1
WORK-FAMILY NEGATIVE AND POSITIVE SPILLOVER AND OUTCOMES:
DIRECT AND MODERATING EFFECTS
Jarrod M. Haar
Department of Strategy & Human Resource Management
University of Waikato
Private Bag 3105
Hamilton
New Zealand
Phone: +64 7 838 4587
Fax: +64 7 838 4356
E-mail: haar@waikato.ac.nz
Anne Bardoel
Department of Management
Monash University
Victoria 3800 Australia
Phone: +61 3 9903 2675
Fax: +61 3 9903 2718
E-mail: anne.bardoel@buseco.monash.edu.au
Acknowledgements
We would like to acknowledge the contribution of the International Work-Family
(Project 3535) research team to the theoretical and empirical conceptualization of this
research. The team consists of (in alphabetical order): Dr. Zeynep Aycan (Turkey), Dr.
Roya Ayman (U.S.), Dr. Anne Bardoel (Australia), Dr. Tripti Pande-Desai (India), Dr.
Anat Drach-Zahavy (Israel), Dr. Leslie Hammer (U.S.), Dr. Ting-Pang Huang
(Taiwan), Dr. Karen Korabik (Canada), Dr. Donna Lero (Canada)., Dr. Arti Mawardi
(Indonseia), Dr. Steven Poelmans (Spain), Dr. Ujvala Rajadhyaksha (India) and Dr.
Anit Somech (Israel).
2
WORK-FAMILY NEGATIVE AND POSITIVE SPILLOVER AND OUTCOMES:
DIRECT AND MODERATING EFFECTS
The work-family literature has focused almost exclusively on negative spillover rather than
positive spillover. Further, while other organizational behavior literature has looked to
explore moderating effects, there has been no exploration of the interaction effects between
work and family dimensions of negative and positive spillover towards outcomes. Using a
sample of 398 Australian employees, we found strong support for work-family and familywork negative and positive spillover predicting job satisfaction and psychological distress. In
addition, we tested the interaction effects between positive and negative spillover and found a
number of significant effects, with findings indicating that respondents with higher positive
spillover were able to mitigate the detrimental influence of negative spillover towards job
satisfaction and psychological distress. The findings support the notion of testing both
negative and positive spillover dimensions towards outcomes from both work and family
directions together. The implications for research and organizations are discussed.
Keywords: work-family, family-work, negative spillover, positive spillover, outcomes,
Australia.
3
INTRODUCTION
There is consistently strong evidence that today’s workers face multiple demands on their
time. A host of demographic changes including more working mothers, dual career couples
and working single parents has lead Frone (2003) to argue that more families now juggle
demands of the job and family. Due to these changes, there has been growing attention and
interest in work-family conflict, which Greenhaus and Beutell (1985) asserted relates to role
pressures from one domain (e.g. work) being incompatible with another domain (e.g. family).
Clearly the demands of the modern work environment are increasingly challenging for
employees. The detrimental outcomes associated with work-family conflict have been well
established, including lower job and life satisfaction (Kossek & Ozeki, 1998). However, there
have been recent calls from critics that argue that balancing work and family responsibilities
might not always be negative, and that potentially positive outcomes may occur (Greenhaus &
Powell, 2006). While empirical study of the positive aspects of work-family domains have
only begun to emerge little is understood about how these diametrically opposed conditions
(positive and negative aspects) might influence outcomes together. The present study
compares the extent of influence from negative and positive spillover dimensions towards
established outcomes and the interaction effects of the spillover with each other. This will
provide a more complete examination of how spillover influences employee outcomes and
allows for greater understanding of what dimensions researchers and employers should focus
on.
THEORETICAL APPROACHES
Negative Spillover
Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek and Rosenthal (1964) defined role conflict as the “simultaneous
occurrence of two (or more) sets of pressures such that compliance with one would make
4
more difficult compliance with the other” (p. 19). Role conflict was originally conceptualised
as an incompatibility between competing demands within a role (e.g. work), although conflict
between work and other roles (e.g. family) was suggested. Greenhaus and Beutell’s (1985)
seminal article on work-family conflict brought the attention strongly towards work and
family domains and this has become well established in understanding the issues and
problems with balancing these domains. Work-family conflict has been categorised as having
three dimensions: time-based, strain-based, and behaviour-based conflict. These approaches
highlight the problems employees may face when trying to balance their work and family
roles, including lack of time to devote towards both work and family roles, the strains such
divisions may cause, and issues associated with behaving differently within each role.
Importantly, the direction of conflict can be bi-directional (Grzywacz, Arcury, Marin,
Carrillo, Burke, Coates, & Quandt, 2007; Frone, Yardley, & Markel, 1997), with interference
between roles coming from the work into family (e.g. coming home late due to work
commitments) as well as family into work (e.g. being distracted at work due to having a sick
child at home). Grzywacz et al. (2007) stated that “work–family conflict is typically viewed
from a demands perspective” (p. 1120), with multiple demands leading to heightened workfamily conflict including social, structural, and psychological demands (Frone et al., 1997).
Related to this are role strain and the scarcity approach. Goode (1960) noted that role strain
relates to the felt difficulty in performing obligations related to a role, while the scarcity
approach suggests that people have a limited quantity resources relating to time, energy and
attention. As a result, employees with multiple roles such as work, childcare, eldercare etc.
may quickly deplete these resources if not properly allocated, leading to greater conflict.
Positive Spillover
5
There have been recent developments to the field that now suggest that work and family roles
are not only interdependent but also that the spillover between roles is not always detrimental.
