The role of the Five Factor Model of personality in the perceptions of negative and positive forms...

Journal of Vocational Behavior 79 (2011) 191–203

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Vocational Behavior

j ourna l homepage: www.e lsev ie r.com/ locate / jvb

The role of the Five Factor Model of personality in the perceptions of negativeand positive forms of work–nonwork spillover: A meta-analytic review

Jesse S. Michel a,⁎, Malissa A. Clark b, David Jaramillo a

a Florida International University, Department of Psychology, USAb Auburn University, Department of Psychology, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o

⁎ Corresponding author. Florida International Univefax: +1 305 348 3879.

E-mail address: [email protected] (J.S. Michel).

0001-8791/$ – see front matter. Published by Elseviedoi:10.1016/j.jvb.2010.12.010

a b s t r a c t

Article history:Received 12 October 2010Available online 28 December 2010

The present meta-analysis examines the relationships between the Five Factor Model (FFM) ofpersonality and negative and positive forms of work–nonwork spillover (e.g., work-familyconflict and facilitation). Results, based on aggregated correlations drawn from 66 studies and72 independent samples (TotalN=28,127), reveal that the FFM is predictive of work–nonworkspillover. More specifically, meta-analytic structural equation modeling indicated thatextraversion (β=−.08), agreeableness (β=−.06), conscientiousness (β=−.13), andneuroticism (β=.29) are related to negative work–nonwork spillover, while extraversion(β=.27), agreeableness (β=.11), conscientiousness (β=.12), and openness to experience(β=.20) are related to positive work–nonwork spillover. FFM personality variables wereequally predictive of both directions of spillover (i.e., work-to-nonwork and nonwork-to-work). Collectively these results suggest a moderate amount of variance in negative (R2=.15)and positive (R2=.18) work–nonwork spillover is accounted for by personality.

Published by Elsevier Inc.

Keywords:ConflictEnrichmentFacilitationPersonalitySpilloverWork–family

Introduction

Much of the existing research investigating the antecedents of work–nonwork spillover has focused on the organizationalfactors (e.g., work time demands, family-friendly policies offered by the organization) or family characteristics (e.g., number ofchildren, spousal support) that cause individuals to perceive or experience negative (e.g., work–family conflict) or positive (e.g.,work–family facilitation) spillover between their work and nonwork domains (e.g., Michel, Mitchelson, Kotrba, LeBreton, & Baltes,2009; Seiger & Wiese, 2009; Taylor, Delcampo, & Blancero, 2009). Recent meta-analyses have generally concluded that work andnonwork stressors and social support are some of the strongest predictors in the perceptions of work–nonwork spillover, such aswork–family conflict (Byron, 2005; Michel, Mitchelson, Pichler, & Cullen, 2010). However, several recent and influential (based oncitation rates) qualitative and quantitative reviews have called for further investigation of individual differences within the work–nonwork interface (Byron, 2005; Eby, Casper, Lockwood, Bordeaux, & Brinley, 2005), and consequently, there has been asignificant increase in the number of articles examining the role of personality within the contemporary work–nonwork literature(e.g., Boyar & Mosley, 2007; Sanz-Vergel, Demerouti, Moreno-Jiménez, & Mayo, 2010; Yanchus, Eby, Lance, & Drollinger, 2010). Arecent meta-analysis investigating the antecedents of work–family conflict found that personality variables such as negative affectand neuroticism have predictive validity estimates similar to, and often stronger than, those of many work and nonwork stressorand support variables (Michel, Kotrba, Mitchelson, Clark, & Baltes, in press); however the scope of this investigation was limited toonly negative affect, neuroticism, and internal locus of control, which have been proposed to represent a singular personalityfactor (e.g., Judge & Ilies, 2002). Given this accumulation of research, the purpose of the current work is to provide a meta-analysis

rsity, Department of Psychology, DM 256, 11200 S.W. 8th Street, Miami, FL 33199. Tel.: +1 305 348 7547

r Inc.

;

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2010.12.010

mailto:[email protected]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2010.12.010

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00018791

192 J.S. Michel et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 79 (2011) 191–203

of the unique and cumulative influence that the full Five Factor Model (FFM) variables have on negative (e.g., work–familyconflict) and positive (e.g., work–family enrichment and facilitation) forms of work–nonwork spillover.

Work–nonwork spillover

Recent theory and research have explored how the work and nonwork domains are integrated or segmented, whereintegration (segmentation) is generally defined by high (low) flexibility and permeability between domain boundaries (Bulger,Matthews, & Hoffman, 2007; Nippert-Eng, 1996). Accordingly, the work–nonwork literature has traditionally relied onintegration, which suggests that work- and nonwork-domains are inherently intertwined (Edwards & Rothbard, 2000; Lambert,1990; Zedeck & Mosier, 1990). Further, within a work–nonwork integration framework, much of the literature has beendominated by a few popular theories, most notable being conflict theory (Burke, 1986; Evans & Bartolomé, 1984; Zedeck &Mosier,1990), which is commonly defined as a form of interrole conflict in which the role pressures from the work and nonwork domainsare mutually incompatible in some respect (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). This research has generally followed the time-based,strain-based, and behavior-based dimensions of conflict proposed by Greenhaus and Beutell (1985). Much of the work–nonworkconflict literature also relies on the related resource drain theory and the scarcity hypothesis (Edwards & Rothbard, 2000; Goode,1960; Small & Riley, 1990; Staines, 1980; Tenbrunsel, Brett, Maoz, & Stroh, 1995), which suggests that an increase of resources(time, attention, and energy) spent in one role results in a decrease of resources available in the other role. Conflict theory andother related approaches represent negative forms of work–nonwork spillover in which one domain hinders the other domain—now referred to as negative work–nonwork spillover.

Recent literature has also supported the inverse to this in which work–nonwork domains can have positive effects on oneanother. For example, work–nonwork facilitation occurs when involvement in one domain (e.g., work) enriches and/or enhancesfunctioning in the other domain (e.g., nonwork) by providing an individual with various developmental, affective, capital, and/orefficiency gains (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006; Wayne, Grzywacz, Carlson, & Kacmar, 2007; Wayne, Musisca, & Fleeson, 2004).Similar concepts have been used within the work–nonwork literature to capture the same general positive spillover (seeGreenhaus & Powell, 2006), and have been referred to as enrichment (e.g., Carlson, Kacmar,Wayne, & Grzywacz, 2006), facilitation(e.g., Grzywacz & Bass, 2003; Hill, 2005), enhancement (e.g., Ruderman, Ohlott, Panzer, & King, 2002), and positive spillover (e.g.,Grzywacz & Marks, 2000; Hammer, Cullen, Neal, Sinclair, and Shafiro, 2005). These all represent positive forms of work–nonworkspillover in which one domain enhances or facilitates the other domain—now referred to as positive work–nonwork spillover.

Further delineation of the negative and positive work–nonwork spillover constructs suggests that they are directional andproduce effects (negative and positive) from one domain to the other (e.g., Frone, Russell, & Cooper, 1992; Mesmer-Magnus &Viswesvaran, 2005). Thus, researchers and theorists have recently focused on (1) the degree to which participation in the workrole is hindered or enriched from participation in the nonwork role (directional nonwork-to-work spillover), and (2) the degree towhich participation in the nonwork role can be hindered or enriched from participation in the work role (directional work-to-nonwork spillover).

Personality theory

Personality theory suggests that a dynamic organization of mental structures and coordinated mental processes determinesindividuals’ emotional and behavioral adjustments to their environments (i.e., characteristic patterns of behavior, thoughts, andfeelings; Allport, 1937;1961; James & Mazerolle, 2002; Millon, 1990). Further, it is believed that there are recurring regularities ortrends in a person's behavior, and psychological features—attitudes, emotions, and ways of perceiving and thinking—that existinside a person that explain the recurring tendencies in an individual's behavior (Hogan, 1991). Accordingly, a basic presumptionof personality theory is that an individual will possess a predisposition or tendency to behave, think, and feel in a relativelyconsistent manner over time and across diverse situations (e.g., work and nonwork). This relative cross-situational consistency isreferred to as a personality trait (e.g., dispositional negative affect or neuroticism).

The FFM (often referred to as the “Big Five”; Goldberg, 1990) is a frequently examined typology of personality in the field oforganizational behavior (e.g., Barrick & Mount, 1991; Zimmerman, 2008). The FFM includes the traits of extraversion,agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness to experience. Another typology of personality that has beenfrequently examined in relation to organizational behavior is that of dispositional positive and negative affect. Although there arevarious conceptualizations of dispositional affect (cf. Russell & Carroll, 1999), most organizational researchers use the frameworkoutlined by Watson, Clark, and Tellegen (1988). Much of the organizational behavior literature that theoretically or empiricallyexamines the overlap between affect and the FFM includes positive affect within the extraversion factor and negative affect withinthe neuroticism factor (e.g., Swider & Zimmerman, 2010).

