2.1. Uncertainty
Uncertainty is a future-oriented cognition that is a state of mind rather than a feature of the objective world [
4] (p. 830). We adopt Anderson, Carleton, Deifenach, and Han’s [
5] (p. 2) definition of uncertainty as “the conscious awareness, or subjective
experience of ignorance”, which highlights how the state differs from ignorance because it entails some level of awareness if it is to “influence [people’s] thoughts, feelings or actions”. Mishel [
6] conceptualises the subjective experience of uncertainty as involving a sense of unpredictability and lack of clarity surrounding future events. For example, in the medical area, uncertainty arises from firstly the indeterminacy of the disease and secondly from the lack of clarity about the treatment(s). In an employment context, people might similarly experience uncertainty around unpredictable future events, such as not knowing whether their workload will change or how secure jobs will be in the future, alongside a lack of clarity about these and others matters in the communications and policies they receive from management. We concentrate on the uncertainty surrounding factors that may affect people’s ability to achieve work-related goals and balance work and home life, both of which are primary drivers of well-being [
7,
8,
9,
10].
We characterise the uncertainty surrounding homeworking during the pandemic in terms of five elements which are salient and relevant to employees. The first is the uncertainty concerning the virus itself and the lack of certainty about how it would progress, how safe public places might be, and what the future actions of the government in relation to the virus might be. This element of uncertainty pertains to the wider context in which work is embedded, in contrast to the other four aspects of uncertainty that we include which are more work-related. The second aspect of uncertainty that we consider concerns the nature and stability of people’s jobs in terms of what their work will entail and the tasks that ought to be prioritised (i.e., job uncertainty). The third element concerns uncertainty around workload, the level of demands people will face, the amount of time that will be required to complete tasks, and whether the demands they will face will feel excessive (i.e., workload uncertainty). The fourth aspect of uncertainty relates to logistics around people’s work lives, in particular regarding the use of homeworking to mitigate the pandemic and concerns about the extent to which work will be at home or on-site (logistics uncertainty). Finally, we include uncertainties about the level of support the employer will provide, for example the provision of information and communication and support for mental health (employer support uncertainty). We developed an instrument to measure each dimension with three items for each. These are presented in
Table 1.
2.2. Uncertainty and Well-Being
Uncertainty’s effect on well-being has long been recognised but literature on this is diffuse. A theory that is applicable to understanding its link is the appraisal theory of psychological stress, which is a transactional theory in which well-being is framed a product of a transaction between individuals and their environment [
11]. The core of the theory is that reacting to events involves an appraisal process, which explains why people’s affective responses to similar situations varies. Appraisal is an “evaluation of what one’s relationship to the environment implies for personal well-being” [
12] (p. 234). Consequently, events are appraised in terms of whether they are harmful or beneficial for the person and how they relate to their goals and beliefs. Appraisal involves two stages as individuals first appraise events to determine if they are relevant to their well-being by considering whether an event has the potential to affect their goals, beliefs, values, or intentions, and, if so, whether it is potentially threatening. This is known as the primary appraisal. In the second stage, the secondary appraisal, individuals evaluate the extent to which they are able to cope with the event. How individuals appraise an event will determine the extent to which, and how, it affects their well-being. For example, appraisals of an event as being threatening and difficult to handle will stimulate feelings such as worry and fear, while appraisals of losses that are difficult to cope with will elicit sadness and misery [
13] (p. 50). In such cases, a strain response is activated, which underlies the experience of poor well-being.
A lack of certainty in one’s work environment or more broadly one’s life could be considered threatening. As Mishel [
6] (p. 259) explains, “When an event is uncertain, it is evaluated as a threat because the individual is not able to obtain a clear-cut conception of what is to occur”. It also entails a loss of clarity and predictability. Thus, a primary threat-appraisal would be anticipated among people who experience uncertainty. Secondary appraisals of low coping potential are also highly likely to be generated by uncertainties: unpredictability is difficult to cope with precisely because its defining feature is not knowing what is going to happen and when [
14]. Therefore, individuals do not know which course of action, if any, is best to mitigate threat. As such, uncertainties are likely to trigger a strain response and ultimately poorer well-being. In particular, they may generate feelings of fear, threat, and worry which are associated with the poor well-being indicator of anxiety, or feelings of sadness, helplessness, and loss of control which are associated with depression [
11,
15].
