Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-p2v8j Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2024-06-01T16:19:26.847Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Applying the Affective Events Theory to Explore the Effect of Daily Micro-Interruptions on Mental Health: The Mediating Role of Affect and the Moderating Role of Pets at Work

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 January 2024

Ana Junça Silva Open the ORCID record for Ana Junça Silva [Opens in a new window]
Ana Junça Silva*
Affiliation:
ISCTE-Instituto Universitário de Lisboa (Portugal)
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Ana Junça Silva. ISCTE-Instituto Universitário de Lisboa. Unidade de Investigação em Desenvolvimento Empresarial (UNIDE). Avenida das Forças Armadas. 1649–026 Lisboa (Portugal). Email: analjsilva@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study relied on the affective events theory and the social exchange theory to develop a framework that explains how situational factors (daily micro-interruptions) enhance affective reactions (negative affect) and, in turn, impair health conditions (mental health) at work. We further delineate theoretical arguments to propose the pet-human’s health effect by demonstrating that pets are boundary conditions that attenuate this relation, and as such are protective conditions for employees’ mental health. We conducted a 5-day diary study with two groups of participants, one with participants who owned pets (N = 82 x 5 = 410), and the other who did not own pets (N = 87 x 5 = 435). The multilevel results showed an indirect effect of daily micro-interruptions on individuals’ mental health through negative affect, with a daily backdrop of poorer mental health for those who did not own a pet (compared to those who owned a pet). These results evidence the benefits of owning a pet for individuals’ mental health, even at work, and as such provide recommendations for teleworking practices. Moreover, this study resorts to an innovative and robust data collection method to demonstrate the pet-human’ health effect. This study expands knowledge on the role of pets in working daily routines and shows that pets may be a personal resource for individuals while working.

Keywords

daily micro-interruptionsmental healthmultilevel modelingnegative affectpet ownership
Type
Research Article
Information
The Spanish Journal of Psychology , Volume 27 , 2024 , e1
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Universidad Complutense de Madrid and Colegio Oficial de la Psicología de Madrid