In accordance with personality theory, we propose that an individual's personality will influence work–nonwork spillover inseveral ways. Specifically, linkages between personality traits and negative work–nonwork spillover are expected because variousdispositions impact specific behavioral patterns in response to domain demands (e.g., coping strategies, resource acquisition), aswell as perceptions about, or experience of, strain associated with engagement in multiple roles. Meanwhile, linkages betweenpersonality traits and positive work–nonwork spillover are expected because various dispositions facilitate or inhibit the extent towhich different gains (e.g., developmental, affective, and efficiency) transfer from one domain to another. The specific studyhypotheses are discussed in greater detail below.

193J.S. Michel et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 79 (2011) 191–203

Study hypotheses

Extraversion is the tendency to be sociable, dominant, and have positive emotionality (Watson & Clark, 1997), and hasconsistently been found to relate highly to dispositional or trait positive affect (PA; Watson & Clark, 1992). Trait PA isconceptualized as the general tendency to feel happy, excited, and energetic (Watson & Clark, 1992). Researchers have positedthat emotionality is related to different motivational systems, with positive emotionality (e.g., extraverts, high PA) facilitatingapproach motivation (e.g., goal-directed behavior; Watson, Wiese, Vidya, & Tellegen, 1999). In the context of negative work–nonwork spillover, when faced with conflicting demands from work and nonwork roles, those high in extraversion and positiveemotionality would seek out more proactive solutions to help manage competing demands from their various roles. Indeed,empirical research has shown that these individuals have increased life satisfaction because they develop resources for living well(Cohn, Fredrickson, Brown, Mikels, & Conway, 2009). In addition, research has found that individuals who are high in positiveemotionality perceive fewer life stressors (e.g., Michel & Clark, 2009; Stoeva, Chiu, & Greenhaus, 2002). Thus, individuals high inextraversion should experience lower negative work–nonwork spillover than those low in extraversion because of theirpropensity to seek out solutions and resources, and to perceive fewer life stressors.

Fredrickson's (1998) broaden-and-build theory can be used to explain linkages between extraversion/positive emotionalityand positive work–nonwork spillover. According to the broaden-and-build theory, when individuals consistently feel positiveemotions (e.g., those high in dispositional PA) their momentary thought-action repertoire is expanded (e.g., interest creates theurge to explore). Through this process, positive emotions can promote the discovery of novel and creative actions, ideas, andrelationships, which builds up an individual's personal resources (e.g., physical, intellectual, and social; Fredrickson, 2001;2003) ina given domain (e.g., work and family). Furthermore, having positive emotionality has been shown to influence howconstructively someone reacts to stressful challenges (Stoeva et al., 2002). With an increased repertoire of personal resources andan inclination to constructively react to domain stressors, individuals high in extraversion are likely to use personal resources toimprove functioning in other domains. For example, individuals may apply creative time-management strategies learned in theworkplace to improve efficiency at home. Thus, those high in extraversion, similar to PA, are likely to seek out solutions andresources to help reduce negative work–nonwork spillover and also apply those resources to help facilitate functioning inmultiplelife domains. Therefore, we hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 1a. Extraversion is negatively related to negative work–nonwork spillover.

Hypothesis 1b. Extraversion is positively related to positive work–nonwork spillover.

Agreeableness is the tendency to be cooperative, compliant, trusting, kind, and warm (Judge & Ilies, 2002). Given thesecharacteristics, researchers have proposed that individuals high in agreeableness will report fewer negative work–nonworkinteractions (Eby, Maher, & Butts, 2010). In addition, because of their affiliative nature, those high in agreeableness should bemorelikely to build a support network, which they can rely on when coping with work and nonwork demands. Indeed, a meta-analysisby Connor-Smith and Flachsbart (2007), which examined the relationship between personality and general coping behaviors,found that agreeableness was positively related to support seeking coping behaviors. Having an agreeable personality should alsoimpact one's perceptions of domain stressors. Indeed, Connor-Smith and Flachsbart's study found a positive relationship betweenagreeableness and cognitive restructuring as a coping mechanism. This suggests those high in agreeableness are adept atmanaging expectations about what they can and cannot handle in terms of their responsibilities, which can in turn reduce theirlevels of perceived negative work–nonwork spillover.

There has beenmuch less research on the relationship between agreeableness and positive work–nonwork spillover. However,given that individuals high in agreeableness are kind, warm, trusting, and have a communal orientation (Zellars & Perrewé, 2001),they are likely to have more expansive social networks than those low in agreeableness. Having these social–capital resourcesallows individuals to gain advice and hear different perspectives about problems frommultiple individuals. Furthermore, Zellars &Perrewé found that agreeableness was significantly associated with engaging in conversations at work about nonwork issues.Thus, individuals may utilize social networks developed in one domain to seek solutions to problems in another domain (e.g.,individuals may ask co-workers for advice on handling a family conflict). Therefore, we hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 2a. Agreeableness is negatively related to negative work–nonwork spillover.

Hypothesis 2b. Agreeableness is positively related to positive work–nonwork spillover.

Conscientious individuals tend to be achievement-oriented, dependable, orderly, and deliberate (Barrick &Mount, 1991; Costa&McCrae, 1992). Because of these qualities, individuals high in conscientiousness are likely to plan out strategies in advance and todeliberately and persistently work at implementing solutions or finding resources which can help reduce negative work–nonworkspillover. Indeed, consciousness has been linked with problem solving, support seeking, and cognitive restructuring copingbehaviors (Connor-Smith & Flachsbart, 2007), which should help individuals reduce their negative work–nonwork spillover.

If individuals learn how to more effectively manage their time and energy in one domain (e.g., work), individuals high inconscientiousness are likely to apply these efficiency gains to other domains as well (e.g., nonwork), due to their high levels ofachievement motivation (Witt & Carlson, 2006). In addition, individuals high in conscientiousness tend to have an organizedsupport network (McCrae & Costa, 1999), which provides these individuals with greater opportunities to utilize social networksdeveloped in one domain to seek solutions to problems in another domain. Therefore, we hypothesize the following:


Hypothesis 3a. Conscientiousness is negatively related to negative work–nonwork spillover.

Hypothesis 3b. Conscientiousness is positively related to positive work–nonwork spillover.

Neuroticism is the tendency to show poor emotional adjustment and experience greater stress, anxiety, and depression (Judge& Ilies, 2002). Meanwhile, trait negative affect (NA) is conceptualized as the general tendency to feel anxious, angry, and upset. Notsurprisingly, empirical research has consistently found a strong positive relationship between neuroticism and NA (Watson &Clark, 1992), and NA is “commonly seen as a facet of neuroticism” (Judge, Higgins, Thoresen, & Barrick, 1999; p. 625). Given thatindividuals high in neuroticism and dispositional NA tend to experience negative emotions, it is not surprising that research haslinked these traits to many negative outcomes. For example, a large-scale meta-analysis by Thoresen, Kaplan, Barsky, Warren, andde Chermont (2003) found that NA was related to emotional exhaustion, decreased job satisfaction, and increased intentions toquit. In addition, empirical research has linked NA to increased work–family conflict (Michel & Clark, 2009).

As previouslymentioned, researchers have posited that positive and negative emotionality are related to differentmotivationalsystems, with negative emotionality facilitating withdrawal motivation (e.g., apprehensiveness and cautiousness; Watson et al.,1999). In the context of negative work–nonwork spillover, when faced with conflicting demands from work and nonwork roles,this approach/withdrawal motivational approach suggests that individuals high in neuroticism and negative emotionality wouldseek fewer solutions to help manage demands from multiple domains. Likewise, according to broaden-and-build theory, whenindividuals consistently experience negative emotions (i.e., those high in neuroticism and dispositional NA), this narrows theirthought–action repertoires and triggers specific behavioral reactions (e.g., flee in response to feeling threatened). Indeed,individuals high in neuroticism have been found to use ineffective coping strategies (Watson & Pennebaker, 1989). In addition tolinkages with behavioral responses to domain demands, neuroticism is likely to influence emotional reactions to the experience ofstrain. Research suggests that those high in neuroticism have a heightened responsiveness to negative stimuli, as evidenced bygreater emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and fewer perceived accomplishments (Zellars & Perrewé, 2001). Thus,individuals high in neuroticism should experience greater negative work–nonwork spillover than those low in neuroticismbecause they are more likely to use ineffective coping strategies to cope with domain demands and their propensity to react morenegatively when work and nonwork demands are conflicting.

Accordingly, consistent with the ideas presented above, those high in neuroticism and dispositional NA are likely to retreat andget discouraged when faced with stressors at work and nonwork, and as a result they are less likely to build up resources (e.g., anexpanded social network) which can be utilized in other domains to help facilitate positive work–nonwork spillover. In addition,individuals high in neuroticism have poor emotional adjustment and are prone to feelings of anxiety; accordingly, they are lesslikely to maintain positive emotions following a success in one domain long enough for them to spill over and positively impactfunctioning in another domain. Therefore, we hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 4a. Neuroticism is positively related to negative work–nonwork spillover.

Hypothesis 4b. Neuroticism is negatively related to positive work–nonwork spillover.

