THE MEDIATING ROLE OF PROSOCIAL MOTIVATION IN THE EFFECT OF REMOTE WORKING METHOD ON MENTAL WELL-BEING

Öz

The concept of remote working, which emerged during the 1970s oil crisis and was subsequently endorsed by the Bangemann Report (1994) for the European Union, has evolved into an imperative of global proportions, superseding its original status as a mere recommendation in the wake of the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic. With the lifting of the isolation and distancing requirements imposed by the pandemic, the obligation to work remotely has likewise come to an end. In the post-pandemic era, remote working has evolved from a necessity to a preference for businesses, entrepreneurs and some employees with the autonomy to make their own decisions. This paradigm shift signifies that remote working remains a prevalent and valid working method. The primary focus of the research is on employees’ perceptions of remote working method following the challenging pandemic period, and how this shift has affected their lives. While the notion of quarantine engendering individualism may appear intuitive, it can be hypothesised that the concept of collectively surviving the arduous conditions of the pandemic through mutual assistance and contribution fosters prosocial motivation. The present study, which was conducted with 224 participants who were primarily employed (85%) in service-producing enterprises and (15%) in production-based sectors, aims to reveal the effect of telecommuting on mental well-being and the mediating role of prosocial motivation on this effect. To summarise, the objective of the present study is twofold. Firstly, it seeks to ascertain the extent to which remote working is adopted, and secondly, to determine its impact on social life, including the mental health of employees and their motivation to assist others. In accordance with the scales employed in the survey, it was determined that prosocial motivation exerts an influence on the mental well-being of the individual, and that, in general, remote working has a positive impact on the lives of the employees participating in the study. A study was conducted on remote workers and their perceptions of self-efficacy and social support, within the crisis environment created by the outbreak of the novel Covid-19.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Remote Working
• Mental Well-being
• Prosocial Motivation
• Virtual Business
• Virtual Work

UZAKTAN ÇALIŞMA YÖNTEMİNİN MENTAL İYİ OLUŞ ÜZERİNDEKİ ETKİSİNDE PROSOSYAL MOTİVASYONUN ARACI ROLÜ

Öz

1970’lerdeki petrol krizi ile konuşulmaya, Bangemann Raporu’nun (1994) Avrupa Birliği’ne tavsiye etmesiyle uygulanmaya başlanan uzaktan çalışma, Covid-19 salgınıyla birlikte tavsiyeden çok, küresel boyutta kaçınılmaz bir zorunluluğa dönüşmüştür. Salgın koşullarının beraberinde getirdiği izolasyon ve mesafe zorunluluğunun ortadan kalkmasıyla birlikte uzaktan çalışma zorunluluğu da ortadan kalkmıştır. Salgının sona ermesiyle birlikte işletmeler, girişimciler ve kendi kararını verebilen kimi çalışanlar için zorunluluktan tercihe dönüşen uzaktan çalışma halen yaygın ve geçerli olan bir çalışma yöntemidir. Zorlu salgın deneyiminden sonraki dönemde çalışanların uzaktan çalışma yöntemiyle ilgili düşünceleri ve bu olgunun yaşamlarını nasıl etkilediği araştırmanın ana konusunu oluşturmaktadır. Karantina sürecinin bireyselliği beraberinde getirmesi doğalmış gibi görünse de salgının çetin koşullarından yardımlaşarak, başkalarına katkı sağlayarak birlikte kurtulmak düşüncesinin prososyal motivasyonu geliştirdiği düşünülebilir. %85’i hizmet, %15’i üretime dayalı sektörlerde istihdam edilen 224 katılımcı ile gerçekleştirilen bu araştırma uzaktan çalışma yönteminin mental iyi oluş üzerindeki etkisini ve bu etki üzerinde prososyal motivasyonun aracı rolünü ortaya koymayı amaçlamaktadır. Bir başka deyişle çalışma, uzaktan çalışma yönteminin ne kadar benimsendiğini ve çalışanın ruh sağlığı ve başkalarına yardım etme motivasyonu da dahil olmak üzere toplumsal yaşam üzerindeki izdüşümünün belirlenmesine katkı sağlamayı hedeflemektedir. Yapılan anket çalışmasıyla birlikte, kullanılan ölçeklerle de uyumlu olarak, prososyal motivasyonun kişinin mental iyi oluş durumu üzerinde etkili olduğu ve genel olarak uzaktan çalışmanın araştırmaya katılan çalışanların yaşamını olumlu yönde etkilediğine ilişkin bulgulara ulaşılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Uzaktan Çalışma
• Mental İyi Oluş
• Prososyal Motivasyon
• Sanal İş
• Sanal Çalışma

Kaynakça

1. Adisa, T. A., Ogbonnaya, C. ve Adekoya, O. D. (2023). Remote working and employee engagement: a qualitative study of British workers during the pandemic. Information Technology & People, 36(5), 1835-1850.
