 

‘

.2...

.25... I
I}?

.a
.53»
"a. if. .

"an...“
1.; 53:3“.
12...». A

l

.1.
:4 F.“
.91

..

 

 

.LIBRARY
Michigan State

I Unwe rs:ty

 

 

 

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

WHAT EMPLOYEES ACTUALLY DO AT WORK
MATTERS FOR THE FAMILY: A DEMANDS-LABOR-
CONFLICT MODEL OF WORK AND FAMILY

presented by
Kelly Schwind Wilson

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

PhD. degree in Organizational Behavior-
Human Resource Management

 

 

 

M a

Major Professor’s Signature
8.1%} on

Date

 

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer

- --a--l-I-O-l-

‘ ‘a-o-u-n-a-.-..- —

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5/08 K:/Prolecc&Pres/ClRC/DaleDue indd

WHAT EMPLOYEES ACTUALLY DO AT WORK MATTERS FOR THE FAMILY: A
DEMANDS-LABOR-CONFLICT MODEL OF WORK AND FAMILY

By

Kelly Schwind Wilson

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Organizational Behavior - Human Resource Management

2009

ABSTRACT

WHAT EMPLOYEES ACTUALLY DO AT WORK MATTERS FOR THE FAMILY: A
DEMANDS-LABOR-CONFLICT MODEL OF WORK AND FAMILY

By
Kelly Schwind Wilson
The present work examines the distinct forms of work-to-family conﬂict
experienced by employees. Speciﬁcally, work-family conﬂict and emotional labor
theories are integrated in order to propose and examine a new form of work-to-family
conﬂict, emotion-based conﬂict. In addition, a comprehensive model of work-to-family
conﬂict is proposed that includes two other forms of conﬂict identiﬁed in prior work,
behavior- and strain-based conﬂict. This comprehensive model, referred to as the
demands-labor-conﬂict model, includes the various demand— and labor-related
antecedents of work-to-farnily conﬂict. In order to test this model, alumni and employees
of a large Midwestern university were recruited to participate in a study which entailed
two Web surveys that were completed in the workplace and two surveys that were mailed
to participants homes (one of these surveys was completed by the focal employee and one
was completed by their significant other). The results provide support for the emotion-
based work-family conﬂict portion of the model as well as a number of the relationships
proposed between labor and the well- and ill-being outcomes. In addition, the results
suggest that work effort signiﬁcantly impacts well-being and burnout, however, these
relationships were in the opposite direction than originally proposed. The last section of

this document discusses these ﬁndings in more detail.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Throughout the past ﬁve years, a number of people have guided and supported me
during my journey toward obtaining a doctorate degree. First, I will be forever grateful to
my husband, Adam, who has been there for me to lean on during challenging times as
well as celebrate with after any and all achievements along the way. Thank you to my
parents and brother, Ryan, who have always believed in me and helped me become the
strong, driven woman I am today. Finally, Dr. Remus [lies and Dr. Donald Conlon have
been important mentors in helping me become a scholar and provided insightful guidance
on this dissertation along with, Drs. Jennifer Dunn and Ann Marie Ryan. Thank you all

very much.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................. v
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................ v
INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
PURPOSE ....................................................................................................................... 2
THEORETICAL REF INEMENT AND EXTENSION ...................................................... 8
EXISTING FORMS OF WORK-FAMILY CONFLICT ............................................... 8
REFINING BEHAVIOR-BASED CONFLICT ........................................................... 10
EMOTION-BASED CONFLICT: INTEGRATING EMOTIONAL LABOR AND
WORK-FAMILY CONFLICT ..................................................................................... l3
PROPOSED MODEL AND HYPOTHESES ................................................................... 20
DEMANDS-LABOR-CONFLICT MODEL: A MODEL OF WORK-FAMILY
CONFLICT THAT INCLUDES BEHAVIORAL ANT ECEDENTS .......................... 20
EMOTION-BASED WORK-FAMILY CONFLICT ................................................... 22
BEHAVIOR-BASED WORK-FAMILY CONFLICT ................................................. 30
STRAIN-BASED WORK-FAMILY CONFLICT ....................................................... 35
MODERATING RELATIONSHIPS ............................................................................ 40
METHODS AND RESULTS ........................................................................................... 45
SAMPLE ....................................................................................................................... 45
PROCEDURE ............................................................................................................... 46
MEASURES ................................................................................................................. 47
ANALYSES AND RESULTS ...................................................................................... 58
DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................... 79
STRENGTHS ............................................................................................................... 85
LIMITATIONS ............................................................................................................. 85
FUTURE RESEARCH ................................................................................................. 86
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................. 89
APPENDIX A: TABLES .................................................................................................. 90
APPENDIX B: FIGURES .............................................................................................. 103
APPENDIX C: ITEM MEASURES ............................................................................... 113
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 1 19

iv

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1: Research Design Overview .......................................................... 90
TABLE 2: Correlations ............................................................................ 91
TABLE 3: Conﬁrmatory Factor Analyses with Focal Employee Ratings ................... 96
TABLE 4: Conﬁrmatory Factor Analyses with Signiﬁcant Other Ratings ................. 97
TABLE 5: Structural Equation Models with Focal Employee Ratings ..................... 98
TABLE 6: Structural Equation Models with Signiﬁcant Other Ratings ..................... 99
TABLE 7: Reliability and Validity Information for Measures .............................. 100

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1: Overall Demands-Labor—Conﬂict Model ........................................ 103
FIGURE 2: Illustration of Differential Predictions for the Demands-Labor-Conﬂict

Effects ............................................................................................... 104
FIGURE 3: Measurement Model for Work-Family Conﬂict (Four Forms) ............... 105

FIGURE 4: Structural Equation Modeling Results (maximum likelihood estimates) for
Work-to-Farnily Conﬂict Outcomes ............................................................ 106

FIGURE 5: Structural Equation Modeling Results (maximum likelihood estimates) for
Well-Being Outcomes ............................................................................. 107

FIGURE 6: Structural Equation Modeling Results (maximum likelihood estimates) for
Burnout Outcomes ................................................................................. 108

FIGURE 7: Structural Equation Modeling Results (maximum likelihood estimates) for
Negative Affect .................................................................................... 109

FIGURE 8: Interactive Effect of Work-Family Integration and Deep Acting on Life
Satisfaction .......................................................................................... 1 10

FIGURE 9: Interactive Effect of Work-Family Integration and Behavioral Monitoring on
Behavior-Based Work-Family Conﬂict ......................................................... 111

FIGURE 10: Interactive Effect of Work-Family Integration and Behavioral Monitoring
on Emotional Exhaustion ......................................................................... 112

vi

INTRODUCTION

Two of the central domains that make up most individuals’ lives are work and
family. Employed work typically composes a large percentage of individuals’ activities,
not to mention activities at home or with one’s family. Accordingly, a popular area of
study within organizational research includes work-family conﬂict, which was originally
deﬁned by Greenhaus and Beutell (1985) as occurring when the pressures from an
individual’s work and family domains are mutually incompatible or interfere with one
another. Subsequent research proposed that this conﬂict occurs in two directions
consisting of work-to-family and family-to-work conﬂict. Work-to-family conﬂict refers
to interrole conﬂict in which the general demands of, time devoted to, and strain created
by the job interfere with performing family responsibilities. Family-to—work conﬂict
refers to interrole conﬂict in which the general demands of, time devoted to, and strain
created by the family interfere with performing work-related responsibilities (Netemeyer,
Boles, & McMurrian, 1996). The majority of research in this area of study has focused on
the work-to-family direction (see Eby, Casper, Lockwood, Bordeaux, & Brinley, 2005)
and the present dissertation will follow this trend. However, the present research will
deviate from past work-family research because previous research has primarily
examined general work-family conﬂict and largely ignored the distinct forms of conﬂict
proposed by Greenhaus and Beutell (1985).

Greenhaus and Beutell (1985) outlined three forms of work-family conﬂict in
their seminal work, involving time-based, strain-based and behavior-based conﬂicts.

Recent meta-analyses on the consequences of work-to-family conﬂict have concluded

that work-family conﬂict is related to lower family satisfaction, lower organizational
commitment, greater hostility at home and negative physical and psychological health
outcomes (Kossek & Ozeki, 1998; Mesmer—Magnus & Viswesvaran, 2005). Some of the
established antecedents of conﬂict, in general, include high job involvement, inﬂexible
schedules and job stress (Byron, 2005). However, much less is understood regarding the
unique antecedents and consequences of the distinct forms of conﬂict (e. g., strain- and
behavior-based conﬂict). The little research that examines these different forms of
conﬂict include only two of the three forms — time- and strain-base conﬂict — and ignores
behavior-based conﬂict all together. In addition, a review of the work-family literature by
Eby et a1. (2005) concluded that the most commonly studied predictors of work-family
conﬂict are family characteristics, background characteristics (e.g., demographic), work
attitudes and stress. In contrast, one of the least studied predictors includes employee
behaviors. What employees actually do at work and how their behaviors impact their
family experiences has been largely ignored in the literature. Therefore, the purpose of
this study is to propose and test an overall model of work-family conﬂict containing
differential predictions for the various forms of work-to-family conﬂict, including the
behavioral antecedents of these forms of conﬂict.
PURPOSE

The present research holds multiple contributions for the organizational behavior
and human resource management literatures. First, this paper theoretically develops and
extends the forms of work-family conﬂict proposed by Greenhaus and Beutell in 1985.
Currently, behavior-based conﬂict entails a broad concept dealing with employee “in-

role” behaviors at work and home. Considering employees may engage in a wide-range

of behaviors at work, such as focused concentration at one point and creative teamwork
at other times, as well as at home, examining whether certain aspects of behavior required
at work interfere with behavior at home is important. Speciﬁcally, behavior-based work-
family conﬂict is further developed herein in terms of how much individuals are expected
to act in monitored and controlled ways at work, which I will refer to as behavioral
monitoring, and how this impacts behavior at home.

In addition, a new form of conﬂict is proposed entailing emotion-based work-
family conﬂict. Emotion-based conﬂict occurs when pressures regarding displays or
expressions of emotion exist in both individuals’ work and family domains and these
pressures impact individuals’ ability to fulﬁll responsibilities in one of these domains.
This follows from Greenhaus and Beutell’s (1985) original notion of work-family
conﬂict, deﬁned previously as arising when pressures from employees’ work and family
spheres interfere with each other such that participation in one role is made more difﬁcult
by the other role, and in this case the focus involves individuals’ emotional pressures at
work and at home. These emotional demands from work and home deal with the
intentional or overt displays of certain emotions expected of employees and family
members (Edwards & Rothbard, 2000). Such selective displays are expected to impact
whether individuals are able to perform both their work and family roles and
responsibilities appropriately (Edwards & Rothbard, 2000). Furthermore, emotions and
work-family conﬂict have been empirically linked, suggesting that emotions may help
explain some of the conﬂict individuals experience between their work and family roles.

For instance, results of a within individual experience sampling study revealed that work-

to-family conﬂict was positively associated with feelings of guilt and hostility at home
(Judge, Ilies, & Scott, 2006).

Second, in developing the concept of emotion-based work-family conﬂict,
another contribution of the present work is the integration of emotional labor theory and
work-family conﬂict. Emotional labor theory began with Hochschild’s (1983) writings on
emotion work or management. Emotional labor “requires one to induce or suppress
feeling in order to sustain the outward countenance that produces the proper state of mind
in others” (p. 7). Hochschild includes examples of jobs that require such labor, such as
ﬂight attendants, bill collectors, teachers and therapists. Emotional labor is described as
not only taking place within the workplace or on the job, but also within the context of
family and individuals’ private lives. Hochschild (1983) notes that parents, children,
husbands, wives, lovers and friends all engage in some emotion work, yet argues that the
emotional labor required from loved ones is different from the emotional labor expected
by bosses and coworkers. This suggests that individuals experience various pressures
regarding how or what emotions to display at work and at home, which can create work-
family conﬂict. Work-family conﬂict deals with pressures that make participation in one
role (e. g., family) more difﬁcult because of the pressures from a different role (e.g.,
work). Thus, it is important to investigate whether such emotional conﬂict exists between
individuals’ work and family domains and what implications such conﬂict holds for
organizations, individuals and families.

Third, the overall model proposed in the present research includes three distinct
forms of work-family conﬂict and controls for the fourth form (i.e., time-based conﬂict),

which has received the most attention in previous research. Given this is the ﬁrst

empirical study to examine behavior-, strain— and emotion—based conﬂict, as well as
measure time-based conﬂict, one contribution of the current research is to actually test
the distinctiveness of these constructs. Testing the distinctiveness of the various forms of
work-family conﬂict will provide further evidence for the need to investigate different
relationships concerning each type of conﬂict in future research. As mentioned
previously, the majority of work and family research studies general work-family conﬂict
and does not take a comprehensive look at all of the distinct forms. Therefore, the present
research proposes an integrated model regarding the antecedents of emotion-, strain- and
behavior-based work-family conﬂict.

Furthermore, the majority of previous research on the antecedents of work-family
conﬂict has focused on workload, job demands and job and organizational characteristics
(Eby et al., 2005). The present study attempts to extend the demand—work-family
conﬂict model by also examining what employees do in response to job demands and
how these responses inﬂuence individuals’ experiences of work-family conﬂict. These
responses (to job demands) are categorized as labor (i.e., emotional labor, work effort and
behavioral monitoring), or in other words, what employees actually do at work. Hence,
one of the contributions of the present research is to illustrate the mediating mechanisms
that may help explain the established relationship between job demands and work-to-
family conﬂict. In addition, related to work-to-family conﬂict is the well-being of
individuals at home. That is, what is the impact of job demands and labor on individuals’
feelings, attitudes and health outcomes at home? Accordingly, individual well-being is

also included as an outcome in the current model.

Fourth and ﬁnally, the present study also holds multiple methodological
contributions and strengths. A recent review of the research methods utilized in work-
family research found that most studies are cross-sectional, in ﬁeld settings and
correlational (Casper, Eby, Bordeaux, Lockwood, & Lambert, 2007). Few studies have
utilized a longitudinal design or data from more than one source, so Casper et a1. (2007)
suggest that gathering data from more than one source to examine agreement as well as
collecting data over time are important endeavors for future work-family research. This
study answers the call for different methods in that data was gathered from multiple
sources (employees and spouses), over time (data was collected at three different times,
two times at work and one at home from both the focal employee and their spouse).
Additionally, Casper et al. (2007) conclude that work-family studies typically utilize one
data collection method and the present work employs both online surveys and paper
questionnaires, as well as measures the relevant constructs in more than one setting.
Namely, work demands and labor are measured at work and work-to-family conﬂict and
individual well-being are measured at home. Multiple settings are important because it
has been argued that work-to-family conﬂict should be assessed at home (Neyemeyer et
al., 1996), whereas, workplace factors such as workload should be assessed at work, in
order to minimize biases associated with retrospective ratings (Judge & Ilies, 2004). As a
result, the solution to this potential issue is “not to advocate one setting over another, but
to match the setting in which constructs are assessed with the nature of the constructs
themselves” (Ilies, Schwind, Wagner, Johnson, DeRue, & Ilgen, 2007, p. 1369). The

present study was designed according to this recommendation.

The present paper is organized as follows. First, I will discuss the theoretical
foundation for the present research and suggest a new form of work-family conﬂict that
has not been previously examined in the literature. Then, I will review the proposed
demands-labor-conﬂict model as well as discuss the hypothesized relationships that are
expected based on literature reviewed from the emotional labor, work and family, and
well-being areas of study. Finally, I describe an empirical study and review the analyses

and results that were conducted in order to test the hypotheses proposed in this paper.

THEORETICAL REFINEMENT AND EXTENSION

EXISTING FORMS OF WORK-FAMILY CONFLICT

Work-family conﬂict is deﬁned as “a form of interrole conﬂict in which the role
pressures from the work and family domains are mutually incompatible in some respect.
That is, participation in the work (family) role is made more difﬁcult by virtue of
participation in the family (work) role” (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985, p. 77). Greenhaus
and Beutell propose three sources of work-family conﬂict including time-, strain-, and
behavior-based conﬂict. Time-based conﬂict occurs when time pressures from one
domain make it physically impossible to fulﬁll expectations in another domain or when
time pressures produce preoccupation with one role when an individual is in a different
role or domain. For example, when an employee works overtime and misses dinner with
his/her family, this employee is experiencing time-based work-to-family conﬂict. Strain-
based conﬂict refers to when psychological or physiological strain, such as tension,
anxiety, fatigue and depression, from one role affects an individual’s performance in
another role. This form of conﬂict is evident when a parent is too exhausted after work to
help his/her child practice the piano, for example. Finally, behavior-based conﬂict occurs
when patterns of in-role behavior are incompatible with behavior in a different role
(Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). An example of this form of conﬂict includes when a lawyer
argues with his/her spouse at home following a difﬁcult battle in court earlier that day.

Edwards and Rothbard (2000) review Greenhaus and Beutell’s concept of work-
family conﬂict, which involves demands from one domain (e. g., work) making it difﬁcult

to meet demands in another domain (e. g., family). These authors discuss how time- and

strain-based conﬂicts include resource drain — “the transfer of ﬁnite personal resources
such as time, attention, and energy, from one domain to another” (181). In the case of
time—based conﬂict, time or attention spent in the work domain leaves no time or
attention for the family domain, resulting in poor performance in the family domain.
Furthermore, behavior-based conﬂict is is said to occur when “behavior developed in one
domain inﬂuences behavior in the other domain, with the added condition that the
transferred behavior inhibits role performance in the latter domain” (p. 182).
Behavior-based work-family conﬂict currently represents a broad construct
dealing with a number of different behaviors. The examples Greenhaus and Beutell
(1985) provide for behavior-based conﬂict include demands for managers to be objective,
logical, powerful, aggressive and self-reliant at work, yet many other types of behavior
are also relevant for the workplace. Other work behaviors include helping or citizenship
behavior (Organ, Podsakoff, & MacKenzie, 2006), controlling and leading behavior
(Avolio, Sosik, Jung, & Berson, 2003), withdrawal behavior (Hulin, Roznowski, &
Hachiya, 1985), team cooperation and coordination (Kozlowski & Bell, 2003), to name a
few behaviors studied in organizations. Therefore, behavior-based conﬂict can be applied
to an almost unlimited number of behaviors individuals perform. As a result, I propose to
develop this construct further by examining a speciﬁc characteristic of behaviors that is
relevant to most behaviors performed at work. Speciﬁcally, I will examine the impact of
behavioral monitoring on individuals’ ability to perform family responsibilities and in

doing so strive to reﬁne and extend research on behavior-based work-to-family conﬂict.