While Greenhaus and Beutell’s (1985) conflict perspective has dominated the work-family
literature, a number of researchers including Greenhaus have called for an approach that
emphasises balancing the negative spillover or conflict perspectives with the positive or
enrichment perspectives from the work and family roles (e.g. Greenhaus & Powell 2006;
Powell & Greenhaus 2006; Carlson, Kacmar, Wayne & Grzywacz 2006; Wayne, Randel &
Stevens 2006; Grzywacz & Marks 2000). While work-family conflict has become the
established terminology for the negative spillover between work and family roles, there has
been less uniformity towards potentially positive aspects. For example, terms such as positive
spillover, enhancement, and facilitation have been offered (Greenhaus & Powell 2006, Powel
& Greenhaus 2006, Wayne et al. 2006), while basically arguing the same approach: that the
role exchange between work and family isn’t always detrimental and can have enhancing or
positive effects. The present study utilizes the terms negative and positive spillover to
represent the diametrically opposed influences from the interplay between work and family
roles.
Grzywacz and Marks (2000) asserted the importance of focusing on positive spillover from
both the workplace into family (work-family) and the family into the workplace (familywork). This approach is similar to developments within the work-family conflict literature,
where examining conflict originating from both the workplace and the home has become the
established norm (e.g. Netemeyer, Boles & McMurrian, 1996). Hanson, Hammer and Colton
(2006) defined work–family positive spillover “as the transfer of positively valenced affect,
skills, behaviors, and values from the originating domain to the receiving domain” (p. 251).
While the work-family literature has been slow in exploring the potential for positive
6
influences from other roles, there have been exceptions in other fields. For example, aspects
from one role (e.g. work) have been found to improve other roles (e.g. family) including
interpersonal communication and multitasking (Crouter, 1984; Ruderman, Ohlott, Panzer, &
King, 2002). Similarly, values such as autonomy and curiosity based in the workplace have
influenced the values that employed parents promote in their family (Pearlin & Kohn, 1966).
Consequently, there is support for the notion that positive spillover from the workplace and/or
the family can influence outcomes relating to work and non-work.
The positive influence of work and family roles relates to the enhancement approach, which is
an alternative to the scarcity approach. Sieber (1974) suggested that multiple roles could
produce positive outcomes through a number of rewards derived from role accumulation.
Role privileges relate to benefits and rewards gained by participating in a specific role. For
example, enhanced self-esteem might be due to a worker gaining a positive job performance
review or through a positive school report from a child. The end result see’s the worker
feeling increased self-esteem with potential flow-on benefits to other roles. In a similar vein,
status security refers to success from one role buffering the failures from another role. Related
to the example above, a positive personal job performance report might buffer the
disappointment and anxiety related to a sibling’s poor school report. Similarly, a positive
weekend away with one’s family may allow an employee to recast the tension at work with
co-workers in a more positive manner, such as reiterating that getting along with people takes
effort rather than speaking disparagingly of colleagues. Resources are another reward that can
be earned in one role and then utilized by another role. For example, an employee who works
long hours and weekends to get a major project finished and earns a monetary bonus might
utilize the financial benefit to reward their family with a vacation. Finally, ego gratification
relates to personality enrichment where the spillover of skills, attitudes, and perspectives from
7
one role are used to solve problems in another role. For example, a working parent who
successfully deals with a problem child might create skills relating to conflict resolution that
can be utilized positively in the workplace.
Combined, there is theoretical support for the spillover of work and family roles to have
positive and negative influences. However, while there has been a plethora of empirical
studies on the detrimental outcomes associated with work-family negative spillover, there has
been much less empirical attention towards positive spillover. The following section
hypotheses outcomes from both positive and negative spillover and builds towards testing
potential interaction effects between the spillover dimensions.
HYPOTHESES
Direct Effects
In their meta-analysis, Kossek and Ozeki (1998) found a strong negative relationship between
work-family conflict and job satisfaction. They stated the “the relationship between job
satisfaction and various w-f conflict measures is strong and negative across all samples:
People with high levels of conflict tend to be less satisfied with their jobs” (pp. 141-144).
While the relationship between work-family positive spillover and job satisfaction has been
tested, there is a dearth of empirical evidence. Researchers have suggested higher work–
family positive spillover will be positively linked to greater job satisfaction (Crouter, 1984;
Grzywacz, Almeida, & McDonald, 2002). The link between positive spillover and job
satisfaction relates to the transfer of positive skills, behaviour and values that in turn lead to
improved role performance (Hanson et al., 2006). Hanson et al. (2006) argued that this
improved role performance leads to reduced frustration with tasks and improved feelings,
which ultimately lead to enhanced role satisfaction, and empirical evidence supporting a
8
positive link between positive spillover and job and family satisfaction were found.
Consequently, employees able to positively utilize skills, behaviors and values from the home
or workplace should respond with improved job satisfaction. Consequently, we hypothesize
that spillover will be related to job satisfaction in positive and negative directions associated
with positive or negative spillover.
Hypothesis 1: Higher (a) work-family and (b) family-work negative spillover will be related
to lower job satisfaction.
Hypothesis 2: Higher (a) work-family and (b) family-work positive spillover will be related to
higher job satisfaction.
Mental health outcomes have been a major focus of both work-family conflict studies and
have also been explored in the few positive spillover studies. Strong and consistent links
between work-family conflict and psychological distress have been found (Allen, Herst,
Bruck, & Sutton, 2000). Major, Klein and Ehrhart (2002) found work-family conflict to be
directly related to psychological distress, and Frone (2000) found both work-family and
family-work conflict to be related to two psychiatric disorders. In effect, those with greater
negative spillover have worse mental health because of the detrimental of balancing the strain
of multiple and conflicting roles. Relating to positive spillover, both work-family and familywork dimensions have been found to link with mental health (Grzywacz et al., 2002; Hanson
et al., 2006; Hammer, Cullen, Neal, Sinclair, & Shafiro, 2005). It has been argued that
positive mental health outcomes associated with positive spillover are due to buffering
effects, where reinforced social relationships might buffer the negative events, or through the
transference of skills, behaviours, and values, which result in rewards like higher self-esteem,
which in turn, buffers against negative events (Hanson et al., 2006). Similarly, Stephens,
9
Franks and Atienza (1997) found higher work-family positive spillover associated with
enhanced psychological well being. This leads to our next set of Hypotheses.