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Addas, S., & Pinsonneault, A. (2018). E-mail interruptions and individual performance: is there a silver lining? Mis Quarterly, 42(2), 381–406. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2018/13157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Antonacopoulos, N. M. D., & Pychyl, T. A. (2008). An examination of the relations between social support, anthropomorphism and stress among dog owners. Anthrozoös, 21, 139–152. https://doi.org/10.2752/175303708X305783CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beetz, A., Uvnäs-Moberg, K., Julius, H., & Kotrschal, K. (2012). Psychosocial and psychophysiological effects of human-animal interactions: The possible role of oxytocin. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, Article 234. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00234CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss : Vol. 1. Attachment. Basic Books.Google Scholar
Bradshaw, J. (2017). The animals among us: The new science of anthrozoology. Penguin UK.Google Scholar
Brickel, C. M. (1986). Pet-facilitated therapies: A review of the literature and clinical implementation considerations. Clinical Gerontologist, 5(3-4), 309–332. https://doi.org/10.1300/J018v05n03_06CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chong, J., & Siino, R. (2006). Interruptions on software teams: A comparison of paired and solo programmers. In Hinds, P. & Martin, D. (Eds.), CSCW ’06: Proceedings of the 2006 20th anniversary conference on Computer supported cooperative work (pp. 29–38). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/1180875.1180882CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conway, J. M., & Lance, C. E. (2010). What reviewers should expect from authors regarding common method bias in organizational research. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25, 325–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-010-9181-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dotson, M. J., & Hyatt, E. M. (2008). Understanding dog–human companionship. Journal of Business Research, 61(5), 457–466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.07.019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, E., & Greenway, D. (2021). It’s a matter of time: The role of temporal perceptions in emotional experiences of work interruptions. Group & Organization Management, 46(1), 70–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601120959288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fletcher, K. A., & Bedwell, W. L. (2016, September). An initial look at the effects of interruptions on strain. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 60, No. 1, pp. 1269–1273). Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
Fletcher, K. A., Potter, S. M., & Telford, B. N. (2018). Stress outcomes of four types of perceived interruptions. Human Factors, 60(2), 222–235. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720817738845CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fonner, K. L., & Roloff, M. E. (2010). Why teleworkers are more satisfied with their jobs than are office-based workers: When less contact is beneficial. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 38(4), 336–361. http://doi.org/10.1080/00909882.2010.513998CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galluch, P. S., Grover, V., & Thatcher, J. B. (2015). Interrupting the workplace: Examining stressors in an information technology context. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 16(1). http://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geldhof, G. J., Preacher, K. J., & Zyphur, M. J. (2014). Reliability estimation in a multilevel confirmatory factor analysis framework. Psychological Methods, 19(1), 72–91. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gluck, J., Bunt, A., & McGrenere, J. (2007, April). Matching attentional draw with utility in interruption. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 41–50).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham, T. M., Milaney, K. J., Adams, C. L., & Rock, M. J. (2019). Are millennials really picking pets over people? Taking a closer look at dog ownership in emerging adulthood. Canadian Journal of Family and Youth/Le Journal Canadien de Famille et de la Jeunesse, 11(1), 202–227. https://doi.org/10.29173/cjfy29454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grajfoner, D., Ke, G. N., & Wong, R. M. M. (2021). The effect of pets on human mental health and wellbeing during COVID–19 lockdown in Malaysia. Animals, 11(9), Article 2689. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11092689CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hall, S., Wright, H., McCune, S., Zulch, H., & Mills, D. (2017). Perceptions of dogs in the workplace: The pros and the cons. Anthrozoös, 30(2), 291–305. https://doi.org/10.1080/08927936.2017.1311053CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hobfoll, S. E. (2001). The influence of culture, community, and the nested‐self in the stress process: Advancing conservation of resources theory. Applied Psychology, 50(3), 337–421. https://doi.org/10.1111/1464-0597.00062CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hobfoll, S. E., Halbesleben, J., Neveu, J. P., & Westman, M. (2018). Conservation of resources in the organizational context: The reality of resources and their consequences. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 5, 103–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunter, E. M., Clark, M. A., & Carlson, D. S. (2019). Violating work-family boundaries: Reactions to interruptions at work and home. Journal of Management, 45(3), 1284–1308. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206317702221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Junça-Silva, A. (2022a). Friends with benefits: The positive consequences of pet-friendly practices for workers’ well-being. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(3), Article 1069. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19031069CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Junça Silva, A. (2022b). Should I pet or should I work? Human-animal interactions and (tele)work engagement: An exploration of the underlying within-level mechanisms. ISCTE-IUL Repositório. https://repositorio.iscte-iul.pt/bitstream/10071/27729/1/article_92021.pdfCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Junça-Silva, A. (2022c). The furr-recovery method: Interacting with furry co-workers during work time is a micro-break that recovers workers’ regulatory resources and contributes to their performance. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(20), Article 13701. http://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192013701CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Junça-Silva, A. (2023a). ‘Pawing’ uncertainty! How dogs attenuate the impact of daily hassles at work on uncertainty. BMC Psychology, 11, Article 251. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-023-01295-zCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Junça-Silva, A. (2023b). The Telework Pet scale: Development and psychometric properties. Journal of Veterinary Behavior, 63, 55–63. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2023.05.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Junça-Silva, A. (2023c). Unleashing the furr-recovery method: Interacting with pets in teleworking replenishes the self’s regulatory resources: Evidence from a daily-diary study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(1), Article 518. http://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20010518Google Scholar
Junça-Silva, A., Almeida, M., & Gomes, C. (2022). The role of dogs in the relationship between telework and performance via affect: A moderated mediation analysis. Animals, 12(13), Article 1727. http://doi.org/10.3390/ani12131727CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Junça-Silva, A., Pombeira, C., & Caetano, A. (2021). Testing the affective events theory: The mediating role of affect and the moderating role of mindfulness. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 35(4), 1075–1081. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3843CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Junça-Silva, A., & Silva, D. (2023). The buffering effect of micro-daily events on the relationship between the dark triad traits and counterproductive work behavior. Management Research Review, 46(5), 667–681. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-12-2021-0864CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kazekami, S. (2020). Mechanisms to improve labor productivity by performing telework. Telecommunications Policy, 44(2), Article 101868. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2019.101868CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelemen, T. K., Matthews, S. H., Wan, M., & Zhang, Y. (2020). The secret life of pets: The intersection of animals and organizational life. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 41(7), 694–697. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, J. H., Parameshwara, N., Guo, W., & Pasupathy, K. S. (2019). The impact of interrupting nurses on mental workload in emergency departments. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 35(3), 206–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirmeyer, S. L. (1988). Coping with competing demands: Interruption and the Type A pattern. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(4), 621–629. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.73.4.621CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krediet, I., Zijlstra, F. R. H., & Roe, R. A. (1994). Types of interruptions and their effects on mental information work (WORC-Paper 94.07.039/4). Work and Organizational Centre, Tilburg University.Google Scholar