Openness to experience is the tendency to be creative, flexible, curious, and unconventional (McCrae, 1996). Within thecontext of work–nonwork, there has been very little theoretical advancement of openness to experience. However, becauseindividuals high in openness are likely to consider new perspectives, they should be more likely to utilize more creative solutionsto manage work and nonwork domain stressors than those low in openness. Indeed, openness has been found to positively relateto problem solving and support seeking coping strategies (Connor-Smith & Flachsbart, 2007). In addition, individuals high inopenness to experience may view various stressors as developmental opportunities rather than challenges, and as a result theymight report less negative work–nonwork spillover than individuals low in openness to experience. Regarding positive work–nonwork spillover, given their creative and curious nature, individuals higher in openness may be more willing to apply skills orbehaviors which were effective in one domain to other life domains. Therefore, we hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 5a. Openness is negatively related to negative work–nonwork spillover.

Hypothesis 5b. Openness is positively related to positive work–nonwork spillover.

Methods

Literature search

The literature search was conducted in multiple stages. The first stage consisted of computer-based literature searches ofPsycINFO, Web of Science, and Google Scholar through September 2010. Search criteria included the terms work family, work home,work life, and work nonwork in conjunction with each of the following: balance, conflict, enhancement, enrichment, facilitation,integration, interface, interference, and spillover. These searches were further performed in combination with the followingpersonality antecedents: negative affect, positive affect, extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, emotionalstability, openness to experience, core self evaluations, self esteem, self efficacy, and locus of control. The second stage of the literaturesearch consisted of manual cross-referencing with recent qualitative and quantitative review articles (e.g., Byron, 2005; Eby et al.,


2005; Eby et al., 2010; McNall, Nicklin, & Masuda, 2010; Michel & Hargis, 2008; Michel et al., in press; Michel et al., 2009; Michelet al., 2010). The third and final stage was contacting researchers who recently presented at annual conferences (e.g., Society ofIndustrial and Organizational Psychology 2008–2010) and requesting presented articles, papers, posters, and relevantunpublished data.

Inclusion criteria and coding of studies

Studies were included based on the following criteria. First, we only retained studies that included a trait-oriented personalitymeasure from our hypotheses. Accordingly, we did not include state- or mood-based measures of personality. Second, negativeand positive work–nonwork spillover had to be quantitatively measured, thus we eliminated qualitative examinations of work–nonwork spillover. For negative work–nonwork spillover we included work–family, work–life, and work–nonwork measures ofconflict and negative spillover. For positive work–nonwork spillover we included work–family, work–life, and work–nonworkmeasures of enrichment, facilitation, and positive spillover. Finally, it is important to note that several studies utilized the samesample. Under these circumstances, only unique relationships from each study were included in the analyses in order to assurethat the assumption of independence was not violated. These search procedures and inclusion criteria resulted in 66 studies(including journal articles, conference presentations, dissertations, unpublished papers, and raw data sets) and 72 independentssamples (Total N=28,127) that were used for the current meta-analysis.

Studies and variables were coded based on the variable definitions provided in Table 1. Beyond the traditional FFM variables,positive affect was codedwithin the extraversion factor and negative affect was codedwithin the neuroticism factor. Following thetheoretical and empirical work of Judge, Erez, Bono, and Thoresen (2002;2003; Judge & Bono, 2001), as well as recent meta-

Table 1Summary of included constructs and definitions.

Construct Definitions and variable inclusion

PersonalityExtraversion A tendency to be sociable, dominant, and have positive emotionality (Costa & McCrae, 1992;

Watson & Clark, 1997). Includes all factor level measures of extraversion.– Positive Affect A tendency to feel happy, excited, and energetic (Watson & Clark, 1992). Includes all factor level

measures of trait-based positive affect, thus excluding state-based affect and experience samplingstudies assessing transient feelings, moods, and emotions.

Agreeableness A tendency to be cooperative, compliant, trusting, kind, and warm (Costa & McCrae, 1992; Judge& Ilies, 2002). Includes all factor level measures of agreeableness.

Conscientiousness A tendency to be achievement-oriented, dependable, orderly, and deliberate (Barrick & Mount,1991; Costa & McCrae, 1992). Includes all factor level measures of conscientiousness.

Neuroticism A tendency to show poor emotional adjustment and experience greater stress, anxiety, anddepression (Costa & McCrae, 1992; Judge & Ilies, 2002). Includes all factor level measures ofneuroticism and emotional stability (reverse coded).

– Negative affect A tendency to feel anxious, angry, and upset (Watson & Clark, 1992). Includes all factor levelmeasures of trait-based negative affect, thus excluding state-based affect and experience samplingstudies assessing transient feelings, moods, and emotions.

– Other coreself-evaluation variables

Bottom-line evaluations that individuals hold about themselves; a tendency for individualsto see themselves as capable, worthy, and in control of their lives (Judge, Locke, & Durham,1997; Judge, Van Vianen, & De Pater, 2004). Includes global measures of overall coreself-evaluations, as well as the lower order variables of self-esteem (an overall value thatone place on oneself as a person and includes an individual's self-acceptance, self-liking, andself-respect; Judge & Bono, 2001; Judge & Larsen, 2001), generalized self-efficacy(an individual's estimate of their ability to cope, perform, and be successful; Judge & Bono,2001) and work-family specific self-efficacy (a specific form of self-efficacy often utilizedwithin the work–nonwork literature, which refers to perceptions of one's ability to cope withwork and nonwork demands), and internal locus of control (an individual's perception of theirability to control a broad range of factors in their lives, such that individuals with an internallocus of control tend to feel outcomes are caused by the individual or self, while individualswith an external locus of control tend to feel outcomes are caused by external variables suchas chance; Rotter, 1966).

Openness to experience A tendency to be creative, flexible, curious, and unconventional (Costa & McCrae, 1992; McCrae,1996). Includes all factor level measures of openness to experience (e.g., intellect).

Work–nonwork spilloverNegative work–nonwork spillover The degree to which participation in the work (nonwork) role is made more difficult or

hindered from participation in the nonwork (work) role (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). Includesquantitatively (versus qualitatively) measured work–family, work–life, and work–nonworkmeasures of conflict and negative spillover.

Positive work–nonwork spillover The degree to which participation in the work (nonwork) role is made better or enriched fromparticipation in the nonwork (work) role (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006). Includes quantitatively(versus qualitatively) measured work–family, work–life, and work–nonwork measures ofenrichment, facilitation, and positive spillover.


analyses (e.g., Judge & Ilies, 2002), we included the core self-evaluation (CSE) traits of self-esteem, self-efficacy, and locus ofcontrol within the neuroticism factor (all reverse coded). In addition to generalized self-efficacy, we also included work–familyself-efficacy due to the application and prominence of this specific form of self-efficacy within the work–nonwork spilloverliterature (occurring approximately twice as often as generalized self-efficacy). Study and variable coding was conducted to allowfor individual and aggregate level analyses of the extraversion and positive affect variables, and the neuroticism, negative affect,and CSE variables. Work–nonwork variables were coded both independently (e.g., separate work-to-family conflict and family-to-work conflict effect sizes) and at the study aggregated level (e.g., an aggregated work-family conflict effect size composed ofindependent work-to-family conflict and family-to-work conflict effect sizes). This was done to examine both directional andoverall nonwork spillover constructs.

Three subject matter experts (SMEs) coded the articles based on the above criteria. Each SME was an advanced psychologystudent who was trained by the lead author. Each article was coded (e.g., coding of effect sizes, reliabilities, and samplecharacteristics) by two SMEs. Average initial percent agreement between SMEs on coded data was 91.3%. Any discrepanciesbetween coders were discussed until the SMEs were in accordance and absolute (100%) agreement was reached. Prior to analyseseach article and coded data file was reviewed by the lead author to confirm coding accuracy.

Meta-analytic method and structural equation modeling

Meta-analytic estimates of themean and variability of effect sizes were conducted using the techniques outlined by Hunter andSchmidt (2004). Sample size weighted mean observed correlations as well as the reliability-corrected mean correlations werecomputed. Mean sample size weighted correlations were corrected for unreliability based on artifact distributions from primarystudy data. Specifically, we corrected both the personality predictor and the work–nonwork criterion for unreliability with alphavalue (α) distributions reported in the primary studies. When multiple correlations were available for a single antecedent andwork–nonwork spillover relationship (e.g., three forms of work–family conflict), we combined these into a composite variableprior to meta-analytic examination (Hunter & Schmidt, 2004).

Structural equation modeling was conducted in LISREL 8.80 (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1993) on reliability-corrected meancorrelations. All latent constructs were treated as single item indicators. As with previous meta-analytic structural equationmodels (e.g., Chen, Casper, & Cortina, 2001; Ford, Heinen, & Langkamer, 2007; Michel et al., 2010), our model was tested utilizingthe maximum likelihood estimation method and harmonic mean.

Results

Following the recommendations of Hunter and Schmidt (2004), we base our discussion of bivariate relationships on ρ (sample sizeweightedmeanobservedvalidity corrected forunreliability). Also, given the strengthsofmeta-analytic structural equationmodeling (e.g.,theory testing; Cheung & Chan, 2005; Shadish, 1996; Viswesvaran & Ones, 1995), we based our hypothesis testing on this analysis.