We conceptualise anxiety and depression as ends of two continua of well-being on the basis of the Circumplex model which distinguishes between two axes of well-being: (a) pleasure, from pleasant to unpleasant, and (b) activation, from activation to deactivation [
16]. Anxiety–contentment and depression–enthusiasm can be conceptualised as combinations of different levels of pleasure and activation. The anxiety–contentment dimension ranges from high activation and unpleasant affect (e.g., tension) to a low activation and pleasant affect (e.g., calmness). Depression–enthusiasm, on the other hand, ranges from a low activation unpleasant state (e.g., sadness) to a high activation and pleasant one (e.g., cheerful). Both anxiety and depression are forms of strain that can emerge from the appraisal process. Though they may co-exist, they are distinct and can even be negatively related, as some people may show less anxiety as they become more depressed [
13] (p. 245).
Uncertainty has been widely associated with anxiety. In some cases, the association is implied almost by definition. For example, Grupe and Nitschke [
17] (p. 497) state that anticipating or “pre-viewing” the future induces anxiety largely because the future is intrinsically uncertain.” Affective well-being is thus impaired as anxiety is generated from fear of the unknown, arising from an inability to construct a definitive conception of what is occurring or may occur. However, more subtly it also arises from doubts about how well one can cope with the ambiguities and uncertainties in the situation [
18].
Uncertainty’s link to depression has been less discussed. The object of uncertainty may be about a potential irrevocable loss such as a death or something that people are unable to restore such as losing their job through being laid-off. It may be something over which people have some control but the fact that one is uncertain about its future state creates a sense of a loss of control or agency. An example in the pandemic is the uncertainty about the extent of mobility in the future and how one will cope with the consequent physical and mental entrapment.
Regardless of its type, we expect uncertainty has an immediate effect on well-being. This is consistent with appraisal theory according to which the effects of stressor appraisal on well-being are transmitted rapidly through cognitive processing, so as to appear to be concurrent [
13]. We thus first test this initial-impact model for each of the three time periods in our study, through the hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: There will be a positive relationship between uncertainties surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic with (a) anxiety–contentment and (b) depression–enthusiasm at times 1, 2, and 3.
In addition, uncertainty may affect the change in well-being from one period to another, such that as a person experiences uncertainty, their well-being shows a decline from its prior levels. We thus test:
Hypothesis 2: There will be a positive relationship between uncertainties surrounding COVID-19 pandemic and changes in (a) anxiety–contentment and (b) depression–enthusiasm from time 1 to time 2 and from time 2 to time 3.
Just as cognitive processes are involved in the generation of well-being, well-being affects the process of cognition. Past levels of well-being may affect the appraisal of stressors, and in turn, reactions to them. Therefore, emotional well-being may influence how perceptions of uncertainty are processed. Anxiety and depression can make individuals vulnerable to the negative effects of future uncertainty. Or conversely, being calm or cheerful has the potential to generate resilience to uncertainty. Illustrative of this, Chandler-Jeanville et al. [
19] (p. 9), in a French study, showed how the nurses of front-line nurses caring for COVID-19 patients “experienced psychological vulnerability, as they felt strained physically and emotionally, by their relentless exposure to the virus consequences”. This strengthened their death anxiety and weakened their mental health.
We expect that anxiety will direct people’s attention processes towards unhelpful information and thus that those who have experienced high levels of past anxiety will make different primary and secondary appraisals of the same level of uncertainty from those who have been more content [
20,
21]. Such appraisals will produce further anxiety. We expect a similar effect for depression as it impedes memory searching, with the effect that people are more likely to dwell on negative information and ruminate on negative experiences [
20,
21]. As a consequence, those who have experienced high levels of depression in the past are more likely to make negative appraisals when facing uncertainties than those who were more enthusiastic in the past. We thus expect an interaction effect between present uncertainty and past well-being on present well-being, that is the relationship between uncertainty on well-being at time 2 and 3 is strongest for those with the poorest well-being at time 1 and 2, respectively. We thus test:
Hypothesis 3: Past anxiety–contentment/depression–enthusiasm (at time 1 and time 2) will moderate the effect of uncertainty on present anxiety–contentment/depression–enthusiasm (at time 2 and time 3) so that uncertainty will have a stronger (negative) effect on well-being for those with low prior well-being.
It is unlikely that each dimension of uncertainty has the same strength of relationship with well-being. We leave the question of which dimensions may be the most influential open. For on the one hand, factors proximal to everyday working practices, which may be more disruptive of planning and predicting day-to-day work activities, may have the most effect. However, on the other hand, uncertainty around the virus and the government’s attempts at containment may be more significant as they out of an individual’s control and reflect potentially more serious personal and societal outcomes.
We thus address the following research question: