The Impact of Telecommuting on the Objectification of the Workplace

Wu Xuyao; Guo Xiaolin; Li Ye

doi:10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20260115

PDF(1251 KB)

Journal of Psychological Science ›› 2026, Vol. 49 ›› Issue (1) : 156-167. DOI: 10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20260115

Social，Personality & Organizational Psychology

The Impact of Telecommuting on the Objectification of the Workplace

Wu Xuyao^1,2,3, Guo Xiaolin^1,2,3, Li Ye^1,2,3

Author information +

History +

Abstract

With the rapid advancement of digital technology, the benefits of telecommuting are becoming increasingly apparent. Telecommuting can reduce organizational operating costs and increase employee flexibility. As a result, both employees and organizations are increasingly adopting the teleworking model. However, advancing technology is often a mixed blessing, and telecommuting is no exception. Telecommuting can blur the boundaries between home and work and potentially undermine interpersonal interactions between employees. A key feature of telecommuting is separation, which generates social isolation and occupational segregation. Unfortunately, the isolation incurred by telecommuting may reduce employees' perception of the “humanity” of their colleagues. In other words, telecommuting may lead to the objectification of the workplace. This study built a framework based on construal-level theory to explore the effects of telecommuting on workplace objectification and its underlying psychological mechanisms. Furthermore, drawing on the social presence theory, this study attempted to explore a way to mitigate the negative effects of telecommuting on workplace objectification.
This research consisted of three studies. Study 1 (n = 135) examined the causal relationship between telecommuting and workplace objectification through an online experiment, and initially identified the mediating role of psychological distance. Specifically, in Study 1, participants in the telecommuting group (vs. the traditional face-to-face office group) read a passage about the work routine of a telecommuter (vs. traditional face-to-face office worker) and then completed the Psychological Distance Scale and the Workplace Objectification Scale. To minimize social desirability bias, participants were instructed to respond to these questionnaires as the telecommuter (vs. traditional face-to-face office worker) would respond in the material. Study 2 (n = 128) used a mediator-blocking manipulation to identify the causal relationship between psychological distance and workplace objectification in an online experiment, again identifying the mediating role of psychological distance. Specifically, after being primed with high (vs. low) psychological distance in a telework context, participants completed the Workplace Objectification Scale. By comparing different communication styles (telework via text vs. telework via both text, voice, and video vs. face-to-face non-telework), Study 3 (n = 139) sought to explore whether enriching communication in telework could be a way to mitigate the effects of telework on workplace objectification.
The main findings of this study are as follows. First, compared to traditional face-to-face office modes, telework models exacerbate workplace objectification. Second, psychological distance plays a mediating role between telecommuting and workplace objectification. Specifically, telecommuting increases psychological distance compared to traditional face-to-face office modes, thereby exacerbating workplace objectification. Finally, the effects of telecommuting on workplace objectification can be mitigated by enriching telecommuting. Teleworkers who use a combination of text, video, and voice communication or traditional office workers, are less likely to objectify others than teleworkers who use text communication only. Moreover, teleworkers who use a combination of text, video, and voice communication are also less likely to objectify others than traditional office workers. This is because multiple forms of communication reduce the psychological distance between telecommuters and others, thereby reducing the objectification of others in the workplace.
This study highlights the negative effects of telecommuting and emphasizes that organizations and employees should consider the pros and cons of telecommuting dialectically. While telecommuting offers employees greater work flexibility, it can also increase the psychological distance between employees, leading to workplace objectification. Fortunately, the effect of telecommuting on workplace objectification can be mitigated by enriching the ways telecommuters communicate with their colleagues. This suggests that organizations could try to encourage telecommuters to use a variety of communication methods to interact with others and reduce these negative effects. In addition, encouraging more informal communication between employees may help to bridge the psychological distance and further reduce workplace objectification.