Hypothesis 3: Higher (a) work-family and (b) family-work negative spillover will be related
to higher psychological distress.
Hypothesis 4: Higher (a) work-family and (b) family-work positive spillover will be related to
lower psychological distress.
Interaction Effects of Spillover
Perry-Jenkins, Repetti and Crouter (2000) suggested the work-family literature needs to
embrace complexity by exploring interaction effects. There is growing recognition that testing
interaction effects can clarify and add value to enhance our understanding of established
constructs and effects. This approach has been seen in other areas, specifically the
organizational justice literature, where studies have begun to explore the moderating role of
various organizational justice dimensions upon each other. For example, Spell and Arnold
(2007) tested the effects of interpersonal justice and distributive justice on the antecedents and
outcomes of procedural justice. Related to this, Graves, Ohlott and Ruderman (2007)
criticized the work-family literature for focusing on work aspects rather than non-work
aspects (e.g. family) and Graves et al. (2007) noted the importance of understanding the
greater roles a person has in their life. Similarly, Bishop, Scott, Goldsby and Cropanzano
(2005) noted the need to test effects from one domain (e.g. family) into another (e.g. work),
and Ford, Heinen and Langkamer (2007) suggested the influence of non-work factors on job
outcomes might be greater than initially evidenced. Further, Greenhaus, Collins and Shaw
(2003) highlighted the importance of family influences when they found quality of life was
highest for those more satisfied in family than work.
10
Haar (2005) tested the interaction effects of work-family conflict and family-work conflict on
each other and found intensification effects from conflict from the other role, such that high
levels of both forms of conflict lead to greater reductions in job satisfaction and
organizational commitment when both types of conflict were high. When testing the
moderating effects of conflict between work-family and family-work domains Haar (2005)
stated “conflict occurring in one domain simultaneously as conflict from the other domain
might have an intensification effect on job outcomes” (p. 6). While we understand the direct
effects of work-family conflict and, to a lesser extent, positive spillover, what we do not have
a clear understanding of is how these aspects may influence outcomes together. The reason
these interaction effects require greater attention is that we are beginning to understand that
employees can experience high levels of positive and negative spillover simultaneously. For
example, Demerouti and Geurts (2004) reported 16% of respondents reported relatively high
levels of both positive and negative work-family spillover. Consequently, there is increased
awareness of, and interest in, how work-family positive and negative spillover influence
employees attitudes and behaviors (Demerouti & Geurts, 2004; Frone, 2003).
We suggest the argument for testing the interaction effects of both negative and positive
spillover dimensions on each other exists in the positive spillover theory. Sieber (1974)
suggested that the advantages of role accumulation could outweigh any negative outcomes,
resulting in net gratification. As such, positive spillover may buffer the influence of negative
spillover. Sieber (1974) asserted that the approach of positive spillover outweighing negative
spillover has been widely neglected, and we suggest testing the interactions in this manner
allow us to specifically test the ability of positive spillover in buffering detrimental outcomes
associated with negative spillover. We argue that testing the four dimensions of work-family
and family-work positive and negative spillover will provide insight into the interaction
11
effects of separate domains as suggested above. Consequently, we hypothesize that positive
spillover will buffer the detrimental influence of negative spillover towards outcomes for both
work-family and family-work dimensions given arguments that positive spillover can
influence outcomes over and above negative spillover (Sieber, 1974).
Hypothesis 5: (a) Work-family and (b) family-work positive spillover will buffer (moderate)
the relationship between work-family and family-work negative spillover and job satisfaction.
Hypothesis 6: (a) Work-family and (b) family-work positive spillover will buffer (moderate)
the relationship between work-family and family-work negative spillover and psychological
distress.
METHOD
Sample and Procedure
Data were collected from two major sources: a private sector bank and a public sector
network of employed professionals. Participants were contacted via an email outlining the
project and included a link to a web-based survey. Following the suggestions of Kittleson,
(1997), follow-up requests to complete the online survey were emailed two weeks later. A
total of 1190 employees were emailed and a total of 420 employee surveys were completed
on-line. Twenty-two surveys were removed due to missing data, leaving a final data set of
398, for a 33% response rate. Respondents ranged in age from 21 to 63 years, with an average
age of 40 years (SD=9.4), 65% were female, 80% were married, and 69% parents. Education
was well spread with 30% with high school education, 13% technical college qualification,
24% with a bachelors degree, 15% had a graduate qualification, and 18% with a masters
degree or PhD. Overall, respondents worked 45.9 hours per week (SD=11.5).
