Positive spillover from the work-family interface: A study of Australian employees

275Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 2008 46(3)

Positive spillover from the work–family interface: A study ofAustralian employees

Jarrod M. Haar∗

University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand

E. Anne BardoelMonash University, Victoria, Australia

While work–family conflict has received much attention in the literature, there isa dearth of empirical evidence about work–family positive spillover. Further, wehave little understanding of positive spillover in an Australian setting. Usingstructural equation modelling, we tested positive spillover on 420 Australianpublic and private sector employees, and found work–family positive spillover wasnegatively associated with psychological distress and turnover intentions, whilefamily–work positive spillover was negatively linked with psychological distress,and positively linked with family satisfaction. The findings indicated that positivespillover had the greatest influence on outcomes associated with the same domain,for example positive spillover from the workplace and turnover intentions. Thefindings support the notion that not all work and family experiences are negative,and experiences from the work and from the home can improve outcomes bothinside and outside the workplace.

Keywords: Australia, outcomes, positive spillover, structural equation modelling, work–family

Correspondence to: Associate Professor Jarrod M. Haar, Department of Strategy & HumanResource Management, University of Waikato, Private Bag 3105, Hamilton, New Zealand;fax: +647 838 4356; e-mail: [email protected]

Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources. Published by SAGE Publications (Los Angeles, London, New Delhi andSingapore; www.sagepublications.com) on behalf of the Australian Human Resources Institute. Copyright © 2008Australian Human Resources Institute. Volume 46(3): 275–287. [1038-4111] DOI: 10.1177/1038411108095759.

∗ We would like to acknowledge the contribution of the International Work–Family (Project 3535)research team to the theoretical and empirical conceptualisation of this research. The team consistsof (in alphabetical order): Dr Zeynep Aycan (Turkey), Dr Roya Ayman (US), Dr Anne Bardoel(Australia), Dr Tripti Pande-Desai (India), Dr Anat Drach-Zahavy (Israel), Dr Leslie Hammer (US),Dr Ting-Pang Huang (Taiwan), Dr Karen Korabik (Canada), Dr Donna Lero (Canada), Dr ArtiMawardi (Indonesia), Dr Steven Poelmans (Spain), Dr Ujvala Rajadhyaksha (India), and Dr AnitSomech (Israel).

03-095759-Haar Bardoel.qxd 7/28/2008 4:46 PM Page 275

276 Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 2008 46(3)

Introduction

The work–family literature has focused on the negative influence ofwork–family spillover brought about by demographic changes, includingincreased participation rates of women and parents. In addition, employeesreport escalating demands on their time (Aryee, Srinivas, and Tan 2005),which further intensifies and stigmatises the work–family interface. Frone(2003) asserted that, as a result of these changes, more families now have tojuggle the demands of both dependent care and the job. Indeed, the negativeoutcomes associated with work–family conflict have been well explored, andthere is universal agreement that work–family conflict can be detrimental (e.g.increased turnover intentions, Haar 2004). However, recently there have beencalls from critics who argue that working and family responsibilities need notalways clash (e.g. Greenhaus and Powell 2006). Consequently, this studyfocuses on positive spillover to determine whether positive influences onemployee outcomes can be found.

Role theory

Role conflict was originally conceptualised as an incompatibility betweencompeting demands within a role, for example work (Kahn et al. 1964). Roleambiguity is caused when an employee is unsure what type of job behaviourto execute in a given work situation (Boles, Johnston, and Hair 1997). Researchhas indicated that role conflict and role ambiguity affect a wide range ofattitudes and behaviours across a variety of work settings (Boles, Johnston,and Hair 1997). Further, Kahn et al. (1964) noted that employees could expe-rience conflict between work and other life roles (e.g. family, leisure). In anattempt to better explain possible outcomes of inter-role conflict, the scarcityand enhancement approaches were developed.

Scarcity approach

Goode (1960, 483) defined role strain as ‘difficulty in performing role obliga-tions’, and the scarcity approach suggests that people have a limited quantityof time, energy and attention. Consequently, being involved in multiple rolescan deplete a person’s resources if not allocated properly, with Goode (1960)suggesting that people with greater number of roles are more likely to depletetheir resources, resulting in role overload or role conflict. The scarcityapproach is a useful introduction to work–family conflict, which relates to theconflict between an employee’s job and their home responsibilities (Green-haus and Beutell 1985). Frone, Barnes, and Farrell (1994) suggested thatwork–family conflict reflects the overall goodness-of-fit between an employee’sjob and family life, and this conflict is an important source of stress that caninfluence an employee’s well-being. Despite this focus and acceptance of

03-095759-Haar Bardoel.qxd 7/28/2008 4:46 PM 76

work–family conflict, some researchers (e.g. Marks 1977) have noted thatmultiple roles might not be only negative.

