

5,000 bias-corrected samples showed that the 95% confidence interval for the indirect effect of

commute times on turnover (through job satisfaction) did not include zero (estimate = .02, boot

SE = .011, 95% CI = [.004, .049]). For those who have high trait self-control, however, the

confidence interval included zero (estimate = –.01, boot SE = .009, 95% CI = [–.035, .002]).

Therefore, commute time puts low trait self-control employees in peril of quitting their job

because of lower job satisfaction, but leaves high self-control employees unaffected.

We also ran all analyses without control variables (Becker, 2005), and the results

remained unchanged in terms of direction and significance.

Discussion

The aim of this study was to test whether the relationship between commute time and job

satisfaction is moderated by levels of trait self-control (Hypothesis 1). The findings offer support

for Hypothesis 1, suggesting that those with longer commutes suffer from lower job satisfaction

to the extent that they lack high levels of trait self-control. This does not remain without

consequences: employees with longer commutes and low trait self-control are more likely to

leave their organization due to their reduced levels of job satisfaction.

STUDY 2

In Study 2, our main goal was to identify why employees with higher trait self-control are

less affected by lengthy commutes: What do employees with high trait self-control do differently

during their commutes, compared to those with low trait self-control? We predicted that

employees with higher trait self-control would be more likely to engage in work-related

prospection (Hypothesis 2) and that work-related prospection in turn would moderate the

relationship between commute time and job satisfaction (Hypothesis 3). In addition, we were


able to replicate our test of whether the relationship between lengthy commutes and job

satisfaction is moderated by levels of trait self-control (Hypothesis 1). Thus Study 2 offered a

test of our full conceptual model as depicted in Figure 1.

Method

Sample and Procedures. We recruited individuals through Amazon Mechanical Turk, an

online labor market (Buhrmester, Kwang, & Gosling, 2011). In the job posting for completing

the study, we explicitly specified that this study was only available to employees who work full-

time and commute to work. At the beginning of the survey, we then asked individuals whether

they worked full-time and whether they commuted. Only individuals who replied “yes” to both

questions were allowed to continue with the study. A total of 229 participants (71.3% of the 321

who accessed the study) fit these pre-conditions and formed the sample for our survey (Mage =

36.41, SDage = 10.60; 58% male). Employees were paid $1 for their participation. We first

measured commute time and trait self-control, then whether subjects engaged in work-related

prospection, and finally job satisfaction.

Measures

Commute Time. Participants reported their actual commuting time. Commute time

ranged from 3 to 120 minutes, with an average of 38.09 minutes (SD = 25.58).

Trait Self-Control. We assessed employees’ trait self-control using the same 10-item

measure as in Study 1 (Tangney, Baumeister, & Boone, 2004). Participants indicated the extent

to which each item describes them on a 5-point scale (1 = “Not at all like me” to 5 = “Very much

like me,” α = 0.88).

Work-related Prospection during Commute. We asked respondents to “list all of the

things you typically think about while commuting” in an open text box. Two independent coders


then analyzed each response, coding for work-related prospection during commute (0 = no, 1 =

yes; IRRkappa = .71). Specifically, we asked coders to identify occurrences where employees

“engaged in thoughts which pertain to work-related topics during their morning commute.” In 45

cases (out of 229), the coders’ ratings did not coincide. In order to resolve these conflicts, we

asked a third coder to evaluate these cases and to resolve the conflict. In total, the coders

identified 153 participants (66.81%) that use work-related prospection during their commutes.

Examples of work-related prospection are as follows:

“I think about what I will do when I get into the office. I try to plan out what things I will

accomplish for the day.”

“If I'm on my way to work I'm usually planning my day in my head. If I have a meeting I will

be holding I will be either thinking about it or practicing what I will say.”

“I think about what I have to do for work that day and also think about whether I had

completed all of my tasks related to the day before. I think about how I'm going to try to be

organized at work and get activities done in a timely manner.”

Job Satisfaction. We measured the extent to which participants were satisfied with their

jobs using the same 3-item instrument as in Study 1 (Morris & Venkatesh, 2010; α = .81).

Control Variables. We measured age and gender as control variables, as in Study 1.

Results

Table 3 reports means, standard deviations, and correlations for the variables. First, we

conducted a confirmatory factor analysis with maximum likelihood estimators. The expected

two-factor structure (i.e. trait self-control and job satisfaction as separate factors) showed a

significantly better fit with the data than a one-factor structure (Δχ2 = 268.26, p < .001), and both


variables had significant factor loadings in the expected direction.

-------------------------------

Insert Table 3 about here

-------------------------------

First, we tested Hypothesis 1, investigating whether trait self-control moderated the

relationship between commute time and job satisfaction. Indeed, the interaction effect for

commute time and trait self-control was significant (B = –.008, SE = .004, p = .04). The

relationship between commute time and job satisfaction was only significant for employees with

low trait self-control (–1SD), B= – .02, SE= .005, p = .003, but was not significant for employees

with high levels of trait self-control (+1SD), B = –.006, SE = .004, p = .16. The results replicate

the findings from Study 1.3

In Hypothesis 2, we suggested that employees with higher levels of trait self-control are

more likely to engage in work-related prospection during their commute. A logistic regression

with trait self-control as the independent variable and work-related prospection as the dependent

variable showed that trait self-control was positively related to employees’ likelihood of

engaging in prospection, B = .51, SE = .18, p = .004. Hypothesis 2 was supported.

Hypothesis 3 stated that work-related prospection moderates the relationship between

commute time and job satisfaction. To test this hypothesis, we conducted a regression analysis

with commute time as the independent variable, work-related prospection as the moderator, and

job satisfaction as the dependent variable. Table 4 shows that we found a significant interaction

3 We also examined whether those employees with lengthy commutes reported lower levels of job satisfaction. Unlike Study 1, we found a significant relationship (B = –.01, SE = .003, p < .001) such that the longer employees commuted, the less satisfied they were with their jobs. We again tested for a quadratic effect of commute time on job satisfaction, but found no evidence (p = .17). We also found a main effect of trait self-control on job satisfaction, whereas in Study 1, the main effect of trait self-control on job satisfaction and turnover outcomes was not significant.


between commute time and work-related prospection (B = –.02, SE = .007, p = .002), such that

the negative relationship between commute time and job satisfaction did not hold for those who

engaged in work-related prospection during their commute (B = –.003, SE = .006, p = .58), but it

did hold for those who did not engage in work-related prospection during their commute (B = –

.02, SE = .004, p < .001).