Bivariate meta-analytic findings

All FFM variables (factor and facet level) were first examined in relation to directional work–nonwork spillover (i.e., work-to-nonwork and nonwork-to-work spillover). In the studies that included both directions, analyses indicated that each personalityvariable was equally related to both form of directional spillover based on overlapping 95% confidence intervals. Accordingly, wecombined both forms of directional spillover (i.e., work-to-nonwork and nonwork-to-work), as well as additional studies thatincluded overall work–nonwork spillover (and studies that did not include both forms of directional spillover), into a single work–nonwork spillover construct. The bivariate meta-analytic results between the FFM and overall negative and positive work–nonwork spillover are reported in Table 2.

Extraversion had a relatively small negative relationship with negative work–nonwork spillover (ρ=−.14), and a relativelylarge positive relationship with positive work–nonwork spillover (ρ=.32). Subgroup analysis indicated that though positiveaffect had a stronger relationship than extraversion for both negative (ρ=−.19 versus ρ=−.11) and positive (ρ=.37 versusρ=.30) work–nonwork spillover, these differences in magnitude were not statistically significant. Agreeableness had a moderatenegative relationship with negative work–nonwork spillover (ρ=−.18), and a moderate positive relationship with positivework–nonwork spillover (ρ=.21). Conscientiousness had a moderate negative relationship with negative work–nonworkspillover (ρ=−.22), and a relatively small positive relationship with positive work–nonwork spillover (ρ=.14). Neuroticism hada strong positive relationship with negative work–nonwork spillover (ρ=.29), and a relatively small negative relationship withpositive work–nonwork spillover (ρ=−.14). Subgroup analysis indicated that for negative work–nonwork spillover, therelationships between neuroticism (ρ=.36) and negative affect (ρ=.35) with spillover were stronger and significantly differentthan the reverse coded other CSE variables (ρ=.21). A somewhat similar pattern of results occurred for positive work–nonworkspillover, where neuroticism (ρ=−.15) and negative affect (ρ=−.16) were more strongly related to positive spillover than theother CSE variables (ρ=−.11), however these differences in magnitude were not statistically significant. Finally, openness toexperience had a very small relationship with negative work-spillover (ρ=−.05), and a moderate to strong positive relationshipwith positive work–nonwork spillover (ρ=.25).


Meta-analytic structural equation modeling

To examine the unique and cumulative effects that each of the FFM variables have on negative and positive work–nonworkspillover, we developed a meta-analytic matrix of variable interrelationships for path analysis (see Cheung & Chan, 2005;Viswesvaran & Ones, 1995). For the FFM and work–nonwork spillover variable relationships, we input the data from Table 2.However, as the subgroup analysis for neuroticism indicated that the CSE relationship with negative work–nonwork spillover wasstatistically different from those of neuroticism and negative affect, we decided to exclude all CSE data and create a cumulativeneuroticism and negative affect relationship. This was done for both negative and positive work–nonwork spillover and ispresented in Table 2. In order to determine the relationship between negative and positivework–nonwork spillover, we calculatedthe meta-analytic estimate based on the 72 independent samples included in the current work. Our results indicated that thesevariables were unrelated (r=.00, ρ=.00, k=12, N=7937). Finally, to complete the meta-analytic matrix we input theinterrelationships between the FFM variables with the data from Ones (1994), as this work represents some of the most stableestimates available (i.e., highest k and N) and has been used in similar research (e.g., Bowling, 2007). This final meta-analyticmatrix is presented as ρ's in Table 3.

Hypothesis 1a predicted extraversion would be negatively related to negative work–nonwork spillover, while Hypothesis 1bpredictedextraversionwould bepositively related to positivework–nonwork spillover. Results support bothhypotheses. Asdisplayedin Fig. 1, extraversion had a small negative relationship with negative work–nonwork spillover (β=−.08), and a moderate to largepositive relationship with positive work–nonwork spillover (β=.27). Hypothesis 2a predicted agreeableness would be negativelyrelated to negative work–nonwork spillover, while Hypothesis 2b predicted agreeableness would be positively related to positivework–nonwork spillover. Results support both hypotheses. Agreeableness had a small negative relationship with negative work–nonwork spillover (β=−.06), and a relatively small positive relationship with positive work–nonwork spillover (β=.11).Hypothesis 3a predicted conscientiousness would be negatively related to negative work–nonwork spillover, while Hypothesis 3bpredicted conscientiousness would be positively related to positive work–nonwork spillover. Results support both hypotheses.Conscientiousness had a relatively small negative relationship with negative work–nonwork spillover (β=−.13), and a relativelysmall positive relationshipwith positivework–nonwork spillover (β=.12). Hypothesis 4a predicted neuroticismwould be positivelyrelated to negative work–nonwork spillover, while Hypothesis 4b predicted neuroticism would be negatively related to positivework–nonwork spillover. Results support Hypothesis 4a only. Specifically, neuroticismhad amoderate to strong positive relationshipwithnegativework–nonwork spillover (β=.29), and a statistically nonsignificant relationshipwithpositivework–nonwork spillover.Finally, Hypothesis 5a predicted openness to experience would be negatively related to negative work–nonwork spillover, whileHypothesis 5b predicted openness to experience would be positively related to positive work–nonwork spillover. Results supportHypothesis 5b only. Specifically, openness to experience had a statistically nonsignificant relationship with negative work–nonwork

Table 2Effects of the five factor model on negative and positive forms of work–nonwork spillover.

Antecedents k N r ρ 95% CI 80% CV SD ρ % Variance

Negative work–nonwork spilloverExtraversion a 28 10,641 −.12 −.14 −.14 −.09 −.22 −.06 .061 49.82

Extraversion 17 8094 −.09 −.11 −.12 −.06 −.18 −.04 .054 50.61Positive affect 14 4436 −.16 −.19 −.19 −.12 −.24 −.14 .041 72.38

Agreeableness 13 5309 −.15 −.18 −.18 −.12 −.18 −.18 .000 100.00Conscientiousness 20 6924 −.18 −.22 −.21 −.15 −.31 −.13 .071 45.08Neuroticism a 70 27,808 .24 .29 .21 .27 .11 .47 .141 15.25

Neuroticism 29 11,775 .30 .36 .26 .33 .24 .48 .091 28.55Negative affect 24 7459 .30 .35 .26 .34 .22 .49 .104 27.28Neuroticism and negative affect a 48 17,465 .30 .35 .27 .32 .23 .48 .100 26.85Other core self-evaluation variables 29 12,189 .17 .21 .12 .22 .01 .41 .158 12.46

Openness to experience 11 4810 −.04 −.05 −.08 .00 −.14 .03 .064 47.04

Positive work–nonwork spilloverExtraversion a 7 5604 .25 .32 .21 .28 .29 .34 .019 89.68

Extraversion 3 4585 .23 .30 .20 .26 .30 .30 .000 100.00Positive affect 5 2331 .29 .37 .24 .34 .37 .37 .000 100.00

Agreeableness 2 2510 .17 .21 .14 .21 .21 .21 .000 100.00Conscientiousness 3 2646 .11 .14 .05 .16 .08 .19 .046 48.19Neuroticism a 14 11,602 −.11 −.14 −.13 −.08 −.19 −.09 .037 61.45

Neuroticism 7 5492 −.12 −.15 −.16 −.08 −.22 −.09 .051 45.27Negative affect 6 2825 −.12 −.16 −.16 −.09 −.16 −.16 .000 100.00Neuroticism and negative affect a 12 7937 −.12 −.15 −.14 −.09 −.19 −.11 .031 73.71Other core self-evaluation variables 4 4169 −.09 −.11 −.15 −.03 −.19 −.04 .061 29.22

Openness to experience 1 2130 .18 .25 – – – – – –

Note. Higher values indicate higher levels of the construct, except for core self-evaluations, which are reverse coded to exhibit neuroticism versus emotionastability. k=number of samples. N=number of participants. r=sample size weighted mean observed validity. ρ= r corrected for unreliability. CI=confidenceinterval of r. CV=credibility interval of ρ. SD ρ=standard deviation of ρ. % Variance=the percentage of variance in effect sizes that was accounted for bystatistical artifacts and sampling error.

a Variables k and N may not match summed lower-order facet totals as aggregation occurred within study as not to violate assumptions of independence.

l

Table 3Full meta-analytic correlation matrix used in path analysis.

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Extraversion –

Agreeableness .17 –

Conscientiousness .00 .27 –

Neuroticism −.19 −.25 −.26 –

Openness .17 .11 −.06 −.16 –

Negative work–nonwork spillover −.14 −.18 −.22 .35 −.05 –

Positive work–nonwork spillover .32 .21 .14 −.15 .25 .00 –

Note. Corrected correlations are reported.

Notes: N = 8,723. Solid lines represent significant relationships, while dotted lines represent nonsignificant relationships, at the p <.05 level. Standard errors for all estimates are .01. Though not depicted in the figure, exogenous variables were intercorrelated.

Extraversion

Agreeableness

Conscientiousness

Neuroticism

Openness

Negative Work-Nonwork

Spillover

PositiveWork-Nonwork

Spillover

-.08

.27

-.06

.11

-.13

.12

.29

-.01

.01

.20

.10

Fig. 1. Structural equation modeling estimates for personality and work–nonwork spillover.


spillover, and a moderate to strong positive relationship with positive work–nonwork spillover (β=.20). Collectively, the full FFMaccounted for 15% of the variance in negative work–nonwork spillover, and 18% of the variance in positive work–nonwork spillover.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to provide a meta-analytic examination of the unique and cumulative effects of personality onwork–nonwork spillover. Accordingly, we examined the effects that the full Five Factor Model (extraversion, agreeableness,conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness to experience) has on negative and positive forms of work–nonwork spillover. Inaddition, we also examined the effects that dispositional affect (negative affect and positive affect) and core self-evaluations (self-esteem, self-efficacy, and locus of control) have on work–nonwork spillover, both within and outside the FFM framework.Collectively, our results indicate the FFM accounted for 15% and 18% of the variance in negative and positivework–nonwork spillover,which is comparable to (and greater than many) other multivariate meta-analytic examinations of influences on work-relatedcriteria (e.g., job demands and resources as predictors of engagement and burnout; Crawford, LePine, & Rich, 2010). Accordingly,these results provide moderate to strong support for the role of personality in the perceptions of work–nonwork spillover.

Across the data there were several interesting and potentially important trends. A global trend was that across all personalityvariables (e.g., extraversion and neuroticism), and all forms of work–nonwork spillover (negative and positive), each personalityvariable was similarly related to both directions of spillover (i.e., work-to-nonwork and nonwork-to-work). This is a noteworthyfinding as recentmeta-analyses examining the antecedents of directionalwork–nonwork spillover typicallyfindeffect sizedifferencesbased on the originating domain (e.g., Byron, 2005; Michel et al., in press). For example, antecedents of work-to-family conflict areconsistently stronger when originating from the work domain (e.g., stressors, social support) than the family domain; likewise,antecedents of family-to-work conflict are consistently stronger when originating from the family domain than the work domain.However, our results indicate that personality impacts directional work–nonwork spillover similarly, which suggests that personalitytraits impact more global behavioral patterns, perceptions about and experience of strain associated with engagement in multiple


roles, and gains transfer from one domain to another. As such, finding similar relationships between personality and spillover(regardless of direction) provides consistent support for the importance of personality within an overall work–nonwork context.

In addition to these more global results, our findings suggest that several differences occurred in regards to more specificrelationships and magnitudes between individual personality traits and negative and positive work–nonwork spillover. On thenegative spillover side, neuroticismwas a particularly strong predictor of negative work–nonwork spillover. The stronger findingsfor neuroticism and negative spillover seems logical given that neurotic individuals tend to show poor emotional adjustment,experience greater stress, anxiety, and depression, and cope less effectively with stress (Judge & Ilies, 2002; Watson, 2000). Asindividuals high in neuroticism are more likely to retreat and get discouraged when faced with stressors at work and nonwork, aswell as similarities to dispositional NA (Watson & Clark, 1992), it seems probable that they should also experience greatermagnitudes in regards to reductions and increases in negative spillover than positive spillover.

On the positive spillover side, extraversion and openness to experience were particularly strong predictors of positive spillover.The stronger finds for extraversion and openness to experience and positive spillover also seem logical given that individuals highin extraversion are more sociable, have positive emotionality, as well as similarities to dispositional PA (Watson & Clark,1992;1997), while individuals high in openness to experience are more creative, flexible, and curious (McCrae, 1996). Sinceextraverts tend to have positive emotionality, while individuals high in openness are likely to consider new perspectives andutilize more creative solutions in multiple work and nonwork roles, it seems probable that they should also experience greatermagnitudes in regards to perceptions of positive spillover than negative spillover.

Another interesting and potentially meaningful findingwas our lack of results, or at least our significantly different results, for theCSE and negative work–nonwork spillover relationship. Specifically, our analyses showed that the CSE variable (minus neuroticism)was significantly different and substantially less related to negative work–nonwork spillover than neuroticism and negative affect. Inorder to examine this relationship further, post hoc analyses were conducted on the facet level. These analyses revealed a sizabledifference between generalized and work–nonwork specific self-efficacy, where the relationships for work–nonwork specific self-efficacy were approximately twice the magnitude of those for generalized self-efficacy. This is a notable difference as some of thework–nonwork literature focuses on work–nonwork specific self-efficacy (e.g., Cinamon, Weisel, & Tzuk, 2007; Hennessy & Lent,2008). This maybe be important as individuals with higher work–nonwork self-efficacy are more likely to take advantage of family-friendly benefits offered by their employers (Butler, Gasser, & Smart, 2004), which suggests that these individuals are indeed morelikely to seek out and utilize resources to reduce negative work–nonwork spillover. Another interesting facet level finding was thatthe relationships for locus of control were significantly smaller than those of the overall CSE construct, however this does not seemtoo unusual as locus of control generally displays the lowest similarity with other CSE traits (see Judge et al., 2002). Overall, thesignificantly different and smaller effects of the CSE variable and negative spillover may suggest that the overlap between these CSEvariables (self-esteem, self-efficacy, and locus of control) and the neuroticism construct is smaller than desired, and exclusion ofthese variables from the FFM is appropriate (e.g., exclusion from FFM meta-analytic reviews).

Implications and future research

There has been a recent call for greater examination of individual difference and personality variables within the work–nonwork literature (see Eby et al., 2005; Byron, 2005). Accordingly, the current study provides the first comprehensive meta-analytic examination of the full FFM of personality and multiple forms of work–nonwork spillover. Our results indicated that eachpersonality variable was a significant predictor of negative and/or positive work–nonwork spillover. Further, some of thesepersonality variables (e.g., neuroticism) exhibit some of the strongest relationships with work–nonwork spillover, as compared torecent meta-analytic findings (cf. Byron, 2005). Consequently, these results suggest a moderate amount of variance in work–nonwork spillover, and potentially other work–nonwork constructs, is influenced by an individual's personality.

In regards to theory, these results provide support for personality theory within a work–nonwork context, which is consistentlyunderrepresented in traditional discussions of work and nonwork roles (Ashforth, Kreiner, & Fugate, 2000; Byron, 2005; Eby et al.,2005; Kossek & Ozeki, 1998). There are however a few exceptions. For example, Edwards and Rothbard (2000) have previouslyexplained how affective dispositions can influence work and nonwork mood via congruency theory. Similarly, work and nonworkmood states (i.e., state affect) have been linked to general mood, which in turn has been linked to work and family role performancebased on spillover theory and segmentation theory (see Edwards & Rothbard, 2000). Similarly, and empirically, affective componentshave also been linked to intraindividual perceptions of negative work–nonwork spillover (e.g., Judge, Ilies, & Scott, 2006). As such,there is precedence to incorporate both trait and state affective influences into work–nonwork linking mechanisms. Our resultsfurther support the importance of affect (as well as the broader traits of neuroticism and extraversion)withinwork–nonwork theory,but also suggest other components of personality (e.g., openness to experience) are influential as well.

A practical implication of our findings revolves around personality as an antecedent of one's perception of work–nonworkspillover and other work–nonwork experiences. Our results suggest that individuals may hold fundamentally different views onwork–nonwork spillover, behavioral patterns associatedwithwork and nonwork roles, perceptions about and experience of strainassociated with engagement in multiple roles, and gains transfer from one domain to another consistently, depending on specificpredispositions or personality traits. Accordingly, our results could have potential implications regarding these predispositions.For example, our results could suggest that efforts to reduce feelings of negative work–nonwork spillover (e.g., reducing workstressors), and increase feelings of positive work–nonwork spillover (e.g., increasing work support), may be less effective thanpreviously thought, as the work–nonwork interface is more complicated than just the removal or inclusion of various situationalfactors (e.g., stressors, support). Indeed, while various interventions may help alleviate perceptions of negative spillover and


increase perceptions of positive spillover, our results suggest that perceptions of work–nonwork spillover are also influenced bydispositional traits. For example, the positive relationship between work role overload and work-to-family conflict might beweaker for individuals high on extraversion than for those low on extraversion. Similarly, the negative relationship betweensupervisor support andwork-to-family conflict might be stronger for individuals who are better able to utilize such support, whichcould be assisted by personality traits of emotional stability, conscientiousness, and openness. Accordingly, future research couldutilize an individual difference perspective when examining work–nonwork practices to better determine when and for whom“family friendly” practices are beneficial (e.g., Shockley & Allen, 2010), for example.