Key words

telecommuting / work objectification / mental distance / construal level theory / communication channel

Cite this article

EndNote

Ris (Procite)

Bibtex

Download Citations

Wu Xuyao, Guo Xiaolin, Li Ye. The Impact of Telecommuting on the Objectification of the Workplace[J]. Journal of Psychological Science. 2026, 49(1): 156-167 https://doi.org/10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20260115

References

[1] 方俊燕, 温忠麟. (2023). 追踪研究中的内生性问题: 来源与应对. 心理科学进展, 31(4), 507-518.
[2] 葛平, 王明辉, 倪亚琨. (2023). 爱之深, 责之切: 社会距离对决策影响的情感差异. 河南大学学报(社会科学版), 63(3), 114-119.
[3] 霍伟伟, 龚靖雅, 李鲜苗, 聂晶. (2020). 主动及被动模式下在线远程办公影响效果研究述评与展望. 中国人力资源开发, 37(8), 6-21.
[4] 李文莲, 王友凤. (2021). 影响远程办公上下级信任的中国情境——基于传统文化视角. 山东工商学院学报, 35(6), 58-65.
[5] 吴三美, 何先友. (2009, 11). 情绪性质对心理距离的影响. 第十二届全国心理学学术大会, 济南.
[6] 吴三美, 王敬欣, 何先友, 田良苏, 赵雪汝, 陈广耀. (2019). 心理距离概念水平上的趋利避害相容效应. 心理与行为研究, 17(4), 488-495.
[7] 许丽颖, 王学辉, 喻丰, 彭凯平. (2024). 感知机器人威胁对职场物化的影响. 心理学报, 56(2), 210-225.
[8] 张小平. (1999). 远程工作的组织与管理. 外国经济与管理, 21(1), 23-26.
[9] Allen T. D., Golden T. D., & Shockley K. M. (2015). How effective is telecommuting? Assessing the status of our scientific findings. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 16(2), 40-68.
[10] Andrighetto L., Baldissarri C., & Volpato C. (2017). (Still) modern times: Objectification at work. European Journal of Social Psychology, 47(1), 25-35.
[11] Aron A., Aron E. N., & Smollan D. (1992). Inclusion of other in the self scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(4), 596-612.
[12] Baldissarri C., Andrighetto L., & Volpato C. (2022). The longstanding view of workers as objects: Antecedents and consequences of working objectification. European Review of Social Psychology, 33(1), 81-130.
[13] Belmi, P., & Schroeder, J. (2021). Human “resources”? Objectification at work. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 120(2), 384-417.
[14] Bozkaya, M. (2008). The relationship between teacher immediacy behaviours and distant learners' social presence perceptions in videoconferencing applications. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 9(1), 180-192.
[15] Burgoon J. K., Bonito J. A., Ramirez Jr A., Dunbar N. E., Kam K., & Fischer J. (2002). Testing the interactivity principle: Effects of mediation, propinquity, and verbal and nonverbal modalities in interpersonal interaction. Journal of Communication, 52(3), 657-677.
[16] Chevron, J., & Primeau, M. (1996). The telecommuting innovation opportunity. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 13(4), 40-48.
[17] Cooper, C. D., & Kurland, N. B. (2002). Telecommuting, professional isolation, and employee development in public and private organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(4), 511-532.
[18] Coupland, J. (2000). Small talk. Routledge.
[19] Davis J. I., Gross J. J., & Ochsner K. N. (2011). Psychological distance and emotional experience: What you see is what you get. Emotion, 11(2), 438-444.
[20] Day A., Scott N., & Kelloway, Е. К. (2010). Information and communication technology: Implications for job stress and employee well-being. In P. L. Perrewé & D. C. Ganster (Eds.), New developments in theoretical and conceptual approaches to job stress (pp. 317-350). Emerald Group Publishing.
[21] Dhar, R., & Kim, E. Y. (2007). Seeing the forest or the trees: Implications of construal level theory for consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17(2), 96-100.
[22] Gainey T. W., Kelley D. E., & Hill J. A. (1999). Telecommuting' s impact on corporate culture and individual workers: Examining the effect of employee isolation. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 64(4), 4-10.
[23] Gajendran, R. S., & 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), 1524-1541.
[24] Golden, T. D., & Eddleston, K. A. (2020). Is there a price telecommuters pay? Examining the relationship between telecommuting and objective career success. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 116, Article 103348.
[25] Goldstein, N. J., & Cialdini, R. B. (2007). The spyglass self: A model of vicarious self-perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(3), 402-417.
[26] Henkel A. P., Boegershausen J., Hoegg J., Aquino K., & Lemmink J. (2018). Discounting humanity: When consumers are price conscious, employees appear less human. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 28(2), 272-292.
[27] Homans, G. C. (1967). The nature of social science. Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc.