The results provide evidence in support of our full model, as depicted in Figure 1. First,

the relationship between lengthy commutes and job satisfaction is moderated by levels of trait

self-control, such that higher levels of trait self-control attenuate the negative effect of lengthy

commutes, as proposed in Hypothesis 1. Second, employees with higher levels of trait self-

control are more likely to engage in work-related prospection, providing support for Hypothesis

2. Work-related prospection, in turn, moderates the relationship between commute time and job

satisfaction. Those employees who engage in work-related prospection were not negatively

affected by lengthy commutes, thus providing support for Hypothesis 3. The step-wise analyses

we conducted to test the model yield the same results as path analysis (Edwards & Lambert,

2007). We also ran all of our analyses without control variables (Becker, 2005), and the results


-------------------------------


-------------------------------

Discussion

The aim of Study 2 was to unpack the findings of Study 1 and examine why employees

with higher trait self-control are less affected by lengthy commutes. Using an open-ended

question to assess what employees think about en route to work, we find that employees with


high trait self-control are more likely to engage in work-related prospection. This cognitive

strategy involves thinking ahead about the workday, thus likely facilitating role entry. Study 2

also allowed us to test the full set of hypotheses we proposed, and offers support of our

conceptual model that the linkage between commute length and job satisfaction is contingent

upon trait self-control, which facilitates work-related prospection and thus ameliorates the pain

of lengthy commutes.

STUDY 3

Is work-related prospection a cognitive strategy that all commuters could employ to

counter detrimental effects of commuting on job satisfaction? The goal of Study 3 was to

generalize the findings of Study 1 and 2, and to provide causal evidence in support of the idea

put forth in Hypothesis 3 that work-related prospection, as a cognitive strategy, can offset the

negative effect of commute length on job satisfaction among all commuters – even those that

may have low trait self-control. To test the effectiveness of work-related prospection in helping

commuters buffer against the chore of commuting, we conducted a field experiment over the

course of four weeks with several hundred commuters across the US.

Method

Sample and Procedures. We recruited full-time employees in collaboration with

ClearVoice, an online survey recruiter. We specified that the employees had to have at least a 15-

minute commute to work. We invited the participants for a study that ran over the course of four

weeks and featured four distinct phases.

In phase 1, at the outset of the study, participants received an initial online survey that

included questions about their commute, trait self-control, job satisfaction, and demographics as

well as trait affectivity. The survey asked employees for their mobile phone number so that we


could contact them over the remaining part of the study; we did not collect any other identifying

information.

In phase 2, participants received daily text-message prompts on their mobile phone

inviting them to answer a question regarding the extent to which they engaged in work-related

prospection on their commute to work. Participants replied to the question through an online

survey that they could access on their smart phone, or on any computer. The text messages were

sent approximately 30 minutes after participants arrived at their workplace (the time was

determined based on the information participants had provided in the initial survey). The text

messages were sent to participants each workday (Monday through Friday) for the whole four

week-period that the study ran, and participants’ answers served as a baseline and manipulation

check for the intervention conducted in phase 3.

In phase 3, two weeks after the start of the study, participants were randomly allocated to

one of four experimental conditions: (1) work-related prospection, (2) gratification, (3) mixed, or

(4) control. The participants were not aware that the study featured different experimental

conditions. Then, over the course of the third and fourth week, participants received daily text

messages, specific to their condition, that were sent 15 minutes before participants left for their

morning commute. The time that the messages were sent was again determined on the basis of

responses in the initial survey. In phase 4, after the four weeks were over, all participants were

asked to fill out a final survey that once again measured their level of job satisfaction.

To increase response rates, we devised an incentive structure that encouraged employees

to respond to as many of our daily questions as possible. Participants who responded to 50-74%

of our prompts received a $5 bonus, 75-89% received $20 bonus, and 90%+ responses generated

a $30 bonus. A total of 443 employees of the 600 invited employees (Mage = 42.23, SDage =


10.01; 47.5% women) responded to the initial survey, the daily prompts, and the final survey, for

a final response rate of 74%.4 To address a possible self-selection issue, we compared the

demographic information provided by respondents and non-respondents, and found no difference

in age (non-respondents’ M = 42.25, SD = 10.11, t(598) = –.1, ns), or gender (non-respondents’

M = 1.51, SD = .5, t(598) = .67, ns).

Measures

Commute Time. We measured the length of employees’ commute in the initial survey.

Commute time ranged from 16 to 180 minutes5, with an average of 51.54 minutes (SD=32.15).

Trait Self-Control. We assessed employees’ trait self-control in the initial survey using

the same 10-item measure as in our prior studies (Tangney et al., 2004; α = .83).

Job Satisfaction. As in Study 1 and 2, we measured the extent to which employees are

satisfied with their work in both the initial and the final survey using a 3-item scale (Morris &

Venkatesh, 2010; α = .82).

Control Variables. We controlled for employees’ age and gender as in the first and

second study. In addition, we asked participants to indicate their levels of positive and negative

affect (PANAS; Watson & Clark, 1999) in the initial survey as both variables are linked with job

satisfaction (Connolly & Viswesvaran, 2000; Shaw, 1999) and may indicate the extent to which

employees are positively or negatively affected by their commute.6

Intervention

We designed four experimental conditions to investigate whether engaging in work-

4 8% of participants responded to 90%+ of prompts, 69% to 75-89% of prompts, 18% to 50-74% of prompts and 5% to less than 50% of all prompts. 5 We removed one outlier, a participant who indicated they commuted 270 minutes, as they were nearly 3 standard deviations away from the next-closest participant. Keeping this participant in our sample does not significantly alter any of our results. 6 We thank our anonymous reviewers for pointing out the need to control for trait affectivity.


related prospection during the morning commute offsets the aversive effects of longer commute.