REFINING BEHAVIOR-BASED CONFLICT

As noted, of the three forms of work-family conﬂict introduced by Greenhaus and
Beutell, empirical research has examined time- and strain-based conﬂict (e. g., Greenhaus,
Parasuraman, Granrose, & Beutell, 1989; Kelloway, Gottlieb, & Barham, 1999; Wallace;
1999; Butler, Grzywacz, Bass, & Linney, 2005), whereas, little focus has been given to
behavior-based conﬂict. Bruck and Allen (2003) did not ﬁnd a signiﬁcant association
between any of the personality characteristics they examined and behavior-based conﬂict.
Speciﬁcally, behavior-based work-family conﬂict was not related to negative affectivity,
Type A characteristics, neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, or
conscientiousness. The authors suggest that behavior—based conﬂict may have more
situational antecedents compared to dispositional antecedents (Bruck & Allen, 2003, p.
469). Two studies by Lambert and colleagues found that work-to-family behavior-based
conﬂict was negatively related to organizational commitment and job satisfaction
(Lambert, Pasupuleti, Cluse-Tolar, Jennings, & Baker, 2006; Lambert, Hogan, Camp, &
Ventura, 2006). Considering the construct of behavior-based conﬂict was proposed over
two decades ago (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985), the three studies reviewed do not provide
much information about this form of work-family conﬂict. This suggests that further
development of behavior-based conﬂict is needed.

As mentioned, behavior-based conﬂict currently represents a broad construct
dealing with employee behaviors at work and at home. Thus, I propose to examine a
behavioral characteristic that has been identiﬁed as relevant and important to
organizations and as a response to job demands. Speciﬁcally, I focus on a characteristic

of behavior at work that was originally proposed as a personality disposition in the

10

psychology literature - self-monitoring. Trait self-monitoring is deﬁned as an
individual’s tendency to observe and control their behavior and self-presentation (Snyder,
1974; Snyder & Gangestad, 1986). Individuals high on this trait are characterized as
regulating their expressive self-presentation for the sake of desired public appearances
and individuals low on self-monitoring are said to lack such ability or motivation and
actually display their own inner or true self (Snyder & Gangestad, 1986; Day, Schleicher,
Unckless, & Hiller, 2002). The workplace is a relevant setting in which ‘desired public
appearances’ matter, which suggests that self-monitoring can be applied to work as a
response to behaviors desired of employees (i.e., certain job demands). For example, the
way employees present themselves inﬂuences interactions and outcomes with coworkers,
supervisors, clients, etc. In particular, Day and colleagues (2002) suggest that self-
monitoring is important for work-related settings and their meta-analytic results support
this notion in that self-monitoring is signiﬁcantly related to job performance and
leadership emergence, among other organizationally relevant outcomes. Furthermore,
Day et al. (2002) found that self-monitoring is positively related to subjective
performance ratings, which suggests that managers and organizations hold some
expectation for self-monitoring at work.

In addition, based on Michel and Shoda’s (1995) theory, personality traits are not
the only determinants of behavior — the situation also needs to be taken into
consideration. Michel and Shoda (1995) suggest that features of situations activate a set
of internal reactions and individuals differ in how these features inﬂuence their cognitive
and affective reactions. Furthermore, behavior is generated in response to situations

based on an individual’s goals and plans. Applying this to a workplace setting, regardless

11

of employees’ standing on trait self-monitoring, it is beneﬁcial for them to monitor and
control their behavior around others, especially supervisors and those who make
decisions regarding performance ratings, pay, etc. (Day et al., 2002). Based on the
distinction between trait self-monitoring and monitored behavior at work, my focus in the
present research is on actual self-monitoring behavior and, as previously noted, I refer to
this as behavioral monitoring.

On the other hand, at home, I expect that pressures related to behavioral
monitoring are to some extent different than at work and that engaging in behavioral
monitoring at work impacts individuals’ ability to continue behavioral monitoring at
home. For instance, individuals may see their behavior as more open and relaxed at home
(Bartolome, 1972; Hochschild, 1983); however, some monitoring is still necessary
because, for instance, it would not be appropriate to use certain language or actions
around young children. High behavioral monitoring at work may impact a parent’s ability
to engage in such monitoring at home following the ego depletion argument. The ego
depletion argument proposes that acts of volition, such as self-control, initiating behavior
and overriding responses, decrease a limited resource (akin to strength or energy), which
in turn will have a detrimental impact on subsequent action until that resource has time to
recover (Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Muraven, & Tice, 1998). This suggests that acts of
behavioral monitoring at work may decrease an individual’s ability to engage in
behavioral monitoring at home. If individuals are unable to engage in behavioral
monitoring at home following work, they are more likely to experience behavior-based
conﬂict between work and family. This is consistent with Greenhaus and Beutell’s ( 1985,

p. 77) deﬁnition of work-family conﬂict discussed previously because I am proposing

12

that behavioral monitoring at home is made more difﬁcult due to behavioral monitoring
at work. As a result, I pr0pose to investigate the relationship between employee
behavioral monitoring at work and the perception of behavior—based conﬂict at home. My
formal expectations concerning this relationship will be discussed in the hypothesis
section of the present paper.

EMOTION-BASED CONFLICT: INTEGRATING EMOTIONAL LABOR AND
WORK-FAMILY CONFLICT

Building from Greenhaus and Beutell’s (1985) original notions of time-, strain-
and behavior-based work-family conﬂict, I suggest that another distinct form of conﬂict
exists. This form involves individuals’ emotions at work and at home. Emotion-based
conﬂict occurs when pressures for emotional displays at work interfere with the
performance of emotional displays at home. In other words, emotions required of
employees at work and home interfere with each other and individuals experience
conﬂict between the two domains as a result. This construct is different than affective or
emotional spillover, which refers to the “effects of work and family on one another that
generate similarities between the two domains” (Edwards & Rothbard, 2000, p. 180). For
example, an individual experiences affective spillover when positive affect at work leads
to positive affect at home. Affective spillover, therefore, deals solely with individuals’
internal states over time. On the other hand, I propose that emotion-based conﬂict is
concerned with the emotions individuals display both at work and home. The display of
emotion is related to literature regarding emotional labor. Next, I will review key
literature from the emotional labor and emotion regulation perspectives in order to
illustrate how emotional labor is relevant to work-family conﬂict as well as develop the

concept of emotion-based conﬂict more clearly.

13

Emotional labor is deﬁned by Hochschild (1983) as “the management of feeling
to create a publicly observable facial and bodily display” (p. 7) and involves enhancing,
faking or suppressing emotions to modify one’s emotional expression (Grandey, 2000).
Two main forms of emotional labor have been proposed, including surface and deep
acting. Surface acting refers to managing observable expressions and occurs when
employees modify their displays without shaping or changing their inner feelings. Deep
acting refers to managing feelings and occurs when employees modify internal feelings to
actually experience the emotion one is required to display (Grandey, 2003). Employees
engage in such labor in order to conform to organizational display rules, which refer to
social norms regarding the appropriate experience and display of emotions (Bono & Vey,
2005). Emotional labor is apparent in numerous occupations and organizations.
Hochschild (1983) originally outlined six categories of jobs calling for emotional labor
including professional and technical workers (e. g., lawyers, doctors, teachers, and
television announcers, etc.), managers and administrators, sales workers, clerical workers
(e. g., bank tellers, bill collectors, receptionists, etc.), and service workers both inside and
outside private households (e.g., bartenders, child care workers, hairdressers, etc.). Given
the wide range of employees and workplaces that have norms or rules regarding
emotional labor, research has begun to examine the consequences of emotional labor both
inside and outside the workplace (Barsade, Brief, & Spataro, 2003).

Research supports links between emotional labor and emotional exhaustion,
stress, alcohol and drug abuse, and depression, among other outcomes (Hochschild, 1983;
Morris & Feldman, 1996; Grandey, 2003). Grandey’s (2000) work on conceptualizing

emotional labor proposed an overall model that helps explain how emotional labor can be

14

dysfunctional for individuals’ health and well-being. This model includes burnout as an
outcome of emotional labor, which has also been supported in empirical research. For
instance, Grandey (2003) found that surface acting was positively related to emotional
exhaustion, one of the components of burnout. Johnson and Spector (2007) also found
that surface acting was positively related to emotional exhaustion, as well as negatively
related to affective well-being. In Bono and Vey’s (2005) review of emotional labor, they
found that labor was associated with poor physical and psychological well-being,
speciﬁcally, emotional exhaustion and depersonalization (another component of burnout).
In addition, Hochschild (1983) links emotional labor with problems such as drug and
alcohol abuse and Adelmarm (1989) found that high emotional labor was related to lower
self-esteem and more depressive symptoms.

The empirical ﬁndings reviewed above support a link between emotional labor
and burnout and well-being outcomes. One of the major tenants of emotional labor
includes that the management of emotions takes effort (Hochschild, 1983) and controlling
one’s emotions is unpleasant. Thus, “this unpleasantness and the effort it takes to
maintain a smiling face (or other emotions). . .is proposed. . .to relate to burnout and job
stress” (Grandey, 2000, p.96). Additionally, Cote (2005) states that the “effort exerted to
regulate emotion may increase strain, because this effort uses up resources that carmot be
regained” (p. 513). This is similar to a mechanism linking individuals’ work and family
domains called resource drain, which was proposed by Edwards and Rothbard (2000).
Resource drain refers to the transfer of ﬁnite personal resources, including time and
energy, from one domain to another. Edwards and Rothbard (2000) propose that resource

drain leads to a negative direct relationship between work and family resources because

15

resources utilized in one domain are not available for another domain. This suggests that
the effort expended during emotional labor at work may lead to the inability to engage in
emotion regulation at home, leading to conﬂict between the work and family domains.
Following this, the notion of resource drain concerning effort expenditure during
emotion regulation closely resembles the tenets of the ego depletion model (Baumeister
et al., 1998). Baumeister et al. (1998) refer to ego depletion as “a temporary reduction in
the self’ 3 capacity or willingness to engage in volitional action (including controlling the
environment, controlling the self, making choices, and initiating action) caused by prior
exercise of violition” (p. 1253). To test this idea, in one study, Baumeister and colleagues
(1998) manipulated ego depletion involving emotion regulation by asking participants to
watch an emotionally evocative video and hide any emotional reaction that might result.
The act of hiding one’s emotions was followed by poorer performance on an anagram
task. This ﬁnding was replicated in a later study, which found that emotional suppression
impaired higher order cognitive functioning (Schmeichel, Vohs, & Baumeister, 2003).
Overall, the ego depletion model argues that regulating emotions consumes
personal resources and requires recovery of these resources before performing future
emotion regulation. This assumes that individuals have a ﬁnite pool of resources and
energy, which are exhausted during the regulation of emotions because regulation
requires “continual monitoring and modiﬁcation of expressions” (Grandey, Fisk, &
Steiner, 2005, p. 894). The effort-recovery model proposes a similar phenomenon and
will also be used as a theoretical foundation for explaining the process of emotion-based
conﬂict (as well as the other forms of work-to-family conﬂict examined herein). Based

on the effort—recovery model, meeting task demands requires effort and after effort is

16

expended on a task or job, recovery is needed to stabilize the individual’s system
(Meijman & Mulder, 1998). Meijman and Mulder (1998) state that if effort is required
again “subsequent to insufﬁcient recovery, the organism (or individual), which is in a
sub-optimal state, will have to make additional, compensatory effort. . .a cumulative
process may be started yielding negative (work) load effects such as feelings of
prolonged fatigue. . .and other psychosomatic complaints” (p. 25). This suggests that the
display of certain emotions required at work may tax an individual such that he or she is
unable to successfully fulﬁll the emotional pressures he or she faces later at home if
sufﬁcient recovery fails to take place. The ego depletion and effort-recovery models hold
implications for individuals in both their work and family lives. If an individual engages
in high levels of emotion regulation or emotional labor at work, what implications might
result for the individual at home? How will such labor impact later interactions with
friends or family members after work?

Montgomery, Panagopolou, de Wildt, and Meenks (2006) propose and ﬁnd some
empirical support for a link between emotional labor and general work-family
interference or conﬂict. Speciﬁcally, they found that work-family conﬂict partially
mediated the relationship between hiding negative emotions and exhaustion.
Furthermore, Hochschild (1983) discusses emotional labor within the context of both the
work and home domains. Hochschild (1983, p. 69) states the following:

Parents and children, husbands and wives, lovers and best friends expect to have

more freedom from feeling rules and less need for emotion work; in reality,

however. . .the deeper the bond, the more emotion work, and the more

unconscious we are of it. In the most personal bonds, then, emotion work is likely

17

to be the strongest. At the other extreme, it is a wonder that we ﬁnd emotion work

at all. . .in the bill collector and the ﬂight attendant. But we do, and because their

contacts do not cut so deep, their emotion work rises more readily to the surface
of consciousness. . .The family is often considered a “relief zone” away from the

pressures of work, a place where one is free to be oneself. It may indeed be a

refuge from the emotion work required on the job, but it quietly imposes

emotional obligations of its own.

Altogether, the concepts of resource drain, ego depletion, and effort-recovery
discussed above suggest the following phenomenon. The labor individuals engage in
during emotion regulation at work impacts their ability to engage in emotion regulation at
home (through energy drain), which suggests that such labor at work impacts employees
ability to meet demands and responsibilities at home. In addition, the demands regarding
emotion regulation in employees’ work and family environments may be different. For
instance, within service settings, which are where the majority of emotional labor
research has taken place, scholars ﬁnd that employees are generally expected to display
or express positive emotions and suppress any negative emotions they may be feeling
(Beal, Trougakos, Weiss, & Green, 2006). At home, individuals are less likely to
suppress negative emotions, such as when one might discuss experiencing a bad day with
a spouse or friend. The ego depletion model describes this as the reality of the external
world in which an individual’s inner and outer pressures are in conﬂict (Baumeister et al.,
1998). Overall, this suggests that individuals experience conﬂicting pressures from their
work and family roles in terms of emotion regulation and indicates the need for research

that speciﬁcally investigates emotional conﬂict between the two domains.

18

As discussed previously, I deﬁne emotion-based conﬂict as occurring when
demands for emotional labor at work prevent the performance of appropriate emotional
displays at home, which creates conﬂict for the individual between these two domains.
Wharton and Erickson (1993) make a similar claim. In their conceptual model, they
propose that role demands at work and home lead to requirements for emotion
management in both domains, which in turn leads to work-family conﬂict. That is,
Wharton and Erickson (1993) extend research that examines the negative consequences
of emotional labor to include associations between work and family domains. One of
Wharton and Erickson’s (1993) formal propositions suggests that when the emotional
requirements of an individual’s work and family roles are incompatible, work-family
conﬂict should increase. This provides support for the proposed concept of emotion-

based conﬂict, which I will test empirically for the ﬁrst time in the present research.

19

PROPOSED MODEL AND HYPOTHESES

DEMANDS—LABOR-CONFLICT MODEL: A MODEL OF WORK-FAMILY
CONFLICT THAT INCLUDES BEHAVIORAL ANT ECEDENTS

A number of work-family studies investigate the relationship between job
demands and work-family conﬂict. Workload includes the demands placed on individuals
in their jobs and is often referred to in the literature as a job stressor (Spector, Dwyer, &

J ex, 1988). A meta-analytic investigation of the antecedents of work-family conﬂict
found that perceptions of role overload correlated .65 with work-to-family conﬂict
(Byron, 2005). In addition, Demerouti, Bakker, and Bulters (2004) tested structural
models using data obtained in a three-wave longitudinal study. They found support for
their hypotheses in that work pressure had positive effects on employee reports of work-
home interference. Butler and colleagues (2005) conducted an experience-sampling study
and found a positive relationship between job demands and work-family conﬂict across
days. Finally, a content analysis and review of the work-family literature found that high
involvement in work, including greater job demands, promoted work-family conﬂict
(Eby et al., 2005). Thus, workload and work demands are fairly established predictors of
work-family conﬂict. On the other hand, Eby et al. (2005) conclude that one of the least
commonly studied predictors of work-family processes are employee behaviors (less than
1% of studies investigated behaviors). Therefore, the present model (see Figure 1) will
extend work-family literature by examining how employee behaviors inﬂuence work-to-
family conﬂict.