Enhancement approach

An alternative to the scarcity approach, the enhancement approach suggeststhat multiple roles can actually produce positive outcomes. Sieber (1974)argued that employees involved in multiple roles could gain four types ofrewards derived from role accumulation: 1) role privileges, 2) overall statussecurity, 3) resources for status enhancement and role performance, and 4) enrichment of the personality and ego gratification. Consequently, involve-ment in multiple roles can have positive outcomes, which lead to enhancedfunctioning in other roles (Barnett and Baruch 1985). Sieber (1974) added thatthe benefits of role accumulation could outweigh any stress and thereby resultin net gratification. The assumption that the rewards might exceed the burdenshas been widely neglected by researchers and.

Similarly, Marks (1977) proposed the expansion theory in response to thescarcity approach. In this approach, he suggested human energy is asupply–demand phenomenon, and the body creates energy to perform themultiple roles that people undertake. Consequently, he suggested that multipleroles could enhance resources and create additional energy. Marks (1977)asserted that role strain was not caused by incompatible demands of differentroles but by role imbalance, where there is a difference in importance betweenroles undertaken, and that no role strain will occur when all commitmentshave equally positive or negative values. Similarly, Barnett and Hyde (2001)advocated that holding multiple roles was not the problem, but how particularroles and their quality and combinations produced strain.

Positive spillover and hypotheses

From the enhancement approach, a number of terms have been used to describethe positive benefits of work and family role participation includingwork–family positive spillover (Edwards and Rothbard 2000), work–familyenrichment (Greenhaus and Powell 2006; Carlson et al. 2006), and work–familyfacilitation (Grzywacz 2002). While there have been a number of differentapproaches to exploring this positive spillover (e.g. Edwards and Rothbard 2000;Staines 1980), an important focus has been the positive spillover from both theworkplace into family (work–family) and the family into the workplace(family–work) (Grzywacz and Marks 2000).

Edwards and Rothbard (2000) suggested that the spillover of values,skills, and behaviours learned in one role might influence other roles. Thisbuilds on the enhancement aspects noted by Sieber (1974), who suggested thereare rewards from participating in multiple roles, including enriched resourcesand development of personalities. Hanson, Hammer, and Colton (2006, 251)

Positive spillover from the work–family interface 277


defined work–family positive spillover ‘as the transfer of positively valencedaffect, skills, behaviors, and values from the originating domain to thereceiving domain’. A number of studies support the influence of skills andbehaviours from one role into another, typically work into family roles(Crouter 1984; Kohn 1963; Pearlin and Kohn 1966; Ruderman et al. 2002).Therefore, skills, behaviours, and values learnt in one role (home/workplace)can provide positive effects into other roles (workplace/home). Hence, positivespillover from the workplace and home has the potential to influence employeeattitudes relating to work and non-work.

From a small number of empirical studies, work–family and family–workpositive spillover has been found to be positively related to a number ofoutcomes including mental health (Grzywacz 2000). Stephens, Franks, andAtienza (1997) found higher work–family positive spillover was associated withhigher psychological well-being. Similarly, Hammer et al. (2005) foundwork–family positive spillover from a spouse was related to reduced depressivesymptoms, and Hanson, Hammer, and Colton (2006) found dimensions ofwork–family and family–work positive spillover were associated with mentalhealth. Hanson, Hammer, and Colton (2006) suggested two possible explana-tions for the link between positive spillover and mental health: the positivespillover provides a buffering effect against negative events, perhaps throughreinforcing social relationships; and the inherent nature of positive spilloverwith regard to skills, behaviours, and values, to transfer to other domains resultsin rewards such as heightened self-esteem, which helps to provide a bufferagainst negative life events. This leads to our first hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1: Higher work–family and family–work positive spilloverwill be related to lower psychological distress.

