2008
DOI: 10.1080/07420520802114086
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Interference of Flexible Working Times with the Utility of Time: A Predictor of Social Impairment?

Abstract: Periodic components inherent in actual schedules of flexible working hours and their interference with social rhythms were measured using spectrum analysis. The resulting indicators of periodicity and interference were then related to the reported social impairments of workers. The results show that a suppression of the 24 and the 168 h (seven-day) components (absence of periodicity) in the work schedules predicts reported social impairment. However, even if there are relatively strong 24 and 168 h components … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4

Citation Types

0
11
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
8
2

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 35 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
0
11
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Individual rhythms could have averaged out in the aggregate data if there were large inter-individual differences in circadian phase, although this may not be likely as the range of circadian phases in healthy normals covers a relatively small portion of the 24 h day (Kerkhof & Van Dongen, 1996). Furthermore, in the absence of information on the shift patterns worked by the reporters, we have assumed that workers were diurnally adjusted, consistent with findings that even permanent night shiftworkers rarely exhibit adjustment to a nighttime schedule (Folkard, 2008) and social rhythms outside work remain as powerful influences (Wirtz et al, 2008).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 64%
“…Individual rhythms could have averaged out in the aggregate data if there were large inter-individual differences in circadian phase, although this may not be likely as the range of circadian phases in healthy normals covers a relatively small portion of the 24 h day (Kerkhof & Van Dongen, 1996). Furthermore, in the absence of information on the shift patterns worked by the reporters, we have assumed that workers were diurnally adjusted, consistent with findings that even permanent night shiftworkers rarely exhibit adjustment to a nighttime schedule (Folkard, 2008) and social rhythms outside work remain as powerful influences (Wirtz et al, 2008).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 64%
“…This composition of participants may explain why we did not Wnd an eVect on health outcomes. Still, it is surprising that the intervention did not aVect the frequency of work-family conXicts because especially evening and weekend work is thought to cause social desynchronization (Wirtz et al 2008). In subgroup A, we found a decrease from 32 to 25% in the frequency of participants who reported work-family conXicts with respect to time while we found an increase from 17 to 23% in the reference group (group ¤ time p = 0.588; OR = 0.55; 95% CI: 0.13-2.38; Tables 2 and 3).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 93%
“…Adjustment to the night shift is known to be much more difficult than to other shifts that do not require night duty (Folkard, 2008;Reinberg et al, 2007). In fact, few if any workers fully adjust to the night shift, because of direct disruption of the rest/activity pattern, desynchronization of the circadian system, and disruption of the 24 h pattern of socialization (Burch et al, 2005;Folkard, 2008;Giebel et al, 2008;Reinberg et al, 1984;Reinberg and Ashkenazi, 2008;Weibel et al, 1996;Wirtz et al, 2008). Although excessive sleepiness was most frequent among those involved in arrangements that mandated nighttime work (i.e., NW and DENS), we found it was frequent among all the New York state work groups.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 97%