The overall model presented in this research proposes that work demands lead to

employee labor (i.e., the employee’s behavioral response to work demands), which in

20

turn impacts work-family conﬂict and individual well-being. Well—being is deﬁned as
“how people evaluate their lives” and these evaluations typically include individuals’
emotional reactions to various events, individuals’ moods, and the judgments people
form about their life, marital and work satisfactions (Diener, Oishi, & Lucas, 2003, p.
404). In other words, well-being “concerns the study of what lay people might call
happiness or satisfaction” (Diener et al., 2003, p. 404). Diener et al. (2003) note that the
different aspects people evaluate in their lives (e.g., mood, domain satisfactions) show
some independence, suggesting these dimensions should all be measured individually.
Additionally, it is important to measure more than one aspect of individuals’ well-being
in order to gather a more comprehensive picture of individuals’ evaluations of their lives.
For this reason, I examine multiple indicators of well-being including positive affect
(mood), marital and life satisfactions as well as indicators of poor well-being or “ill-
being” including burnout and negative affect (mood). These are important to include in
the present model because they will inform scholars and practitioners of the signiﬁcant
consequences work demands and labor have on individuals. Perceptions of work-family
conﬂict will demonstrate how individuals’ work and family domains hinder each other in
order to inform managers and human resource personnel of what job demands and tasks
are the most problematic for individuals’ family life. Alternatively, examining well-being
will illustrate the impact of work demands and tasks on the focal employee him or
herself, by examining employees’ internal feelings, attitudes and health-related outcomes
(i.e., burnout) at home.

In terms of conﬂict, this model focuses on three forms of work-family conﬂict:

emotion-based conﬂict, which is developed and discussed in the previous section, as well

21

as behavior- and strain-based conﬂict, which were proposed in earlier research
(Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). Time-based conﬂict, which is the remaining form
suggested in the literature, is not formally included in the present model because previous
research has focused on this form and consistently found that hours spent working and
work overload predict time-based conﬂict (Ilies et al., 2007; Greenhaus et al., 1989;
Wallace, 1999). However, I will measure time-based conﬂict in the present research in
order to test the distinctiveness of the different forms of work-family conﬂict found in the
literature. Next, I will develop the hypotheses concerning emotion-, behavior-, and strain-
based work-family conﬂict. The differential predictions for the three forms of work-
family conﬂict are presented in Figure 2.
EMOTION-BASED WORK-FAMILY CONFLICT

According to emotional labor theory, employees follow display rules that deﬁne
which emotions are appropriate in work situations. These rules provide expectations for
the range, intensity and duration of emotions that should be expressed on the job and
emotional labor entails following these rules regardless of one’s internal or felt emotions
(Ashflo & Humphrey, 1993; Grandey, 2000). Thus, display rules emphasize publicly
observable or displayed emotions, rather than one’s felt emotions (Ashforth &
Humphrey, 1993). The most prevalent display rules encouraged by organizations include
demands to express positive emotions and demands to suppress negative emotions
(Diefendorff & Richard, 2003). Diefendorff, Richards, and Croyle (2006) found that
employees and supervisors perceive display rules as required work activities. That is,

employees view display rules as in-role requirements and not as extra—role (e.g., OCB)

22

activities. Thus, display rules are a work demand that should lead to actual displays of the
expected emotion(s).

Diefendorff and Richard’s (2003) make a similar argument, “theoretically, if
individuals perceive that there are strong demands to display particular emotions (or
suppress particular emotions) their actual emotional displays should reﬂect these
perceptions” (p. 287). Support for this claim was found in that employee perceived
display rules (to express positive emotions) were positively related to coworker ratings of
actual employee emotional displays. Grandey (2003) argued that display rules or
expectations are enforced/communicated by management, which motivates employees to
act accordingly. Furthermore, Grandey (2003) expected such awareness of display rules
to positively relate to both surface and deep acting. Her ﬁndings indicate support for the
relationship between display rules and deep acting, but failed to support the link between
display rules and surface acting. As a result, Grandey suggests that deep acting is a
response to work demands and surface acting occurs in response to work events rather
than rules. Rafaeli and Sutton (1987) similarly note that surface actors are likely to be
poor employees because they only follow display rules when they are monitored closely.
On the other hand, other studies have found support for a link between display rules and
surface acting.

Gosserand and Diefendorff (2005) found that display rule perceptions were
positively related to surface acting, however, the path between display rules and deep
acting, which was in the expected direction, was not signiﬁcant in the tested structural
model. In addition, Diefendorff, Croyle and Gosserand’s (2005) results indicate that

display rules to express positive emotions predict deep acting and display rules to

23

suppress negative emotions predict surface acting. All of these ﬁndings suggest that
display rules lead to emotional labor. Yet, the ﬁndings are mixed with regards to whether
display rules lead to both surface and deep acting. One possible explanation for this is the
studies reviewed utilize a variety of samples and display rules. That is, Grandey (2003)
used a homogeneous sample of university administrative assistants, Gosserand and
Diefendorff (2005) employed a sample of working adults from a variety of organizations
and occupations (e.g., sales, professional, education, health care), and Diefendorff et al.
(2005) recruited a sample of employed undergraduate students from a variety of ﬁelds.
Health care organizations are likely to have different display rules than educational
institutions and administrative assistants may not need to engage in as much surface
acting as employees constantly interacting with customers. Therefore, based on the
assumption that in the majority of interpersonal encounters employees experience at work
they are primarily required to display positive emotions (Beal et al., 2006), which is the
speciﬁc display rule I focus on presently, I expect that rules for displaying positive
emotions at work will be positively related to surface and deep acting.

Hypothesis 1 : Rules for displaying positive emotions at work are positively

related to employee emotional labor, including (a) surface acting and (b) deep

acting.

As discussed above, emotional display rules are a demand placed upon employees
at work and such demands are often referred to as job stressors (Ilies et al., 2007; Spector
et al., 1988). Many models of job stressors associate them with negative outcomes, such
as decreased well-being and negative affect (Ilies et al., 2007). Additionally, several

meta-analyses have connected job stress, including role overload, role ambiguity and

24

psychological demands, to work-to—family conﬂict (Byron, 2005; Ford, Heinen, &
Langkarner, 2007). Similarly, Ilies et al. (2007) concluded that perceived workload
positively inﬂuences work-to-family conﬂict within individuals. In other words, daily
workload measured from work in the morning, signiﬁcantly predicted work-to-family
conﬂict reported in the evening at home. Overall, these ﬁndings support a relationship
between work demands and work-family conﬂict.

The speciﬁc relationship between emotional display rules at work and at home is
also proposed theoretically in the literature (Wharton & Erickson, 1993). Wharton and
Erickson (1993) discuss how for individuals occupying multiple roles (e. g., work and
family), overwhelming pressure may result from “the high emotion—management
requirements of one role or the experience of moderate degrees of emotion management
in two roles. . .conﬂict results when the feelings a person is called on to express in one
setting are contrary to those feelings that are expected in another setting” (p. 472). In the
present research, I assume that employees’ work and family lives both involve some
emotional display pressures and that engaging in emotional labor at work makes
appropriate emotional displays at home more difﬁcult based on the resource drain or ego
depletion arguments. These arguments suggest that the emotional demands of work and
home may exceed individuals’ capacity to deal with all demands successfully, which is
proposed to lead to perceptions of emotion-based conﬂict between the two domains.
Therefore, I propose that rules for displaying positive emotions at work are positively
related to emotion-based work-to-family conﬂict.

A similar relationship is expected for individual well—being at home. Wilk and

Moynihan (2005) found that the importance supervisors place on interpersonal job

25

demands, in terms of emotional display rules, is positively related to subordinate’s
emotional exhaustion. Furthermore, display rules were the only signiﬁcant job demand
predictor of emotional exhaustion. In an experimental simulation, Goldberg and Grandey
(2007) found that positive display rules (e. g., to be enthusiastic and hide frustration)
result in greater emotional exhaustion and lower task autonomy compared to those with
display autonomy (where there was no explicit requirement for managing emotional
expressions). These ﬁndings suggest a relationship exists between display rules and
emotional exhaustion, one of the three components of burnout. Burnout is a prolonged
response to chronic emotional and interpersonal stressors and includes the dimensions of
exhaustion, depersonalization and reduced personal accomplishment (Maslach, Schaufeli,
& Leiter, 2001). The ﬁrst dimension, exhaustion, has been the focus of most previous
research on display rules and burnout, however, Maslach et al. (2001) warn researchers
that focusing solely on emotional exhaustion is not sufﬁcient and loses “sight of the
phenomenon (of burnout) entirely”. Thus, I examine all of the components of burnout as
well as well-being, and expect rules for displaying positive emotions at work will be
negatively related to employee well-being and positively related to employee ill-being at
home.
Hypothesis 2: Rules for displaying positive emotions at work are (a) positively
related to emotion-based work-to-farnily conﬂict, (b) negatively related to
individual well-being (positive affect, life and marital satisfactions) at home, and
(c) positively related to individual ill-being (negative affect and burnout) at home.
Next, I will discuss relationships between emotional labor and work-family

conﬂict and individual well-being. As previously noted, individuals’ actual display of

26

emotions (i.e., emotional labor) at work may interfere with the display of emotions at
home, creating perceptions of emotion-based work-to—family conﬂict. Following the ego
depletion model (Baumeister et al., 1998), there will be a reduction in individuals’ ability
to engage in emotional labor (at home) due to prior exercise of emotional labor (at work).
This suggests that emotional fatigue or exhaustion occurs following performance of
emotional labor. Some support exists for such a relationship in the literature. Grandey
(2003) and Grandey and Goldberg (2007) found a link between surface acting and
emotional exhaustion and such exhaustion could spillover into the family domain. In
deﬁning spillover, Edwards and Rothbard (2000) provide the example of work fatigue
inhibiting family demands. Thus, emotional exhaustion from work may leave individuals
unable to display appropriate emotions at home, creating conﬂict between the work and
home domains.

In terms of well-being, Johnson and Spector (2007) found that surface acting is
positively related to emotional exhaustion as well as negatively related to affective well-
being, whereas, deep acting is negatively related to emotional exhaustion and positively
related to affective well-being. In the present study, I focus on the emotional labor of
positive emotions and deep acting concerning positive emotions may lead to positive
affective spillover to the family domain, but not conﬂict. In a similar argument, Beal et
al. (2006) note that surfacing acting “is a more stressful strategy that requires
substantially greater levels of self-regulation when compared with deep acting” and that
“chronically engaging in this strategy should have some effect on more global aspects of
one’s life. Various authors have noted relations between surface acting and a variety of

negative self-relevant life and work outcomes” (1055). For instance, as part of a larger

27

study investigating emotion management within both the work and family spheres,
Erickson and Wharton (1997) investigated the relationship between emotional labor, or
what they called job-related feelings of inauthenticity, and depression. They found that
feelings of inauthenticity (which was measured by asking participants if they could be
themselves at work and if they had to fake how they really felt at work) are a strong
predictor of depressed mood. Depressed mood included questions regarding participants’
appetite, feelings of loneliness, trouble sleeping, etc. This suggests that emotional labor at
work affects individuals’ emotions at home. Additionally, surface acting should have a
stronger inﬂuence on emotional conﬂict at home because surface acting is more difﬁcult
and stressful compared to deep acting.

The research reviewed above provides support for a relationship between
emotional labor and emotion-based work-to-family conﬂict as well as well-being.
Emotional exhaustion is a component of burnout, which is one of the well-being
outcomes investigated herein, and depressed mood is relevant for affective well-being.
Relationships between surface acting and emotional exhaustion and affective well-being
were discussed previously and such relationships are also supported in Zapf’ s (2002)
review of literature regarding emotion work and well-being. Zapf (2002) found that
frequency of interactions with customers did not strongly predict emotional exhaustion;
however, when employees experience discrepancies between felt and expressed emotions
(i.e., surface acting), signiﬁcant positive correlations exist between such discrepancy and
emotional exhaustion. This relationship was found across twelve studies. Similar

relationships were also found for psychosomatic complaints and irritation and emotion

28

work (Zapf, Vogt, Seifert, Mertini, & Isic, 1999). Based on the theoretical and empirical
support provided, I expect the following:

Hypothesis 3: Employees who engage in emotional labor at work will experience

(a) greater emotion-based work-to-family conﬂict, (b) lower individual well-being

(positive affect, life and marital satisfactions) at home, and (c) greater individual

ill-being (negative affect and burnout) at home, compared to employees who do

not engage in emotional labor at work.

Hypothesis 4: The relationships between emotional labor and work-to-family

conﬂict and well-being will differ for surface and deep acting such that surface

acting will have stronger relationships with (a) emotion-based work-to-family
conﬂict, (b) individual well-being and (c) individual ill-being at home, compared
to deep acting.

Finally, following the hypotheses proposed, I anticipate that emotional labor will
mediate the relationships between emotional display rules at work and emotion-based
work-family conﬂict and well-being at home. Grandey (2000) reviews the emotional
labor literature and proposes an overall model of emotional labor including situational
cues (i.e., events, display rules, etc.), emotional labor, and various outcomes.
Speciﬁcally, display rules inform employees which reactions are appropriate or
inappropriate and emotional labor regulates the employees’ actual reactions or responses
(Grandey, 2000). This suggests that display rules lead to emotional labor, which includes
surface and deep acting. Furthermore, Goldberg and Grandey (2007) propose that surface
acting will mediate the depleting effects of display rules on emotional exhaustion. They

argue that display rules increase emotion regulation and surface acting should explain the

29

depletion of energy leading to emotional exhaustion. In support for this assertion,
Goldberg and Grandey (2007) found that surface acting mediated the relationship
between display niles and emotional exhaustion, but deep acting was not a significant
mediator of the same relationship in this laboratory study. This suggests that surface
acting should mediate the relationship between display rules at work and burnout and
well-being at home. A similar relationship is expected for work-to-family conﬂict such
that rules for displaying positive emotions at work are expected to lead to higher surface
acting (of positive emotions), which in turn will lead to higher emotion-based work-to-
family conﬂict and lower individual well-being. Even though Goldberg and Grandey
(2007 ) did not support a mediating relationship for deep acting, Grandey (2000) proposes
such a relationship for deep acting in her overall theoretical model and Johnson and
Spector’s (2007) ﬁnd support for an empirical link between deep acting and well—being.
Therefore, I expect deep acting will also mediate the relationship between display rules
and well-being and work-to-family conﬂict; however, these relationships will not be as
strong as the relationships including surface acting.

Hypothesis 5: Emotional labor at work will mediate the relationships between

rules for displaying positive emotions at work and (a) emotion-based work-to-

family conﬂict, (b) individual well-being and (c) individual ill-being at home.

Hypothesis 6: The mediating relationship proposed in Hypothesis 5 will be

stronger for surface acting compared to deep acting.
BEHAVIOR-BASED WORK-FAMILY CONFLICT

In the present research, behavioral monitoring is the extent to which individuals

actually engage in acts that monitor, or observe, regulate and control public appearances

30

in social settings and interpersonal relationships (building from the concept of self-
monitoring as previously discussed; Snyder, 1987; Day et al., 2002). This construct is
expected to hold important implications for work settings due to its “social and
interpersonal focus, self-monitoring should be especially relevant to understanding those
attitudes, behaviors, and outcomes that constitute the primary criterion domains in
organizational settings” (Day et al., 2000, p. 390). In fact, Day and colleagues’ (2002)
meta-analysis suggests that self-monitoring is signiﬁcantly related to job performance,
advancement, ability, leadership, and various work-related attitudes. The relationship
between self-monitoring and subjective performance ratings suggests that supervisors
hold an expectation for behavioral monitoring to some extent. In addition, if these
expectations are communicated to employees by their superior(s) during performance
reviews or other discussions, employees should be motivated to act accordingly.

Overall, this suggests that actual behavioral monitoring, not just individual
differences in the propensity to self-monitor which has been the focus of previous
research, is an important phenomenon to investigate in the workplace. Furthermore, since
high self-monitors tend to receive better performance ratings (Day et al., 2002), I argue
that some organizations hold an expectation or rule for employee displays of monitored
or controlled behavior. Such display rules are a type of job demand and in Karasek’s
(1979) original job demands model, “work load demands. . .place the individual (or
employee) in a motivated or energized state of ‘stress’” (p. 287), which suggests that
individuals are motivated to fulﬁll job demands. Therefore, workplace expectations or
rules for appropriate work behavior should lead to actual employee behavioral

monitoring.

31

Hypothesis 7: Rules for displaying appropriate work behavior are positively

related to employee behavioral monitoring.

Following the support provided above relating display rules and job demands,
Karasek’s (1979) model also proposes that job demands are related to stress and strain,
which leads to lower individual well—being. This is especially true when employees have
low decision latitude or autonomy or lack the resources to fulﬁll the demands (Karasek,
1979). For instance, Ilies et al. (2007) found that high workload is positively related to
negative affect at work and negative affect later at home. Increased workload also shows
a consistent relationship with burnout and this relationship is especially evident between
high workload and the exhaustion dimension of burnout (Maslach & Leiter, 2008).
Sonnentag and Zijlstra (2006) found that high job demands and high off-job demands
(e. g., at home) are both related to poor individual well-being. All of these ﬁndings
provide support for a relationship between demands for certain behavior at work and
lower well-being at home.