Based on Kluger’s (1998) distinction that commutes offer an opportunity to think or to relax, we

created one condition for work-related prospection (1), one for gratification (2), one that featured

a mix of work-related prospection and gratification (3), and one control condition that featured

no particular prompt (4).

Text messages. First, the work-related prospection condition featured instructions that we

crafted based on prior research on prospection as well as written sentences we collected from

commuters and coded as work-related prospection in Study 2. Specifically, we asked employees

to engage in work-related prospection through the following prompt:

“We are interested in how people spend time during their commute to work. Many people

find it helpful to focus on making a plan of their work day, or week ahead and reflect on

how these plans will help them achieve their personal and career goals. We would like to

invite you to do that during your commute, too. Ask yourself, for example, what are the

strategies you have for the week to be productive? What steps can you take today and

during this week to get closer to your work goals, as well as your personal and career

goals? Please use your commuting time to focus on your goals and make plans about

what to do.”

Second, based on Kluger’s (1998) suggestion that commutes offer an opportunity to

relax, we prompted participants in the gratification condition to use the commute time to engage

in thoughts and activities that are relaxing for the employee. Specifically, employees received the

following prompt:


find it helpful to do something enjoyable and relaxing on their way to work. We would


like to invite you to do that during your commute, too. For example, you could listen to

music, read the news, or catch up on social media – anything that you inherently enjoy is

fine. Please use your commuting time to relax and do something enjoyable.”

Third, in the mixed condition, we highlighted to employees that they could use the

commute for both, work-related prospection and relaxing thoughts and activities. The two are not

mutually exclusive (Kluger, 1998); therefore, a combination of both serves as a valid comparison

to just work-related prospection. In the mixed condition, employees were sent the following text:


find a combination of activities helpful. They make a plan of their work day or week

ahead and reflect on how these plans will help them achieve their personal and career

goals, and they also do something enjoyable and relaxing on their way to work. We

would like to invite you to do that during your commute, too. Ask yourself, for example,

what are the strategies you have for the week to be productive? What steps can you take

today and during this week to get closer to your work goals, as well as your personal and

career goals? Also do something that you inherently enjoy such as listening to music,

reading the news, or catching up on social media. Please allocate some of your

commuting time to focusing on your goals and making plans about what to do, and some

to relaxing and doing something enjoyable.”

Finally, in the control condition, participants received a text message that did not contain

any particular prompt. Participants were given the following instructions:

”We are interested in how people spend time during their commute to work. Please do

what you normally do during your commute.”

Contrasting the work-related prospection condition with these three other conditions


allows us to test whether employees can offset the commuting-related detriment in job

satisfaction by engaging in work-related prospection during their morning commute.

Manipulation Check. We measured the extent to which employees engaged in work-

related prospection on their commute to work in our daily surveys before and after the

intervention. Consistent with our theoretical propositions and our coding in Study 2, participants

received a prompt each work-day approximately 30 minutes after arriving at their workplace

with the question, “To what extent did you think about work during your commute to work

today?” ranging on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 5 (to a large extent).

Results

First, we checked whether there were any significant differences in commute time, trait

self-control, or job satisfaction between conditions prior to the intervention. This was not the

case, suggesting that the randomized allocation of participants to the four conditions had created

four groups of participants that were not significantly different.

Next, we conducted the manipulation check. First, we examined whether there were any

significant differences between conditions in the extent to which participants engaged in work-

related prospection on their commute to work prior to the intervention. We aggregated

participants’ responses over the course of weeks 1 and 2, and found no significant differences,

suggesting that the baseline of work-related prospection for each group of participants was not

different.7 Second, we tested whether there were any significant differences between conditions

in the extent to which participants engaged in work-related prospection on their commute to

7 We also checked whether participants with higher levels of trait self-control would be more likely to engage in goal-directed prospection prior to the intervention. We averaged responses from the weeks 1 and 2 and we specified a linear regression with trait self-control as the independent variable, and goal-directed prospection in weeks 1 and 2 as the dependent variable. We find a significant effect of trait self-control on goal-directed prospection prior to the intervention (B = .14, SE = .07, p =.04), such that employees with higher levels of trait self-control were more likely to engage in goal-directed prospection prior to the intervention. This finding is expected based on Hypothesis 2.


work after to the intervention. We aggregated participants’ responses on the work-related

prospection question for weeks 3 and 4, and checked whether condition was a significant

predictor of work-related prospection during those two weeks. Because participants in the work-

related prospection and the mixed conditions were both prompted to think about their work-day

ahead, we expected they would report higher levels of work-related prospection during their

morning commute than participants in the gratification and control conditions.

For this analysis, we dummy-coded the three experimental conditions (work-related

prospection, gratification, mixed) against the control condition. Then we conducted a linear

regression with condition as the independent variable (coded as a factor), and work-related

prospection in weeks 3 and 4 as the dependent variable. As Table 5 shows, we found that in

comparison to the control condition, work-related prospection was higher in the condition that

prompted work-related prospection (B = .21, SE = .09, p = .02), as expected, and lower in the

condition that prompted gratification (B = –.18, SE = .09, p = .03). Work-related prospection was

not significantly different between the control condition and the mixed condition (B = .03, SE =

.09, p = .76). Thus, our manipulation was successful in increasing levels of work-related

prospection during the morning commute, but only in the condition that solely prompted work-

related prospection.

-------------------------------


-------------------------------

Now, we turned to the test of Hypothesis 3. Are those participants that were prompted to

engage in work-related prospection less affected by longer commutes than participants in the

other conditions? For these type of comparisons, Hayes and Montoya (2016) suggest using the


Helmert coding method which allows for the comparison of one group to all other groups which

are higher on a categorical variable in a path-analytic approach. When using the Helmert coding

method, it is assumed that the arbitrarily numerically coded variable corresponds in ascending

ordinality to the multicategorical variable of interest. Following their suggestion, we conducted a

regression analysis with commute time as the independent variable, condition as the moderator

coded using the Helmert method, job satisfaction at time point 2 as the dependent variable, and

age, gender and trait affectivity (positive and negative) as control variables.