2. Akman, E. ve Durgun, B. (2022). Öğretmenlerin meslekî motivasyon ve teknostres düzeylerinin incelenmesi. Fırat Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 32(2), 487-500.
3. Aknin, L. B. ve Whillans, A. V. (2021). Helping and happiness: A review and guide for public policy. Social Issues and Policy Review, 15(1), 3–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/sipr.12069
4. Alexander, A., De Smet, A., Langstaff, M. ve Ravid, D. (2021). What employees are saying about the future of remote work. McKinsey & Company. https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/future-of-work/what-employees-are-saying-about-the-future-of-remote-work
5. Alfes, K., Avgoustaki, A., Beauregard, T. A., Canibano, A. ve Muratbekova Touron, M. (2022). New ways of working and the implications for employees: A systematic framework and suggestions for future research. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 33(22), 4361-4385. https://doi.org/10.10 80/09585192.2022.2149151
6. Allen, T. D., Golden, T. D. ve Shockley, K. M. (2015). How Effective Is Telecommuting? Assessing the Status of Our Scientific Findings. Psychological Science in the Public Interest. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100615593273
7. Andrulli, R. ve Gerards, R. (2023). How new ways of working during COVID-19 affect employee well-being via technostress, need for recovery, and work engagement. Computers in Human Behavior, 139, 107560. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. chb.2022.107560
8. Asgari, H. ve Jin, X. (2018). An evaluation of part-day telecommute impacts on work trip departure times. Travel Behaviour and Society, 12, 84-92.

9. Atti, C., Cross, C., Doğan, A. B., Hubbard, C., Page, C., Montague, S. ve Rabieinejad, E. (2022). Impacts and integration of remote-first working environments [Preprint]. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.04383
10. Bakker, A. B. ve Demerouti, E. (2017). Job demands–resources theory: Taking stock and looking forward. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22(3), 273–285. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000056.
11. Baruch, Y. (2000). Teleworking: benefits and pitfalls as perceived by professionals and managers. New technology, work and employment, 15(1), 34-49.
12. Batson, C. D. (1987). Prosocial motivation: Is it ever truly altruistic? In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 20, pp. 65–122). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60412-8
13. Bebitoğlu M.E. (2003). Sanal yönetimin işletme verimliliği üzerine etkisi, Digiturk’te bir uygulama. (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Eskişehir.
14. Bebitoğlu M.E. (2020). ‘Goo!’ Yeni Normal Sanal Yönetim ile Başarı. Nobel Bilimsel Eserler.
15. Boell, S. K., Cecez-Kecmanovic, D. ve Campbell, J. (2016). Telework paradoxes and practices: The importance of the nature of work. New Technology Work and Employment, 31(2), 114-131. https://doi.org/10.1111/ntwe.12063
16. Bregenzer, A. ve Jimenez, P. (2021). Risk factors and leadership in a digitalized working world and their effects on employees’ stress and resources: Web-based questionnaire study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 23(3), e24906. https:// doi.org/10.2196/24906
17. Brieger, S. A., Anderer, S., Fröhlich, A., Bäro, A. ve Meynhardt, T. 2020). Too much of a good thing? On the relationship between CSR and employee work addicton. Journal of Business Ethics, 166, 311-329.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04141-8
18. Butterick, M. ve Charlwood, A. (2021). HRM and the COVID-19 pandemic: How canwe stop making a bad situation worse? Human Resource Management Journal, 31(4),847–856. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12344
19. Campos-Mercade, P., Meier, A. N., Schneider, F. H. ve Wengström, E. (2021). Prosociality predicts health behaviors during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Public Economics, 195, 104367.