[28] Jiang X. Y., Zhang N., Sun X. M., Liu Z. Z., & Wang Y. L. (2024). Being pressed for time leads to treating others as things: Exploring the relationships among time scarcity, agentic and communal orientation and objectification. British Journal of Social Psychology, 63(3), 1318-1338.
[29] Kenyon S., Lyons G., & Rafferty J. (2002). Transport and social exclusion: Investigating the possibility of promoting inclusion through virtual mobility. Journal of Transport Geography, 10(3), 207-219.
[30] Kross E., Ayduk O., & Mischel W. (2005). When asking "why" does not hurt distinguishing rumination from reflective processing of negative emotions. Psychological Science, 16(9), 709-715.
[31] Kuruzovich J., Paczkowski W. P., Golden T. D., Goodarzi S., & Venkatesh V. (2021). Telecommuting and job outcomes: A moderated mediation model of system use, software quality, and social exchange. Information and Management, 58(3), Article 103431.
[32] Lee M. K., Fruchter N., & Dabbish L. (2015). Making decisions from a distance: The impact of technological mediation on riskiness and dehumanization. Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing, Vancouver.
[33] Lim S., Cha S. Y., Park C., Lee I., & Kim J. (2012). Getting closer and experiencing together: Antecedents and consequences of psychological distance in social media-enhanced real-time streaming video. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(4), 1365-1378.
[34] Liviatan I., Trope Y., & Liberman N. (2008). Interpersonal similarity as a social distance dimension: Implications for perception of others' actions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(5), 1256-1269.
[35] Martin, B. H., & MacDonnell, R. (2012). Is telework effective for organizations? A meta-analysis of empirical research on perceptions of telework and organizational outcomes. Management Research Review, 35(7), 602-616.
[36] McCloskey, D. W., & Igbaria, M. (2003). Does "out of sight" mean "out of mind"? An empirical investigation of the career advancement prospects of telecommuters. Information Resources Management Journal, 16(2), 19-34.
[37] McCloskey D. W., Igbaria M., & Parasuraman S. (1998). The work experiences of professional men and women who telecommute: Convergence or divergence? Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, 10(4), 15-22.
[38] Nederhof, A. J. (1985). Methods of coping with social desirability bias: A review. European Journal of Social Psychology, 15(3), 263-280.
[39] Nisbett, R. E., & Ross, L. (1980). Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Prentice-Hall.
[40] Nook E. C., Schleider J. L., & Somerville L. H. (2017). A linguistic signature of psychological distancing in emotion regulation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 146(3), 337-346.
[41] Nosek B. A., Hardwicke T. E., Moshontz H., Allard A., Corker K. S., Dreber A., & Vazire S. (2022). Replicability, robustness, and reproducibility in psychological science. Annual Review of Psychology, 73, 719-748.
[42] O'Leary, M. B., & Cummings, J. N. (2007). The spatial, temporal, and configurational characteristics of geographic dispersion in teams. MIS Quarterly, 31(3), 433-452.
[43] Pirlott, A. G., & Mackinnon, D. P. (2016). Design approaches to experimental mediation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 66, 29-38.
[44] Raghuram, S., & Wiesenfeld, B. (2004). Work-nonwork conflict and job stress among virtual workers. Human Resource Management, 43(2-3), 259-277.
[45] Schaerer M., Du Plessis C., Yap A. J., & Thau S. (2018). Low power individuals in social power research: A quantitative review, theoretical framework, and empirical test. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 149, 73-96.
[46] Sheer, V. C. (2011). Teenagers' use of MSN features, discussion topics, and online friendship development: The impact of media richness and communication control. Communication Quarterly, 59(1), 82-103.
[47] Shin, H. I., & Kim, J. (2020). My computer is more thoughtful than you: Loneliness, anthropomorphism and dehumanization. Current Psychology, 39(2), 445-453.
[48] Thatcher, S. M., & Zhu, X. M. (2006). Changing identities in a changing workplace: Identification, identity enactment, self-verification, and telecommuting. Academy of Management Review, 31(4), 1076-1088.
[49] Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117(2), 440-463.
[50] Walther, J. B., & Burgoon, J. K. (1992). Relational communication in computer-mediated interaction. Human Communication Research, 19(1), 50-88.
[51] Yang L. Q., Holtz D., Jaffe S., Suri S., Sinha S., Weston J., Joyce C., Shah N., Sherman K., & Teevan J. (2022). The effects of remote work on collaboration among information workers. Nature Human Behaviour, 6(1), 43-54.