The analysis shows that the relationship between commute time and job satisfaction

following the intervention is significant for two conditions. First, for employees in the work-

related prospection condition, commute time was significantly related to higher levels of job

satisfaction at time point 2 (B = .012, SE = .005, p = .01). This provides support for Hypothesis

3. Second, for employees in the gratification condition, commute time was marginally

significantly associated with lower levels of job satisfaction at the 10% significance level (B = –

.008, SE = .005, p = .08). For the mixed condition, there was no significant effect of condition on

job satisfaction (B = .004, SE = .004, p = .36).

We repeated all analyses without control variables (Becker, 2005), and the results


Discussion

Does work-related prospection help overcome the strain of commuting? To answer this

question, we prompted some commuters but not others to engage in work-related prospection

while traveling to work, every day for a period of 2 weeks. Our findings show that those

employees in the work-related prospection condition, compared to those in the gratification,

mixed, or control conditions, do not show the negative relationship between commute time and


job satisfaction. This finding provides evidence in support of the direction of our theorized

relationship in Hypothesis 3, showing that work-related prospection can serve to neutralize the

detrimental effect of commute length on job satisfaction.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

Do lengthy commutes necessarily lead to negative work-related outcomes? Through new

theory and a series of three empirical studies, we examined why commuting tends to be aversive,

who is most affected by the commuting experience, and how commuters can better cope with

their daily chore of getting to their workplace. Extending prior research on commuting, we find

that employees with higher levels of trait self-control are less likely to experience the aversive

effects of lengthy commutes. We find that these employees are more likely than those with lower

levels of trait self-control to engage in work-related prospection during their commute. Work-

related prospection – the tendency to think about the work-day ahead and make plans about work

tasks and goals – in turn serves to attenuate the relationship between lengthy commutes and job

satisfaction.

Theoretical Contribution

The theoretical contributions that our research offers derive from a combination of

organizational and psychological theories in the endeavor to better understand a global problem:

most people around the world commute to work; commutes are getting longer; and commuting is

linked to negative outcomes both on and off the job. Although commuting occurs outside of

work time, organizational researchers need to be concerned with it to the extent that it affects

people at work. Organizational researchers have attended to both the work and home roles that

employees enact, as well as the spill-over between them (e.g., Nippert-Eng, 1996), but rarely

have they shed light on the time in between those roles and on how commuting serves as the


space in which the transition between these roles occur. Our research shows that commuting

deserves attention, as it affects how employees feel about their job and, also, whether or not

employees quit their organization.

We apply and advance the growing literature on role transitions and boundary work

(Ashforth et al., 2000; Kreiner, 2006; Kreiner et al., 2009; Rothbard et al., 2005) to examine why

commuting tends to be aversive. We describe commuting as an opportunity for employees to

engage in boundary work to accelerate exiting their home role and entering their work role.

While previous research has described how the physical environment prompts role transitions,

we proposed that how role transitions are conducted and how swiftly they occur are essentially

matters of the mind and that it is the employees themselves who psychologically prompt role

transitions. Our theory and research therefore suggest that role transitions are at least to some

extent under the discretion of the employee, and there are some employees that are better able to

manage the interface between home and work that commuting provides.

Drawing on self-control theory (Baumeister et al., 1998; de Ridder et al., 2012), we

theorized and found that employees with high degrees of trait self-control manage their

commutes in ways that offset the aversive effects. Although commutes offer anyone the

possibility to choose what they think about, those with high trait self-control are more likely to

recognize this as an opportunity to engage in role transitioning. Based on prior research that has

identified trait self-control as one personality trait that describes individuals with an increased

tendency to regulate their thoughts, we suggested and found that employees with higher levels of

trait self-control are less negatively affected by longer commutes. Indeed, individuals with higher

levels of trait self-control are more likely to identify situations where it is applicable to deploy

cognitive strategies that allow them to achieve their goals (Myrseth & Fishbach, 2009). In


addition, those individuals are better able to regulate their thoughts, especially in the face of

temptations such as the less effortful, but more instantly gratifying option of relaxing during

one’s morning commute (Alahmadi et al., 2016; de Ridder et al., 2012; Hofmann, Luhmann,

Fisher, Vohs, & Baumeister, 2014; Kluger, 1998). In our studies, we find that employees with

higher levels of trait self-control are less affected by longer commutes, thus adding an important

nuance to previous findings that have focused on the overarching relationship between

commuting length and work-related outcomes (e.g. Gottholmseder et al., 2009; Novaco et al.,

1990; Stutzer & Frey, 2008).

We unpack the effect of trait self-control by investigating the cognitive strategy that

employees who score higher on this personality facet deploy in order to facilitate their role

transition. Although trait self-control has been associated with a variety of positive outcomes,

such as increased life satisfaction and academic performance (Casey et al., 2011; Hofmann et al.,

2014), only scant research has investigated how those individuals are able to achieve these

favorable outcomes. Some suggest that individuals with higher levels of trait self-control are able

to engage in better regulation because they employ specific cognitive strategies when necessary

(Inzlicht, Legault, & Teper, 2014). These cognitive strategies can be taught to other individuals

and can aid in their pursuit of desired outcomes (Duckworth et al., 2016; Galla & Duckworth,

2015). Indeed, individuals higher in trait self-control are more likely to plan ahead for future

goal-related tasks, and are also more likely to indicate that planning is a useful activity

(Alahmadi et al., 2016; de Ridder et al., 2012). We theorized and found that while commuting,

this tendency manifests in an increased likelihood to engage in work-related prospection –

thinking about and making plans about the work-day ahead. Those employees who set aside

some time to plan for their work-day ahead are less likely to be negatively affected by their


morning commute.

The beneficial effects of work-related prospection likely reflect the accelerated role

transition that occurs as a result of employees engaging in such thought processes. Thinking

about one’s goals for the day ahead and how to achieve them places an employee in the mental

mindset of their work role, by contemplating about how to structure their time at work or

engaging in detailed planning of their work-related goals (Locke & Latham, 2002; Gollwitzer,

1999; Gollwitzer et al., 2010). Those employees who engage in work-related prospection during

their morning commute thus facilitate their entry into their work role and consequently reduce

the aversive impact experienced when the work role entry is delayed due to a lengthy commute,

more quickly resolving the sustained role ambiguity. This cognitive strategy is available not just

to employees with higher levels of trait self-control. As Study 3 shows, it is possible for other

employees to adopt this strategy and reap the beneficial effects of work-related prospection such

that longer commutes are no longer experienced as aversive because those employees have

facilitated their work role entry.

