IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/qualqt/v56y2022i6d10.1007_s11135-021-01290-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Work Day Reconstruction Method: an adaptation of the Day Reconstruction Method to the work setting

Author

Listed:
  • Renaud Gaucher

    (Erasmus University Rotterdam)

Abstract

The Day Reconstruction Method (DRM) is a time-diary, in which respondents record how they spent their time during the previous day and how they felt during these activities. We propose an adaptation of this interrogation technique to the work setting and call this adaptation the Work Day Reconstruction Method (W-DRM). The W-DRM is designed to focus on work activities, and to be adapted to the specific work activities of any worker. As time means money for firms, the W-DRM is designed to take less time to respond to, and can be used by firms and consulting firms to improve the workday of their workers. The W-DRM includes a U-Index at work, U stands for “unpleasant” or “undesirable”, a U-Index at work is used to measure the proportion of time a worker spends in an unpleasant state during a workday. A French insurance company sales representatives case study is used to demonstrate what information this method can yield. For example, we see that positive affects tend to decrease during the work day, while negative affects tend to increase, and the best work activity is… the meal break. Researchers can develop new forms of W-DRM and study new jobs. Researchers can also hybridize a W-DRM with a DRM, and they can adapt the DRM to new contexts, for example it would be possible to develop a School Day Reconstruction Method (S-DRM).