20. Cerqueira, V., Torgo, L. ve Mozetič, I. (2020). Evaluating time series forecasting models: An empirical study on performance estimation methods. Machine Learning, 109, 1997–2028. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10994-020-05910-7
21. Chan, X. W., Shang, S., Brough, P., Wilkinson, A. ve Lu, C. Q. (2023). Work, life andCOVID-19: A rapid review and practical recommendations for the post-pandemicworkplace. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 61(2), 257–276. https://doi.org/10.1111/1744-7941.12355
22. Charalampous, M., Grant, C. A., Tramontano, C. ve Michailidis, E. (2019). Systematically reviewing remote e-workers’ well-being at work: A multidimensional approach. European Journal of Work And Organizational Psychology, 28(1), 51-73.
23. Chen, Y. (2025). When and How Autonomy Benefits the Impact of Prosocial Behaviour on Well‐Being. International Journal of Psychology, 60(2), e70032.
24. Como, R., Hambley, L. ve Domene, J. (2021). An Exploration of Work-Life Wellness and Remote Work during and beyond COVID-19. Canadian Journal of Career Development, 20, 46-56.
25. Coun, M. J. H., Peters, P., Blomme, R. J. ve Schaveling, J. (2022). ‘To empower or not to empower, that’s the question’. using an empowerment process approach to explain employees’ workplace proactivity. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 33(14), 2829-2855. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2 021.1879204
26. Countouris, N. ve De Stefano, V. (2023). The future of remote work. Osgoode Legal Studies Research Paper, (4462532), 93-103.
27. Craig, L. ve Churchill, B. (2021). Dual-earner parent couples’ work and care during COVID-19. Gender, Work, and Organization, 28(Suppl 1), 66–79. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12497
28. Curry, O. S., Rowland, L. A., van Lissa, C. J., Zlotowitz, S., McAlaney, J. ve Whitehouse, H. (2018). Happy to help? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of performing acts of kindness on the well-being of the actor. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 76, 320–329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2018.02.014
29. Daft, R. L. ve Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science, 32(5), 554-571.
30. Deci, E. L. ve Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
31. Demerouti, E., Derks, D., Ten Brummelhuis, L. L. ve Bakker, A. B. (2014). New ways of working: Impact on working conditions, Work–Family balance, and well-being. In C. Korunka ve P. Hoonakker (Eds.), The impact of ICT on quality of working life (pp. 123-141). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8854-0_8
32. Dennis, A. R., Valacich, J. S., Speier, C. ve Morris, M. G. (1998). Beyond media richness: An empirical test of media synchronicity theory. Proceedings of the 31st Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 48–57. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.1998.655325
33. Dennis, A. R., Fuller, R. M. ve Valacich, J. S. (2008). Media, tasks, and communication processes: A theory of media synchronicity. MIS Quarterly, 32(3), 575–600. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148857
34. Diener, E. (2009). Subjective well-being. In E. Diener (Ed.), The science of well-being (pp. 11–58). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2350-6_2
35. Eby, L. T., Casper, W. J., Lockwood, A., Bordeaux, C., ve Brinley, A. (2005). Work and family research in IO/OB: Content analysis and review of the literature (1980–2002). Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66(1), 124–197.
36. Emanuel, N. ve Harrington, E. (2024). Working remotely? Selection, treatment, and the market for remote work. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 16(4), 528-559.
37. European Commission. (1995). Europe and the global information society: Recommendations to the European Council (Conference G7 – Bangemann Report; Catalogue No. CC-49-95-002-EN-C). Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Erişim adresi https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/44dad16a-937d-4cb3-be07-0022197d9459/language-en
38. Faruque, M. O., Talukder, T., Pranto, M. N., Debnath, A. ve Sultana, S. (2024). The Rise of Remote Work and Its Impact on Small Businesses. American Journal of Industrial and Business Management, 14(6), 869-890.
39. Felstead, A. ve Henseke, G. (2017). Assessing the growth of remote working and its consequences for effort, well-being and work-life balance. New Technology, Work and Employment, 32(3), 195–212. https://doi.org/10.1111/ntwe.12097
40. Gajendran, R. S. ve Harrison, D. A. (2007). The good, the bad, and the unknown about telecommuting: meta-analysis of psychological mediators and individual consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6), 1524.