Our unique contributions thus lie in a closer investigation of the relationship between

commuting and work-related outcomes, by building on and merging boundary theory and self-

control theory. Our work further supports research that views work-related outcomes as being

affected by not just what happens at work, but also by what happens outside of work. What

happens outside of work is not only the source of negative spillovers, but can also be the source

of positive spillovers. A wealth of research, especially in the field of work recovery, has

investigated how what employees do during (Trougakos & Hideg, 2009; Trougakos, Hideg,

Cheng, & Beal, 2014) or after work can impact employees (Lanaj, Johnson, & Barnes, 2014;

Sonnentag, 2001, 2003, 2012). However, our research suggests that the time period before work


can help offset the negative effects of lengthy commutes, and thus increase the job satisfaction of

employees.

Limitations and Future Directions

Our studies are subject to a number of limitations that suggest directions for future

research. In all of our studies, we focused our measures on the usual content of employee’s

commutes and did not examine within-person variation in commuting activities. It is unclear

whether individuals are able to engage in both relaxing thoughts and activities, as well as work-

related prospection. Participants in our mixed condition were not any more likely to engage in

work-related prospection in comparison to the do-nothing control condition, and were also just as

negatively affected by longer commute time. We also did not take into consideration the

significant variance in modes of transport (self-driving vs. public transportation, or even walking

or biking), naturally-occurring distractions during one’s commute (such as traffic, background

music or noise, and other commuters), and other possible commuting activities that employees

may engage in (such as socializing, meditating, or learning). In additional analyses, we did test

for differences across various commuting types and found no differences in effects across mode

of transport.8 Although work-related prospection is one activity that is possible across various

modes of commuting, the circumstances and contexts of commuting may nonetheless function as

a boundary condition for the efficacy of work-related prospection; for instance, engaging in

work-related prospection in the midst of bad weather conditions while driving a car may be

hazardous. Using the morning commute to engage in work-related prospection might also

distract some employees from their mode of transportation, which in some cases – such as

8 We ran additional analyses on the relationship between commuting type and the ability to engage in work-related prospection in Study 3. We do not find significant relationships between the type of commuting and work-related prospection (B = .02, SE = .03, p = .46), or job satisfaction (B = .02, SE = .03, p = .46).


driving in heavy traffic – could lead to unintended consequences. Future research could explore

these possibilities.

Relatedly, future research could explore potential outcomes of trait self-control and work-related

prospection, such as energy and task performance. For example, research in the work

recovery literature emphasizes the role of energy levels, especially as it affects employee

performance (Dutton, 2003). Because the beneficial effects of recovery activities fade over

time (Fritz, Lam, & Spreitzer, 2011), it would be interesting to investigate more closely how

work-related prospection influences daily energy levels (Demerouti, Bakker, Sonnentag, &

Fullagar, 2012; Sonnentag, 2001), and to examine whether energy varies with the extent to

which employees engage in work-related prospection as compared to other activities such as

listening to music. In addition, given that lengthy commutes are known to have a negative

impact on one’s task performance (Schaeffer et al., 1988), work-related prospection may

also enhance one’s task performance to the extent to which a facilitated role entry offsets

the negative impact of a lengthy commute. Therefore, we encourage future studies on the

effects of commuting on work performance.

Another venue of potential importance is the temporal focus of one’s work-related

prospection. Although we did not make empirical and theoretical distinctions between long-term

and short-term goals, this distinction may have important implications. For example, thinking

about one’s career goals may not only help in the transition to an employee’s work role, but it

may also re-affirm employees’ sense of purpose as they start their work day, as compared to

thinking about one’s day ahead as a temporal focus. We do not have empirical data on what the

ratio of work-related prospection was between relatively short- vs. long-term thinking, but we

encourage future researchers to further examine the role of temporal focus in enacting work-


related prospection.

Throughout our studies, we focused our investigation on morning commutes. Although

our theoretical conceptualization of commuting as role transitions does not differ substantially

for commutes after work, the direction of the role transition changes. Whereas work-related

prospection serves to strengthen boundary work unilaterally, on the way to work, it is likely that

home-related prospection is the counterpart for the way back from work. Evening commutes

might benefit from home-related prospection for activities in private life, or another third domain

(Ashforth et al., 2000), and may involve envisioning and making plans for the evening (e.g.,

what dinner to cook, what book to read to the children, what movie to watch). The transition

from work to home may be fraught with problems to the extent that role transitions are not

complete by the time of arrival, potentially affecting life satisfaction negatively. For example, if

individuals continue to ruminate about work-related problems at home, they may not fully enact

their home role, leaving the needs of those at home unfulfilled. As one cardiologist, quoted in

Yalof (1988: 84) details: “[…] That’s one of the therapeutic things about having a long drive

home. If I needed only five minutes to get home, I might spend a good deal more time thinking

about things […].” Importantly, though, we are not arguing that any spillover of work into the

non-work context is necessarily positive, or negative. Rather, we apply our theory to suggest that

individuals may recognize and enact more or less agency by actively engaging in prospection

that can aid in role entry.

Our findings identify an additional specific cognitive strategy that individuals with higher

trait self-control deploy in order to better regulate their thoughts, emotions, and behaviors.

Although individuals are generally good at estimating their levels of trait self-control – self-

reported measurements converge with other behavioral measures and predict long-term outcomes


(de Ridder et al., 2012) – it is unclear whether individuals with higher levels of trait self-control

are aware of their ability to endure lengthy commutes with less negative consequences. When

choosing between jobs, employees must often weigh off the benefits of living further away from

work (e.g., lower rent, larger apartments, better school districts). If individuals with higher trait

self-control are more adept at perceiving a potential self-control conflict (Gillebaart & De

Ridder, 2015), does that mean employees with higher trait self-control also consciously choose

lengthy commutes? Even though in our data, we find no correlation between commute time and

trait self-control, future work should explore this area further.