Lazarus, R. S. (1999). Hope: An emotion and a vital coping resource against despair. Social Research, 66, 653–678.Google Scholar
Lin, B. C., Kain, J. M., & Fritz, C. (2013). Don’t interrupt me! An examination of the relationship between intrusions at work and employee strain. International Journal of Stress Management, 20(2), 77–94. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maas, C. J. M., & Hox, J. J. (2005). Sufficient sample sizes for multilevel modeling. Methodology, 1(3), 86–92. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-2241.1.3.86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mark, G., Gudith, D., & Klocke, U. (2008). The cost of interrupted work: more speed and stress. In Czerwinski, M., Lund, A., & Tan, D. (Coords.), CHI ’08: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 107–110). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/1357054.1357072CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McConnell, A. R., Brown, C. M., Shoda, T. M., Stayton, L. E., & Martin, C. E. (2011). Friends with benefits: On the positive consequences of pet ownership. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(6), 1239–1252. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024506CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miller, S. C., Kennedy, C. C., DeVoe, D. C., Hickey, M., Nelson, T., & Kogan, L. (2009). An examination of changes in oxytocin levels in men and women before and after interaction with a bonded dog. Anthrozoös, 22(1), 31–42. https://doi.org/10.2752/175303708X390455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miner, A., Glomb, T. M., & Hulin, C. (2005). Experience sampling mood and its correlates at work. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78(2), 171–193. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317905X40105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nebbe, L. (2000). Nature Therapy. In Fine, A. (Ed.), Handbook on animal assisted therapy: Theoretical foundations and guidelines for practice (pp. 385–414). Academic Press.Google Scholar
Norling, A. Y., & Keeling, L. (2010). Owning a dog and working: A telephone survey of dog owners and employers in Sweden. Anthrozoös, 23(2), 157–172. https://doi.org/10.2752/175303710X12682332910015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ohly, S., Sonnentag, S., Niessen, C., & Zapf, D. (2010). Diary studies in organizational research. Journal of Personnel Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1027/1866-5888/a000009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perlow, L. A. (1999). The time famine: Toward a sociology of work time. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(1), 57–81. https://doi.org/10.2307/2667031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinha e Cunha, M., Rego, A., & Munro, I. (2019). Dogs in organizations. Human Relations, 72(4), 778–800. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726718780210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pirson, M. A., Langer, E., & Zilcha, S. (2018). Enabling a socio-cognitive perspective of mindfulness: The development and validation of the Langer Mindfulness Scale. Journal of Adult Development, 25, 168–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10804-018-9282-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Podsakoff, P. M., Podsakoff, N. P., Williams, L. J., Huang, C., & Yang, J. (2023). Common method bias: It’s bad, it’s complex, it’s widespread, and it’s not easy to fix. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 11. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-110721-040030Google Scholar
Powell, L., Guastella, A. J., McGreevy, P., Bauman, A., Edwards, K. M., & Stamatakis, E. (2019). The physiological function of oxytocin in humans and its acute response to human-dog interactions: A review of the literature. Journal of Veterinary Behavior, 30, 25–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2018.10.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Puranik, H., Koopman, J., & Vough, H. C. (2020). Pardon the interruption: An integrative review and future research agenda for research on work interruptions. Journal of Management, 46(6), 806–842. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206319887428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Puranik, H., Koopman, J., Vough, H. C., & Gamache, D. L. (2019). They want what I’ve got (I think): The causes and consequences of attributing coworker behavior to envy. Academy of Management Review, 44(2), 424–449. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2016.0191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, H. A., & Taylor, S. G. (2012). Understanding input events: A model of employees’ responses to requests for their input. Academy of Management Review, 37(3), 471–491. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2010.0327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rockwood, N. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2017, May 25-28).MLmed: An SPSS macro for multilevel mediation and conditional process analysis [Poster presentation]. Annual Meeting of the Association of Psychological Science. Boston, USA.Google Scholar
Schreiber, J. B., Nora, A., Stage, F. K., Barlow, E. A., & King, J. (2006). Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: A review. The Journal of Educational Research, 99(6), 323–338. http://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.99.6.323-338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snijders, T. A., & Kenny, D. A. (1999). The social relations model for family data: A multilevel approach. Personal Relationships, 6(4), 471–486. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.1999.tb00204.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sonnentag, S., Reinecke, L., Mata, J., & Vorderer, P. (2018). Feeling interrupted—Being responsive: How online messages relate to affect at work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(3), 369–383. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sousa, C., Esperança, J., & Gonçalves, G. (2022). Pets at work: Effects on social responsibility perception and organizational commitment. Psychology of Leaders and Leadership, 25(2), 144–163. https://doi.org/10.1037/mgr0000128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Souter, M. A., & Miller, M. D. (2007). Do animal-assisted activities effectively treat depression: A meta-analysis. Anthrozoös, 20(2), 167–180. https://doi.org/10.2752/175303707X207954CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trigg, J. (2021). Examining the role of pets in cancer survivors’ physical and mental wellbeing. Journal of Psychosocial Oncology, 40, 834–853. https://doi.org/10.1080/07347332.2021.1936337CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tse, H. H. M., & Dasborough, M. T. (2008). A study of exchange and emotions in team member relationships. Group & Organization Management, 33(2), 194–215. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601106293779CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, E., & PinaeCunha, M. (2021). Dogs at the workplace: A multiple case study. Animals, 11(1), Article 89. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11010089CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ware, J. E., Kosinski, M., Bjorner, J. B., Turner-Bowker, D. M., Gandek, B., & Maruish, M. E. (2007). User’s manual for the SF-36v2 Health Survey. Quality Metric Incorporated.Google Scholar
Warr, P., Bindl, U. K., Parker, S. K., & Inceoglu, I. (2014). Four-quadrant investigation of job-related affects and behaviours. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 23(3), 342–363. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2012.744449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory. Research in Organizational Behavior, 18(1), 1–74.Google Scholar
World Health Organization. (2022, June 17). Mental health [Fact sheet]. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs220/en/Google Scholar
Wöhrmann, A. M., & Ebner, C. (2021). Understanding the bright side and the dark side of telework: An empirical analysis of working conditions and psychosomatic health complaints. New Technology, Work and Employment, 36(3), 348–370. https://doi.org/10.1111/ntwe.12208CrossRefGoogle Scholar