12
Measures
To confirm the separate and opposite dimensions of work-family and family-work positive
and negative conflict, items were tested by structural equation modeling (SEM) using AMOS
v. 16 (Arbuckle, 1997) to assess the convergent and discriminant validity of the multiple-item
measures (Gerbing & Anderson, 1993). Seven goodness-of-fit indexes were utilized to assess
the overall measurement model fit (cf. Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1993): the chi-square goodnessof-fit statistic, minimum discrepancy divided by its degrees of freedom (CMIN/DF), the
goodness-of-fit index (GFI), the adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI), the comparative fit
index (CFI), Tucker-Lewis coefficient (TLI), and the root-mean-square error of
approximation (RMSEA) with confidence intervals. The SEM literature suggests a model
with acceptable fit is found when the GFI, CFI, TLI are equal to .95 or greater, .90 or greater
for the AGFI, .05 or less for the RMSEA and 3.0 or less for CMIN/DF (Bentler & Bonett,
1980; Hu & Bentler, 1999; Carmines & McIver, 1981). The measurement model did fit the
data well for a four-factor solution: χ2 (71) = 146.860 (p = .000), GFI = .95, CFI = .96, TLI =
.95, AGFI = .96, RMSEA = 0.05 (LO 90 = 0.04 and HI 90 = 0.06), and CMIN/DF = 2.068.
To check whether this was the best model based on the items, we re-ran the CFA testing three
alternative models, with (1) all items combined for a general positive and negative spillover
measure (a one factor model), (2) all work-family and family-work items combined for both
negative and positive spillover (a two-factor model), and (3) all work-family items combined
(positive and negative) and all family-work items combined (positive and negative) for a
different two-factor model. Results for the three alternative models show they are a poor fit
for the data. Alternative model 1: χ2 (77) = 1380.259 (p = .000), GFI = .63, CFI = .39, TLI =
.28, AGFI = .50, RMSEA = 0.20 (LO 90 = 0.19 and HI 90 = 0.21), and CMIN/DF = 17.925.
13
Alternative model 2: χ2 (76) = 982.901 (p = .000), GFI = .71, CFI = .57, TLI = .49, AGFI =
.60, RMSEA = 0.17 (LO 90 = 0.16 and HI 90 = 0.18), and CMIN/DF = 12.933. Alternative
model 3: χ2 (76) = 557.603 (p = .000), GFI = .82, CFI = .77, TLI = .73, AGFI = .75, RMSEA
= 0.12 (LO 90 = 0.12 and HI 90 = 0.13), and CMIN/DF = 7.337. This reinforces the four
factor model of spillover we tested.
Work-Family Negative Spillover and Family-Work Negative Spillover were measured with 8items by Carlson, Kacmar and Williams (2000), coded 1=strongly disagree, 6=strongly agree.
A sample item for the work-family dimension is “My work keeps me from my family
activities more than I would like” (α = .84) and for the family-work dimension is “The time I
spend on family responsibilities often interferes with my work” (α = .84). Work-Family
Positive Spillover and Family-Work Positive Spillover were measured with 6-items from
Grzywacz and Marks (2000), coded 1=never, 5=all of the time. A sample item for the workfamily dimension is “The things you do at work help you deal with personal and practical
issues at home” (α = .70) and for the family-work dimension is “The love and respect you get
at home makes you feel confident about yourself at work” (α = .66).
Job Satisfaction was measured using 2-items by Hackman and Oldham (1975), coded
1=strongly disagree, 6=strongly agree. Items used were “Generally speaking, I am very
satisfied with my present job” and “I am generally satisfied with the kind of work I do in my
present job”. This measure has a Cronbach’s alpha of .89.
Psychological Distress was measured using 9-items by Santor and Coyne (1997), coded
1=none, to a little of the time (less than 1 or 2 days) and 2=a moderate amount of the time (37 days). Questions followed the stem “During the past week…” and a sample item is “you felt
depressed”. Two items were reverse coded. A high score indicates higher psychological
distress. This measure has a Cronbach’s alpha of .84.
14
Similar to other work-family studies (e.g. Kossek, Colquitt, & Noe, 2001) we controlled for
demographic variables: Gender (1=female, 0=male), Marital Status (1=married/cohabitating,
0=single), and Family Size (number of children, 0=no children).
Analysis
Separate hierarchical regressions were conducted to examine the direct effects of negative
spillover on outcomes (Hypotheses 1 and 2), the direct effects of positive spillover on
outcomes (Hypotheses 3 and 4), and the interaction effects of these measures on each other
(Hypotheses 5 and 6). Step 1 contained the control variables (gender, marital status, and
family size). Step 2 contained the work-family and family-work negative spillover measures,
while Step 3 contained the work-family and family-work positive spillover measures. We
include negative and positive spillover separately in different steps to allow for comparisons
between these effects. This will allow for comparisons between negative and positive
spillover to be made. To test for moderation, Step 4 held the interaction between work-family
and family-work positive and negative spillover. To address issues of multi-collinearity, mean
centering of the interaction terms was done (Aiken & West, 1991).
RESULTS
Descriptive statistics for all the study variables is shown in Table 1.
_________
Insert Table 1 about here
_________
Table 1 shows that in the majority, the work-family measures are significantly correlated in
the expected direction with each other (all r< .30, all p< .01), although there is no evidence of
concept redundancy (Morrow, 1983). The exception is family-work negative spillover and
15
work-family positive spillover which is non-significant (r= -.04). The work-family measures
are all significantly related to job satisfaction and psychological distress in the appropriate
directions (all r > .15, all p >.01). Finally, job satisfaction is significantly correlated with
psychological distress (r= .39, p< .01).
Results of the hierarchical regressions for the direct and interaction effects of negative and
positive spillover (Hypotheses 1 to 6) are shown in Tables 2 and 3.