41. Galanti, T., Guidetti, G., Mazzei, E., Zappalà, S. ve Toscano, F. (2021). Work from Home during the COVID-19 Outbreak: The Impact on employees’ Remote Work Productivity, Engagement, and Stress. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 63(7), e426-E432. https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0000000000002236
42. George, D. ve Mallery, P. (2019). IBM SPSS statistics 26 step by step: A simple guide and reference. Routledge.
43. Grant, A. M. (2008). Does intrinsic motivation fuel the prosocial fire? Motivational synergy in predicting persistence, performance, and productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 48–58. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.48
44. Grant, A. M. (2008). The significance of task significance: Job performance effects, relational mechanisms, and boundary conditions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 108–124. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.108
45. Grant, A. M. ve Sumanth, J. J. (2009). Mission possible? The performance of prosocially motivated employees depends on manager trustworthiness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(4), 927.
46. Grant, A. (2019). The American political process. Routledge
47. Grant, A. M. ve Shandell, M. S. (2022). Social Motivation at Work: The Organizational Psychology of Effort for, Against, and with Others. Annual Review of Psychology, 73, 301–326. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-060321-033406
48. Grote, G. ve Guest, D. (2017). The case for reinvigorating quality of working liferesearch. Human Relations, 70(2), 149–167. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726716654746
49. Gond, J. P., El Akremi, A., Swaen, V. ve Babu, N. (2017). The psychological microfoundations of corporate social responsibility: A person‐centric systematic review. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(2), 225-246 https:// doi.org/10.1002/job.2170
50. Guest, D. E. (2017). Human resource management and employee well-being: Towards a new analytic framework. Human Resource Management Journal, 27(1), 22–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12139
51. Haller, A. C., Lubenko, J., Presti, G., Squatrito, V., Constantinou, M., Nicolaou, C., Papacostas, S., Aydın, G., Chong, Y. Y., Chien, C. W., Cheng, C., Ruiz, F. J., García-Martín, M. B., Obando-Posada, D. P., Segura-Vargas, M. A., Vasiliou, V. S., McHugh, L., Höfer, S., Baban, A., ... Gloster, A. T. (2022). To help or not to help? Prosocial behavior, its association with well-being, and predictors of prosocial behavior during the coronavirus disease pandemic. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 775032. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.775032
52. Hansen, S., Lambert, P. J., Bloom, N., Davis, S. J., Sadun, R. ve Taska, B. (2023). Remote work across jobs, companies, and space (No. w31007). National Bureau of Economic Research.
53. Hayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford publications.
54. Helliwell, J. F., Layard, R., Sachs, J. D., De Neve, J.-E., Aknin, L. B. ve Wang, S. (Eds.). (2022). World happiness report 2022. Sustainable Development Solutions Network. https://worldhappiness.report/ed/2022/
55. Herrera, J., De las Heras-Rosas, C., Rodríguez-Fernández, M. ve Ciruela-Lorenzo, A. M. (2022). Teleworking: The link between worker, family and company. Systems, 10(5), 134. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems10050134
56. Hirani, S., Ojukwu, E. ve Bandara, N. A. (2022). Prosocial behavior and youth mental health outcomes: A scoping review protocol. Plos one, 17(6), e0270089.
57. Hui, B. P. H. (2022). Prosocial behavior and well-being: Shifting from the “chicken and egg” to positive feedback loop. Current Opinion in Psychology, 44, 231–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.09.017.
58. Huppert, F. A. (2009). Psychological well-being: Evidence regarding its causes and consequences. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being, 1(2), 137–164. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1758-0854.2009.01008.
59. Hur, W. M., Moon, T. W. ve Lee, H. (2018). Employee engagement, CSR, and organizational performance: A moderated mediation model. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 75, 27–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.03.005
60. Huws, U. (1990). Monitoring the flexible workforce. Statistics User Council.
61. Inagaki, T. K., MacCormack, J. K. ve Muscatell, K. A. (2022). Prosocial and Positive Health Behaviors During a Period of Chronic Stress Protect Socioemotional Well-Being. Affect Science, 3(1), 160–167
62. Kakulte, A. ve Shaikh, S. (2023). Prosocial behavior, psychological well-being, positive and negative affect among young adults: A cross-sectional study. Industrial Psychiatry Journal, 32(Suppl 1), S127-S130.
63. Kalaycı, N. (2008). Yükseköğretimde öğretimi değerlendirme anketlerinde öğrenci algılarındaki farklılıkların puanlamaya etkileri. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 54(54), 235-275.