The notion that higher work–family conflict would lead employees toconsider leaving their organisation is well supported. Indeed, turnoverintention is among the most studied outcomes in the work–family conflict liter-ature (e.g. Cohen 1997; Maertz 1999; Shaffer et al. 2001). Despite this interest,and the recent emergence of positive spillover, there has been a lack of attentionto the positive spillover link to turnover intention (for an exception see Wayne,Randel, and Stevens 2006). Cohen (1997) asserted work–family conflict couldcause employees to quit their job, and his claim has been supported (Good,Sisler, and Gentry 1988). The rationale is that employees experiencing greaterconflict in their workplace would seek employment elsewhere, perhaps in apotentially ‘less stressful’ place. Mowday, Porter, and Steers (1982) argued thatissues outside the home might also influence turnover intentions, and, as such,intentions to leave a job are positively related to work–family and family–workconflict (Grandey and Cropanzano 1999).

From a positive spillover perspective, similar to mental health gains notedabove, we would expect employees with higher positive spillover to gain buffering



from wanting to leave their jobs, either through reinforcing social relationshipsor enhanced skills, behaviours, and values. In effect, increased self-esteem mightbuffer an employee’s ‘flight’ response to conflict and a desire to leave the job.Consequently, in the opposite direction to work–family conflict studies, wesuggest that employees with higher positive spillover will buffer and dampen thedesire to leave their job. Further, the enhanced benefits associated with working,such as skills and values, might also encourage an employee to stay with their job.We follow the logic of Mowday et al. (1982) by suggesting that the benefits ofpositive spillover will encompass both the work and the home, hence we suggestthese beneficial effects will be bi-directional. This leads to our second hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2: Higher work–family and family–work positive spilloverwill be related to lower turnover intentions.

Researchers have also suggested that increased levels of work–family positivespillover will be related to greater family satisfaction (Crouter 1984; Edwards andRothbard 2000; Grzywacz, Almeida, and McDonald 2002). Hanson, Hammer,and Colton (2006) suggested positive spillover will promote better performance inroles. This improved performance may lead to lower task frustration and promotea feeling of doing a job well, which in turn leads to greater role satisfaction(Hanson, Hammer, and Colton 2006). In this regard, the positive spillover betweenwork and family should lead to enhanced family satisfaction through the trans-ference of skills and behaviours and through reducing interpersonal conflict dueto greater social support (Hanson, Hammer, and Colton 2006). Grzywacz andMarks (2000) found higher positive spillover associated with lower marital conflict.As such, positive spillover from either the work or family domain should lead toenhanced family satisfaction outcomes. Empirical evidence has supported thisinfluence, with Brockwood (2002) finding work–family positive spillover posi-tively related to family satisfaction (cited in Hanson, Hammer, Colton 2006). Insupport of a bi-directional approach towards these outcomes, Hanson, Hammer,and Colton (2006), with three subscales each for work–family and family–workpositive spillover, found significant positive correlations between some of thesubscales and family satisfaction. This leads to our last hypothesis:

Hypothesis 3: Higher work–family and family–work positive spilloverwill be related to higher family satisfaction.

Method

Sample and procedure

Participants were contacted via an e-mail which included a link to a web-basedsurvey. Follow-up requests to complete the online survey were emailed two



weeks later with the intention of increasing response rate (Kittleson 1997).Approximately 1190 potential participants’ e-mail addresses were included inthe original e-mail sample and a total of 420 employee surveys were completed(35% response rate). Respondents ranged in age from 21 to 63 years (averageage of 39.9 years), 66% were female, 79% were married, and 66% parents.Education was well spread with 30% of respondents having a high schooleducation, 13% a TAFE qualification, 23% with a bachelors degree, 16% agraduate certificate or diploma, and 18% a masters degree or PhD. Overall,respondents worked 45.9 hours per week.

Measures

Work–family positive spillover and family–work positive spillover weremeasured with six items from Grzywacz and Marks (2000), coded 1 = never,5 = all of the time. Items followed the stem ‘How often have you experiencedeach of the following...’, and sample items included: ‘The things you do atwork help you deal with personal and practical issues at home’ (work–familypositive spillover) and ‘Your home life helps you relax and feel ready for the next day’s work’ (family–work positive spillover). This measure had a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.70 (work–family positive spillover) and 0.66(family–work positive spillover).

Psychological distress was measured using six items from Santor andCoyne (1997), coded 1 = none, to a little of the time (less than 1 or 2 days) and2 = a moderate amount of the time (3–7 days). Questions followed the stem‘During the past week…’ and a sample item is ‘you felt depressed’. Two itemswere reverse coded. A high score indicates higher psychological distress. Thismeasure has a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.79.