_________
Insert Tables 2 and 3 about here
_________
Direct Effects
Table 2 shows that work-family negative spillover is significantly related to job satisfaction (ß
= -.23, p< .001), as is family-work negative spillover (ß = -.10, p< .1). Similarly, work-family
positive spillover is significantly related to job satisfaction (ß = .27, p< .001), as is familywork positive spillover (ß = .11, p< .05). Table 3 shows work-family negative spillover is
significantly related to psychological distress (ß = .31, p< .001), as is family-work negative
spillover (ß = .20, p< .01). While family-work positive spillover is significantly related to
psychological distress (ß = -.15, p< .01), work-family positive spillover is not (ß = -.02, non
significant). From the R2 Change figures in Step 2, we see negative spillover accounts for 8%
of the variance for job satisfaction (p< .001) and this is similar to that from positive spillover
(9%, p< .001). However, towards psychological distress, negative spillover accounts for a
large amount of the variance at 18% (p< .001) compared to a more modest 2% (p< .05) from
positive spillover. These findings support Hypotheses 1 to three and 4b but not Hypothesis 4a.
Interaction Effects
16
Table 2 shows there are significant interaction effects between negative and positive spillover
towards job satisfaction, accounting for an additional 3% (p< .05) of variance. Work-family
positive spillover had a significant interaction with work-family negative spillover (ß= -.11,
p< .05) and family-work negative spillover (ß= -.19, p< .01). This provides strong support for
Hypothesis 5a but not 5b. Table 3 shows there are significant interaction effects between
negative and positive spillover towards psychological distress, accounting for an additional
3% (p< .05) of variance. Family-work positive spillover had a significant interaction with
work-family negative spillover (ß= -.10, p< .1) and work-family positive spillover had a
significant interaction with family-work negative spillover (ß= -.13, p< .05). This provides
some support for Hypotheses 6a and 6b. To facilitate interpretation of the significant
moderator effects, interactions are presented in Figures 1 to 4, with work-family and familywork negative and positive spillover low and high representing points below and above the
respective means.
_________
Insert Figures 1 and 2 about here
__________
Plotting the interaction terms for job satisfaction (Figures 1 and 2) shows similar effects for
work-family and family-work negative spillover interactions. When work-family and familywork negative spillover is low, respondents with high work-family positive spillover report
higher job satisfaction and these beneficial effects are maintained even when negative
spillover from both domains increases to high. While there is a decrease in job satisfaction
amongst all respondents, those with high work-family positive spillover report significantly
higher job satisfaction at all levels of negative spillover compared to respondents with low
work-family positive spillover.
_________
17
Insert Figure 3 about here
__________
Plotting the interaction terms for psychological distress (Figure 3) indicates respondents with
high family-work positive spillover report significantly lower psychological distress when
work-family negative spillover is low. When work-family negative spillover increases to
high, all respondents report increased psychological distress, but those with higher familywork positive spillover maintain a significantly lower level of distress than those with low
family-work positive spillover.
_________
Insert Figure 4 about here
__________
Plotting the interaction terms for psychological distress (Figure 4) shows similar levels of
psychological distress irrespective of work-family positive spillover levels at low levels of
family-work negative spillover. When family-work negative spillover increases to high, all
respondents report increased psychological distress, but those with higher family-work
positive spillover maintain a significantly lower level of distress than those with low familywork positive spillover.
Overall, the regression models were significant: job satisfaction (Total R2 = .25, F = 7.832, p<
.001) and psychological distress (Total R2 = .26, F = 7.846, p< .001). Finally, the variance
inflation factors (VIF) were examined for evidence of multicollinearity. Experts suggest
multicollinearity can be detected when the VIF values equal 10 or higher (Ryan, 1997).
However, all the scores were below 1.8, indicating no evidence of multicollinearity unduly
influencing the regression estimates.
18
DISCUSSION
The present study focused on testing the influence of work-family and family-work
dimensions of negative and positive spillover on outcomes. Our use of SEM supported the
separation of work-family and family-work directions as well as negative and positive
spillover dimensions, which provides us with strong confidence the findings were not due to
poor measurement issues. The direct effects from negative spillover were consistent towards
both outcomes, which are aligned with the literature which has suggested consistent
detrimental effects (e.g. Kossek and Ozeki, 1998). Further, we find support for negative
spillover originating from both the work and family domains which confirms testing these
effects from both directions. Given the infancy of the positive spillover and lack of large
numbers of empirical studies, there is clearly need of more studies to provide a clearer picture
of effects. Work-family and family-work positive spillover were both significantly related to
job satisfaction which supports the current literature (Grzywacz et al., 2002). Our findings
also support positive spillover being linked negatively to psychological distress (Grzywacz et
al., 2002; Hanson et al., 2006), although our findings were significant only from the familywork domain. However, it is important to note that the correlations were significant towards
psychological distress from both work-family and family-work positive spillover, and thus the
significant finding for family-work positive spillover is a result of the regression analysis.
Again, these findings encourage a bi-directional approach to testing positive spillover as has
been found in the negative spillover literature.
The other major focus of the present study was to test the interaction effects and these yielded
strong and consistent interaction effects towards job satisfaction and psychological distress.
For job satisfaction, the interaction effects were consistent, with respondents with high
positive work-family spillover reporting significantly higher levels of job satisfaction at all
19
levels of work-family and family-work negative spillover. This shows that spillover has
significant effects on job satisfaction at the direct level of effect for both positive and negative
spillover, and when combined, there are additional effects where work-family positive
spillover buffers the detrimental effects of negative spillover. The interaction effects towards
psychological distress were slightly different from that of job satisfaction, with positive
spillover originating from both the work and home buffering negative spillover. Respondents
with high positive spillover reported significantly higher levels of job satisfaction and lower
levels of distress when negative spillover was high. The results towards psychological distress
show that positive spillover can influence this outcome from both the work and family
direction towards negative spillover from both the work and family domains. While these
influences were not universally influential, it does support the interaction of positive spillover
can be from both work-family directions potentially towards both work-family directions of
negative spillover.
