Rain, Rain Go Away! A Diary Study on Morning Weather and Affective Well‐Being at Work

Abstract

Weather determines a number of affective experiences in everyday life. Although affective events theory positions environmental features such as the weather as important in determining affective well‐being also at work, research in this regard has mainly focused on predictors within the person or work context. Addressing this gap, we studied how daily morning weather relates to day‐specific affective well‐being at work. Specifically, we examined vigor and job satisfaction as positive well‐being states, and negative affect and burnout as negative well‐being states. Additionally, we examined individual weather sensitivity and positive/negative affectivity as person‐level moderators of the daily weather–well‐being relationship. Using data gathered in a diary study with 115 employees reporting on 457 workdays, we found morning weather to be related to state vigor and job satisfaction, but not to negative affect and burnout. Positive affectivity moderated the relationships between morning weather and job satisfaction as well as burnout. Weather sensitivity moderated the relationship between morning weather and vigor, while negative affectivity did not moderate any relationship between morning weather and well‐being at work. Our results contribute to the understanding of affective well‐being at work by pointing at the role environmental factors such as weather conditions can play.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on risk of burn-out syndrome and recovery need among secondary school teachers in Flanders: A prospective study

“…It is likely that there are periods of higher levels of burn-out syndrome risk and recovery need during a normal school year, possibly influenced by the weather and seasonal conditions. Previous research showed the weather to have an impact on depression ( 57 ), job satisfaction and wellbeing ( 58 ), while seasonal conditions may influence anxiety ( 59 ) and depression ( 59 , 60 ).…”

Within- and between-person factor structure of the Oldenburg Burnout Inventory: Analysis of a diary study using multilevel confirmatory factor analysis

“…Additionally, we observed that two disengagement items, namely 3D (Today, I thought less at work and did my job almost mechanically) and 6D (Sometimes I felt sickened by my today work tasks), had particularly low factor loadings. A relevant comparative empirical material is lacking since no factor analysis was reported in the available studies on daily burnout [62][63][64][65][66]. Nonetheless, the results from classical confirmatory factor analysis [37,39,49] show that while the 3D item loadings indicate general satisfactory values (e.g., .64-.82), the range for the 6D item is less conclusive (e.g., .49-.76).…”

“…The main limitation of these within-person studies is that they mostly used the MBI to measure burnout. We found only five daily diary studies, in which symptoms of burnout were assessed with the OLBI [62][63][64][65][66], though these were mainly limited to measurement of exhaustion. Only two assessed both components of burnout, but the OLBI was shortened to 12 [63] and 6 items [65], without further specifying them.…”

A dynamic view on work‐related perfectionism: Antecedents at work and implications for employee well‐being

“…To capture participants' state vigour both at the end of the workday and at bedtime, we used four items of the physical strength subscale of the German version of the Shirom-Melamed Vigour Measure (Shirom, 2004) in a version adapted for daily assessment (Venz & Pundt, 2021). A sample item is 'I feel full of energy'.…”