64. Kalogiannidis, S. (2020). Covid Impact on Small Business. International Journal of Social Science and Economics Invention, 6, 387-391. https://doi.org/10.23958/ijssei/vol06-i12/257
65. Karaçınar, A. ve Filizöz, B. (2023). Uzaktan çalışma modelinin (hibrit model) çalışan performansı üzerine etkisi. Uluslararası Yönetim Akademisi Dergisi, 6(4), 1073-1089.
66. Keldal, G. (2015). Warwick-Edinburgh Mental İyi Oluş Ölçeği’nin Türkçe formu: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. The Journal of Happiness & Well-Being, 3(1), 103–115.
67. Kesen, M. ve Akyüz, B. (2016). Duygusal emek ve prososyal motivasyonun işe gömülmüşlüğe etkisi: Sağlık çalışanları üzerine bir uygulama. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 25(2), 233–250.
68. Kılınç, A. Ç., Yılmaz, B., Demir, C. ve Şahin, D. (2020). Ölçek geliştirme ve güvenirlik çalışmaları: Eğitim bilimleri örneği. Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 15(2), 9–25. https://doi.org/10.1234/ebd.2020.01502
69. Kotera, Y. ve Vione, K. C. (2020). Psychological impacts of the new ways of working (NWW): A systematic review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(14), 5080. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17145080
70. Kuloğlu, E. ve Eğinli, A. T. (2024). Uzaktan Çalışma Sisteminin Çalışan Motivasyonu Üzerine Etkileri. Sosyolojik Düşün, 9(2), 189-224.
71. Kylili, A., Afxentiou, N., Georgiou, L., Panteli, C., Morsink-Georgalli, P. Z., Panayidou, A., ... ve Fokaides, P. A. (2025). The role of Remote Working in smart cities: lessons learnt from COVID-19 pandemic. Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects, 47(1), 1510-1525.
72. Lachapelle, U., Tanguay, G. A. ve Neumark-Gaudet, L. (2018). Telecommuting and sustainable travel: Reduction of overall travel time, increases in non-motorised travel and congestion relief?. Urban Studies, 55(10), 2226-2244.
73. Lan, J. ve Feng, T. (2025). Role of remote working center in a hybrid work culture. Cities, 159, 105754.
74. Lengel, R. H. ve Daf, R. L. (1984). An exploratory analysis of the relationship between media richness and managerial information processing (Technical Report, Texas A&M University Department of Management).
75. Lescarret, C., Lemercier, C. ve Le Floch, V. (2022). Coworking spaces vs. home: Does employees' experience of the negative aspects of working from home predict their intention to telework in a coworking space? Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1079691.
76. Li, L., Khan, A. ve Rameli, M. R. M. (2023). Assessing the relationship between prosocial behavior and well-being: basic psychological need as the mediator. European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education, 13(10), 2179-2191.
77. Liao, H., Su, R., Ptashnik, T. ve Nielsen, J. (2022). Feeling good, doing good, and getting ahead: A meta-analytic investigation of the outcomes of prosocial motivation at work. Psychological Bulletin, 148(3–4), 158–198. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000362
78. López-Cabarcos, M. A.; López-Carballeira, A. ve Ferro-Soto, C. (2025). The effects of new ways of working (NWW) on employees’ well-being and happiness. A theoretical overview. ESIC Market. Economics and Business Journal, 56(1), e341. DOI: 10.7200/esicm.56.341
79. Lund, S., Madgavkar, A., Manyika, J. ve Smit, S. (2020). What’s next for remote work: An analysis of 2,000 tasks, 800 jobs, and nine countries (pp. 1–13). McKinsey Global Institute.
80. Man, X. ve Jing, Z. (2025). The role of prosocial tendencies in the relationships between gratitude, perceived social support, and psychological well-being among Chinese university students: a structural equation modeling approach. Frontiers in Psychology, 16, 1510543.
81. Matlock, F. ve Langlais, M. (2025). Perceived loneliness during COVID-19 and young adult mental well-being: testing socioeconomic status as a moderator. Academia Mental Health and Well-Being, 2(1).
82. McPhail, R., Chan, X. W., May, R. ve Wilkinson, A. (2024). Post-COVID remote working and its impact on people, productivity, and the planet: an exploratory scoping review. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 35(1), 154-182.