Empirical research endorses a similar relationship between job demands and
work-family conﬂict (see Butler et al., 2005; Eby et al., 2005 ; Ilies et al., 2007). This
suggests that display rules concerning behaviors at work may lead to work-to-family
conﬂict. In other words, if individuals experience behavioral demands at work, they are
likely to perceive behavior-based work-to-family conﬂict as a result of diminishing
ability to handle behavioral expectations at home due to prior mental effort on behavioral
demands at work (i.e., effort-recovery; Meijman & Mulder, 1998). That is, when mental
effort is required to process behavioral rules or demands at work, little mental effort is

available for subsequent use until an individual has been able to recover their effort or

32

energy level. Behavior—based conﬂict refers to patterns of in-role behavior (e. g., at work)
that interfere with the performance of behavior required in another role (e. g., at home;
Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985) and this can be explained using the effort drain process
described above.
Hypothesis 8: Rules for displaying appropriate work behavior are (a) positively
related to behavior-based work-to-family conﬂict, (b) negatively related to
individual well-being (positive affect, life and marital satisfactions) at home, and
(c) positively related to individual ill-being (negative affect and burnout) at home.
As noted previously, in one of the few empirical studies conducted on behavior-
based work-family conﬂict, Bruck and Allen (2003) found that none of the dispositional
variables examined (including Type A, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and
agreeableness) were signiﬁcantly related to behavior-based conﬂict. As a result, the
authors concluded that behavior-based conﬂict may have situational determinants rather
than dispositional determinants, which suggests that studying whether employees monitor
and control their behavior in work-related situations or settings (i.e., behavioral
monitoring) and how this impacts behavior-based conﬂict is appropriate. The meta-
analysis regarding self-monitoring at work by Day et al. (2002), established a positive
relationship between self-monitoring and role stress and self-monitoring and role conﬂict.
Similar conclusions were drawn by Dubinsky and Hartley (1986) in regards to role
conﬂict, as well as Day and Schleicher (2006) - “self-monitoring was positively related
to role conﬂict and role ambiguity, suggesting that high self-monitors were more likely to
experience (or report) greater role stress than low self-monitors” (p. 691). These ﬁndings

hold implications for work-family conﬂict and individual well-being given that stress at

33

work is related to poorer well-being (Sonnentag & Frese, 2003). Sonnentag and Frese
(2003) review literature on stress in organizations and conclude that role stress and
overload are related to burnout, displeasure, distress, anger, and other health complaints.
Spector and colleagues (1988) found that job stressors are highly correlated with the
affective outcomes of anxiety and frustration (aspects of negative affect), as well as lower
job satisfaction. In a meta-analytic examination of burnout, job stress was found to be
highly correlated with emotional exhaustion and depersonalization (Lee & Ashforth,
1996). Job stress is also one of the strongest predictors of work-to-family conﬂict based
on Byron’s (2005) meta-analytic results.

In addition, Toegel, Anand, and Kilduff (2007) propose that an important
assumption in research on self-monitoring is that such behavior requires considerable
effort and energy because of high self-monitors’ motivation to produce a successful
social encounter or interaction. Early research illustrated that high self-monitors tend to
speak ﬁrst when interacting with others and attempt to continue the conversation during
periods of silence (Ickes & Barnes, 1977). Engaging in high behavioral monitoring at
work may drain employees’ energy leading to less available energy at home after work
(i.e., resource drain; Edwards & Rothbard, 2000; ego-depletion, Baumeister et al., 1998).
Through such energy drain, individuals will likely experience conﬂict between their work
and family domains as a result of a decreased capacity to engage in monitoring behavior
at home.

Hypothesis 9: Employees who engage in high behavioral monitoring will

experience (a) greater behavior-based work-to-family conﬂict, (b) lower

individual well-being (positive affect, life and marital satisfactions) at home, and

34

(c) greater individual ill-being (negative affect and burnout) at home, compared to

employees who do not engage in behavioral monitoring.

Following the above support, I propose that behavioral monitoring will mediate
the relationships between display rules for appropriate behavior at work and behavior-
based conﬂict. Job demands, such as behavioral expectations at work, are the stressors or
work load obligations placed on employees in the workplace and employees, in turn, are
expected to accomplish the demanded tasks or obligations (Karasek, 1979). In other
words, employees are expected to respond to job demands in an attempt to fulﬁll their
requirements, suggesting that behavioral expectations or display rules should lead to
actual behavior. For that reason, I expect display rules for appropriate work behavior to
precede actual behavioral monitoring. Additionally, behavioral monitoring at work is
expected to lead to work-to-family conﬂict and well-being later at home, which suggests
the following.

Hypothesis 10: Behavioral monitoring at work will mediate the relationships

between rules for displaying appropriate work behavior and (a) behavior-based

work-to-family conﬂict, (b) individual well-being, and (c) individual ill-being at
home.
STRAIN-BASED WORK-FAMILY CONFLICT

The ﬁnal form of work-family conﬂict included in the present model is strain-
based conﬂict and I will discuss the antecedents of this form of conﬂict next. Workload is
often referred to as “the degree to which employees are required to work fast and hard
and have much work to do in a short time, or permanently have a great deal of work to

do” (J anssen, 2001, p. 1040). Many theories and research on job demands have connected

35

workload with a number of satisfaction and performance outcomes (Spector et al., 1988;
J anssen, 2001; Gardner, 1986). According to the effort-recovery model (Meijman &
Mudler, 1998), workload requires effort and failure to fulﬁll workload requirements will
be associated with negative reactions such as fatigue and dissatisfaction (Dikkers, Geurts,
Kompier, Taris, Hourtmand, & van den Heuvel, 2007). This suggests that employees who
perceive high levels of workload are more likely to exert greater levels of effort (i.e.,
work hard) in order to get the job done. Similarly, Rothbard (2001) argues that “people
become engaged in roles in response to role demands” (p. 658), thus, I expect workload
to be associated with employee work effort. Investigating this relationship is a
contribution to the literature because previous work concentrates on perceptions of
workload and assumes that workload leads to effort as discussed previously, whereas, I
will look at actual effort in order to examine whether this assumption is empirically valid.
Hypothesis 1 I : Workload is positively related to employee work effort.
Consistent with previous research discussed early in this chapter, workload is also
expected to be related to work-family conﬂict. Multiple studies have supported a link
between workload and general work-family conﬂict (Byron, 2005; Demerouti et al.,
2004; Butler et al., 2005). A recent meta-analysis conducted by Ford and colleagues
(2007) establishes a relationship between job stress, including role overload or high
workload, and work-to-family conﬂict. In addition, Dikkers et al. (2007) found that
workload leads to work—home interference or conﬂict. In terms of strain-based work-
family conﬂict, Wallace (1999) found that work overload is positively related to strain-
based conﬂict. Work overload was actually the strongest predictor of strain-based conﬂict

in his study on lawyers’ work-to-family conﬂict. Thus, there is consistent evidence in the

36

literature for a relationship between workload and strain-based work-to-family conﬂict,
which is replicated herein.

Additionally, workload is also expected to impact individual well-being at home.
Ilies et al. (2007) found that high workload at work positively inﬂuences negative affect
at work and at home. This suggests that workload may carryover into the family domain
creating negative well-being symptoms at home. Rothbard (2001) proposes a similar
argument in her model of engagement in work and family roles. Her depletion argument
“assumes that the multiple demands of work and family are detrimental to the individuals
and that role participation (whether in one or multiple roles) invokes stress, resulting in
emotional strain” (p. 656). Rothbard (2001) found some support for the depletion
argument, which suggests that job demands lead to stress and emotional strain, which is
expected to negatively impact well-being.

Hypothesis 12: Workload is related (a) positively to strain-based work-to-family

conﬂict, (b) negatively to individual well-being (positive affect, life and marital

satisfactions) at home, and (c) positively to individual ill-being (negative affect
and burnout) at home.

Work effort is also expected to be related to work-family conﬂict and individual
well-being. Following Brown and Leigh (1996), effort is conceptualized as consisting of
duration and intensity or force because “time commitment and work intensity constitute
the essence of working har ” (p. 361). In terms of the relationship between effort and
work—family conﬂict, Greenhaus and Beutell (1985) cite work stressors including mental
concentration required at work as a source of strain-based work-family conﬂict. Mental

concentration falls under the work intensity dimension of effort, which I focus on

37

presently, and I would expect that as concentration or intensity increases, perceptions of
strain-based conﬂict increase as well. A similar relationship is found for job involvement.
In particular, job involvement is a signiﬁcant antecedent of work-to-family conﬂict
across numerous studies (Byron, 2005). Ford et al.’s (2007) meta-analysis replicates
Byron’s ﬁnding and concludes that job involvement is a unique predictor of work-to-
family conﬂict when tested with job stress, work support, and work hours. The ﬁndings
reviewed indicate a positive relationship should exist between work effort and strain-
based work-to-family conﬂict.

Finally, Rothbard (2001) proposes a depletion argument in which individuals
have ﬁxed amounts of psychological and physiological resources available to them and in
order to effectively manage such resources individuals must make tradeoffs. The ﬁxed
resources Rothbard examines include two dimensions of role engagement. Role
engagement includes attention — the cognitive availability and time one spends thinking
about a role — and absorption — the intensity of one’s focus on a role. Such engagement
appears applicable to work effort as deﬁned above, indicating that work effort may be
relevant for the relationships investigated by Rothbard (2001). Rothbard proposed that
work engagement is associated with negative emotional responses to work, which in turn
is negatively related to family engagement. This relationship was partially supported.
Speciﬁcally, work attention was positively related to negative work affect, which was
negatively related to family attention. Therefore, I expect a positive relationship between
work effort and negative affect, which is harmful for individual well-being. Such a
decrease in well-being might not be the case for all individuals based on Karasek’s

(1979) work, which found that high effort is not always harmful when employees have

38

decision latitude or control. However, in the present work, I focus on the effort
employees engage in as a response to workload (i.e., hypothesis 11) and assume that this
workload is determined by their job and not by the employee’s own discretion. Therefore,
following the depletion arguments presented, high effort is expected to lead to lower
individual satisfactions and well-being.

Hypothesis 13: Employees who engage in high work effort will experience (a)

greater strain-based work-to-family conﬂict, (b) lower individual well-being

(positive affect, life and marital satisfactions) at home, and (c) greater individual

ill-being (negative affect and burnout) at home, compared to individuals who do

not give such effort.

The last relationship concerning strain-based conﬂict involves mediation.
Namely, I expect work effort to mediate the relationship between workload and strain-
based work-to-family conﬂict and well-being. Likewise, Dikkers et al. (2007) suggests
that workload leads to effort and constant or regular exposure to workload creates
negative reactions, which are likely to spill over and interfere with functioning at home.
Employing the same perspective, Geurts, Taris, Kompier, Dikkers, Van Hooff, and
Kinnunen (2005) deﬁne work-home interference or conﬂict as a process where a
workers’ functioning at home is inﬂuenced by negative load reactions, resulting from
demanding or high workloads, that have built up at work. Overall, this suggests a
relationship between workload, effort and work-family outcomes.

Hypothesis 14: Employee work effort will mediate the relationships between

workload and (a) strain-based work-to-family conﬂict, (b) individual well-being,

and (c) individual ill-being at home.

39

MODERATING RELATIONSHIPS

Lastly, the proposed relationships between employee labor and work-family
conﬂict may be affected by a number of moderating variables. First, individuals differ in
the extent to which they tend to segment or separate their work and family roles (e. g.,
Ashforth, Kreiner, & Fugate, 2000; Rothbard, Phillips, & Dumas, 2005). This is referred
to as work-family integration and individuals with low work-family integration are
inclined to segment their work and family domains, whereas, employees with high work-
family integration make little distinction between work and family roles (Desrochers,
Hilton, & Larwood, 2005; Nippert-Eng, 1996). For example, a highly integrated
employee would check his/her work email and voicemail often while at home. On the
other hand, an employee with low integration would be less likely to respond to work
messages from home. Thus, employees with high work-family integration have more
difﬁculty separating work and family and are more likely to experience spillover and
conﬂict between these two life domains (Ilies, Wilson, & Wagner, 2009).

Work-family integration deals with whether individuals allow their work to
inﬂuence their experiences with family and visa versa. Ilies et al. (2009) contend that
employees with low integration, or those who segment work and family, limit the
inﬂuence of work on family. In other words, “individuals who segment their work and
family roles are less likely to think about work while they are at home because they focus
primarily on the role relevant to the life domain in which they are operating at the time”
(1 1). This suggests that individuals who are low integrators are less strongly inﬂuenced
by work experiences at home and those who are high integrators are more likely to

experience a link between work experiences and home experiences. In particular,

40

individuals who integrate their work and family roles will experience more interference at
home from the labor performed at work. Furthermore, high integrators will also allow the
work they performed to inﬂuence their feelings and attitudes at home, resulting in a
stronger relationship between labor and individual well-being.
Hypothesis 15: The relationships between labor at work and work-to-family
conﬂict will be moderated by work-family integration such that: (a) the
relationship between emotional labor and emotion-based work-to-family conﬂict
will be stronger for employees with high integration, (b) the relationship between
behavioral monitoring and behavior—based work-to-family conﬂict will be
stronger for employees with high integration, and (c) the relationship between
work effort and strain-based work-to-family conﬂict will be stronger for
employees with high integration.
Hypotheses 16: The relationships between labor at work and individual well-being
at home will be moderated by work-farme integration such that: the relationships
between (a) emotional labor, (b) behavioral monitoring, and (c) work effort and
well-being and ill-being will be stronger for employees with high integration.
Second, work support is also expected to impact the main relationships discussed
above because research suggests that work support may prevent or reduce work-family
conﬂict (Frye & Breaugh, 2004; Lapierre & Allen, 2006). That is, research has begun to
consider what organizations and managers can do to help employees more effectively
handle both work and family responsibilities. One of the major family-supportive
elements examined in the workplace is supportive supervision. Thomas and Ganster

(1995) deﬁne supportive supervisors as supervisors “who empathize with the employee’s

41

desire to seek balance between work and family responsibilities” (p. 7). Examples of this
type of support include accommodating a ﬂexible schedule, being tolerant and
understanding of family responsibilities, allowing short personal phone calls, etc. The
results of Thomas and Ganster’s (1995) study demonstrate that supportive supervisor
behaviors have a positive inﬂuence on employee attitudes and well-being. Warren and
Johnson (1995) reviewed and supported literature regarding a relationship between
supervisor sensitivity and ﬂexibility and role strain and work-family conﬂict.
Speciﬁcally, they found that such supervisor support was signiﬁcantly negatively related
to work-family role strain. In addition, Lapierre and Allen (2006) found a similar
relationship between supportive supervision and time- and strain-based work-to-family
conﬂict. These ﬁndings suggest a buffering effect in terms of work interfering with
family. In other words, when employees experience support from their supervisor, they
are less likely to experience work-to-family conﬂict and negative consequences at home
based on what they had to do at work. This suggests that the relationships between labor
at work and work-to-family conﬂict and well-being will become weaker as supervisor
support increases.
Hypothesis 1 7: The relationships between labor at work and work-to—family
conﬂict will be moderated by supervisor support such that: (a) the relationship
between emotional labor and emotion-based work-to-family conﬂict will be
stronger for employees with low supervisor support, (b) the relationship between
behavioral monitoring and behavior-based work-to-family conﬂict will be

stronger for employees with low supervisor support, and (c) the relationship

42

between work effort and strain-based work-to-family conﬂict will be stronger for

employees with low supervisor support.

Hypotheses 18: The relationships between labor at work and individual well-being

at home will be moderated by supervisor support such that: the relationships

between (a) emotional labor, (b) behavioral monitoring, and (c) work effort and
well-being and ill-being will be stronger for employees with low supervisor
support.

Third, on an exploratory basis I will also examine the impact of family display
rules on the relationships between labor at work and work-family conﬂict at home. In the
present model, I study demands (i.e., display rules) at work as well as discuss the
pressures or demands individuals may face at home and this follows Hochschild’s (1983)
contention that emotional labor is required at work and in individuals’ personal
relationships. Thus, I assume individuals have some emotional requirements at home but
that these may be different across families. For instance, some may have fairly strict
emotional requirements with family members and others may have little or no emotional
requirements. Accordingly, I will investigate whether the strength of individuals’ family
display rules impact the relationships between emotional labor and work-to-family
conﬂict.

In one of the only studies regarding emotional labor at home, Erickson (1993)
operationalized emotion work within the family using items such as: conﬁdes innermost
thoughts and feelings, lets me know she or he has faith in me, gives me compliments, and
acts affectionately toward me, all of which appear more sincere and ﬂexible than the

display rules expected in the workplace. Moreover, Erickson’s (1993) empirical results

43

show that husband’s emotion work at home has a positive effect on women’s marital
well-being and wives own emotion work at home is negatively related to marital burnout.
This indicates that emotional labor at home has the opposite effect on work-to-family
conﬂict and well-being compared to emotional labor at work. If employees perceive high
demands or display rules for emotional labor at home, such display rules should not be as
detrimental to the employee’s well-being. Thus, I explore whether emotional display
rules at home impact the relationship between labor at work and work-to-family conﬂict

and well-being at home.

METHODS AND RESULTS

SAMPLE

Participants were recruited to participate in the proposed study by e-mail and
website message boards from a number of Michigan State University networks. This
convenience sample, which included employees and former students of the university,
was notiﬁed of the opportunity to participate in the present study via an email or message
board recruitment letter. In this letter, a description and Web link for the study was
provided. Interested alumni and employees were asked to sign-up for the study using the
link provided, which directed them to a Web-based registration page and consent form.
Recruitment for this study was ongoing and ran until enough individuals had completed
the ﬁrst survey (i.e., the proposed sample size for this study was 193 focal employees; the
actual sample consisted of 194 employees as discussed below). Participation in the study
was completely voluntary and participants were entered into a drawing for a number of
small cash prizes as a reward for completing the study. An examination of participants’
job titles and descriptions reveals that the sample held a variety of jobs dealing with, for
example, accounting, ﬁnance, purchasing, administration or management, human
resources, education, software and technology, engineering, and clerical and technical
work.

One of the key concepts examined in this study includes work or job-related
information. Another key criteria examined involves spouse or signiﬁcant other ratings of
participants’ work-family conﬂict and well-being at home. Accordingly, only individuals

who worked full-time (defined as 35 or more hours per week) and live with a spouse or

45

signiﬁcant other who is willing to complete one survey packet at home, were eligible to
participate in the present study. A total of 244 participants completed the initial survey
requesting demographic and work demands information. Of these individuals, 229
completed the second survey concerning work labor questions and 194 of the employees
and 172 of their spouses or signiﬁcant others completed the ﬁnal survey requesting work
and home information. In the ﬁnal sample of 194 focal individuals, 63.9% were women
and 87.6% hold a bachelors degree or higher. These individuals also have an average of
1.12 children living at home. Independent sample t-test analyses comparing the 50
individuals who failed to complete all study measurements with the remaining 194
participants shows there were no signiﬁcant differences between the two groups on any
of the demographic variables mentioned.
PROCEDURE

Data was collected in three phases for the present study (please refer to Table l
for an overview of the present research design). During the ﬁrst phase of the study, focal
participants (the employees) followed a link from the recruitment letter to the consent
form and ﬁrst questionnaire, which took place at work. The ﬁrst survey assessed
demands experienced at work as well as demographic information, support at work (i.e.,
supervisor support) and work-family integration.