Suggested Citation

  • Renaud Gaucher, 2022. "The Work Day Reconstruction Method: an adaptation of the Day Reconstruction Method to the work setting," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 56(6), pages 4487-4509, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:qualqt:v:56:y:2022:i:6:d:10.1007_s11135-021-01290-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s11135-021-01290-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11135-021-01290-9
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11135-021-01290-9?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Véronique Dagenais-Desmarais & André Savoie, 2012. "What is Psychological Well-Being, Really? A Grassroots Approach from the Organizational Sciences," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 13(4), pages 659-684, August.
    2. Daniel Kahneman & Peter P. Wakker & Rakesh Sarin, 1997. "Back to Bentham? Explorations of Experienced Utility," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 112(2), pages 375-406.
    3. Ed Diener & Louis Tay, 2014. "Review of the Day Reconstruction Method (DRM)," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 116(1), pages 255-267, March.
    4. Ivana Anusic & Richard E. Lucas & M. Brent Donnellan, 2017. "The Validity of the Day Reconstruction Method in the German Socio-economic Panel Study," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 130(1), pages 213-232, January.
    5. Alan B. Krueger & Daniel Kahneman & David Schkade & Norbert Schwarz & Arthur A. Stone, 2009. "National Time Accounting: The Currency of Life," NBER Chapters, in: Measuring the Subjective Well-Being of Nations: National Accounts of Time Use and Well-Being, pages 9-86, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Samantha Dockray & Nina Grant & Arthur Stone & Daniel Kahneman & Jane Wardle & Andrew Steptoe, 2010. "A Comparison of Affect Ratings Obtained with Ecological Momentary Assessment and the Day Reconstruction Method," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 99(2), pages 269-283, November.
    7. Daniel Kahneman & Alan B. Krueger, 2006. "Developments in the Measurement of Subjective Well-Being," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 20(1), pages 3-24, Winter.
    8. David Richter & Jürgen Schupp, 2015. "The SOEP Innovation Sample (SOEP IS)," Schmollers Jahrbuch : Journal of Applied Social Science Studies / Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften, Duncker & Humblot, Berlin, vol. 135(3), pages 389-400.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Tobias Wolf & Maria Metzing & Richard E. Lucas, 2022. "Experienced Well-Being and Labor Market Status: The Role of Pleasure and Meaning," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 163(2), pages 691-721, September.
    2. Andrew L. Kun & Raffaella Sadun & Orit Shaer & Thomaz Teodorovicz, 2022. "How does working from home during Covid-19 affect what managers do? Evidence from time-use studies," CEP Discussion Papers dp1844, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    3. John F. Helliwell & Christopher P. Barrington-Leigh, 2010. "Measuring and Understanding Subjective Well-Being," NBER Working Papers 15887, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Maya Abou-Zeid & Moshe Ben-Akiva, 2012. "Well-being and activity-based models," Transportation, Springer, vol. 39(6), pages 1189-1207, November.
    5. Dave Möwisch & Florian Schmiedek & David Richter & Annette Brose, 2019. "Capturing Affective Well-Being in Daily Life with the Day Reconstruction Method: A Refined View on Positive and Negative Affect," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 20(2), pages 641-663, February.
    6. Andreas Knabe & Steffen Rätzel & Ronnie Schöb & Joachim Weimann, 2010. "Dissatisfied with Life but Having a Good Day: Time-use and Well-being of the Unemployed," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 120(547), pages 867-889, September.
    7. Michael Daly & Liam Delaney & Orla Doyle & Nick Fitzpatrick & Christine O'Farrelly, 2014. "Can Early Intervention Policies Improve Well-being? Evidence from a randomized controlled trial," Working Papers 201415, School of Economics, University College Dublin.
    8. Daly, Michael & Delaney, Liam & Doyle, Orla & Fitzpatrick, Nick & O'Farrelly, Christine, 2014. "Can Early Intervention Policies Improve Well-being? Evidence from a randomized controlled trial," 2007 Annual Meeting, July 29-August 1, 2007, Portland, Oregon TN 2015-03, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    9. Dave Möwisch & Annette Brose & Florian Schmiedek, 2021. "Do Higher Educated People Feel Better in Everyday Life? Insights From a Day Reconstruction Method Study," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 153(1), pages 227-250, January.
    10. Jiyao Sun & Nan Zhang & Bram Vanhoutte & Jian Wang & Tarani Chandola, 2021. "Subjective Wellbeing in Rural China: How Social Environments Influence the Diurnal Rhythms of Affect," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(8), pages 1-28, April.
    11. Christopher Christodoulou & Stefan Schneider & Arthur Stone, 2014. "Validation of a Brief Yesterday Measure of Hedonic Well-Being and Daily Activities: Comparison with the Day Reconstruction Method," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 115(3), pages 907-917, February.
    12. Senik, Claudia, 2009. "Direct evidence on income comparisons and their welfare effects," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 72(1), pages 408-424, October.
    13. Yamada, Katsunori & Sato, Masayuki, 2013. "Another avenue for anatomy of income comparisons: Evidence from hypothetical choice experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 35-57.
    14. Guven, Cahit & Senik, Claudia & Stichnoth, Holger, 2012. "You can’t be happier than your wife. Happiness gaps and divorce," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 82(1), pages 110-130.
    15. van Hoorn, André, 2018. "Is the happiness approach to measuring preferences valid?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 53-65.
    16. Thi Truong An Hoang & Andreas Knabe, 2021. "Time Use, Unemployment, and Well-Being: An Empirical Analysis Using British Time-Use Data," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 22(6), pages 2525-2548, August.
    17. Dong, Han & Zhang, Jun & Cirillo, Cinzia, 2019. "Exploring, understanding, and modeling the reciprocal relation between leisure and subjective well-being," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 813-824.
    18. Song, Younghwan & Gao, Jia, 2018. "Does Telework Stress Employees Out? A Study on Working at Home and Subjective Well-Being for Wage/Salary Workers," IZA Discussion Papers 11993, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    19. Naomi Friedman-Sokuler & Claudia Senik, 2022. "Time-Use and Subjective Well-Being: Is there a Preference for Activity Diversity?," PSE Working Papers halshs-03828272, HAL.
    20. Hajdu, Tamás & Hajdu, Gábor, 2011. "A hasznosság és a relatív jövedelem kapcsolatának vizsgálata magyar adatok segítségével [Examining the relation of utility and relative income using Hungarian data]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(1), pages 56-73.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:qualqt:v:56:y:2022:i:6:d:10.1007_s11135-021-01290-9. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.