Implications
There are a number of major implications from these finding. Firstly, when we compare the
R2 Change figures for negative and positive spillover, we see that positive spillover accounts
for significant amounts of variance over and above negative spillover. For the job satisfaction
model, negative spillover accounts for 8% while positive spillover accounts for an additional
9% of variance after negative spillover has been considered. For psychological distress, the
additional amounts of variance from positive spillover is modest (2%) compared to the large
amount accounted for by negative spillover (18%). We suggest these findings encourage
researchers to test the negative and positive spillover effects together when testing outcomes.
While further studies are needed to improve generalizability of these direct effects, these
findings do suggest that testing for the effects of negative spillover on their own is limited and
20
may not uncover the entire effects of spillover between the work and family domains. The
weighting of positive and negative spillover effects on variance shows positive spillover may
be more important than negative spillover towards some outcomes (e.g. job satisfaction), and
conversely, of lesser importance (e.g. psychological distress). Given these outcomes have
received a lot of attention in the work-family conflict literature our findings suggest the
effects of domain spillover on outcomes may be under represented unless both positive and
negative spillover from both the work and family domains are included. Consequently, we
encourage researchers to explore positive spillover in addition to negative spillover to clarify
the consistent effects that spillover may have on outcomes. Further, there are clear
methodological advantages in placing negative and positive spillover in separate steps in
regression models as this allows us to compare the extent of the effects towards overall
variance. This may prove especially beneficial for researchers and organizations if the
findings in the present study towards job satisfaction are consistently held, with positive
spillover being a greater influencer than negative spillover.
In a related manner, testing the interaction effects of positive spillover on negative spillover
appears highly warranted. As expected, greater understanding of outcomes associated with
work-family spillover was found, which highlights the importance of testing interaction
effects and non-work elements supporting such calls in the literature (Ford et al., 2007;
Graves et al., 2007; Bishop et al., 2005; Perry-Jenkins et al., 2000). The findings that positive
spillover buffered job satisfaction and psychological distress aligns with Sieber’s (1974)
assertion that the advantages of role accumulation might outweigh negative influences, and
towards these outcomes, there does appear to be net gratification. Consequently, the findings
here encourage further testing of the effects of positive spillover buffering negative spillover.
While research in positive spillover is only beginning to emerge, we encourage researchers to
21
consider both positive and negative spillover dimensions and how these might interact
together. Ultimately, this should provide greater understanding of the effects of spillover
between work and family domains, which aligns well with Greenhaus and Powell’s (2006)
calls for greater attention to the positive side of work and family. We’d argue that this can be
taken one step further through testing the combined (i.e. interaction) effects of negative and
positive spillover on outcomes, which should provide a clearer indication of what employees
experience simultaneously through their work and family roles.
These findings also have implications for practice. This is especially prevalent, when we
consider firms have been inundated for decades with the detrimental effects of the workfamily negative spillover. Until recently, firms have been told that the work-family interface
results in multiple and consistently negative outcomes, which might be buffered through
elements such as supervisor support (e.g. van Daalen, Willemsen & Sanders, 2006). However,
our findings support the new thrust of research into positive spillover and provides
organizations with evidence that the work-family interface is not always negative, and indeed,
that these positive influences may in turn buffer the negative spillover resulting in overall
positive fulfilment. Consequently, organizations should work towards understanding,
highlighting and promoting positive work and family spillover for employees, for example,
reinforcing Sieber’s (1974) rewards such as ego gratification through reinforcing positive
skills from the job that might be useful at home. Similarly, organizational rewards targeted at
families might provide better work-family spillover, for example, performance rewards such
as family vacations or meals our for the family might reinforce the positive links between
work and family. As such, the present study provides organizations with evidence that work
and home may hold both positive and negative influences on outcomes, and further, that
22
positive spillover might also buffer the negative further enhancing the lives and wellbeing of
employees.
Limitations
An issue with the majority of organizational research is data collection at one point in time,
which raises concerns towards common method variance. As undertaken in other work-family
research (e.g. Major et al., 2002), we tested for common method variance concerns by
conducting Harman’s One Factor Test. The resulting factor analysis (unrotated) resulted in
ten factors, the largest accounting for 23% of the variance. Due to the large number of factors,
and that no single factor dominated the analysis, there is little evidence of common method
variance (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986). Further, the interaction effects like the ones we consider
in the present study would not be expected to be as susceptible to method variance as
compared to main effects, providing further evidence that common method variance is not an
issue (Evans, 1985). Further, the work-family literature has been criticized for homogenous
samples (Kossek & Ozeki, 1998) and while our sample was collected from mainly two areas
(a bank and a professional network), there was a wide spread amongst respondents in their
demographics as well as a good spread in positions (48% managers and 52% non-managers).
As such, we suggest the findings represent a good indication of the effects of work-family
spillover on this sample of Australian employees, although further studies are needed to
solidify our understanding of the direct and interactional effects of positive and negative
spillover.
Conclusion
The present study provides support for assessing the influence of positive and negative
spillover on outcomes from both the work-family and family-work directions, and encourages
23
the additional exploration of interaction effects between positive and negative spillover.
Clearly, given the infancy of the positive spillover field, further studies are needed to clarify
the direct and interaction effects, but we suggest the present study provides strong direction
and argument for testing both positive and negative effects together to provide a clearer
understanding of the role that the work-family interface plays in the modern workplace.
24
REFERENCES
Aiken, L. S. & West, S. G. (1991) Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions.
Newbury Park: Sage.
Allen, T. D., Herst, D. E. L., Bruck, C. S., & Sutton, M. (2000). Consequences associated
with work-to-family conflict: A review and agenda for future research. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 278-308.
Arbuckle, J. L. (1997). AMOS users’ guide version 4.0. Chicago: Smallwaters Corporation.
Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in analysis of
covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588–606.