Turnover intentions was measured using two items from Camman et al.(1979), coded 1 = strongly disagree, 6 = strongly agree. A sample question is ‘Ioften think about quitting my job’. This measure has a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.97.

Family satisfaction was measured using two items from Hackman andOldham (1975), coded 1 = strongly disagree, 6 = strongly agree. Questionsasked were ‘I am generally satisfied with the role I play in my family’ and‘Generally speaking, I am very satisfied with my family’. This measure has aCronbach’s alpha of 0.68.

Results

Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics and intercorrelations of the studyvariables. All the correlations were in the predicted direction. The hypotheseswere tested with structural equation modelling (SEM) analyses using AMOS(Arbuckle 1997) because it allowed us to account for all of the variables in themodel at one time. We used Anderson and Gerbing’s (1988) approach, where



one first tests the fit of the measurement components of the model and, whenthe fit is acceptable, the fit of the structural model is then tested. Hence, confir-matory factor analyses were undertaken to assess the convergent and discrim-inant validity of the multiple-item measures.

Goodness of fit of measurement model

Several goodness-of-fit indexes were used to assess the overall fit of theproposed model (see Jöreskog and Sörbom 1993): the Chi-square goodness-of-fit statistic; the goodness-of-fit index (GFI), the adjusted goodness-of-fit index(AGFI); the comparative fit index (CFI; Bentler 1990), the Tucker–Lewisindex (TLI; Bentler and Bonett 1980), and the root-mean-square error ofapproximation (RMSEA) with confidence intervals. For the GFI, CFI, andTLI, values of 0.95 or above indicate a model with acceptable fit (Bentler andBonett 1980; Hu and Bentler 1999), while 0.90 or above is desirable for theAGFI. For the RMSEA, values of 0.05 or less indicate a well-fitting model (Huand Bentler 1999). The measurement model fits the data well: χ2 (94) = 154.5(p = 0.000), GFI = 0.96, AGFI = 0.94, CFI = 0.97, TLI = 0.97 and RMSEA =0.040 (LO 90 = 0.28 and HI 90 = 0.051).

Goodness of fit of proposed model and specific effects

The results of the prediction model, which shows work–family positivespillover and family–work positive spillover predicting job outcomes, arepresented in figure 1. The model appears to fit the data well: χ2 (92) = 185.7 (p = 0.000), GFI = 0.95, AGFI = 0.92, CFI = 0.95, TLI = 0.96 and RMSEA = 0.051(LO 90 = 0.40 and HI 90 = 0.061). Looking at specific effects, figure 1 showsthat work–family positive spillover is significantly associated with family–work


Table 1 Correlations and descriptive statistics of the study variables

Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5

1. Psychological distress 1.3 .29 −2. Turnover intentions 3.1 1.6 .31** −3. Family satisfaction 5.0 .85 −.30** −.18** −4. Work–family positive 2.7 .71 −.16** −.27** .15** −

spillover5. Family–work positive 3.6 .70 −.24** −.07 .38** .28** −

spillover

N = 420 *p < .05 **p < .01


positive spillover (ß = 0.39, p < 0.001), turnover intentions (ß = –0.22, p < 0.001)and psychological distress (ß = –0.16, p < 0.05). Family–work positive spilloveris significantly associated with family satisfaction (ß = 0.60, p < 0.001) andpsychological distress (ß = –0.28, p < 0.001). Finally, psychological distress issignificantly associated with turnover intentions (ß = 0.24, p < 0.001).

Discussion

The present study focused on testing the influence of work–family andfamily–work positive spillover on outcomes, using SEM. This approach issuperior to regression analysis in that all predictor and outcome effects can betested at the same time. The measurement model provides strong support forthe separation of work–family and family–work dimensions regarding positivespillover, as well as the outcomes explored. Similarly, the prediction modelyielded an acceptable degree of fit to the data providing strong support for theeffects tested. Overall, the findings were largely as we might have expectedfrom the literature, suggesting commonalities on the benefits of positivespillover among Australian employees.

