ISSN 0439-755X
CN 11-1911/B

心理学报 ›› 2017, Vol. 49 ›› Issue (11): 1449-1459.doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2017.01449

• • 上一篇    下一篇



  1.  (浙江财经大学工商管理学院, 杭州 310018)
  • 收稿日期:2016-11-03 出版日期:2017-11-26 发布日期:2017-09-25
  • 通讯作者: 吴伟炯, E-mail: E-mail:E-mail:
  • 基金资助:

 Resolving “Commuting Paradox”: How commute time influences subjective well-being

 WU Weijiong   

  1.  (Business Administration College, Zhejiang University of Finance & Economics, Hangzhou 310018 China)
  • Received:2016-11-03 Online:2017-11-26 Published:2017-09-25
  • Contact: WU Weijiong, E-mail: E-mail:E-mail:
  • Supported by:

摘要:  本文从社会过渡带和心理过渡带两个方面对“通勤悖论”进行解析, 构建了通勤时间影响幸福感的理论模型。通过对广州市白领的追踪调查和多项式回归分析, 结果发现:(1)婚姻状态(社会过渡带)具有调节作用, 未婚员工通勤时间负向影响生活满意度, 已婚员工通勤时间对生活满意度和快乐度有曲线影响; (2)恢复体验(心理过渡带)具有交互效应, 心理解脱调节了未婚员工通勤时间与通勤效用的关系, 放松体验调节了未婚员工通勤时间与快乐度的关系; (3)已婚员工通勤时间与通勤效用和快乐度的关系受放松体验调节, 与生活满意度的关系受心理解脱调节; (4)通勤时间对生活满意度和快乐度的影响, 以及婚姻状态和恢复体验的交互效应, 以通勤效用为中介; (5)员工在“通勤时间陷阱” (1.75~2.75小时)的效用均衡。结论有助于分析“通勤悖论”的深层原因, 对城市管理、企业管理和个人都具有积极启示。

关键词:  通勤悖论, 幸福感, 通勤时间, 恢复体验, 通勤过渡带

Abstract:  People in today’s society spend a substantial amount of their time traveling to and from work. Researchers have rightfully concerned themselves with the question of if and how commuting affects people’s lives. Some behavioral economists suggested that commute time play a negative effect on individuals’ life satisfaction. This phenomenon is called “commuting paradox”, in which individuals’ utility are imbalance due to longer commuting time is not compensated. The present study regards commute time as the work-family transition zone, such as social transition zone and psychological transition zone. With these perspectives, we aimed to examine the moderating roles that marital status (social transition zone) and recovery experiences (psychological transition zone) play in the relationship between commute time and subjective well-being. What is more, the mediating mechanism of commuting utility was explored. In order to test our model, we conducted a survey on 822 part-time graduates from three colleges. Data were collected from 3 follow-up surveys to avoid the common method bias. Participants were asked to fill out questionnaires at three time points (Time 1: commute time, marital status and recovery experiences; Time 2: commuting utility; and Time 3: satisfaction with life, happiness). These variables were assessed by: commute time survey, marital status survey, recovery experiences questionnaire, satisfaction with life scale, PANA scale, and Princeton affect and time survey. All Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were acceptable (ranging from 0.83 to 0.91). Descriptive statistics and hierarchical polynomial regression analysis were applied to test the hypotheses. The results indicated that: (1) marital status (social transition zone) moderated effects of commute time on subjective well-being, i.e., unmarried employees’ commute time had negative impact on life satisfaction, married employees’ commuting time had U shape impact on life satisfaction, happiness and occupational well-being; (2) recovery experiences during work→home commute (psychological transition zone) moderated effects of commute time on outcome variables, i.e., psychological detachment moderated relationships between unmarried employees’ commute time and commuting utility; relax experience moderated the relationship between unmarried employees’ commute time and happiness; (3) effects of married employees’ commute time on commuting utility and happiness were moderated by relax experience, whereas the relationship between married employees’ commute time and life satisfaction were moderated by psychological detachment; (4) commuting utility not only mediated the effects of commute time on life satisfaction and happiness, but also mediated the moderations of marital status and recover experiences; (5) employees’ utility equilibrium were found during “commuting time trap” (1.75 h - 2.75 h), in which longer commuting time was compensated. Significance: The present study analyzed the commuting paradox from two aspects, including social transition zone and psychological transition zone. Then we built a theoretical model regarding how commute time influences employee’s subjective well-being. Together, our findings contribute to the literature by helping to (a) provided a psychological explanation for commuting paradox, (b) integrate commuting utility, life satisfaction and happiness, (c) resolve mixed findings regarding the issue of commute time and subjective well-being. The managerial implications of our findings, limitations, as well as future research directions were discussed.

Key words: commuting paradox, subjective well-being, commute time, recovery experience, commuting transition zone.