In phase two, the second survey also occurred at work on the Web. Participants
received a link via email to the second survey one to two weeks after phase one and the
directions indicated that this survey should also be completed during workdays and

hours. This survey measured the behaviors (e. g., labor) performed by individuals at work.

46

An email reminder was sent to those who had not completed the questionnaire one week
after the link was sent out.

Finally, in the third phase, participants and their spouses or signiﬁcant others
received a survey packet in the mail at home one to two weeks after phase two was
completed. This survey measured employees’ work-family conﬂict and well-being at
home. The survey instructed participants and spouses/signiﬁcant others to complete the
questions at home during the week during non-work hours. Both employees and
spouses/signiﬁcant others were asked to report the extent to which the focal participant
(the employee) experienced conﬂict between their work and family roles as well as how
they would evaluate the focal participants’ well-being at home. Data was collected from
the focal participants at home to validate their spouse/signiﬁcant other reports of the
criteria. These scores all correlated signiﬁcantly (i.e., r= .35, p < .01 for emotion-based
conﬂict; r= .40, p < .01 for emotional exhaustion; m .36, p < .01 for personal
accomplishment and so forth (all of the correlations between the signiﬁcant other and
focal employee reports are included in the correlation table in Table 2), which provides
evidence for the validity of spouse/signiﬁcant other ratings of work-family conﬂict and
well-being.

MEASURES

Emotional Display Rules. Rules for displaying positive emotions at work was
assessed during the ﬁrst phase (i.e., in the ﬁrst Web survey at work) of the study.
Emotional display rules were measured using items from the Emotion Work
Requirements Scale (Best, Downey, & Jones, 1997) and three items from Grandey

(2003). These items pertain to requirements for the display of positive emotions and

47

examples are provided to further illustrate two of the questions. Participants were asked if
they are required to do the following in their current job: “Reassure others who are
distressed or upset,” “Remain calm even when you are astonished,” Express feelings of
sympathy (e.g., be kind and understanding),” and “Express friendly emotions (e. g.,
smile),” “Part of my job is to make others feel good,” “My workplace does not expect me
to express positive emotions as part of my job,” (reverse coded) and “My organization
would say that part of my job is to be friendly and cheerful.” Responses were given on a
scale ranging from I = not at all to 5 = always. The internal consistency reliability for
this measure is .86. Please refer to Appendix C for an overview of all measures included
in the present study as well as Table 7 for reliability and validity evidence of these
measures from past research.

Behavioral Display Rules. Rules for displaying appropriate work behavior were
also assessed during the ﬁrst phase of the present study. The items used to measure rules
for apprOpriate behavior at work were modiﬁed from a scale assessing individuals’
concern for the appropriateness of social behavior (Lennox & Wolfe, 1984). Items were
modiﬁed to reﬂect a work setting. Participants were asked if their workplace expects the
following from employees: “At my work, employees are expected to behave in
appropriate ways,” “I am expected to behave in a manner that makes me ﬁt in at work,”
“On the job, when I am uncertain how to act I am encouraged to look to the behavior of
others for cues,” “At work, I should pay attention to the reactions of others regarding my
behavior in order to avoid being out of place,” “On the job, the slightest look of
disapproval from a person with whom I am interacting is expected to make me change

my approach,” and “My behavior at work often depends on how I feel others wish me to

48

behave.” Responses were given on a scale ranging from 1 = not at all to 5 = always. The
reliability of this measure is .77.

Workload. To measure employees’ workload during the ﬁrst phase of the study, I
used eight items from J anssen (2001) and one item from Ilies et al. (2007) that assesses
workload directly: “My workload is high,” “I have to work fast,” “I have too much work
to do,” “I have to work extra hard to ﬁnish a task,” “I work under time pressure,” “I can
do my work in comfort,” (reverse coded) “Ideal with a backlog at work,” “I have
problems with the pace of my work,” and “I have problems with my workload.”
Responses were given on a scale ranging from I = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly
agree. The reliability of this measure is .88.

Emotional Labor. Emotional labor was measured during the second phase (i.e., in
the second Web survey at work) of the present study. Surface acting was assessed by
asking participants how much they have to do the following in order to perform their job
effectively: “I fake a good mood,” “I put on an act it order to deal with others in an
appropriate way,” “I pretend to have emotions I need to display for my job,” “I put on a
‘mask’ in order to display the emotions I need for my job,” and “I resist expressing my
true feelings.” The ﬁrst four items were taken from Grandey (2003) and the remaining
item is from the Brotheridge and Lee (2003) emotional labor scale. The internal
consistency reliability of this measure is .79. In addition, deep acting was assessed by
asking participants if they do the following in order to perform their job: “I generally try
to look at the positive side of things to change how I feel,” “I attempt to focus on happier
things,” “I try to actually experience the emotions I must show,” “I make an effort to

actually feel the emotions I need to display to others,” and “I really try to feel the

49

emotions Ihave to show as part of my job.” The ﬁrst two items are from Grandey,
Dickter, and Sin (2004) and the remaining items are from Brotheridge and Lee’s (2003)
emotional labor scale. Responses ranged from I = never to 5 = always. The internal
consistency reliability for deep acting is .83.

Behavioral monitoring. Behavioral monitoring at work was assessed during the
second phase of the study using a modified version of the revised self-monitoring scale
from Lennox and Wolfe (1984). Participants were presented with the following items,
which are modiﬁed to reﬂect actual self-monitoring or behavioral monitoring performed
in a work-related setting, “I alter my behavior at work if I feel that something else is
called for,” “On the job, I control the way I come across to people, depending on the
impression I wish to give them,” “At work, when I feel that the image I am portraying
isn’t working, I can readily change it to something that does,” “I have trouble changing
my behavior at work to suit different people and situations,” (reverse coded) “I adjust my
behavior to meet the requirements of any situation I ﬁnd myself in at work,” “Even when
it might be to my advantage, it is difﬁcult for me to put up a good front at work,” (reverse
coded) and “Once I know what the situation calls for at work, I regulate my actions
accordingly.” Responses ranged from I = never to 5 = always. The reliability of the
behavioral monitoring measure is .80.

Work Eﬁort. Work effort was assessed during the second phase of the current
research. Participants were presented with the work effort items from Brown and Leigh
(1996) and asked to respond on a scale from I = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree.
These items include “When there’s a job to be done, I devote all my energy to getting it

9, 66

done, When I work, I do so with intensity,” “I work at my full capacity in all of my job

50

duties,” “I strive as hard as I can to be successful in my work,” and “When I work, I
really exert myself to the fullest.” The coefﬁcient alpha for this measure is .89.

Emotion-based work-family conﬂict. Emotion-based conﬂict was assessed at
home during the third phase of the study (i.e., the home paper-based survey) by
employees themselves and their spouses/signiﬁcant others, in order to test whether the
two sets of ratings have adequate agreement as discussed previously. These items were
developed using the theoretical deﬁnition previously provided for emotion-based conﬂict,
as recommended by Hinkin (1995), as well as by modifying established work-family
conﬂict items from Netemeyer et al. (1996), Kopelman, Greenhaus and Connolly (1983),
and Carlson, Kacmar and Williams (2000). Employees and their spouses or signiﬁcant
others were provided with questions regarding the focal participants’ general experience
of the following. The spouse/signiﬁcant other survey items were modiﬁed in order to
refer to the focal participant in each item (e. g., “. . .my spouse/signiﬁcant other. . .”). “The
emotional demands of my job make it difﬁcult for me to express appropriate emotions at
home,” “The emotions required by my job often prevent me from contributing to our
home/family life,” “The emotional demands of my work interfere with our home and
family life,” I am not able to display appropriate emotions at home because of my work,”
and “The emotions that are necessary for my job make it difﬁcult for me to meet
emotional demands here at home.” Responses were given on a scale ranging from 1 =
strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. In addition, detailed instructions were provided
for this measure in order to give participants and their spouses/signiﬁcant others an

example of the emotional demands referred to in the questions listed. The internal

51

consistency reliability of the measure is .95 for the employee ratings and .92 for the
spouse/signiﬁcant other ratings.

Behavior-based work-family conﬂict. Behavior-based conﬂict was assessed by
employees and their spouses/signiﬁcant others during the third and ﬁnal phase of the
study. Items were modified from Carlson et al. (2000) and the other work-family conﬂict
scales included in the present study. Employees and spouses/signiﬁcant others responded
to questions regarding the focal participants’ general experience of the following at
home: “I am not able to monitor or control my behavior at home as I do at work,” “The
behavioral demands of my job make it difﬁcult for me to engage in appropriate behaviors
at home,” “Behavior that is appropriate for me at work interferes with my family life here
at home,” “The behaviors I perform that make me effective at work do not help me to be
a better spouse or family member,” and “The behaviors that are necessary for my job
make it difﬁcult for me to meet behavioral demands here at home.” Responses were
given on a scale ranging from I = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. Detailed
instructions were also provided in the surveys for this measure in order to give
participants and their spouses/significant others an example of the behaviors referred to in
the questions listed. The internal consistency reliability of this measure is .84 for the
employee ratings and .85 for the spouse/signiﬁcant other ratings.

Strain-based work-family conﬂict. Strain-based conﬂict was assessed by
employees and their spouses or signiﬁcant others during the ﬁnal phase of the present
study. Items were used from Kopelman et al. (1983) and Carlson et al. (2000). Employees
and spouses/signiﬁcant others were asked whether the focal participant experiences the

following in general: “The demands of my job make it difﬁcult for me to be relaxed at

52

home,” “After work, I come home too tired to do some of the things I would like to do,”
“Because my work is demanding, at times I am irritable at home,” “It is difﬁcult for me
to relax when I am away from work,” ”Tension and anxiety from work often creep into
my family life,” “I often feel I am rushing to get my nonwork responsibilities taken care
of in order to get back to work,” “I am often stressed by trying to balance my
responsibilities when work interferes with the rest of my life,” “I am often so drained
when I get home from work that it prevents me from contributing to my family,” “I am
often preoccupied with work while I am here at home,” “Due to all the pressures at work,
sometimes when I come home I am too stressed to do the things I really enjoys,” and
“Sometimes I feel overwhelmed by all of my responsibilities at work.” Responses were
given on a scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. The internal
consistency reliability of the measure is .92 for the employee ratings and .89 for the
spouse/signiﬁcant other ratings.

Burnout. Burnout was assessed during the ﬁnal phase of the study by employees
and their spouse or significant other. These items include those from Maslach and
Jackson (1981) and respondents were asked the following questions regarding the focal
participant at home. The ﬁrst set of questions concerns the emotional exhaustion
component of burnout. “I feel emotionally drained from my work,” “I feel used up at the
end of the day,” “I feel fatigued when I gets up in the morning and have to face another
day on the job,” “Working with people is really a strain for me,” “I feel burned out from
my work,” “I feel frustrated after work,” “I feel I’m working too hard,” “Working with
people puts too much stress on me,” and “I feel like I’m at the end of my rope.” The

depersonalization component was measured by asking employees and spouses/signiﬁcant

53

others the extent to which the focal participant experiences the following in general at
home: “I feel I treat others as if they are impersonal ‘objects’,” “I feel I am callous
toward others,” “I worry I am becoming emotionally hardened,” “I don’t really care
about what happens to others,” and “I feel others blame me for some of their problems.”
Finally, the component of personal accomplishment was measured by asking employees
and their spouses/signiﬁcant others whether the focal participant: “I easily understand
how others feel about things,” “I deal very effectively with problems,” “I feel I’m
positively inﬂuencing others lives,” “I feel very energetic,” “I can easily create a relaxed
atmosphere with others,” “I feel exhilarated after working closely with others,” “I feel
I’ve accomplished many worthwhile things,” and “I deal with emotional problems very
calmly.” Responses ranged from I = never to 5 = always. The reliabilities of the burnout
components are .87 and .86 for emotional exhaustion, .77 and .81 for depersonalization,
and .76 and .82 for personal accomplishment for the employee ratings spouse/signiﬁcant
other ratings respectively.

Aﬁect at home. Home affect was assessed by employees and their spouses or
signiﬁcant others during the ﬁnal phase of the present study using the Positive and
Negative Affect Schedule (Watson & Clark, 1994). Employees and spouses/signiﬁcant
others were presented with a list of 20 adjective descriptors of affect and asked to
indicate the extent to which the focal participant typically feels each of the adjectives
listed in the evening (at home). Responses were given on a scale ranging from I = very
slightly or not at all to 5 = extremely. Speciﬁcally, the ten adjective descriptors for the
positive scale are “interested,” “enthusiastic,” “excited,” “strong,” “proud,” “alert,”

“inspired,” “attentive,” “active” and “determined.” The ten adjective descriptors for the

54

negative scale are “upset,” “irritable,” “distressed,” “guilty,” “scared,” “ashamed,”
“nervous,” “jittery,” “afraid” and “hostile.” The internal consistency reliability scores for
positive and negative affect at home are .88 and .86 for the employee ratings and .88 and
.85 for the spouse/signiﬁcant other ratings, respectively.

Life satisfaction. Life satisfaction was measured at home on the ﬁnal paper-based
survey completed by both employees and spouses or signiﬁcant others. A ﬁve-item
measure of life satisfaction (Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Grifﬁn, 1985) included the
following general items. “IfI could live my life over, I would change almost nothing,” “I
am satisﬁed with my life,” “So far, I got the important things I want in life,” “The
conditions of my life are excellent,” and “In most ways my life is close to ideal.”
Responses were given on a scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly
agree. The average internal consistency reliability for the measure is .88 for the employee
ratings and .87 for the spouse/signiﬁcant other ratings.

Marital satisfaction. During the ﬁnal phase of the study I used Norton’s (1983)
scale to assess marital satisfaction using employee and spouse/signiﬁcant other ratings.
Employees and their spouses or signiﬁcant others were asked to indicate the extent to
which they agree with the following statements concerning their marriage. The scale
items include: “I feel that I have a good marriage or relationship,” “I feel that my
relationship with my spouse or signiﬁcant other is very stable,” “Our marriage or
relationship is very strong,” “I really feel like part of a team with my spouse/signiﬁcant
other” and “My relationship with my spouse or signiﬁcant other has made me happy.”

This measure included a ﬁve-point scale, ranging from I = strongly disagree, to 5 =

55

strongly agree. The reliability of the marital satisfaction scale is .97 for the employee
ratings and .96 for the spouse/signiﬁcant other ratings.

Work—family integration. The extent to which each participant in the study
integrates work and family roles was measured using a slightly-modiﬁed version of the
three-item Work-Family Role Integration-Blurring Scale (Desrochers et al., 2005). At the
beginning of the study, during the ﬁrst work survey, focal participants responded to the
following items: “It is often difﬁcult to tell where my work life ends and my family life
begins,” “I tend to integrate my work and family duties when I work at home,” and “In
my life, there is a clear boundary between my career and my role as a spouse or family
member” (reverse-scored). The response scale I used to measure work-family integration
ranged from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree; and therefore, higher scores are
associated with more integrated work-family roles. The reliability score for this measure
is .75.

Supervisor support. At the beginning of the study (during phase one), focal
participants also responded to a nine-item measure of supervisor support. Participants
were asked the following questions from Shinn, Wong, Simko and Ortiz-Torres (1989).
A 5-point response scale ranging from 1 = never to 5 = always was used for participants
to rate how often their supervisor engaged in the following behaviors: “Switched
schedules (hours, overtime hours, vacation) to accommodate my family responsibilities,”
“Listened to my problems,” “Was critical of my efforts to combine work and family,”
(reverse coded) “Juggled tasks or duties to accommodate my family responsibilities,”
“Shared ideas or advice,” “Held my family responsibilities against me,” (reverse coded)

“Helped me to ﬁgure out how to solve a problem,” “Was understanding or sympathetic,”

56

“Showed resentment of my needs as a working parent or family member” (reverse
coded). The coefﬁcient alpha score for this measure is .82.

Family emotional display rules. Participants completed an assessment of family
display rules during the ﬁnal paper-based survey that took place at home. To measure this
construct, items from Erickson (1993) were modiﬁed to reﬂect demands regarding family
emotional displays rather than actual emotional displays or labor within the family.
Participants were asked if they are expected to do the following at home: “Conﬁde your
innermost thoughts and feelings,” “Let your family members (e. g., spouse, children, etc.)
know you have faith in them,” “Sense when a family member is disturbed about
something,” “Offer others encouragement,” “Give your spouse or family compliments,”
“Stick by your family in times of trouble,” “Act affectionately toward your
spouse/signiﬁcant other,” and “Communicate your feelings about the future of your
family.” Responses were given on a scale ranging from 1 = not at all to 5 = always. The
internal consistency reliability for this measure is .88.

Other variables. Time-based conﬂict was also measured in order to test the
distinctiveness of the different forms of work-farmly conﬂict in the overall measurement
model. Time-based conﬂict was assessed by employees and spouses/signiﬁcant others
during the ﬁnal phase of the study (i.e., the paper survey at home) using a three-item
measure from Kopelman et al. (1983). The items include “My work takes up time that I
would like to spend with family or friends,” “My work schedule often conﬂicts with my
family life,” “I have so much work to do that it takes away from my personal interests.”