Work–family and family–work positive spillover were both significantin predicting psychological distress, the only outcome to be predicted by both


Psychological distress

Turnover intentions

Family satisfaction –.02

Work–familypositive spillover

Family–workpositive spillover

.39***

.24***

.60***

–.22***

.02

–.16*

–.28***

Figure 1 Prediction model for positive spillover and outcomes

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. Standardised estimates.


positive spillover dimensions. This supports findings in the literature(Grzywacz 2000; Hammer et al. 2005; Hanson, Hammer, and Colton 2006).While family–work positive spillover was also significantly related to family satisfaction, family–work positive spillover was not. Conversely,work–family positive spillover was significantly related to turnover inten-tions, while family–work positive spillover was not. This suggests somedomain-specific effects, which further encourages the separation of positivespillover into work–family and family–work domains. These findingsindicate that workplace lessons might be more applicable for reducingfeelings associated with leaving one’s job, and, similarly, skills and valuesdeveloped in the family that enter the workplace might enrich the employee’sexperiences and ultimately their satisfaction with family. Certainly, furtherstudies are needed to determine whether these domain-specific effects areconsistent and generalisable.

Overall, the findings reveal that experiences learnt from the family andwork domains are useful in reducing psychological distress among this sampleof Australian workers. While both work–family and family–work positivespillover was significant, the beta weight was higher for family–work thanwork–family. This underscores the role that positive spillover can play inreducing psychological distress, particularly from the family domain. Whilework–family positive spillover had a significant influence on turnover inten-tions, family–work positive spillover did not. However, psychological distresshas a major influence on turnover intentions, underlining the importance ofwork–family positive spillover to directly influence turnover, and positivespillover from both domains to influence psychological distress and conse-quently to influence turnover intentions. While work–family positivespillover was not associated with family satisfaction, family–work positivespillover did have a strong influence. Overall, while positive spillover fromboth domains does influence psychological distress, it appears domain-specificpositive spillover has the strongest effects on outcomes associated with thesame domain (e.g. work–family to turnover intentions and family–work tofamily satisfaction).

One of the major contributions of the present study has been exploringthe relationships using SEM. As the positive spillover literature is still in itsinfancy, there have been, to our knowledge, no studies that have utilised thisapproach for both measurement and prediction models. Our study makes animportant contribution because the measurement model reaffirmed the bi-directional dimensions of positive spillover (work–family and family–work),as well as tested the overall reliability and strength of the outcomes measures.Further, our findings can be viewed as being more complete because alloutcomes are tested simultaneously and provide a more robust understandingof positive spillover’s influence on outcomes. Overall, we recommend thatfurther studies use SEM as it provides a more comprehensive approach totesting positive spillover, especially from the perspective of the measurement



model, which should be utilised to reconfirm the separate dimensions asso-ciated with the work and family domains. A SEM approach would be espe-cially useful due to the emerging field of work–family positive spilloverwhere there are only a small number of empirical studies yet the literaturehas already produced multiple approaches to measuring positive spillover inthe work–family interface.

The findings indicate that the work and family domains appear to holdseparate spheres of positive influence towards a majority of outcomes, at leastwithin this study of Australian workers. As such, it would appear that, forsome outcomes, the positive lessons based in one role might be stronger forinfluencing associated outcomes than spillover from the other role. It is worthconsidering the correlations results (table 1) relating to work–family andfamily–work positive spillover and the outcomes studied here. These show thatalmost universally positive spillover from both domains was significantlyrelated to all outcomes (the exception being family–work positive spillover andturnover intentions). As such, we find from the model that the influence of onedomain’s positive spillover dominates or overrides the influence of the otherdomains positive spillover, at least towards turnover intentions and family satis-faction. These results further support a bi-directional approach towardspositive spillover influences.

Limitations

As with all studies, there are some limitations that need to be noted,including the cross-sectional approach. Data collection at a single point intime might raise common method variance concerns. We conductedHarman’s One Factor Test as this approach is seen as a useful rudimentarycheck for common method variance (Major, Klein, and Ehrhart 2002). Theresulting factor analysis (unrotated) resulted in ten factors, the largestaccounting for 23.7% of the variance. This test indicated no evidence ofcommon method variance as no dominant single factor emerged (Podsakoffand Organ 1986).

Conclusion

The present study contributes to the work–family literature by testing positivespillover for the first time in an Australian setting. Further, we enhance thisliterature by exploring work–family positive spillover bi-directionally usingSEM, and, given our findings, we suggest additional studies are required toprovide a clearer understanding of any domain-specific effects. Finally, thepresent study broadens the types of outcomes explored in the positive spilloverliterature by testing turnover intentions and stresses the need for additionaloutcomes to be explored.