Bishop, J. W., Scott, K. D., Goldsby, M. G., & Cropanzano, R. (2005). A construct validity
study of commitment and perceived support variables. A multifoci approach across
different team environments. Group and Organisational Management, 30(2), 153-180.
Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, D., & Klesh, J. (1979). The Michigan Organisational
Assessment Questionnaire. Unpublished manuscript, University of Michigan, Ann
Arbor, Michigan.
Carlson, D. S., Kacmar, K. M., &Williams, L. J. (2000). Construction and Initial Validation
of a Multidimensional Measure of Work–Family Conflict. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 56, 249–276.
Carlson, D., Kacmar, K. M., Wayne, J. H., & Grzywacz, J. G. (2006). Measuring the
positive side of the work-family interface: Development and validation of a workfamily enrichment scale. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 68, 131-164.
Carmines, E. G. & McIver, J. P. (1981). Analyzing models with unobserved variables. In
Bohrnstedt, G.W. & Borgatta, E.F. [Eds.] Social measurement: Current issues.
Beverly Hills: Sage.
25
Crouter, A. C. (1984). Spillover from family to work: The neglected side of the work-family
interface. Human Relations, 37(6), 425-441.
Demerouti, E., & Geurts, S. (2004). Towards a typology of work-home interaction.
Community, Work, & Family, 7, 285-309.
Evans, M. G. (1985). A Monte Carlo study of the effects of correlated method variance in
moderated multiple regression analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 36, 305–323.
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(1), 57-80.
Frone, M. R., Yardley, J. K., & Markel, K. S. (1997). Developing and testing an integrative
model of the work-family interface. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50, 145–167.
Frone, M. R. (2000). Work-Family Conflict and Employee Psychiatric Disorders: The
National Comorbidity Survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(6), 888-895.
Frone, M. R. (2003). Work-family balance. In J. C. Quick & L. E. Tetrick (Eds.). Handbook
of Occupational Health Psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Goode, W. J. (1960). A theory of role strain. American Sociological Review, 25, 483-496.
Graves, L. M., Ohlott, P. J., & Ruderman, M. N. (2007). Commitment to family roles: Effects
on managers’ attitudes and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 44-56.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles.
Academy of Management Review, 10(1), 76-88.
Greenhaus, J. H., Collins, K. M., & Shaw, J. D. (2003). The relation between work-family
balance and quality of life. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63 (3), 510-531.
26
Greenhaus, J. H., & Powell, G. N. (2006). When work and family are allies: A theory of
work-family enrichment. Academy of Management Review, 31, 72-79.
Grzywacz, J. G., Arcury, T. A., Marin, A., Carrillo, L., Burke, B., Coates, M. L., & Quandt,
S. A. (2007). Work–family conflict: Experiences and health implications among
immigrant Latinos. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 1119–1130.
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(1), 111-126.
Grzywacz, J. G., Almeida, D. A., & McDonald, D. A. (2002). Work-family spillover and
daily reports of work and family stress in the adult labor force. Family Relations,
51(1), 28-36.
Hackman, J. & Oldham, G. (1975). Development of the job diagnostic survey. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 60, 159-170.
Haar, J. M. (2005). Work-Family conflict predicting job satisfaction and organisational
commitment: testing the moderating effects of conflict from both work and family
domains. The New Zealand Journal of Human Resources Management, Vol 5, 1-31,
retrieved 1 January 2008 at
http://www.nzjhrm.org.nz/articles/2005_articles/WFC_FWC_Moderating_NZJHRM_
Feb_2005.doc
Hanson, G. C., Hammer, L. B., & Colton, C. L. (2006). Development and Validation of a
Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Work–Family Positive Spillover. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 11(3), 249–265.
Hammer, L. B., Cullen, J. C., Neal, M. B., Sinclair, R. R., & Shafiro, M. (2005). The
longitudinal effects of work-family conflict and positive spillover on depressive
27
symptoms among dual-earner couples. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,
10, 138-154.
Hu, L. T. & Bentler, P. M. (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 Sörbom, D. 1993. Lisrel 8: Structural equations modeling with the
SIMPLIS command language. Chicago: Scientific Software International.
Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R., Snoek, J. D., & Rosenthal, R. A. (1964).
Organizational Stress. New York: Wiley.
Kittleson, M. (1997). Determining effective follow-up of e-mail surveys. American Journal of
Health Behavior, 21(3), 193-196.
Kossek, E. E., Colquitt, J. A., & Noe, R. A. (2001). Caregiving decisions, well-being, and
performance: The effects of place and provider as a function of dependent type and
work-family climates. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 29-44.
Kossek, E. & Ozeki, C. 1998. Work-family conflict, policies and the job-life satisfaction
relation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(2), 139-149.
Major, V. S., Klein, K. J., & Ehrhart, M. G. (2002). Work time, work interference with
family, and psychological distress. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 427-436.
Morrow, P. (1983). Concept redundancy in organizational research: The case of work
commitment. Academy of Management Review, 8(3), 486-500.
Netemeyer, R. G., Boles, J. S. & McMurrian, R. 1996. Development and validation of workfamily conflict and family-work conflict scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(4),
400-410.
Pearlin, L., & Kohn, M. (1966). Social class, occupational, and parental values: A cross
national study. American Sociological Review, 31, 466–479.
28
Perry-Jenkins, M., Repetti, R. L., & Crouter, A. C. (2000). Work and family in the 1990s.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 62, 981-998.
Podsakoff, P. M. & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organisational research: Problems
and prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4), 531-544.
Powell, G. N. & Greenhaus, J. H. (2006). Think piece: Is the opposite of positive negative?
Career Development International, 11(7), 650-659.