Responses were provided on a scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly

57

agree. The reliability of the time-based conﬂict measure is .83 for the employee ratings
and .79 for the spouse/signiﬁcant other ratings.
ANALYSES AND RESULTS

Latent variable structural equation modeling was utilized to analyze the data. I
followed the two-step approach recommended by Anderson and Gerbing (1988), which
involves testing the measurement model to establish acceptable convergent and
discriminant validities and then the structural model to test the paths (hypotheses)
proposed in the present research. Several measurement models and structural models
were tested based on the comprehensive work-to-family conﬂict model and well- and ill-
being outcomes proposed herein (see Figures 3 through 7). Additionally, the means,
standard deviations, correlations and coefﬁcient alpha reliabilities (which are on the
diagonal) for all variables are provided in Table 2 (these descriptive statistics only
include the items supported in the factor analyses discussed below). Finally, in the
LISREL results discussed below concerning both the measurement and structural models,
which utilized the relevant raw item data, missing data was dealt with by using the
maximum likelihood estimation imputation option in PRELIS (the data program
connected to LISREL). The MLE imputation method is the optimal strategy
recommended for ﬁtting structural equation models (Du Toit & Mels, 2002). This
method assumes missing values are missing at random, which was conﬁrmed by
conducting a missing values analysis in SPSS. The SPSS results conﬁrmed that the vast
majority of items were missing at random, suggesting MLE imputation is appropriate.

Measurement models. For a more thorough analysis, before conducting any

conﬁrmatory factor analyses (CFAs), I ﬁrst analyzed the data in SPSS using exploratory

58

factor analysis (EFA). EFA does not include prior speciﬁcation of the number of factors
(whereas, a CFA includes a measurement model that is speciﬁed a priori) and this
exploratory analysis is recommended as a preliminary step in the progression of
Anderson and Gerbing’s (1988) two-step approach. In terms of the job demands
measures (emotional display rules, behavioral display rules and workload), the EPA
suggested that a few items did not load highly on just one factor (emotional display rules
item #6, behavioral display rules items #1 and 2, and workload items #6, 8, and 9).
Reviewing these items suggests dropping them is appropriate because two of the items
are intended to be reverse coded, which may confuse participants, and a couple of the
workload items refer to how individuals feel about their workload and not about their
actual level of workload like the remaining items. After removing these items from the
EPA, three factors emerged as expected.

Next, a CFA was conducted in LISREL (J oreskog & Sorbom, 1996) using the
reduced number of items. This analysis conﬁrmed the EPA ﬁndings discussed above. In
order to determine the extent to which the data conform to the measurement model
proposed, a variety of ﬁt indexes were examined. Table 3 presents the ﬁt indexes for the
measurement models tested herein. Based on the scores reported by the focal participant
(the employee), the overall fit of the demands measurement model was acceptable [chi-
square statistic (x2) = 210.27, p < .00; comparative ﬁt index (CFI) = 0.96; nonnorrned ﬁt
index (NNFI) = 0.96; the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.07 and
the 90% Conﬁdence Interval for RMSEA = 0.05; 0.08; standardized root mean square
residual (SRMR) = 0.05]. The chi-square test statistic is a goodness-of-ﬁt measure that is

used to assess whether the data adequately ﬁt the proposed model (J oreskog & Sorbom,

59

1996). However, reliance on chi-square alone is not recommended because it is sensitive
to sample size (Schermelleh-Engel, Moosbrugger, & Muller, 2003), which is why other
ﬁt indexes were also be evaluated. The CFI and NNFI are less affected by sample size
and are indexes that compare the ﬁt of the proposed model to a baseline or restricted
model. Values greater than 0.90 for CF I and NNFI are said to indicate adequate ﬁt
(Bentler & Bonett, 1980; Bentler, 1990; Schermelleh-Engel et al., 2003). The RMSEA is
a measure of approximate ﬁt in the population or “close ﬁt” (Browne & Cudeck, 1993)
and is an estimate of the difference between the model and the population covariance
matrix. Values between 0.05 and 0.08 for RMSEA indicate adequate ﬁt (Schermelleh-
Engel et al., 2003). Additionally, SRMR is a measure of the average of the ﬁtted
residuals and is an overall badness-of-ﬁt measure in which values close to zero suggest
good ﬁt. The rule of thumb for SRMR is that values less than .05 indicate good ﬁt, yet
values less than .10 can be interpreted as acceptable (J oreskog & Sorbom, 1996;
Schermelleh-Engel et al., 2003).

Next, in terms of the labor variables (emotional labor, behavioral monitoring and
effort), an EFA suggested that a few items did not load highly on one factor (surface
acting #2 and 5, deep acting #1 and 2, and behavioral monitoring #4 and 6). These EFA
suggestions make sense for the surface and deep acting items because these items came
from different measures (i.e., different manuscripts), which suggests they should not be
combined. In addition, the behavioral monitoring items that were dropped were reverse
coded and may have been misinterpreted by participants. Using this reduced set of items
with the focal participant ratings (the employee), the overall ﬁt of the labor CFA in

LISREL was acceptable [chi-square statistic (x2) = 161.21, p < .00; comparative ﬁt index

60

(CFI) = 0.97; nonnormed ﬁt index (NNFI) = 0.97; the root mean square error of
approximation (RMSEA) = 0.05 and the 90% Conﬁdence Interval for RMSEA = 0.04;
0.07; standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) = 0.05].

Next, a CFA was conducted in order to test the distinctiveness of the four
different forms of work-family conﬂict. The scale items presented in the measures
section for emotion-, behavior-, strain- and time-based work-family conﬂict served as the
indicators of their respective latent constructs (see Figure 3). This model received good
ﬁt [chi-square statistic (x2) = 535.07, p < .00; comparative ﬁt index (CFI) = 0.97;
nonnormed ﬁt index (NNFI) = 0.97; the root mean square error of approximation
(RMSEA) = 0.08 and the 90% Conﬁdence Interval for RMSEA = 0.07; 0.09;
standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) = 0.06]. In addition, a CFA was
conducted on just the three forms of work-family conﬂict that will be tested in the
structural model. Only the ﬁrst three strain-based work-family conﬂict items were
included in order to simplify the model and follow previous research. This CFA also
received good ﬁt [chi-square statistic (x2) = 131.52, p < .00; comparative ﬁt index (CFI)
= 0.98; nonnormed ﬁt index (N NFI) = 0.98; the root mean square error of approximation
(RMSEA) = 0.08 and the 90% Confidence Interval for RMSEA = 0.06; 0.09;
standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) = 0.04].

Finally, similar factor analyses were conducted for the well-being and ill-being
outcomes proposed. In terms of well-being (i.e., positive affect, life and marital
satisfaction), the EFA and CFA suggests that all of the items proposed are appropriate
indicators of the three factors. Speciﬁcally, the CFA model was well supported [chi-

square statistic (x2) = 303.64, p < .00; comparative ﬁt index (CFI) = 0.98; nonnormed ﬁt

61

index (NNFI) = 0.97; the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.06 and
the 90% Conﬁdence Interval for RMSEA = 0.05; 0.08; standardized root mean square
residual (SRMR): 0.06]. Regarding the ill-being outcomes, the EFA suggested that many
of the emotional exhaustion and negative affect items loaded on the same factor. Since
both of these constructs deal with emotions, this was not surprising. As a result, analyses
were conducted separately for the burnout and negative affect outcomes. In addition, the
EFA suggested that emotional exhaustion items #4 and 8 should be dropped, as well as
depersonalization item #5 and personal accomplishment items #1, 3, 5 and 6. In
reviewing these items this appears appropriate because all of these burnout items pertain
to working with others or how one feels about others and I am interested in the
participants’ own feelings of burnout. By dropping the items that focus on “others”, the
CFA ﬁt indexes improved and the measurement model received adequate ﬁt [chi-square
statistic (x2) = 172.73, p < .00; comparative ﬁt index (CFI) = 0.96; nonnormed ﬁt index
(NNFD = 0.95; the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.07 and the
90% Conﬁdence Interval for RMSEA = 0.06; 0.09; standardized root mean square
residual (SRMR) = 0.07].

Similar CFA results were found using the spouse/signiﬁcant other ratings (refer to
Table 4), which suggests that using spouse/signiﬁcant other ratings in order to limit
potential common rater problems may be appropriate in future analyses. However, when
using signiﬁcant other ratings of the outcomes in the structural models, some of the
conclusions regarding the speciﬁc hypotheses change (e.g., hypotheses that were
supported with focal data are no longer signiﬁcant when using spouse/signiﬁcant other

ratings of the outcomes). Since the purpose of the present research is to investigate how

62

demands and labor at work impact experiences of work-family conﬂict and well-being at
home, which are primarily internal individual processes, I focus on the focal employee
data ﬁndings herein given there are discrepancies between the focal employee data
ﬁndings and those found when using signiﬁcant other ratings. Namely, I will provide an
overview of the ﬁt indexes for each structural model using both focal and signiﬁcant
other data; however, the results for the speciﬁc hypotheses will be discussed in terms of
the focal employee data ﬁndings only.

Structural models. The ﬁrst structural model tested in LISREL focuses on the
hypothesized relationships concerning work-family conﬂict (displayed in Figure 4). In
general, the model was supported (Table 5; x2 = 1457.81, p < .00; CFI = .93; NNFI = .92;
RMSEA = .05 and the 90% Conﬁdence Interval for RMSEA = 0.05; 0.06; SRMR =
0.14). In terms of the work-family conﬂict structural model using the spouse/signiﬁcant
other data, this model also received adequate ﬁt, similar to the focal employee model just
presented (Table 6; x2 = 1371.61, p < .00; CFI = .93; NNFI = .92; RMSEA = .05 and the
90% Conﬁdence Interval for RMSEA = 0.05; 0.06; SRMR=.12). In addition, four out of
the ﬁve main effects hypotheses that were supported by the focal employee data were
also supported by the signiﬁcant other data (i.e., Hypotheses 1b, 7, 11 and 12 were
supported, however, Hypothesis 3a was supported for surface acting with the focal data
but not supported with the signiﬁcant other data). Of particular interest here is that the
emotion-based work-family conﬂict relationship that was supported with the focal
employee data is not supported when using the signiﬁcant other data; whereas, the
supported strain-based conﬂict relationship remains strong and signiﬁcant in both the

focal and signiﬁcant other models. An explanation for this ﬁnding may be that signiﬁcant

63

others can more accurately rate strain-based conﬂict because fatigue and tension are more
easily observed compared to emotion-based conﬂict which may be a more internal
process (this is discussed in more detail in the limitations section of this document).

The second model focuses on the well-being outcomes proposed. Overall, this
model also received adequate ﬁt (Figure 5; x2 = 1852.01, p < .00; CFI = .93; NNFI = .93;
RMSEA = .05 and the 90% Conﬁdence Interval for RMSEA = 0.04; 0.05; SRMR =
0.11). When including the spouse/signiﬁcant other ratings of well-being, the same model1
also received good ﬁt (712 = 1785.61, p < .00; CFI = .93; NNFI = .92; RMSEA = .05 and
the 90% Conﬁdence Interval for RMSEA = 0.05; 0.06; SRMR=.11) and in general,
similar relationships were supported minus the links from surface acting to positive affect
and life satisfaction (which were signiﬁcant when examining the focal employee data).

In addition, the structural model for burnout was supported by the data (Figure 6;
x2 = 1487.05, p < .00; CFI = .92; NNFI = .91; RMSEA = .05 and the 90% Conﬁdence
Interval for RMSEA = 0.04; 0.05; SRMR = 0.09). The signiﬁcant other structural model
for burnout also received adequate ﬁt ()6 = 1459.96, p < .00; CFI = .91; NNFI = .91;
RMSEA = .05 and the 90% Conﬁdence Interval for RMSEA = 0.05; 0.06; SRMR=.09).
In spite of this, different relationships between the labor and outcome variables were
supported when comparing the signiﬁcant other results with the focal (i.e., signiﬁcant
links are found between surface acting and work effort and all three dimensions of
burnout with the focal data; whereas, with the signiﬁcant other data the links between

deep acting and depersonalization and personal accomplishment and behavioral

 

' The significant other well-being structural model was the same as the model using focal
employee responses except for the removal of the tenth positive affect item because this item was
preventing the model from converging (possibly due to the large number of items for positive
affect and the smaller sample size of signiﬁcant others).

64

monitoring and depersonalization are supported. These differences may be due to the
notion mention previously, that such process and experiences are internal to employees
and not easily observed by spouses or signiﬁcant others). Finally, the structural model for
negative affect as an outcome was moderately supported due to the NNFI value boarding
acceptable levels (Figure 7; x2 = 1401.19, p < .00; CFI = .90; NNFI = .89; RMSEA = .06
and the 90% Conﬁdence Interval for RMSEA = 0.06; 0.07; SRMR = 0.08). In addition,
the structural model regarding negative affect received poor fit with the spouse or
signiﬁcant other data, which is not a surprise given this model received the worst ﬁt of all
the structural models tested when examining focal employee ratings.
Next, the results for the speciﬁc hypotheses will be reviewed, which focuses on

the data that was collected from the focal participant as discussed previously. Hypothesis
I 1a was not supported concerning the relationship between rules for displaying positive
emotions at work and surface acting. In contrast, Hypothesis lb was supported, which
suggests that rules for displaying positive emotions are associated with an increase in
deep acting. The paths were positive for both surface and deep acting, yet signiﬁcant for
deep acting only (B = .06, ns; B = .29, p < .01 respectively). Not consistent with
Hypothesis 2a, rules for displaying positive emotions at work was not signiﬁcantly
related to emotion-based conﬂict (B = .00, ns). In addition, Hypothesis 2b regarding the
relationships between rules for displaying positive emotions and the well-being outcomes
were not supported by the data (B = .15, p < .01 for positive affect; B = .26, p < .01 for
life satisfaction; B = .21, p < .01 for marital satisfaction). In fact, the relationships
proposed in Hypothesis 2b are strongly signiﬁcant in the opposite direction, which will

be discussed in the discussion section. Hypothesis 2c concerning the relationships

65

between rules for displaying positive emotions at work and the ill-being outcomes was
not supported by the data. However, this relationship was signiﬁcant in the opposite
direction in terms of the personal accomplishment dimension of burnout, which is reverse
coded in the data since traditionally lower scores on personal accomplishment correspond
with higher degrees of experienced burnout (Maslach & Jackson, 1981; B = -.03, ns for
negative affect; and B = -.03, us for emotional exhaustion; B = -.08, ns for
depersonalization; B = -.11, p < .01 for personal accomplishment).

Surface acting had a positive effect on emotion-based conﬂict, whereas the effect
for deep acting was not signiﬁcant as proposed in Hypothesis 3a (B = .61, p < .01 for
surface acting; B = -.10, ns for deep acting). In terms of Hypothesis 3b, surface acting had
a negative effect on well-being in terms of positive affect and life satisfaction (B = -.40, p
< .01 for positive affect; B = -.31, p < .05 for life satisfaction; B = .15, ns for marital
satisfaction). Different relationships were found for deep acting and well-being. Only one
of the well-being relationships was signiﬁcant and it was in the opposite direction than
expected (B = .06, ns for positive affect; B = .10, ns for life satisfaction; B = .17, p < .05
for marital satisfaction).

Finally, as expected, surface acting had signiﬁcant positive effects on all four ill-
being outcomes (B = .29, p < .05 for negative affect; and B = .51, p < .01 for emotional
exhaustion; B = .42, p < .01 for depersonalization; B = .15, p < .05 for personal
accomplishment) and deep acting had a no signiﬁcant effects on ill-being (B = -.06, ns for
negative affect; and B = -.02, ns for emotional exhaustion; B = -.04, us for

depersonalization; B = -.02, ns for personal accomplishment). These ﬁndings provide

66

 

support for Hypotheses 3a, b and c, in terms of surface acting, but are not supported in
regards to deep acting.

Hypothesis 4 proposes that surface acting has stronger relationships with the
outcomes in the previous hypothesis compared to deep acting. In terms of emotion-based
conﬂict, surface acting was signiﬁcantly related to such conﬂict, whereas the relationship
with deep acting was not signiﬁcant. Additionally, conﬁdence intervals (at the p<.05
level) were calculated for the coefﬁcients in both relationships and these intervals did not
overlap, suggesting the effect for surface acting on emotion-based work-family conﬂict
were stronger and signiﬁcantly different than the effect for deep acting. Similar results
were found for both positive affect and life satisfaction. The conﬁdence intervals for the
effects of surface and deep acting on life satisfaction overlap very slightly suggesting
these are different effects (conﬁdence interval for surface acting: -.02, -.60; conﬁdence
interval for deep acting: .24, -.04). On the other hand, this hypothesis was not supported
with regards to marital satisfaction. Deep acting has a signiﬁcant relationship with
marital satisfaction and the conﬁdence intervals for the deep and surface acting
coefﬁcients overlap in terms of their relationship with marital satisfaction. Finally,
surface acting had statistically signiﬁcant relationships with all of the burnout outcomes
and negative affect, whereas deep acting did not. In addition, none of the conﬁdence
intervals for these coefﬁcients overlapped except for the interval regarding personal
accomplishment, which barely overlapped (conﬁdence interval for surface acting: .28,
.02; conﬁdence interval for deep acting: .04, -.08), suggesting the effects for surface
acting on burnout and negative affect are statistically different than the effects for deep

acting. Taken as a whole, these results provide support for Hypothesis 4.