Practical Implications and Conclusion

Our research offers valuable practical insights for both leaders and employees. For

leaders, our studies have two key implications. First, our findings alert leaders that the length of

their commutes might differently affect their employees. When employees have lower levels of

trait self-control, they are at higher risk of being less satisfied with their job. The popular press is

quick to warn employees that long commutes have negative consequences, but some employees

may stand to gain more from the benefits of living further away from work by offsetting the

negative effects of commuting. Leaders need to be aware of how commutes affect their

employees, and can help manage especially draining commutes for employees with lower trait

self-control, either by supporting their work-related prospection during commuting, or

suggesting other ways to reduce commute time, such as increased teleworking.

Second, our work highlights leaders need to take a more holistic conceptualization of

their employees. How employees feel about their work, and how well they perform, is not just a

function of what employees do at work, but also of what employees do outside of work. This is

especially important in the facilitation of the establishment of clear boundaries between home


and work. Leaders can help their employees by supporting the development of clear boundaries

between home and work, either through ‘hard’ changes – such as switching off email servers

after working hours to ensure employees have the opportunity to recover adequately – or through

‘soft’ suggestions, such as encouraging work-related prospection during morning commutes.

For employees, our findings highlight that although to some extent commuting time may

be outside their control, they are nonetheless in charge of their commute. Commuting is not per

se a chore to endure, but can also be viewed as a useful time period. Being able to set aside some

time during commuting for work-related prospection can turn a time period that many employees

rate as their least desirable into a less aversive time period – and possibly a more beneficial one.

Furthermore, our research highlights the need to consider boundaries between home and work.

Engaging in work-related prospection while commuting – where employees are neither at work,

nor at home – is a type of role transition that can improve work-related outcomes.


REFERENCES

Alahmadi, S., Buttrick, N. R., Gilbert, D. T., Hardin, A. M., Westgate, E. C., & Wilson, T. D.

2016. You Can Do It If You Really Try: The Effects of Motivation on Enjoying One’s Own

Thoughts. Working Paper.

Ashforth, B. E. 2000. Role transitions in organizational life: An identity-based perspective.

New York, NY: Macmillan.

Ashforth, B. E., & Fried, Y. 1988. The Mindlessness of Organizational Behaviors. Human

Relations, 41(4): 305–329.

Ashforth, B. E., Kreiner, G. E., & Fugate, M. 2000. All in a Day’s Work: Boundaries and Micro

Role Transitions. Academy of Management Review, 25(3): 472–491.

Austin, J. T., & Vancouver, J. B. 1996. Goal constructs in psychology: Structure, process, and

content. Psychological Bulletin, 120(3): 338–375.

Bacharach, S. B., Bamberger, P., & Conley, S. 1991. Work/home conflict among nurses and

engineers: Mediating the impact of role stress on burnout and satisfaction at work. Journal

of Organizational Behavior, 12(1): 39–53.

Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. M. 1998. Ego depletion: is the

active self a limited resource? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(5): 1252–

1265.

BBC. 2015. Travelling to work “is work”, European court rules.

Becker, T. E. 2005. Potential Problems in the Statistical Control of Variables in Organizational

Research: A Qualitative Analysis With Recommendations. Organizational Research

Methods, 8(3): 274–289.

Benoit, R. G., Gilbert, S. J., & Burgess, P. W. 2011. A Neural Mechanism Mediating the Impact


of Episodic Prospection on Farsighted Decisions. The Journal of Neuroscience, 31(18):

6771–6779.

Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. 2011. Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A New Source

of Inexpensive, Yet High-Quality, Data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1): 3–5.

Bulger, C. A., Matthews, R. A., & Hoffman, M. E. 2007. Work and personal life boundary

management: Boundary strength, work/personal life balance, and the segmentation-

integration continuum. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12(4): 365–375.

Casey, B. J., Somerville, L. H., Gotlib, I. H., Ayduk, O., Franklin, N. T., Askren, M. K., et al.

2011. Behavioral and neural correlates of delay of gratification 40 years later. Proceedings

of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108(36): 14998–

5003.

Clark, A. E. 1997. Job satisfaction and gender: Why are women so happy at work? Labour

Economics, 4(4): 341–372.

Clark, A., Oswald, A., & Warr, P. 1996. Is job satisfaction U-shaped in age? Journal of

Occupational and Organizational Pshychology, 69: 57–81.

Connolly, J. J., & Viswesvaran, C. 2000. The role of affectivity in job satisfaction: A meta-

analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 29(2): 265–280.

de Ridder, D. T. D., Lensvelt-Mulders, G., Finkenauer, C., Stok, F. M., & Baumeister, R. F.

2012. Taking stock of self-control: a meta-analysis of how trait self-control relates to a wide

range of behaviors. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16(1): 76–99.

Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Sonnentag, S., & Fullagar, C. J. 2012. Work-related flow and

energy at work and at home: A study on the role of daily recovery. Journal of

Organizational Behaviour, 33: 276–295.


Desrochers, S., & Sargent, L. D. 2004. Boundary/Border Theory and Work-Family Integration.

Organization Management Journal, 1(1): 40–48.

Duckworth, A. L., Gendler, T. S., & Gross, J. J. 2016. Situational Strategies for Self-Control.

Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(1): 35–55.

Dutton, J. E. 2003. Energize your workplace: How to create and sustain high-quality

connections at work. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Fox, M. L., Dwyer, D. J., & Ganster, D. C. 1993. Effects of stressful job demands and control on

physiological and attitudinal outcomes in a hospital setting. Academy of Management

Journal, 36(2): 289–318.

Fritz, C., Lam, C. F., & Spreitzer, G. M. 2011. It’s the Little Things That Matter: An

Examination of Knowledge Workers’ Energy Management. Academy of Management

Perspectives, 25(3): 28–39.

Fujita, K., & Han, H. A. 2009. Moving beyond deliberative control of impulses: the effect of

construal levels on evaluative associations in self-control conflicts. Psychological Science,

20(7): 799–804.

Gaines, J., & Jermier, J. M. 1983. Emotional Exhaustion in a High Stress Organization. Academy

of Management Journal, 26(4): 567–586.