Finally, much of this discussion has focused on how personality can influence perceptions related to work–nonwork spillover,and potentially other work–nonwork constructs. Given previous literature, both theoretical and empirical (e.g., Edwards &Rothbard, 2000; Judge et al., 2006; Michel & Clark, 2009), we have focused largely on the FFM. However, it may be that certainpersonality traits are more related to perceptions of work–nonwork spillover and other work–nonwork constructs (e.g.,dispositional affect), while other personality traits are more related to behaviors related to work–nonwork spillover and otherwork–nonwork constructs (e.g., CSE). Our review suggests that individuals high in neuroticism perceive more negative spilloverbetween work and nonwork domains, and individuals high in extraversion and openness perceive more positive spilloverbetween work and nonwork domains. However, we do not know the extent to which these relationships move beyond work–nonwork perceptions and influence work–nonwork behaviors. Future research should explore the potential differential effectsthese personality traits have on work–nonwork perceptions and behaviors.

Limitations

As with any study, the current study is not without its limitations. One potential limitation is the stability of our effect sizeestimates. That is, the stability of our meta-analytic bivariate relationships is variable, where larger k (e.g., neuroticism andnegative work–nonwork spillover estimates) should represent more robust effect size approximations than smaller k (e.g.,conscientiousness and positive work–nonwork spillover estimates). Though we were able to aggregate and examine hundreds ofunique correlations from more than 28,000 participants, primary study data is limited, thus restricting the number of studies wecould examine. This is particularly the case when it comes to the positive side of the work–nonwork spillover literature.Accordingly, though variability in the stability of effect size estimates is always a limitation in meta-analyses, we would like toacknowledge this limitation in the current work.

Another potential limitation revolves around the fact that we were unable to examine specific types of spillover (e.g., work–family and work–life) or more detailed facet level relationships. Theoretically, it would beneficial to examine personality and howit relates to specific facets of negative and positive spillover. For example, one of the most common typologies in the work–familyconflict literature recognizes three forms of conflict: time-based, strain-based and behavior-based conflict (Carlson, 1999;Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985; Stephens & Sommer, 1996). Similar research on the positive side (work-family enrichment) hasfocused on developmental, affective, and capital related facets (Carlson et al., 2006). Facet level examination could potentiallymove the literature beyond how personality traits impact individuals’ perceptions relating to work–nonwork (e.g., strain-basedconflict) and address whether personality traits impact the behaviors individuals engage in when attempting to manage or copewith their work and personal lives (e.g., behavior-based conflict). Unfortunately, the literature at this time does not allow facetlevel examination at a meta-analytic level as facet level information, if examined, is typically not reported.

A final limitation of this quantitative review is that the correlations on which the meta-analysis was based, for the most part,were from cross-sectional self-report data. In cross-sectional research, predictor and criterion data are collected simultaneously,thus blurring the inference of causality. Meanwhile, self-report data could be vulnerable to the inflation of correlations by commonmethod variance (cf. Crampton &Wagner, 1994). Accordingly, as in most organizational research, this limitation should be noted.

Conclusions

Based on theory, we meta-analytically examined the role of the FFM of personality on the perceptions of work–nonworkspillover. Neuroticism was most related to negative work–nonwork spillover, while extraversion and openness were most relatedto positive work–nonwork spillover. All our personality variables were equally predictive of both directions of spillover, such thatoverlapping confidence intervals existed for work-to-nonwork and nonwork-to-work spillover. Collectively, our results providemoderate to strong support for the influence of personality within the work–nonwork context.

References⁎

Allport, G. W. (1937). Personality: A psychological interpretation. New York: Holt.Allport, G. W. (1961). Pattern and growth in personality. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.Ashforth, B. E., Kreiner, G. E., & Fugate, M. (2000). All in a day's work: Boundaries and micro role transitions. Academy of Management Review, 25, 472−491.Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1−26.Bowling, N. A. (2007). Is the job satisfaction-job performance relationship spurious? A meta-analytic examination. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 71, 167−185.⁎Boyar, S. L., &Mosley, D. C., Jr. (2007). The relationship between core self-evaluations andwork and family satisfaction: Themediating role of work–family conflict

and facilitation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 71, 265−281.

⁎ Studies were included in the meta-analysis.


Bulger, C. A., Matthews, R. A., & Hoffman, M. E. (2007). Work and personal life boundary management: Boundary strength, work/personality life balance, and thesegmentation–integration continuum. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12, 365−375.

Burke, R. J. (1986). Occupational and life stress and the family: Conceptual frameworks and research findings. International Review of Applied Psychology. SpecialIssue: Occupational and Life Stress and the Family, 35, 347−369.

Butler, A., Gasser, M., & Smart, L. (2004). A social-cognitive perspective on using family-friendly benefits. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65, 57−70.Byron, K. (2005). A meta-analytic review of work–family conflict and its antecedents. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67, 169−198.⁎Carlson, D. S. (1999). Personality and role variables as predictors of three forms of work–family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 55, 236−253.Carlson, D. S., Kacmar, K. M., Wayne, J. H., & Grzywacz, J. G. (2006). Measuring the positive side of the work–family interface: Development and validation of a

work–family enrichment scale. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 131−164.⁎Cinamon, R. G., Weisel, A., & Tzuk, K. (2007). Work–family conflict within the family—Crossover effects, perceived parent–child interaction quality, parental self-

efficacy, and life role attributions. Journal of Career Development, 34, 79−100.Chen, G., Casper, W. J., & Cortina, J. M. (2001). The role of self-efficacy and task complexity in the relationships among cognitive ability, conscientiousness, and

work-related performance: A meta-analytic examination. Human Performance, 14, 209−230.Cheung, M. W. L., & Chan, W. (2005). Meta-analytic structural equation modeling: A two-stage approach. Psychological Methods, 10, 40−64.Cohn, M. A., Fredrickson, B. L., Brown, S. L., Mikels, J. A., & Conway, A. M. (2009). Happiness unpacked: Positive emotions increase life satisfaction by building

resilience. Emotion, 9, 361−368.Connor-Smith, J. K., & Flachsbart, C. (2007). Relations between personality and coping: A meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 1080−1107.Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: PAR.Crampton, S. M., & Wagner, J. A. (1994). Percept–percept inflation in micro-organizational research: An investigation of prevalence and effect. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 79, 67−76.Crawford, E. R., LePine, J. A., & Rich, B. L. (2010). Linking job demands and resources to employee engagement and burnout: A theoretical extension and meta-

analytic test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 834−848.Eby, L. T., Casper, W. J., Lockwood, A., Bordeaux, C., & Brinley, A. (2005). Work and family research in IO/OB: Content analysis and review of the literature (1980–

2002). Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 124−197.Eby, L. T., Maher, C. P., & Butts, M. M. (2010). The intersection of work and family life: The role of affect. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 599−622.Edwards, J. R., & Rothbard, N. P. (2000). Mechanisms linking work and family: Clarifying the relationship between work and family constructs. Academy of

Management Review, 25, 178−199.Evans, P., & Bartolomé, F. (1984). The changing pictures of the relationship between career and family. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 5, 9−21.Ford, M. T., Heinen, B. A., & Langkamer, K. L. (2007). Work and family satisfaction and conflict: A meta-analysis of cross-domain relations. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 92, 57−80.Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). What good are positive emotions? Review of General Psychology, 2, 300−319.Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology. American Psychologist, 56, 218−226.Fredrickson, B. L. (2003). The value of positive emotions. American Scientist, 91, 330−335.Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M. L. (1992). Antecedents and outcomes of work-family conflict: Testing a model of the work-family interface. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 77, 65−78.Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative "description of personality": The big-five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1216−1229.Goode, W. J. (1960). A theory of role strain. American Sociological Review, 25, 483−496.Grzywacz, J. G., & Bass, B. L. (2003). Work, family, and mental health: Testing different models of work–family fit. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65, 248−262.Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources and conflict between work and family roles. Academy of Management Review, 10, 76−88.Greenhaus, J. H., & Powell, G. N. (2006). When work and family are allies: A theory of work–family enrichment. Academy of Management Review, 31, 72−92.Grzywacz, J. G., & Marks, N. F. (2000). Reconceptualizing the work–family interface: An ecological perspective on the correlates of positive and negative spillover

between work and family. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 111−126.Hammer, L. B., Cullen, J. C., Neal, M. B., Sinclair, R. R., & Shafiro, M. V. (2005). The longitudinal effects of work–family conflict and positive spillover on depressive

symptoms among dual-earner couples. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10, 138−154.⁎Hennessy, K. D., & Lent, R. W. (2008). Self-efficacy for managing work–family conflict: Validating the English language version of a Hebrew scale. Journal of Career

Assessment, 16, 370−383.Hill, E. J. (2005). Work–family facilitation and conflict, working fathers and mothers, work–family stressors and support. Journal of Family Issues, 26, 793−819.Hogan, R. (1991). Personality and personality measurement. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), (2nd Ed.). The Handbook of Industrial and Organizational

Psychology, vol. 2. (pp. 873−919)Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.James, L. R., & Mazerolle, M. D. (2002). Personality in work organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Analysis of linear structural relationships by maximum likelihood, instrumental variables and least squares methods (8th

ed.). Mooresville, IN: Scientific Software.Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2001). A rose by any other name…. Are self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, neuroticism, and locus of control indicators of a common

construct? In B. W. Robets, & R. Hogan (Eds.), Personality psychology in the workplace (pp. 93−118). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E., & Thoresen, C. J. (2002). Are measures of self-esteem, neuroticism, locus of control, generalized self-efficacy indicators of the

common core construct. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 693−710.Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E., & Thoresen, C. J. (2003). The core self-evaluations scale: Development of a measure. Personnel Psychology, 56, 303−331.Judge, T. A., Higgins, C. A., Thoresen, C. J., & Barrick, M. R. (1999). The big five personality traits, general mental ability, and career success across the life span.