Jarrod Haar (PhD, Waikato) is an associate professor in the Department of Strategy & Human Resource

Management. Jarrod’s research is primarily on work and family issues, including the influence of

work–family practices on employee attitudes and the positive and negative spillover of work and family

roles. Currently, he is researching the behaviour of New Zealand firms towards work–family practices.

Jarrod’s research has been widely published in international and national journals.

E. Anne Bardoel is an associate professor and deputy director of the Australian Centre for Research in

Employment and Work (ACREW) at Monash University, Australia. Anne lectures on work–life issues and

organisational behaviour at the graduate level. The current focus of her research is organisational

approaches to work–life issues, and she has published a number of articles in academic journals on this

topic. She is the president of the Work Life Association in Australia and is a member of the Victorian

government’s Working Family Council which champions the issues of concern to working families, helps

employers with strategies to improve work and family balance, and makes recommendations to the minister.

References

Anderson, J.C., and D.W. Gerbing. 1988. Structural equation modeling in practice: A review andrecommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin 103: 411–23.

Arbuckle, J.L. 1997. AMOS users’ guide version 4.0. Chicago: Smallwaters Corporation.Aryee, S., E.S. Srinvias, and H.H. Tan. 2005. Rhythms of life: Antecedents and outcomes of work–family

balance in employed parents. Journal of Applied Psychology 90(1): 132–46.Barnett, R.C., and G.K. Baruch. 1985. Women’s involvement in multiple roles and psychological stress.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 49(1): 135–45.Barnett, R.C., and J.S. Hyde. 2001. Women, men, work, and family: An expansionist theory. American

Psychologist 56(10): 781–96.Bentler, P.M. 1990. Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin 107:238–46.Bentler, P.M., and D.G. Bonett. 1980. Significance tests and goodness of fit in analysis of covariance

structures. Psychological Bulletin 88: 588–606.Boles, J.S., M.W. Johnston, and J.F. Hair. 1997. Role stress, work–family conflict and emotional

exhaustion: Inter-relationships and effects on some work-related consequences. Journal of PersonalSelling & Sales Management 17(1): 17–28.

Brockwood, K.J. 2002. An examination of positive work–family spillover among dual-earner couplesin the sandwiched generation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Portland State University,Portland, OR.

Cammann, C., M. Fichman, D. Jenkins, and J. Klesh. 1979. The Michigan Organisational AssessmentQuestionnaire. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan.

Carlson, D., K.M. Kacmar, J.H. Wayne, and J.G. Grzywacz. 2006. Measuring the positive side of thework–family interface: Development and validation of a work–family enrichment scale. Journal ofVocational Behaviour 68: 131–64.

Cohen, A. 1997. Nonwork influences on withdrawal cognitions: An empirical examination of anoverlooked issue. Human Relations 50(12): 1511–36.

Crouter, A.C. 1984. Spillover from family to work: The neglected side of the work–family interface.Human Relations 37(6): 425–41.

Edwards, J.R. and N.P. Rothbard. 2000. Mechanisms linking work and family: Clarifying the relationshipbetween work and family constructs. Academy of Management Review 25: 178–99.

Frone, M.R. 2003. Work–family balance. In Handbook of occupational health psychology, eds J.C. Quickand L.E. Tetrick, 143–62. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Frone, M.R., G.M. Barnes, and M.P. Farrell. 1994. Relationship of work–family conflict to substance useamong employed mothers: The role of negative affect. Journal of Marriage and the Family56(4): 1019–30.



Good, L.K., G.F. Sisler, and J.W. Gentry. 1988. Antecedents of turnover intentions among retailmanagement. Journal of Retailing 64(3): 295–314.

Goode, W.J. 1960. A theory of role strain. American Sociological Review 25: 483–96.Grandey, A.A., and R. Cropanzano. 1999. The conservation of resources model applied to work– family

conflict and strain. Journal of Vocational Behavior 54: 350–70.Greenhaus, J.H., and N.J. Beutell. 1985. Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Academy of

Management Review 10(1): 76–88.Greenhaus, J.H., and G.N. Powell. 2006. When work and family are allies: A theory of work–family

enrichment. Academy of Management Review 31: 72–9.Grzywacz, J.G. 2000. Work–family spillover and health during midlife: Is managing conflict everything?