Galla, B. M., & Duckworth, A. L. 2015. More Than Resisting Temptation: Beneficial Habits

Mediate the Relationship Between Self-Control and Positive Life Outcomes. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology.

Geyer, P. D., & Daly, J. P. 1998. Predicting job satisfaction for relocated workers: Interaction of

relocation consequences and employee age. The Journal of Psychology, 37–41.

Gillebaart, M., & De Ridder, D. T. D. 2015. Effortless Self-Control: A Novel Perspective on


Response Conflict Strategies in Trait Self-Control. Social and Personality Psychology

Compass, 2(10): 88–99.

Gollwitzer, P. M. 1999. Implementation intentions: Strong effects of simple plans. American

Psychologist, 54(7): 493–503.

Gollwitzer, P. M., Gawrilow, C., & Oettingen, G. 2010. The Power of Planning: Self-Control by

Effective Goal-striving. Self-Control in Society, Mind, and Brain: 279–296. New York:

Oxford University Press.

Gottholmseder, G., Nowotny, K., Pruckner, G. J., & Theurl, E. 2009. Stress perception and

commuting. Health Economics, 18(5): 559–76.

Griffeth, R. W., Hom, P. W., & Gaertner, S. 2000. A meta-analysis of antecedents and correlates

of employee turnover: update, moderator tests, and research implications for the next

millennium. Journal of Management, 26: 463–488.

Hall, D. T. 1990. Telecommuting and the management of work-home boundaries. Paradigms

revised: The annual review of communications in society-1988: 177–208. Nashville, TN:

Institute for Information Studies.

Hayes, A. F. 2013. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: a

regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Hayes, A. F., & Montoya, A. K. 2016. A Tutorial on Testing, Visualizing, and Probing an

Interaction Involving a Multicategorical Variable in Linear Regression Analysis.

Communication Methods and Measures, in press.

Hofmann, W., Luhmann, M., Fisher, R. R., Vohs, K. D., & Baumeister, R. F. 2014. Yes, But Are

They Happy? Effects of Trait Self-Control on Affective Well-Being and Life Satisfaction.

Journal of Personality, 82(4): 265–277.


Hunt, J. W., & Saul, P. N. 1975. The relationship of age, tenure, and job satisfaction in males and

females. The Academy of Management Journal, 18(4): 690–702.

Inzlicht, M., Legault, L., & Teper, R. 2014. Exploring the Mechanisms of Self-Control

Improvement. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23: 302–307.

Kahneman, D., & Krueger, A. B. 2006. Developments in the Measurement of Subjective Well-

Being. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20(1): 3–24.

Kalleberg, L., & Loscocco, K. 1983. Aging, values, and rewards: explaining age differences in

job satisfaction. American Sociological Review, 48(1): 78–90.

Kluger, A. N. 1998. Commute variability and strain. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19:

147–165.

Kneebone, E., & Holmes, N. 2015. The growing distance between people and jobs in

metropolitan America.

Kreiner, G. E. 2006. Consequences of work-home segmentation or integration: A person-

environment fit perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(4): 485–507.

Kreiner, G., Hollensbe, E., & Sheep, M. 2009. Balancing borders and bridges: Negotiating the

work-home interface via boundary work tactics. Academy of Management Journal, 52(4):

704–730.

Lanaj, K., Johnson, R. E., & Barnes, C. M. 2014. Beginning the Workday Already Depleted?

Conseqeuences of Late-Night Smartphone Use and Sleep. Management Science, 124(1):

11–23.

Leigh, J., & Lust, J. 1988. Determinants of Emplyee Productivity. Work and Occupations,

15(1): 78–95.

Liu, L., Feng, T., Chen, J., & Li, H. 2013. The value of emotion: How does episodic prospection


modulate delay discounting? PLoS ONE, 8(11): e81717.

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. 2002. Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task

motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57(9): 705–720.

Louis, M. R. 1980. Surprise and Sense Making : What Newcomers Experience in Entering

Unfamiliar Organizational Settings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25(June): 226–251.

Magen, E., & Gross, J. J. 2010. Getting Our Act Together: Toward a General Model of Self-

Control. In R. Hassin, K. N. Ochsner, & Y. Trope (Eds.), Self-Control in Society, Mind,

and Brain: 335–353. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Miles, E., Sheeran, P., Baird, H., Macdonald, I., Webb, T. L., & Harris, P. R. 2016. Does self-

control improve with practice? Evidence from a six-week training program. Journal of

Experimental Psychology: General, 145(8): 1075–1091.

Mischel, W., Ebbesen, E. B., & Raskoff Zeiss, A. 1972. Cognitive and attentional mechanisms in

delay of gratification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 21(2): 204–218.

Mischel, W., & Grusec, J. 1967. Waiting for rewards and punishments: Effects of time and

probability on choice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5: 24–31.

Mobley, W. H. 1977. Intermediate Linkages in the Relationship Between Job Satisfaction and

Employee Turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62(2): 237–240.

Morris, M. G., & Venkatesh, V. 2010. Job characteristics and Job satisfaction: Understanding the

role of enterprise resource planning system implementation. MIS Quarterly, 34(1): 143–

161.

Muraven, M. 2008. Autonomous self-control is less depletion. Journal of Research in

Personality, 42: 763–770.

Muraven, M., Gagné, M., & Rosman, H. 2008. Helpful Self-Control: Autonomy Support,


Vitality, and Depletion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(3): 573–585.

Myrseth, K. O. R., & Fishbach, A. 2009. Self-Control: A Function of Knowing When and How

to Exercise Restraint. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18(4): 247–252.

Nippert-Eng, C. 1996. Calendars and keys: The classification of “home” and “work.”

Sociological Forum, 11(3): 563–582.

Novaco, R. W., Stokols, D., & Milanesi, L. 1990. Objective and Subjective Dimensions Of

Travel Impedance as Determinants Of Commuting and Stress. American Journal of

Community Psychology, 18(2): 231–257.

OECD. 2014. Average annual hours actually worked per worker.

Packard, J. S., & Motowidlo, S. J. 1987. Subjective stress, job satisfaction, and job performance

of hospital nurses. Research in Nursing & Health, 10(4): 253–261.

Porter, L. W., Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T., & Boulian, P. V. 1974. Organizational

commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric technicians. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 59(5): 603–609.