Personnel Psychology, 52, 621−652.Judge, T. A., & Ilies, R. (2002). Relationship of personality to performance motivation: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 797−807.Judge, T. A., Ilies, R., & Scott, B. A. (2006). Work–family conflict and emotions: Effects at work and at home. Personnel Psychology, 59, 779−814.Judge, T. A., & Larsen, R. J. (2001). Dispositional affect and job satisfaction: A review and theoretical extension. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision

Processes, 86, 67−98.Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., & Durham, C. C. (1997). The dispositional causes of job satisfaction: A core evaluations approach.Research in Organizational Behavior, 19, 151−188.Judge, T. A., Van Vianen, A. E. M., & De Pater, I. E. (2004). Emotional stability, core self-evaluations, and job outcomes: A review of the evidence and an agenda for

future research. Human Performance, 17, 325−346.Kossek, E. E., & Ozeki, C. (1998). Work–family conflict, policies, and the job–life satisfaction relationship: A review and directions for organizational behavior–

human resources research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 139−149.Lambert, S. J. (1990). Processes linking work and family: A critical review and research agenda. Human Relations, 43, 239−257.McCrae, R. R. (1996). Social consequences of experiential openness. Psychological Bulletin, 120, 323−337.McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1999). A five-factor theory of personality. In L. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory & research (pp. 139−153).

(2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.McNall, L. A., Nicklin, J.M., &Masuda, A. D. (2010). Ameta-analytic review of the consequences associatedwithwork–family enrichment. Journal of Business & Psychology,

25, 381–396.Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., & Viswesvaran, C. (2005). Convergence between measures of work-to-family and family-to-work conflict: A meta-analytic examination.

Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67, 215−232.⁎Michel, J. S., & Clark, M. A. (2009). Has it been affect all along? A test of work-to-family and family-to-work models of conflict, enrichment, and satisfaction.

Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 163−168.Michel, J. S., & Hargis, M. B. (2008). Linking mechanisms of work–family conflict and segmentation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73, 509−522.


Michel, J. S., Kotrba, L. M., Mitchelson, J. K., Clark, M. A., & Baltes B. B. (in press). Antecedents of work–family conflict: A meta-analytic review. Journal ofOrganizational Behavior. DOI: 10.1002/job.685.

Michel, J. S., Mitchelson, J. K., Kotrba, L. M., LeBreton, J. M., & Baltes, B. B. (2009). A comparative test of work–family conflict models and critical examination ofwork–family linkages. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74, 199−218.

Michel, J. S., Mitchelson, J. K., Pichler, S., & Cullen, K. L. (2010). Clarifying relationships among work and family social support, stressors, and work–family conflict.Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76, 91−104.

Millon, T. (1990). Toward a new personology: An evolutionary model. Oxford, England: John Wiley & Sons.Nippert-Eng, C. E. (1996). Home and work. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Ones, D. S. (1994). The construct validity of integrity tests. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 54(9-A), 3515.Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control reinforcement. Psychological Monographs: General & Applied, 80, 1−28.Ruderman, M. N., Ohlott, P. J., Panzer, K., & King, S. N. (2002). Benefits of multiple roles for managerial women. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 369−386.Russell, J. A., & Carroll, J. M. (1999). On the bipolarity of positive and negative affect. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 3−30.Sanz-Vergel, A. I., Demerouti, E., Moreno-Jiménez, B., & Mayo, M. (2010). Work-family balance and energy: A day-level study on recovery conditions. Journal of

Vocational Behavior, 76, 118−130.Seiger, C. P., & Wiese, B. S. (2009). Social support from work and family domains as antecedent or moderator of work–family conflicts? Journal of Vocational

Behavior, 75, 26−37.Shadish,W. R., Jr. (1996).Meta-analysis and the exploration of causalmediation processes: A primer of examples,methods, and issues. PsychologicalMethods, 1, 47−65.Shockley, K. M., & Allen, T. D. (2010). Investigating the missing link in flexible work arrangement utilization: An individual difference perspective. Journal of

Vocational Behavior, 76, 131−142.Small, S. A., & Riley, D. (1990). Toward a multidimensional assessment of work spillover into family life. Journal of Marriage & the Family, 52, 51−61.Staines, G. L. (1980). Spillover versus compensation: A review of the literature on the relationship between work and nonwork. Human Relations, 33, 111−129.Stephens, G. K., & Sommer, S. M. (1996). The measurement of work to family conflict. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56, 475−486.⁎Stoeva, A. Z., Chiu, R. K., & Greenhaus, J. H. (2002). Negative affectivity, role stress, and work–family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 60, 1−16.Swider, B. W., & Zimmerman, R. D. (2010). Born to burnout: A meta-analytic path model of personality, job burnout, and work outcomes. Journal of Vocational

Behavior, 76, 487−506.Taylor, B. L., Delcampo, R. G., & Blancero, D. M. (2009). Work–family conflict/facilitation and the role of workplace supports for U.S. Hispanic professionals. Journal

of Organizational Behavior. Special Issue: Achieving Work-Family Balance: Theoretical and Empirical Advancements, 30, 643−664.Tenbrunsel, A. E., Brett, J. M., Maoz, E., & Stroh, L. K. (1995). Dynamic and static work–family relationships. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,

63, 233−246.Thoresen, C. J., Kaplan, S. A., Barsky, A. P., Warren, C. R., & de Chermont, K. (2003). The affective underpinnings of job perceptions and attitudes: A meta-analytic

review and integration. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 914−945.Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (1995). Theory testing: Combining psychometric meta-analysis and structural equations modeling. Personnel Psychology, 48, 865−885.Watson, D. (2000). Mood and temperament. New York: Guilford Press.Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1992). Affects separable and inseparable: On the hierarchical arrangement of the negative affects. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 62, 489−505.Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1997). Extraversion and its positive emotional core. In R. Hogan, J. A. Johnson, & S. R. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology

(pp. 767−793). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 54, 1063−1070.Watson, D., & Pennebaker, J. W. (1989). Health complaints, stress, and distress: Exploring the central role of negative affectivity. Psychological Review, 96, 234−254.Watson, D., Wiese, D., Vidya, J., & Tellegen, A. (1999). The two general activation systems of affect: structural findings, evolutionary considerations, and

psychobiological evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 820−838.Wayne, J. H., Grzywacz, J. G., Carlson, D. S., & Kacmar, K. M. (2007). Work–family facilitation: A theoretical explanation and model of primary antecedents and

consequences. Human Resource Management Review, 17, 63−76.⁎Wayne, J. H., Musisca, N., & Fleeson, W. (2004). Considering the role of personality in the work-family experience: Relationships of the big five to work–family

conflict and facilitation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64, 108−130.⁎Witt, L. A., & Carlson, D. S. (2006). The work–family interface and job performance: Moderating effects of conscientiousness and perceived organizational support.

Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11, 343−357.⁎Yanchus, N. J., Eby, L. T., Lance, C. E., & Drollinger, S. (2010). The impact of emotional labor on work–family outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76, 105−117.Zedeck, S., & Mosier, K. L. (1990). Work in the family and employing organization. American Psychologist. Special Issue: Organizational Psychology, 45, 240−251.Zellars, K. L., & Perrewé, P. L. (2001). Affective personality and the content of emotional social support: Coping in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 459−467.Zimmerman,R. D. (2008). Understanding the impact of personality traits an individual turnover decisions: Ameta-analytic pathmodel. Personnel Psychology, 61, 309−348.

Further Reading

⁎Anderson, O. A. (2006). Linking work stress, parental self-efficacy, ineffective parenting, and youth problem behavior. Dissertation Abstracts International: SectionA: Humanities and Social Sciences, 67(4-A), 1548.

⁎Andreassi, J. K. (2007). The role of personality and coping in work–family conflict: New directions. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities andSocial Sciences, 67(8-A), 3053.

⁎Andreassi, J. K., & Thompson, C. A. (2007). Dispositional and situational sources of control: Relative impact on work-family conflict and positive spillover. Journalof Managerial Psychology, 22, 722−740.