67

The indirect effects of rules for displaying positive emotions at work on emotion-
based work-family conﬂict and well-being, mediated by emotional labor, will also be
examined using LISREL. The indirect effects of rules for displaying positive emotions on
emotion-based conﬂict via surface acting were calculated using the product of the
coefﬁcients (J oreskog & Sorbom, 1996) for rules for positive emotions at work and
surface acting (B = .06, ns) and surface acting and emotion-based conﬂict (B = .61, p <
.01), which is (.06 X .61 = .04). This indirect effect is not signiﬁcant based on the Sobel
(1982) test (Sobel = 1.36, ns). The indirect effects of rules for displaying positive
emotions on well-being via surface acting are negative for positive affect and life
satisfaction and positive for marital satisfaction (.06 X -.40 = -.02 for positive affect; .06
X —.31 = -.02 for life satisfaction; .06 X .15 = .01 for marital satisfaction), however these
are not significant (Sobel = 1.33, us for positive affect; Sobel = 1.18, ns for life
satisfaction; and Sobel = .77, ns for marital satisfaction). Additionally, the indirect effects
of rules for displaying positive emotions on ill-being via surface acting are positive (.05
X .29 = .02 for negative affect; .06 X .51 = .03 for emotional exhaustion; .06 X .42 = .03
for depersonalization; .06 X .15 = .01 for personal accomplishment) but not signiﬁcant
(Sobel = 1.21, us for negative affect; Sobel = 1.39, ns for emotional exhaustion; Sobel =
1.37, ns for depersonalization; Sobel = 1.22, us for personal accomplishment).

Similar results were found for deep acting. The indirect effect of rules for
displaying positive emotions on emotion-based conﬂict via deep acting is (.29 X -. 10 = -
.03). This indirect effect is not signiﬁcant based on the Sobel (1982) test (Sobel = 1.20,
ns). The indirect effects of rules for displaying positive emotions on well-being via deep

acting are not signiﬁcant for positive affect and life satisfaction and marginally

68

signiﬁcant, yet positive for marital satisfaction (.28 X .06 = .02 for positive affect; .28 X
.10 = .03 for life satisfaction; .28 X .17 = .05 for marital satisfaction; and Sobel = 1.08, ns
for positive affect; Sobel = 1.32, ns for life satisfaction; Sobel = 1.85, p = .07 for marital
satisfaction). Additionally, the indirect effects of rules for displaying positive emotions
on ill-being via deep acting are negative but not signiﬁcant (.28 X -.06 = -.02 for negative
affect; .28 X -.02 = -.01 for emotional exhaustion; .28 X -.04 = -.01 for depersonalization;
.28 X -.02 = -.01 for personal accomplishment; Sobel = 1.11, us for negative affect; Sobel
= .26, us for emotional exhaustion; Sobel = .72, ns for depersonalization; Sobel = .65, us
for personal accomplishment). Overall, these results do not support Hypotheses 5a, b or
c. The indirect effects for surface acting reported for the previous hypothesis are not
larger than those for deep acting, which does not support Hypothesis 6.

Next, the relationships regarding behavioral display rules and monitoring will be
examined. Speciﬁcally, Hypothesis 7 was supported. Rules for displaying appropriate
behavior at work was associated with an increase in employee behavioral monitoring (B
= .17, p < .01). Not consistent with Hypothesis 8a, rules for displaying appropriate
behavior at work was not related to behavior-based conﬂict (B = -.04, ns). Additionally,
Hypothesis 8b was not supported concerning the relationship between rules for
displaying appropriate behavior and well-being (B = -.02, ns for positive affect; B = -.07,
ns for life satisfaction; B = -.11, ns for marital satisfaction) and Hypothesis 8c regarding
the ill-being outcomes was also not supported by the data (B = .07, us for negative affect;
and B = .02, us for emotional exhaustion; B = -.02, ns for depersonalization; B = -.03, ns
for personal accomplishment). Behavioral monitoring had a positive but not signiﬁcant

effect on behavior-based conﬂict (B = .13, ns) and no signiﬁcant effects on well-being (B

69

= .09, us for positive affect; B = -. 16, ns for life satisfaction; B = -.05, ns for marital
satisfaction). There was also no support for Hypothesis 9c in that behavioral monitoring
had no signiﬁcant effects on ill-being (B = .04, ns for negative affect; and B = .05, ns for
emotional exhaustion; B = -.11, ns for depersonalization; B = -.03, ns for personal
accomplishment).

In terms of mediation, Hypotheses 10 a, b and c were not supported by the data.
The indirect effect of rules for displaying appropriate behavior on behavior-based conﬂict
via behavioral monitoring is positive (i.e., the coefﬁcient for rules for appropriate
behavior and behavioral monitoring multiplied by the coefﬁcient for behavioral
monitoring and behavior-based conﬂict is .02) and not signiﬁcant (Sobel = 1.08, ns). The
indirect effects of rules for displaying appropriate behavior at work on well-being via
behavioral monitoring are mixed (.16 X .09 = .01 for positive affect; .16 X -.16 = -.03 for
life satisfaction; .16 X —.05 = -.01 for marital satisfaction) and not signiﬁcant (Sobel =
.89, ns for positive affect; Sobel = 1.12, ns for life satisfaction; and Sobel = .33, ns for
marital satisfaction). Additionally, the indirect effects of rules for displaying appropriate
work behavior on ill-being at home via behavioral monitoring are mixed (. 17 X .04 = .01
for negative affect; .17 X .05 = .01 for emotional exhaustion; .17 X -.11 = -.02 for
depersonalization; .17 X -.03 = —.01 for personal accomplishment) and not signiﬁcant
(Sobel = .41, ns for negative affect; Sobel = .51, us for emotional exhaustion; Sobel =
1.07, us for depersonalization; Sobel = .43, ns for personal accomplishment).

Regarding strain-based work-to-family conﬂict, Hypothesis 11 was supported.
Workload was associated with an increase in employee work effort (B = .15, p < .01).

Consistent with Hypothesis 12a, workload was also positively related to strain-based

7O

 

conﬂict (B = .51, p < .01). Additionally, Hypothesis 12b was supported for life
satisfaction (B = -.08, ns for positive affect; B = -.17, p < .05 for life satisfaction; B = .02,
ns for marital satisfaction) and 12c was supported for emotional exhaustion (B = .04, ns
for negative affect; and B = .28, p < .01 for emotional exhaustion; B = .09, ns for
depersonalization; B = .03, ns for personal accomplishment). That is, workload was
signiﬁcantly and negatively related to life satisfaction, as well as signiﬁcantly and
positively related to emotional exhaustion as expected. Employee work effort did not
have signiﬁcant effect on strain-based conﬂict (B = .02, ns) and had positive effects on
well-being, which is in the opposite direction than originally proposed (B = .31, p < .01
for positive affect; B = .40, p < .01 for life satisfaction; B = .18, ns for marital
satisfaction). With regards to Hypothesis 13c, there was no support for the relationships
expected between work effort and the three burnout outcomes, however, these
relationships were signiﬁcant in the opposite direction (B = -.16, ns for negative affect;
and B = -.23, p < .05 for emotional exhaustion; B = -.25, p < .05 for depersonalization; B
= -.23, p < .01 for personal accomplishment).

Finally, Hypotheses 14a, b and c were not supported by the data (however, in 14b
and c, a number of the tests for mediation were signiﬁcant, but one of the links in these
supported relationships was in the opposite direction than expected as discussed above).
The indirect effect of workload on strain-based conﬂict via employee work effort is
positive (.15 X .02 = .00) and not signiﬁcant (Sobel = .16, ns). The indirect effects of
workload on well—being via work effort are positive (. 14 X .31 = .04 for positive affect;
.14 X .40 = .06 for life satisfaction; .14 X .18 = .03 for marital satisfaction) and

signiﬁcant for positive affect and life satisfaction (Sobel = 2.27, p < .05 for positive

71

 

affect; Sobel = 2.17, p < .05 for life satisfaction; and Sobel = 1.14, ns for marital
satisfaction). In addition, the indirect effects of workload on ill-being at home via
employee work effort are negative (.14 X -.16 = -.02 for negative affect; .14 X -.23 = -.03
for emotional exhaustion; .14 X -.25 = -.04 for depersonalization; .14 X -.23 = -.03 for
personal accomplishment) and signiﬁcant for depersonalization and personal
accomplishment and marginally signiﬁcant for emotional exhaustion (Sobel = 1.44, ns
for negative affect; Sobel = 1.81, p = .07 for emotional exhaustion; Sobel = 1.99, p < .05
for depersonalization; Sobel = 2.26, p < .05 for personal accomplishment).

Moderation Analyses. The last set of analyses conducted in LISREL tested the
moderating effects of work-family integration and supervisor support on the relationships
tested thus far. Following the Mathieu, Tannenbaum and Salas (1992) procedure, which
is explained thoroughly in Cortina, Chen and Dunlap (2001), composites of each latent
variable (i.e., surface and deep acting, behavioral monitoring, work effort and work-
family integration or supervisor support) were calculated by summing the item indicators
and standardizing each composite. Then, these standardized scores were multiplied
together to form the ‘latent’ product or moderator term. For example, in the case of
examining the impact of work-family integration on the surface acting relationships, the
surface acting standardized composite was multiplied with the work-family integration
standardized composite to create the product term to test moderation. The measurement
properties for the three calculated composites are then ﬁxed following the step-by-step
procedure outlined in Cortina et al. (2001). Specifically, the loadings or values for
lambda, or the paths from the latent composites to their indicator variables, are set equal

to the square roots of the reliabilities of those composites. In addition, the error variances

72

are also ﬁxed and set equal to the product of the composite’s variance and one minus its
reliability (Cortina et al., 2001).

The results show that the interactive effect of work-family integration and surface
acting is positive and signiﬁcant when predicting emotion-based work-family conﬂict,
but not signiﬁcant for deep acting (B = .15, p < .01 for surface acting; B = .09, ns for deep
acting), which partially supports Hypothesis 15a. These ﬁndings suggest that individuals
who have more highly integrated work and family roles and engage in surface acting at
work, experience greater emotion-based work-family conﬂict at home compared to
individuals who do not integrate their work and family roles. On the other hand, the
interaction between work-family integration and surface acting is not significant when
predicting well-being (B = -.07, ns for positive affect; B = -.09, ns for life satisfaction; B
= -. 10, ns for marital satisfaction), yet the interaction with deep acting is negative and
signiﬁcant for two of the well-being outcomes (B = -.08, p < .05 for positive affect; B = -
.15, p < .01 for life satisfaction; B = -.11, ns for marital satisfaction; see Figure 8 for a
plot of this interaction with life satisfaction. Please note that interaction plots are only
provided for some of the supported moderated relationships due to the vast number of
moderation analyses conducted). The plot for the interaction regarding life satisfaction
suggests that this effect is not stronger for individuals with highly integrated work and
family roles (i.e., the interaction is in the opposite direction than expected). Instead,
individuals who have highly segmented roles (low work-family integration) experience
higher levels of life satisfaction when they engage in high levels of deep acting at work
and lower levels of life satisfaction when they engage in low levels of deep acting at

work. An explanation for this ﬁnding may be that after engaging in deep acting

73

individuals experience positive feelings and positive affect has been positively linked to
life satisfaction (Diener et al. [1985] found a positive correlation between life satisfaction
ratings and ratings of positive affect); furthermore, segmentors are not aware that this
change in internal feelings resulting from deep acting at work is creeping into their family
life. Additionally, the interaction for surface acting with work-family integration is
positive and signiﬁcant for two of the ill-being at home outcomes (B = .09, ns for
negative affect and B = .12, p < .01 for emotional exhaustion; B = .09, p < .05 for
depersonalization; B = .02, ns for personal accomplishment) and not signiﬁcant in terms
of deep acting except for emotional exhaustion (B = .08, ns for negative affect and B =
.12, p < .01 for emotional exhaustion; B = .03, us for depersonalization; B = .02, us for
personal accomplishment), which provides partial support for Hypothesis 16a.

In terms of behavioral monitoring, the results show that the interactive effect of
work-family integration and behavioral monitoring is positive and significant when
predicting behavior-based work-family conﬂict (B = .11, p < .05), which supports
Hypothesis 15b. This suggests that behavioral monitoring has an impact on behavior-
based conﬂict when individuals’ work-family integration is taken into account. That is,
individuals with highly integrated work and family roles experience more behavior-based
work-family conﬂict when they engage in higher levels of behavioral monitoring at work
(see Figure 9 for a plot of this interaction). In addition, the interaction between work-
farnily integration and behavioral monitoring is signiﬁcant only when predicting the
positive affect aspect of well-being (B = -.09, p < .05 for positive affect; B = -.09, ns for
life satisfaction; B = -.03, ns for marital satisfaction). This interaction is positive and

signiﬁcant for the emotional exhaustion (see Figure 10 for a plot of this interaction) and

74

 

depersonalization dimensions of burnout as well (B = -.02, ns for negative affect; B = .13,
p < .01 for emotional exhaustion; B = .11, p < .01 for depersonalization; B = -.00, ns for
personal accomplishment), which provides partial support for Hypothesis 16b.

Third, the results show that the interactive effect of work-family integration and
employee work effort is not signiﬁcant when predicting strain-based work-family conﬂict
(B = .03, ns), which does not support Hypothesis 15c. In addition, the interaction between
work-family integration and work effort is not signiﬁcant when predicting well-being (B
= .01, ns for positive affect; B = .04, ns for life satisfaction; B = -.02, ns for marital
satisfaction). This interaction is also not signiﬁcant for ill-being at home, only
depersonalization received a signiﬁcant ﬁnding (B = .06, us for negative affect; B = .07,
ns for emotional exhaustion; B = .08, p < .05 for depersonalization; B = .02, ns for
personal accomplishment), which does not provide support overall for Hypothesis 16c.
Overall, these ﬁndings provide little support for the interaction effects of work-family
integration and work effort on the conﬂict, well-being and ill-being outcomes.

In order to test the ﬁnal set of formal hypotheses, the composite product for
supervisor support and surface acting, support and deep acting, support and behavioral
monitoring and support and work effort was included in the various outcome models. The
results show that the interactive effect of supervisor support and emotional labor is not
signiﬁcant when predicting emotion-based work-family conﬂict (B = -.05, ns for surface
acting; B = -.06, ns for deep acting), which does not support Hypothesis 17a. In addition,
the interaction between supervisor support and surface acting did not receive support
when predicting well-being because the model did not converge, which suggests poor fit

of the proposed model regarding supervisor support moderating the relationships between

75

‘4‘—

 

surface acting and well-being. The interaction with supervisor support was also not
signiﬁcant for well-being in terms of deep acting (B = .04, ns for positive affect; B = .06,
ns for life satisfaction; B = .05, us for marital satisfaction). The interaction for surface
acting is negative and signiﬁcant for all of the ill-being at home outcomes except
negative affect (B = -.05, ns for negative affect and B = —.09, p < .05 for emotional
exhaustion; B = -.11, p < .01 for depersonalization; B = -.05, p < .05 for personal
accomplishment), but not signiﬁcant in terms of deep acting (B = .02, us for negative
affect and B = -.01, ns for emotional exhaustion; B = -.02, us for depersonalization; B =
.04, us for personal accomplishment), which provides support for the surface acting form
of emotional labor only in Hypothesis 18a. This suggests that individuals who have high
supervisor support and engage in high levels of surface acting at work experience less
burnout at home compared to individuals with low supervisor support.

For behavioral monitoring, the results show that the interactive effect of
supervisor support and behavioral monitoring is positive but not signiﬁcant when
predicting behavior-based work-family conﬂict (B = .04, ns), which does not support
Hypothesis 17b. In addition, the interaction between supervisor support and behavioral
monitoring is not signiﬁcant when predicting well-being (B = .01, ns for positive affect;
B = -.04, ns for life satisfaction; B = -.08, ns for marital satisfaction). This interaction is
also not signiﬁcant for ill-being at home (B = -.01, ns for negative affect; B = -.05, ns for
emotional exhaustion; B = -.02, ns for depersonalization; B = -.02, ns for personal
accomplishment), which does not support Hypothesis 18b. Overall, these ﬁndings
provide little support for the interaction effects of supervisor support and behavioral

monitoring on the conﬂict, well-being and ill-being outcomes.

76

V1.:

The results show that the interactive effect of supervisor support and employee
work effort is not signiﬁcant when predicting strain-based work-family conﬂict (B = -.05,
ns), which does not support Hypothesis 17c. In addition, the interaction between
supervisor support and work effort is not signiﬁcant when predicting well-being (B = -

.04, ns for positive affect; B = -.08, ns for life satisfaction; B = -.O7, ns for marital
satisfaction). This interaction is also not signiﬁcant for ill-being at home (B = .01, ns for
negative affect; B = -.02, us for emotional exhaustion; B = .01, ns for depersonalization;
B = .02, ns for personal accomplishment), which does not support Hypothesis 18c. These
results provide no support for the interaction effects of supervisor support and work
effort.

Finally, two sets of additional analyses were conducted in order to test the
exploratory relationship proposed as well as test the impact gender had, if any, on the
results presented herein. First, the results of the exploratory moderator analyses
concerning family emotional display rules are provided. Given that these analyses are
exploratory, I will only review the speciﬁc relationships that were signiﬁcant and,
therefore, supported by the data. A number of the relationships concerning the interaction
between family display rules and surface acting received support. However, only one of
the interactions between family display rules and deep acting was supported. The
interaction between family emotional display rules and surface acting was signiﬁcant
when predicting emotion-based work-family conﬂict (B = .13, p < .05), depersonalization
(B = .09, p < .05), negative affect (B = .09, p < .05) and positive affect (B = -.10, p < .01).
These results suggest that individuals who experience more family emotional display

rules and engage in more surface acting at work, experience higher work-family conﬂict,

77

greater negative feelings towards others, greater internal negative affect, as well as lower
positive affect. The interaction between deep acting and family display rules had a similar
effect on negative affect (B = .09, p < .05). Apparently, display rules at home are
detrimental to employees’ well-being unlike previously discussed (i.e., I originally
proposed that family display rules would not be as harmful as display rules from work).
In other words, display rules at work and at home both act as demands placed on
individuals and through the different strain mechanisms discussed herein (e. g., resource
drain or ego depletion), these demands, in combination with individuals engaging in
emotional labor, lead to higher work-family conﬂict, lower well-being (e. g., positive
affect) and higher ill-being (e. g., depersonalization and negative affect).