83. Mokhtarian, P. L., Collantes, G. O. ve Gertz, C. (2004). Telecommuting, residential location, and commute-distance traveled: evidence from State of California employees. Environment and Planning A, 36(10), 1877-1897.
84. Monks, K., Freeney, Y. ve Conway, E. (2023). Assessing the impact of new ways of working on individual and organisational well-being. In T. Lynn, P. Rosati, E. Conway, L. ve van der Werff (Eds.), The future of work: Challenges and prospects for organisations, jobs and workers (pp. 21-34). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-31494-0_2
85. Nakrošienė, A., Bučiūnienė, I. ve Goštautaitė, B. (2019). Working from home:Characteristics and outcomes of telework. International Journal of Manpower, 40(1),87–101. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJM-07-2017-0172
86. Nesher Shoshan, H. ve Wehrt, W. (2022). Understanding “Zoom fatigue”: A mixed-methodapproach. Applied Psychology, 71(3), 827–852. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12360
87. Niles, J. S. (1994). Beyond telecommuting: A new paradigm for the effect of telecommunications on travel (No. DOE/ER-0626). U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy Research.
88. Oakman, J., Kinsman, N., Stuckey, R., Graham, M. ve Weale, V. (2020). A rapid reviewof mental and physical health effects of working at home: How do we optimise health? BMC Public Health, 20(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-09875-z
89. Paek, S. H., Katz-Buonincontro, J., Park, H. J., Osuagwu, O. ve Hurwich, T. (2025). How might creative problem-solving be related to prosocial motivation? An exploratory pilot study. Learning and Individual Differences, 118, 102606.
90. Pendyala, R. M., Goulias, K. G. ve Kitamura, R. (1991). Impact of telecommuting on spatial & temporal patterns of household travel. Transportation, 18, 383-409.
91. Selander, K. ve Alasoini, T., (2025). Organizational Support and Work Engagement: Onsite, Hybrid, and Remote Work during COVID-19. Nordic Journal of Working Life Studies.
92. Penner, L. A., J. F. Dovidio, J. A. Piliavin ve D. A. Schroeder. (2005). “Prosocial Behavior: Multilevel Perspectives”. Annual Review of Psychology 56: 365–392. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103. 070141.
93. Pérez, M. P., Sánchez, A. M. ve de Luis Carnicer, M. P. (2002). Benefits and barriers of telework: perception differences of human resources managers according to company's operations strategy. Technovation, 22(12), 775-783.
94. Petruța, R. T. R. ve Stănculescu, E. (2025). The benefits of a school intervention for prosocial behaviour and psychological well-being in early adolescents. Current Psychology, 1-11.
95. Pianese, T., Errichiello, L. ve da Cunha, J. V. (2023). Organizational control in the context of remote working: A synthesis of empirical findings and a research agenda. European Management Review, 20(2), 326-345.
96. Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D. ve Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42(1), 185–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273170701341316
97. Redmond, P. ve Brosnan, L. (2024). Educational mismatch in Europe: Incidence, determinants and the impact of increased remote working [TRAILS Project report]. Cedefop. https://www.cedefop.europa.eu/files/predmond_2.pdf
98. Rofcanin, Y., de Jong, J. P., Las Heras, M. ve Kim, S. (2018). The moderating role of prosocial motivation on the association between family supportive supervisor behaviours and employee outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 107, 153–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2018.04.001
99. Rosli, S. N. ve Perveen, A. (2021). The Relationship between Prosocial Behavior and Psychological Well-Being among Undergraduate Students. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 11(6), 276
100. Ruggieri, S., Gagliano, M., Servidio, R., Pace, U. ve Passanisi, A. (2023). The Effects of Leader Self Sacrifice in Virtual Teams on Prosocial Behavior: The Mediational Role of Team Identification and Self Efficacy. Sustainability, 15(7), 6098. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15076098
101. Sanchez, J., Tsay, C. J. ve López-Pérez, B. (2025). The influence of goal orientation on gratitude at work considering prosocial motivation. Motivation and Emotion, 1-10.