⁎Aryee, S., & Vivienne, L. (1996). Work and nonwork influences on the career satisfaction of dual-earner couples. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 49, 38−52.⁎Aryee, S., Srinivas, E. S., & Tan, H. H. (2005). Rhythms of life: Antecedents and outcomes of work-family balance in employed parents. Journal of Applied Psychology,

90, 132−146.*Baltes, B. B. (2009). [Positive affect, extraversion, openness to experience, and work-family conflict]. Unpublished raw data.*Baltes, B. B., Zhdanova, L. S., & Clark, M. A. (2010). The mediating effect of stress coping strategies on the relationship between individual differences and work-

family conflict. Unpublished Manuscript. Wayne State University.⁎Beauregard, T. A. (2006). Predicting interference between work and home: A comparison of dispositional and situational antecedents. Journal of Managerial

Psychology, 21, 244−264.⁎Biggart, L., Corr, P., O-Brien,M., & Cooper, N. (2009). Trait emotional intelligence andwork–family conflict in fathers. Personality and Individual Differences, 48, 911−916.⁎Blanch, A., & Aluia, A. (2009). Work, family and personality: A study of work–family conflict. Personality and Individual Differences, 46, 520−524.⁎Block, B. L. (1995). An exploration of the relationships among work/family conflict, relevant personality variables, and well-being. Dissertation Abstracts

International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 56(3-B), 1729.⁎Bolino, M. C., & Turnley, W. H. (2005). The personal costs of citizenship behavior: The relationship between individual initiative and role overload, job stress, and

work–family conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 740−748.⁎Brough, P. (2005). A comparative investigation of the predictors of work-related psychological well-beingwithin police, fire and ambulance workers.New Zealand

Journal of Psychology, 34, 127−134.⁎Bruck, C. S. (2003). Theoretical antecedents to work–family conflict: A comprehensive approach. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and

Engineering, 64(1-B), 449.


⁎Bruck, C. S., & Allen, T. D. (2003). The relationship between big five personality traits, negative affectivity, type A behavior, and work–family conflict. Journal ofVocational Behavior, 63, 457−472.

*Bryant, R. H. (2010). Personality and work-family conflict: The mediational role of coping styles. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. University of South Florida.⁎Duxbury, L. E.,Higgins, C.A., & Lee,C.M. (1994).Work–family conflict: A comparisonbygender, family type andperceived control. Journal of Family Issues,15, 449−466.Eby, L. T., Maher, C. P., & Butts, M. M. (2010). The intersection of work and family life: The role of affect. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 599−622.⁎Gaitley, N. J. (1996). The influence of social support and locus of control on the well-being of men and women in the work–family domain. Dissertation Abstracts

International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 57(4-A), 1727.⁎Grandey, A. A., & Cropanzano, R. (1999). The conservation of resources model applied to work–family conflict and strain. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 350−370.⁎Halbesleben, J. R. B., Harvey, J., & Bolino, M. C. (2009). Too engaged? A conservation of resources view of the relationship between work engagement and work

interference with family. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1452−1465.⁎Hennessy, K. D. (2008). Work–family balance: An exploration of conflict and enrichment for women in a traditional occupation. Dissertation Abstracts

International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 68(8-A), 3295.⁎Hoge, T. (2009). When work strain transcends psychological boundaries: An inquiry into the relationship between time pressure, irritation, work–family conflict

and psychosomatic complaints. Stress and Health, 25, 41−51.⁎Horwitz, B. N., Luong, G., & Charles, S. T. (2008). Neuroticism and extraversion share genetic and environmental effects with negative and positive mood spillover

in a nationally representative sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 45, 636−642.⁎Hughes, E. L., & Parkes, K. R. (2007). Work hours and well-being: The roles of work–time control and work–family interference. Work & Stress, 21, 264−278.⁎Jones, K. B. (2001). Factors effecting job satisfaction among ordained Presbyterian clergy. ProQuest Information & Learning. Dissertation Abstracts International:

Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 61(7-B), 3887.⁎Kafetsios, K. (2007). Work-family conflict and its relationship with job satisfaction and psychological distress: The role of affect at work and gender. Hellenic

Journal of Psychology, 4, 15−35.⁎Karatepe, O. M., & Magaji, A. B. (2008). Work–family conflict and facilitation in the hotel industry: A study in Nigeria. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 49, 395−412.⁎Karatepe, O. M., & Uludag, O. (2008). Affectivity, conflicts in the work–family interface, and hotel employee outcomes. International Journal of Hospitality

Management, 27, 30−41.⁎Kinnunen, U., Vermulst, A., Gerris, J., & Mäkikangas, A. (2003). Work–family conflict and its relations to well-being: The role of personality as a moderating factor.

Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 1669−1683.⁎Kirkcaldy, B. D., & Martin, T. (2000). Job stress and satisfaction among nurses: Individual differences. Stress Medicine, 16, 77−89.⁎Laster, K. M. (2002). An examination of the relationships between select psychological dimensions and work-to-family and family-to-work role conflict in men

and women. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 63(1-B), 577.⁎Little, L. M., Simmons, B. L., & Nelson, D. L. (2007). Health among leaders: Positive and negative affect, engagement and burnout, forgiveness and revenge. Journal

of Management Studies, 44, 243−260.⁎Michel, J. S., Clark, M. A., & Bowling, N. A. (2011, April). Personality and the work–family integration and segmentation continuum. Poster presented at the annual

meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Chicago, IL.⁎Mitchelson, J. K. (2009). Seeking the perfect balance: Perfectionism and work–family conflict. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82, 349−367.⁎Mitchelson, J. K. (2009). [Self-esteem, work–family self-efficacy, and work-family conflict]. Unpublished raw data.⁎Mitchelson, J. K., Brown, V. R., Kongable, E., & Teague, S. E. (2010). Personality and work–family conflict: Situational strength as moderator. Paper presented at the

annual conference for the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Atlanta, GA.Morf, M. (1989). The work/life dichotomy: Prospects for reintegrating people and jobs. New York, NY, England: Quorum Books.⁎Nikandrou, I., Panayotopoulou, L., & Apospori, E. (2008). The impact of individual and organizational characteristics on work–family conflict and career outcomes.

Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23, 576−598.⁎Noor, N. M. (2002). Work-family conflict, locus of control, and women's well-being: Tests of alternative pathways. Journal of Social Psychology, 142, 645−662.⁎Noor, N. M. (2003). Work- and family-related variables, work–family conflict and women's well-being: Some observations. Community, Work & Family, 6, 297−319.⁎Noor, N. M. (2004). Work–family conflict, work- and family-role salience, and women's well-being. Journal of Social Psychology, 144, 389−405.⁎Otalora, M. G. (2008). Effects of work–family conflict on organizational citizenship behavior. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and

Engineering, 68(7-B), 4877.⁎Podratz, L. T. (2005). The nature of work–personal life balance. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 65(11-B), 6083.⁎Posthuma, R. A., Joplin, J. R. W., & Maertz, C. P., Jr. (2005). Comparing the validity of turnover predictors in the United States and Mexico. International Journal of

Cross Cultural Management, 5, 165−180.⁎Putter, S., & Johnson, S. K. (2009). Affective antecedents and outcomes of work–family balance from a multi-dimensional perspective. Paper presented at the annual

conference for the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, New Orleans, LA.⁎Rantanen, J., Pulkkinen, L., & Kinnunen, U. (2005). The big five personality dimensions, work–family conflict, and psychological distress: A longitudinal view.

Journal of Individual Differences, 26, 155−166.⁎Raver, J. L. (2005). Behavioral outcomes of interpersonal aggression at work: A mediated andmoderated model. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The

Sciences and Engineering, 65(7-B), 3758.⁎Reiber, J. U. (1999). Personality and coping as predictors of job outcomes in the work environment. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and

Engineering, 60(1-B), 0400.⁎Reinardy, S. (2007). Beyond the games: A study of the effects of life issues and burnout on newspaper sports editors. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A:

Humanities and Social Sciences, 67(11-A), 4021.⁎Rotondo,D.M.,&Kincaid, J. F. (2008). Conflict, facilitation, and individual copingstyles across thework and familydomains. Journal ofManagerial Psychology,23, 484−506.⁎Shafiro, M. (2005). The effects of allocentrism, idiocentrism, social support, and big five personality dimensions on work–family conflict. Dissertation Abstracts

International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 66(3-B), 1773.⁎Smoot, S. M. (2005). The meditational role of coping in the relationship between personality and work–family conflict. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section

B: The Sciences and Engineering, 66(4-B), 2317.Spector, P. E., Zapf, D., Chen, P. Y., & Frese, M. (2000). Why negative affectivity should not be controlled in job stress research: Don't throw out the baby with the

bath water. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 79−95.⁎Treistman, D. L. (2005). Work-family conflict and life satisfaction in female graduate students: Testing mediating and moderating hypotheses. Dissertation

Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 65(7-B), 3730.⁎van Rijswijk, K., Bekker, M. H. J., Rutte, C. G., & Croon, M. A. (2004). The relationships among part-time work, work–family interference, and well-being. Journal of

Occupational Health Psychology, 9, 286−295.⁎Voydanoff, P. (2005). Social integration, work–family conflict and facilitation, and job and marital quality. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 67, 666−679.⁎Wierda-Boer, H. H., Gerris, J. R. M., & Vermulst, A. A. (2009). Managing multiple roles: Personality, stress, and work–family interference in dual-earner couples.

Journal of Individual Differences, 30, 6−19.⁎Yardley, J. K. (1995). The relationships of work–family conflict with work outcomes: A test of a model. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences

and Engineering, 55(11-B), 5113.

The role of the Five Factor Model of personality in the perceptions of negative and positive forms...

Documents

Transcript of The role of the Five Factor Model of personality in the perceptions of negative and positive forms...