Rampell, C. 2011, October 14. World of Commuters. The New York Times.

Richter, J. 1990. Crossing boundaries between professional and private life. The Experience and

Meaning of Work in Women’s Lives, 143–163.

Rizzo, J. R., House, R. J., & Lirtzman, S. I. 1970. Role Conflict and Ambiguity in Complex

Organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15(2): 150–163.

Rothbard, N. P., Phillips, K. W., & Dumas, T. L. 2005. Managing Multiple Roles: Work-Family

Policies and Individuals? Desires for Segmentation. Organization Science, 16(3): 243–258.

Schaeffer, M. H., Street, S. W., Singer, J. E., & Baum, A. 1988. Effects of Control on the Stress

Reactions of Commuters. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18(11): 944–957.


Shaw, J. D. 1999. Job satisfaction and turnover intentions: The moderating role of positive

affect. The Journal of Social Psychology, 139(2): 242–244.

Sonnentag, S. 2001. Work, Recovery Activities, and Individual Well-Being: A Diary Study.

Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6(3): 196–210.

Sonnentag, S. 2003. Recovery, Work Engagement, and Proactive Behaviour: A New Look at the

Interface between Nonwork and Work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(3): 518–528.

Sonnentag, S. 2012. Psychological Detachment From Work During Leisure Time: The Benefits

of Mentally Disengaging From Work. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21(2):

114–118.

Stokols, D., Novaco, R. W., Stokols, J., & Campbell, J. 1978. Traffic congestion, type A

behavior, and stress. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63: 467–480.

Stutzer, A., & Frey, B. S. 2008. Stress that doesn’t pay: The commuting paradox. Scandinavian

Journal of Economics, 110(2): 339–366.

Szpunar, K. K., Spreng, R. N., & Schacter, D. L. 2014. A taxonomy of prospection: Introducing

an organizational framework for future-oriented cognition. Proceedings of the National

Academy of Sciences, 111(52): 18414–18421.

Tangney, J. P., Baumeister, R. F., & Boone, A. L. 2004. High Self-Control Predicts Good

Adjustment, Less Pathology, Better Grades, and Interpersonal Success. Journal of

Personality, 271–324.

Tett, R. P., & Meyer, J. P. 1993. Job Satisfaction, Organizational Commitment, Turnover

Intention, and Turnover: Path Analyses Based On Meta-Analytic Findings. Personnel

Psychology, 46(2): 259–293.

Trougakos, J. P., & Hideg, I. 2009. Momentary work recovery: The role of within-day work


breaks. Current Perspectives on Job-Stress Recovery, Research in Organisational Stress

and Well Being, 7: 37–84.

Trougakos, J. P., Hideg, I., Cheng, B., & Beal, D. 2014. Lunch breaks unpacked: the role of

autonomy as a moderator of recovery during lunch. Academy of Management Journal,

57(2): 405–421.

van Gennep, A. 1960. The Rites of Passage. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.

Van Ommeren, J. N., & Gutierrez-i-Puigarnau, E. 2011. Are workers with a long commute less

productive? An empirical analysis of absenteeism. Regional Science and Urban

Economics, 41(1): 1–8.

Watson, D., & Clark, L. 1999. The PANAS-X Manual for the Positive and Negative Affect

Schedule-Expanded Form. Iowa Research Online, 277(6): 1–27.

Yalof, I. 1988. Life and death: The story of a hospital. New York: Fawcett Crest.


FIGURE 1

Theoretical Framework

Commute Time Job

Satisfaction

Work-related Prospection

Trait Self-Control

Hypothesis 1

Hypothesis 2

Hypothesis 3


FIGURE 2

Study 1: Relationship between Commute time and Job Satisfaction

as a Function of Self-Control

Note: Removing the two outliers identified 3 standard deviations above the mean (those who had more than two hours of commuting, on the right side of the graph) did not change the direction or significance of the interaction between commute time and job satisfaction.


TABLE 1

Study 1: Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations for Study Variables

Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 61. Commute time (minutes) 50.6 31.8 2. Trait Self-Control 3.42 .6 .11 3. Age 32.7 6.9 .18** .19** 4. Women .43 .5 –.13 .02 –.14* 5. Tenure (months) 2.85 3.4 .28*** .22** .43*** –.15* 6. Job Satisfaction 4.66 1.2 –.03 .02 .14* .05 .001 7. Actual Turnover .19 .4 –.02 .03 –.11 .001 –.1 –.22**Note. ***p<0.001, **p<0.01, *p<0.05.


TABLE 2

Study 1: Moderated Regression Analysis

Predictor Variables Job Satisfaction B SEAge .033* .013Women .164 .167Tenure –.027 .028Commute Time –.002 .003Trait Self-Control .026 .147Interaction (Commute Time x Self-Control) .012* .005 N 225F 2.08R2 .054Note. *p<0.05. Commute time and trait self-control were centered to create an interaction term.


TABLE 3

Study 2: Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations for Study Variables

Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5

1. Commute Time (minutes) 38.21 25.52 2. Trait Self-Control 2.49 .82 -.19** 3. Work-related Prospection .67 .47 -.02 .20** 4. Job Satisfaction 4.57 1.38 -.24*** .20** .15* 5. Women 1.42 .49 .08 .05 .11 .08 6. Age 36.42 10.6 -.04 .21** .11 .03 .19**

Note. ***p<0.001, **p<0.01, *p<0.05


TABLE 4

Study 2: Moderated Regression Analysis

Predictor Variables Job Satisfaction B SEAge –.006 .009Women .24 .181Commute Time –.026*** .008Trait Self-Control .612* .202Interaction (Commute Time x Self-Control) .084* .041 N 228F 5.37R2 .11Note.***p<0.001, **p<0.01, *p<0.05


TABLE 5

Study 3: Means and Standard Errors for Work-related Prospection (Weeks 3 and 4) by

Condition

Condition Mean SE Control 2.64 .10

Work-related Prospection 2.81 .10 Gratification 2.44 .09

Mixed 2.68 .10

commuting as role transitions: how trait self-control and ... files/16-077_0aae29b7-b67e-402a... ·...

Documents