102. Shabanpour, R., Golshani, N., Tayarani, M., Auld, J. ve Mohammadian, A., (2018). Analysis of telecommuting behavior and impacts on travel demand and the environment. Transp. Res. Part D: Transp. Environ. 62, 563–576. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2018.04.003
103. Shin, I., Hur, W. M. ve Kang, S. (2016). Employees’ perceptions of corporate social responsibility and job performance: A sequential mediation model. Sustainability, 8(5), 493.https://doi.org/10.3390/su8050493
104. Shockley, K. M., Clark, M. A., Dodd, H. ve King, E. B. (2021b). Work-family strategies during COVID-19: Examining gender dynamics among dual-earner couples with young children. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 106(1), 15–28. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000857
105. Smite, D., Moe, N. B., Hildrum, J., Gonzalez-Huerta, J. ve Mendez, D. (2023). Work-from-home is here to stay: Call for flexibility in post-pandemic work policies. Journal of Systems and Software, 195, 111552.
106. Smite, D., Klotins, E. ve Moe, N. B. (2024). What Attracts Employees to Work Onsite in Times of Increased Remote Working?. IEEE Software.
107. Straus, E., Uhlig, L., Kühnel, J. ve Korunka, C. (2023). Remote workers’ well-being, perceived productivity, and engagement: which resources should HRM improve during COVID-19? A longitudinal diary study. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 34(15), 2960-2990.
108. Sull, D., Sull, C. ve Bersin, J. (2020). Five Ways Leaders Can Support Remote Work. MIT Sloan Management Review, 61, 1-10.
109. Sullivan, C. (2003). What’s in a name? Definitions and conceptualisations of teleworkingand homeworking. New Technology, Work and Employment, 18(3), 158–165. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-005X.00118
110. Ten Brummelhuis, L. L., Bakker, A. B., Hetland, J. ve Keulemans, L. (2012). Do new ways of working foster work engagement? Psicothema, 24(1), 113-120.
111. Tennant, R., Hiller, L., Fishwick, R., Platt, S., Joseph, S., Weich, S., ... ve Stewart-Brown, S. (2007). The Warwick-Edinburgh mental well-being scale (WEMWBS): development and UK validation. Health and Quality of life Outcomes, 5, 1-13.
112. Terzis, V. ve Economides, A. A. (2011). The acceptance and use of computer based assessment. Computers & Education, 56(4), 1032-1044.
113. Titova, L., and K. M. Sheldon. (2022a). “Happiness Comes From Trying to Make Others Feel Good, Rather Than Oneself”. Journal of Positive Psychology 17, no. 3: 341–355. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2021. 1897867.
114. Tramontano, C., Grant, C. ve Clarke, C. (2021). Development and validation of the e-work self-efficacy scale to assess digital competencies in remote working. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 4, 100129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2021.100129
115. Troilo, F. (2023). The future of human resources role: a study with business and human resources leaders in positions of regional scope in South Latin America. ESIC Market, 54(1), e295-e295.https://doi.org/10.7200/esicm.54.
116. Ton, D., Arendsen, K., De Bruyn, M., Severens, V., Van Hagen, M., Van Oort, N. ve Duives, D. (2022). Teleworking during COVID-19 in the Netherlands: Understanding behaviour, attitudes, and future intentions of train travellers. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 159, 55-73.
117. Van Steenbergen, E. F., Van der Ven, C., Peeters, M. C. ve Taris, T. W. (2018). Transitioning towards new ways of working: Do job demands, job resources, burnout, and engagement change? Psychological Reports, 121(4), 736-766. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294117740134
118. Vega, R. P., Anderson, A. J. ve Kaplan, S. A. (2015). A within-person examination of the effects of telework. Journal of Business and Psychology, 30(2), 313–323. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-014-9359-4
119. Vione, K. C. ve Kotera, Y. (2023). Mindfulness-based approaches for COVID-19 mental health in working from home. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 21(2), 1132-1138.
120. Yang, L., Holtz, D., Jaffe, S., Suri, S., Sinha, S., Weston, J., ... ve Teevan, J. (2022). The effects of remote work on collaboration among information workers. Nature human behaviour, 6(1), 43-54.
121. Zhang, S., Moeckel, R., Moreno, A. T., Shuai, B. ve Gao, J. (2020). A work-life conflict perspective on telework. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 141, 51-68.
122. Zhao, X., Lynch, J. G., Jr. ve Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 197–206. https://doi.org/10.1086/651257
123. Zhou, W. ve McLellan, R. (2024). The effectiveness of taught, self-help mindfulness-based interventions on Chinese adolescents' well-being, mental health, prosocial and difficult behavior, and coping strategy. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being, 16(3), 1024–1045. https://doi.org/10.1111/aphw.12517