Ruderman, M. N., Ohlott, P. J., Panzer, K., & King, S. (2002). Benefits of multiple roles for
managerial women. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 369-386.
Ryan, T. P. (1997). Modern Regression Methods. New York: Wiley.
Santor, D. A., Coyne, J. C. (1997). Shortening the CES-D to improve its ability to detect cases
of depression. Psychological Assessment, 9, 233-243.
Sieber, S. D. (1974). Toward a Theory of Role Accumulation. American Sociological Review,
39(4), 567-578.
Spell, C., & Arnold, T. (2007). An appraisal perspective of justice, structure, and job control
as antecedents of psychological distress. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28(6),
729-751.
Stephens, M. A. P., Franks, M. M., & Atienza, A. A. (1997). Where two roles intersect:
Spillover between parent care and employment. Psychology and Aging, 12, 30–37.
van Daalen, G., Willemsen, T, M., & Sanders, K. (2006). Reducing work-family conflict
through different sources of social support. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69, 462476.
Wayne, J. H., Randel, A. E. & Stevens, J. (2006). The role of identity and work-family
support in work-family enrichment and its work related consequences. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 69(3), 445-461.
29
TABLE 1. Correlations and Descriptive Statistics of the Study Variables
Variables
1. Family Size
2. Work-Family Negative Spillover
3. Family-Work Negative Spillover
4. Work-Family Positive Spillover
5. Family-Work Positive Spillover
6. Job Satisfaction
7. Psychological Distress
N=398, *p<.05, **p<.01
M
2.1
3.8
2.6
2.7
3.6
4.5
1.3
SD
1.0
1.1
.94
.72
.70
1.2
.29
1
--.07
.02
.06
-.12*
.18**
-.16**
2
3
4
5
6
7
-.30**
-.19**
-.16**
-.28**
.36**
--.04
-.21**
-.20**
.33**
-.29**
.37**
-.16**
-.16**
-.25**
-.39**
--
30
TABLE 2. Regression Coefficients for Job Satisfaction
Variables
Gender
Marital Status
Family Size
WF Negative Spillover
FW Negative Spillover
WF Positive Spillover
FW Positive Spillover
Step 1
Controls
.13*
.01
.21**
Job Satisfaction
Step 2
Step 3
Predictors
Moderators
.14*
.07
.03
.05
.20**
.19**
-.23***
-.10†
Step 4
Interactions
.07
.04
.19**
-.14*
-.09†
-.18**
-.06
.27***
.11*
.27***
.08
WF Negative Spillover x WF Positive Spillover
WF Negative Spillover x FW Positive Spillover
FW Negative Spillover x WF Positive Spillover
FW Negative Spillover x FW Positive Spillover
R2 change
.05**
.08***
.09***
Total R2
.05
.13
.22
2
Adjusted R
.04
.11
.20
F Statistic
4.546**
7.843***
10.562***
†p< .1, *p<.05, **p<.01, p< .001. Standardized regression coefficients, all significance tests were single-tailed.
-.11*
.01
.19**
-.02
.03*
.25
.22
7.832***
31
TABLE 3. Regression Coefficients for Psychological Distress
Variables
Gender
Marital Status
Family Size
WF Negative Spillover
FW Negative Spillover
WF Positive Spillover
FW Positive Spillover
Step 1
Controls
.02
.07
-.15*
Psychological Distress
Step 2
Step 3
Predictors
Moderators
.02
.04
.03
.01
-.13*
-.15*
.31***
.20**
Step 4
Interactions
.04
.01
-.15**
.27***
.17**
.30***
.17**
-.02
-.15**
-.03
-.11*
WF Negative Spillover x WF Positive Spillover
WF Negative Spillover x FW Positive Spillover
FW Negative Spillover x WF Positive Spillover
FW Negative Spillover x FW Positive Spillover
R2 change
.03†
.18***
.02*
Total R2
.03
.21
.23
2
Adjusted R
.02
.19
.21
F Statistic
2.640†
13.291***
10.699***
†p< .1, *p<.05, **p<.01, p< .001. Standardized regression coefficients, all significance tests were single-tailed.
.07
-.10†
-.13*
-.01
.03*
.26
.23
7.846***
32
Figure 1. Interaction between Work-Family Negative Spillover & Work-Family Positive Spillover with Job Satisfaction as Dependent
Variable
5.2
Job Satisfaction
5.0
4.8
Work-Family
Positive Spillover
High
4.6
4.4
4.2
Work-Family
Positive Spillover
Low
4.0
3.8
Work-Family Negative Spillover
Low
Work-Family Negative Spillover
High
33
Figure 2. Interaction between Family-Work Negative Spillover & Work-Family Positive Spillover with Job Satisfaction as Dependent
Variable
5.0
Work-Family
Positive Spillover
High
Job Satisfaction
4.8
4.6
4.4
4.2
4.0
3.8
Work-Family
Positive Spillover
Low
3.6
Family-Work Negative Spillover
Low
Family-Work Negative Spillover
High
34
Figure 3. Interaction between Work-Family Negative Spillover & Family-Work Positive Spillover with Psychological Distress as
Dependent Variable
Family-Work
Positive Spillover
Low
Psychological Distress
1.4
Family-Work
Positive Spillover
High
1.3
1.2
1.1
Work-Family Negative Spillover
Low
Work-Family Negative Spillover
High
35
Figure 4. Interaction between Family-Work Negative Spillover & Work-Family Positive Spillover with Psychological Distress as
Dependent Variable
Psychological Distress
1.5
Work-Family
Positive Spillover
Low
1.4
1.3
Work-Family
Positive Spillover
High
1.2
1.1
Family-Work Negative Spillover
Low
Family-Work Negative Spillover
High