American Journal of Health Promotion 14: 236–43.Grzywacz, J.G. 2002. Toward a theory of work–family facilitation. Paper presented at the 34th Annual

Theory Construction and Research Methodology Workshop, November 2002, Houston, TX.Grzywacz, J.G., D.A. Almeida, and D.A. McDonald. 2002. Work–family spillover and daily reports of

work and family stress in the adult labor force. Family Relations 51(1): 28–36.Grzywacz, J.G., and N.F. Marks. 2000. Reconceptualizing the work–family interface: An ecological

perspective on the correlates of positive and negative spillover between work and family. Journal ofOccupational Health Psychology 5(1): 111–26.

Haar, J.M. 2004. Work–family conflict and turnover intention: Exploring the moderation effects ofperceived work–family support. New Zealand Journal of Psychology 33(1): 35–9.

Hackman, J., and G. Oldham. 1975. Development of the job diagnostic survey. Journal of AppliedPsychology 60: 159–70.

Hammer, L.B., J.C. Cullen, M.B. Neal, R.R. Sinclair, and M. Shafiro. 2005. The longitudinal effects ofwork–family conflict and positive spillover on depressive symptoms among dual-earner couples.Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 10: 138–54.

Hanson, G.C., L.B. Hammer, and C.L. Colton. 2006. Development and validation of a multidimensionalscale of perceived work–family positive spillover. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology11(3): 249–65.

Hu, L.T., and P.M. Bentler. 1999. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling 6: 1–55.

Jöreskog, K.G., and D. Sörbom. 1993. Lisrel 8: Structural equations modeling with the SIMPLIS commandlanguage. Chicago: Scientific Software International.

Kahn, R.L., D.M. Wolfe, R. Quinn, J.D. Snoek, and R.A. Rosenthal. 1964. Organizational stress. New York: Wiley.

Kittleson, M. 1997. Determining effective follow-up of e-mail surveys. American Journal of HealthBehavior 21(3): 193–96.

Kohn, M.L. 1963. Social class and parent–child relationships: An interpretation. American Journal ofSociology 68: 471–80.

Maertz, C.P. 1999. Biographical predictors of turnover among Mexican workers: An empirical study.International Journal of Management 16(1): 112–19.

Major, V.S., K.J. Klein, and M.G. Ehrhart. 2002. Work time, work interference with family, andpsychological distress. Journal of Applied Psychology 87(3): 427–36.

Marks, S.M. 1977. Multiple roles and role strain: Some notes on human energy, time and commitment.American Sociological Review 42(6): 921–36.

Mowday, R.T., L.W. Porter, and R.M. Steers. 1982. Employee–organization linkages: The psychology ofcommitment, absenteeism, and turnover. New York: Academic Press Inc.

Pearlin, L., and M. Kohn. 1966. Social class, occupational, and parental values: A cross national study.American Sociological Review 31: 466–79.

Podsakoff, P.M., and D.W. Organ. 1986. Self-reports in organisational research: Problems and prospects.Journal of Management 12(4): 531–44.

Ruderman, M.N., P.J. Ohlott, K. Panzer, and S. King. 2002. Benefits of multiple roles for managerialwomen. Academy of Management Journal 45: 369–86.



Santor, D.A., and J.C. Coyne. 1997. Shortening the CES-D to improve its ability to detect cases ofdepression. Psychological Assessment 9: 233–43.

Shaffer, M.A., D.A. Harrison, K.M. Gilley, and D.M. Luk. 2001. Struggling for balance amid turbulenceon international assignments: Work–family conflict, support and commitment. Journal ofManagement 27: 99–121.

Sieber, S.D. 1974. Toward a theory of role accumulation. American Sociological Review 39(4): 567–78.Staines, G.L. 1980. Spillover versus compensation: A review of the literature on the relationship between

work and nonwork. Human Relations 33(2): 111–29.Stephens, M.A.P., M.M. Franks, and A.A. Atienza. 1997. Where two roles intersect: Spillover between

parent care and employment. Psychology and Aging 12: 30–7.Wayne, J.H., A.E. Randel, and J. Stevens. 2006. The role of identity and work–family support in

work–family enrichment and its work related consequences. Journal of Vocational Behaviour69: 445–61.



Positive spillover from the work-family interface: A study of Australian employees

Documents

Transcript of Positive spillover from the work-family interface: A study of Australian employees