Second and lastly, independent sample t-tests were conducted on all of the
demand, labor and family outcomes to determine whether gender may have impacted the
results. Only two of the labor variables suggest a signiﬁcant difference for men and
women. The mean levels for deep acting and behavioral monitoring were significantly
different; however, few of the relationships concerning deep acting and behavioral

monitoring were supported in the models tested, which suggests that gender had little

effect on the present results.

78

DISCUSSION

The present dissertation proposes to contribute to the literature on work-family
and emotional labor in a number of ways, including: proposing and testing an overall
model consisting of multiple work demands, labor and a number of work-family conﬂict,
well-being and ill-being outcomes at home, developing and testing a new form of work-
family conﬂict called emotion-based conﬂict, and examining the labor-related behaviors
that impact the proposed outcomes in individuals’ family domain. The ﬁndings reviewed
provide some support for the work-family conﬂict model, especially with regard to the
link between surface acting and emotion-based work-to-family conﬂict, which will be
discussed in more detail next. In addition, the analyses conducted provide considerable
support for the measurement models utilized presently. All of the measurement models
received acceptable ﬁt indexes and reliabilities including the measurement model for
work-family conﬂict. This model suggests that the four forms of work-family conﬂict
(emotion-, behavior-, strain— and time-based conﬂict) were appropriate and distinct, and
that including the new construct of emotion-based conﬂict is important for future work-
family conﬂict research.

In terms of the structural models tested, all of the models received adequate ﬁt
indexes providing overall support for the models proposed. The only exception is the
model including the ill-being outcome of negative affect, which received borderline
acceptable ﬁt indexes (in terms of NNFI). A closer examination of these models in order
to look at the speciﬁc relationships tested suggests that the portions of the overall model

that received the most support include the demands to labor links (all three were

79

ill.

rash
h.“

SI

supported), the workload to effort and strain-based conﬂict links, as well as the
relationships concerning the emotional labor construct of surface acting and numerous
conﬂict, well- and ill-being outcomes.

Speciﬁcally, surface acting was positively and signiﬁcantly related to emotion-
based work-family conﬂict, which suggests that employees who engaged in surface
acting at work experience higher levels of emotion-based conﬂict at home. This provides
support for the theoretical argument that individuals who engage in high surface acting at
work are less able to engage in surface acting at home due to resource drain or depletion.
In addition, surface acting was also signiﬁcantly negatively related to two out of three of
the well-being outcomes (positive affect and life satisfaction) and positively related to all
of the burnout outcomes and negative affect (which make up the concept of ill-being).
These ﬁndings provide strong support for the links between the labor form of surface
acting and individuals’ experience of emotion-based work-family conﬂict, as well as
individuals’ attitudes, feelings and burnout at home.

Not to mention, Hypothesis 4 concerning the strength of the relationships for
surface and deep acting was supported, which suggests that surface acting is more
detrimental to employees’ home lives compared to deep acting, which was not
signiﬁcantly related to work-family conﬂict, well- or ill-being. A possible explanation
regarding why the links were not supported for deep acting may be that deep acting
occurs when individuals’ actually modify their internal feelings to experience the positive
emotions they are required to show at work. This means that the individual actually feels
positive affect, which may positively spillover into the family domain and lead one to

rate their man‘iage more highly (since a signiﬁcant, positive relationship was found

80

 

between deep acting and marital satisfaction herein, which is similar to ﬁndings from
Heller & Watson, 2005; Ilies et al., 2009). Overall, these ﬁndings suggest the need for
organizations and managers to help employees limit their engagement in surface acting
(e. g., only perform such labor when absolutely necessary for their job) in order to help

lower the experience of negative outcomes in individuals’ family life such as negative

affect and emotional exhaustion.

Taken as a whole, the ﬁndings regarding surface and deep acting suggest opposite
effects. In other words, surface acting appears to have a negative effect on individuals
and lead to more conﬂict and burnout, whereas deep acting may have a positive effect
and lead to higher satisfaction. An alternative explanation is that deep acting may have
two different effects on the outcomes examined, a positive effect via positive felt
emotions and a negative effect via resource drain and depletion. The present research
assumes that the majority of employees are required to show positive emotions at work.
Therefore, this particular study focused on individuals who had to positively deep act or
change their internal feelings in a positive way. As discussed above, this may explain
why some of the links between deep acting and well—being were in the opposite direction
Alternatively, what about occupations that require individuals to show negative emotions
(e.g., bill collectors, corrections ofﬁcers, judges, etc.)? If individuals are deep acting
negative feelings this may impact outcomes in a negative way as originally proposed via
resource drain. Future research should investigate these relationships using individuals
with jobs that require negative emotional labor tactics.

In addition, workload was significantly and positively related to work effort and

strain-based conﬂict, among other outcomes. It appears that employees who experience

81

 

high workloads report increased work effort levels, greater strain-based work-family
conﬂict and emotional exhaustion, and lower life satisfaction. This suggests that high
workloads may lead to depletion in that such demands create stress resulting in strain and
negative emotional and attitudinal outcomes (e.g., Rothbard’s [2001] depletion

argument).
The results also indicate that work effort had signiﬁcant relationships with some

of the well-being and ill-being outcomes, however, these relationships were in the
opposite direction than originally proposed. That is, work effort was positively related to
positive affect and life satisfaction and negatively related to all three burnout dimensions.
This suggests that work effort may not impact the proposed outcomes based on the
resource drain or depletion arguments, but in fact, work effort may be regarded by
employees as a positive thing; meaning, individuals may take pride in their work and see
effort as “motivation (that) is translated into accomplished work” (Brown & Leigh, 1996,
p. 362). Such accomplishment(s) may lead to increased positive affect and life
satisfaction. As discussed previously, work effort may be related to Rothbard’s (2001)
construct of work engagement. An inspection of the ﬁve items used herein to measure
work effort suggests they are very similar to the four items Rothbard (2001) used for
work attention. Furthermore, the present results are consistent with Rothbard’s ﬁnding
that work attention is positively related to positive affect at work. Thus, these ﬁndings
add support to her enrichment argument and provide no support for the depletion

argument (from Rothbard, 2001) in terms of how work effort impacts conﬂict and well-

being at home.

82

 

Moreover, rules for displaying positive emotions at work are positively, not
negatively as expected, related to well-being. One explanation for this ﬁnding includes
that demands to display speciﬁcally positive emotions spillover into individuals’ family
life in a positive way, which increases ratings of positive affect, life and marital
satisfaction. A mood induction study conducted by Brief, Butcher and Roberson (1995)
found that positive mood inducing events such as giving individuals cookies, increases
ratings of job satisfaction. If display rules from work induce employees to feel positive
emotions, this may carry over into their home life. In addition, the present results suggest
that rules for displaying positive emotions at work are related to deep acting but not
surface acting. This is consistent with Grandey’s (2003) ﬁndings and supports her notion
that deep acting is a response to work demands (i.e., display rules) and surface acting
occurs in response to work events rather than rules. This suggests taking an event-level
approach to studying surface acting. Future research should examine the relationships
between different work events and surface acting as well as how such momentary acts of
surface acting impact daily experiences of emotion-based work-family conﬂict and well-
being.

In terms of behavior-based conﬂict, the results also show a high correlation
between emotion-based and behavior-based conﬂict (r=.76, p<.01). This suggests that
these forms of conﬂict may not be entirely distinct as the factor analysis results suggest
In addition, surface acting is signiﬁcantly and positively related to behavior-based
conﬂict (12.35, p<.01). An alternative explanation includes that the emotional side of
behavior-based conﬂict may be what matters the most when considering the effects of

labor at work on conﬂict at home. In other words, surface acting not only impacts

83

- l

 

—---u-I

emotion-based but also behavior-based conﬂict at home, meaning that surface acting
interferes with the behaviors individuals believe to be appropriate at home. Future
research should investigate whether other emotional labor constructs (e.g., emotional
dissonance, attention deployment; Brotheridge & Lee, 2003; Kruml & Geddes, 2000) or
behaviors (e.g., citizenship behaviors, face-to-face customer care, etc.) impact behavior-
based work-family conﬂict in order to help tease apart what portion of behavior-based
conﬂict is explained by emotional and behavioral antecedents.

Additionally, support was found for the link between behavioral monitoring and
behavior-based conﬂict only when taking into account the impact of individuals’ work-
family integration on this relationship. The moderation analyses suggest that when taking
into account how individuals integrate or segment their work and family roles,
individuals with highly integrated work and family roles (low segmentors) experience
greater behavior-based conﬂict at home when they engage in high levels of behavioral
monitoring at work. Thus, it appears important for future research to take into account
individuals’ work-family integration strategies when examining relationships concerning
behavior-based conﬂict. Failure to do so may help explain why previous research has
found little support for relationships concerning behavior-based conﬂict. Previous
research has examined general personality characteristics (Bruck & Allen, 2003);
however, going forward, the present ﬁndings suggest the importance of including
personal tendencies specific to individuals’ work and family lives to help explain the
nature of relationships regarding behavior-based work-family conﬂict.

Furthermore, the moderator analyses also suggest that individuals with highly

segmented roles report higher positive affect and life satisfaction when they engage in

84

 

 

higher levels of deep acting at work compared to individuals high on work-family
integration. These results are examples of relationships in which the main effect was not
signiﬁcant when work-family integration was not taken into consideration. Overall, the
results provide support for a number of the labor—conﬂict and labor—well/ill-being

links initially predicted and suggest that future research should continue to examine the
impact of integration on various work-family relationships.

STRENGTHS

This research holds a number of strengths. First, recruiting a sample using alumni
and employees of a large university leads to a diverse ﬁeld sample of individuals from a
number of different organizations and job types. Second, the research tests a
comprehensive conﬂict model including three distinct forms of work-family conﬂict, as
well as other well- and ill-being outcomes at home. This allows for a more complete
understanding of the home- and family-related beneﬁts and burdens to employees of
engaging in various forms of labor at work. Third, this study takes a longitudinal
approach to examining the proposed model by utilizing three different time periods
during data collection (i.e., the ﬁrst work survey occurred 1-2 weeks before the second
work survey and the ﬁnal home survey occurred 1-2 weeks after the second survey).
Finally, the research includes two raters (focal employees and their signiﬁcant others);
however, the results are somewhat different when comparing the focal employee and

signiﬁcant other data models, which will be discussed next.

LIMITATIONS

One possible limitation regarding the spouse or signiﬁcant other responses

includes how much time and interaction the focal employee generally shares with their

85

 

 

signiﬁcant other after work. Even though the signiﬁcant other reports of the home
outcomes converged or signiﬁcantly correlated with the self-reports, other factors may
inﬂuence the signiﬁcant other ratings. For example, focal employees may only share
highlights or more intense examples of their experiences leading signiﬁcant others to
make assumptions about the employee’s attitudes, feelings and conﬂict. In addition, even
though more detailed instructions and examples were provided in the surveys before the
emotion- and behavior-based work-family conﬂict questions, some of the concepts
examined include fairly intricate processes (e.g., the emotional demands of individuals’
work and home domains) that signiﬁcant others may not be entirely aware of. This may
explain why the link between surface acting and emotion-based conﬂict was not
supported in the model using signiﬁcant other ratings of conﬂict. Another possible
limitation of the present research is that a large proportion of the sample holds a college

degree or higher. This is not a surprise given the sample consists of university alumni and

employees, however, this may limit the generalizability of the results.

FUTURE RESEARCH

As discussed previously, future research on this topic should examine the
relationships examined herein within individuals. For instance, following an experience
sampling approach, future research could examine how daily work events impact
emotional labor and in turn, how such events and labor impact individuals’ experience of
emotion-based work-family conﬂict at home on the same day. In addition, given the
strong support for the links between surface acting and conﬂict and well-being, future
research may examine these and similar relationships within a service context or

organization, as well as examine other forms of support that may help buffer the negative

86

j”

 

 

('7‘

effects of surface acting on conﬂict and well-being. That is, since the supervisor support
moderator did not receive a lot of support in the present research, maybe social support
from peers and coworkers is more important and should be examined going forward.

Secondly, future research should consider investigating the crossover effects of
the different forms of work-family conﬂict in dual career couples. For example, if an
individual experiences high levels of work-to-family time-based conﬂict, does his/her
signiﬁcant other experience higher levels of family-to-work time-based conﬂict because
he/she is dealing with the family responsibilities that the other partner does not have time
to complete? Other research might also examine children-related outcomes in the present
model. Namely, does labor at work impact individuals’ ability to engage in healthy and
satisfactory relationships with one’s children at home after work?

Thirdly, future research should also examine the family-to-work direction of
labor-related behaviors. That is, how do behaviors and responsibilities from the family
domain impact job performance, work effort and engagement? Additionally, future
research should investigate behavioral spillover instead of conﬂict. It may be that
behaviors from work spillover or lead to similar behaviors at home. In other words,
individuals may view behaviors that are appropriate for work as appropriate anywhere
including at home and, thus, may monitor their behavior similarly at work and at home.

Fourthly, future research should explicitly examine work effort and engagement
to determine if they are distinct or similar constructs, as well as whether effort and
engagement have similar relationships with the conﬂict, well-being and burnout
outcomes examined. Future research could also examine possible differences between

individuals’ level of effort at work and at home and whether well-being is impacted

87

 

 

 

differently based on the domain in which the effort is expended. Looking at the long-term
effects of work effort would also be an interesting next step for future research.
Examining how work effort impacts job performance, satisfaction and other well-being
outcomes after a year or longer might hold important implications for organizations in
terms of how long employees should expend high work effort.
Fifthly, behavioral monitoring was proposed in the current research as the act of
self-monitoring in the workplace. Behavioral monitoring did not receive a lot of support
in the current research; however, the link between behavioral display rules and such
monitoring was signiﬁcant. Speciﬁcally, demands to display appropriate behavior at
work was positively related to behavioral monitoring. This suggests that demands lead to
such behavior at work; however, this behavior may not carryover into the family domain.
Future research should examine how behavioral monitoring impacts job performance,
satisfaction and fatigue at work. Future research might also consider examining whether
recovery from such behavior explains the lack of support concerning the relationships
between behavioral monitoring and conﬂict, well-being and burnout at home.

Lastly, the ﬁndings regarding family display rules suggest the importance of
including this construct in future work-family research. The present results suggest that
individuals who engage in high levels of surface acting at work and experience high
levels of emotional display rules at home experience more emotion-based conﬂict,

depersonalization and negative affect at home compared to individuals with few or no
family display rules. This suggests that the ego or energy depletion arguments apply here
as well. That is, energy depletion matters more when an individuals’ family places more

demands on that individual, which in turn requires a higher level of energy from him/her.

88

 

 

Given these ﬁndings, future research should continue to examine family display rules and
workload demands at home. For example, do people with children face greater levels of
family display rules and demands at home compared to individuals with no children? Do
high family demands impact one’s strain and fatigue at home? In addition, does such
fatigue from home spillover into an individual’s workplace (i.e., does fatigue from

demands at home impact individual’s work engagement and performance?)?

CONCLUSION

In general, the present dissertation suggests that surface acting leads to emotion-
based work-family conﬂict as well as a number of well- and ill-being outcomes. This
provides support for the theoretical integration of emotional labor and work-family
conﬂict theories. As proposed earlier, the emotional labor, or more speciﬁcally based on
the present ﬁndings, the surface acting employees engage in at work impacts their ability
to engage in emotion regulation at home through resource or energy drain. This suggests
that such labor at work impacts individuals’ abilities to meet emotional demands and
requirements in the family domain. In addition, this research supported a number of
relationships between work effort and well- and ill-being. These relationships were
positive in nature and as a result, future research should investigate the impact of work
effort on various work-related and home-related outcomes. Overall, the present ﬁndings
suggest that labor at work, in particular surface acting and work effort, signiﬁcantly
impact various family and life relevant outcomes for employees and future research

should continue to investigate the impact of actual behaviors on employees personal

lives.

89

_-.

 

APPENDIX A: TABLES

TABLE 1: Research Design Overview

 

Measured in Measured in Measured in

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3
(self and other

ratings)

 

Demands
°Emotional

-Behavioral X
0Workload

M
~Emotional

OBehavioral X
OEffort

Work-Family Conﬂict
OEmotion-based

OBehavior-based X
OStrain-based
Well-Being
°Positive & Negative Affect

OLife & Marital Satisfactions X
-Burnout

Moderators
-Work-Family Integration X
OSupervisor Support

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

90

 

TABLE 2: Correlations

 

 

Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5
l. Emotional Display Rules 3.35 .90 (.87) '
2. Behavioral Display Rules 2.28 .90 .18** (.80)
3. Workload 3.46 .83 .12 .06 (.88)
4. Surface Acting 2.43 .65 .12 .19** .14* (.75)
5. Deep Acting 3.09 .90 .28** .28** .16* .15* (.92)
6. Behavioral Monitoring 3.37 .64 .07 .25** .05 34** .27**
7. Work Effort 4.07 .66 .08 .15* .19** -.13 .16*
8. Strain-based Conﬂict 3.18 .89 .08 .00 .43** .18* .06
9. Time-based Conﬂict 2.77 .96 .08 .01 .45** .17* .02
10. Emotion-based Conﬂict 1.92 .78 .03 .02 .24** .28** -.06
11. Behavior-based Conﬂict 1.91 .67 -.02 .01 .18* .35** -.08
12. Emotional Exhaustion 2.71 .68 .07 .10 .33** .36** .04
13. Depersonalization 1.74 .61 -.07 -.04 .07 .25** -.11
14. Personal Accomplishment 2.50 .48 -.25** -.09 -.05 .13 -.l6*
15. Positive Affect 3.43 .59 .16* .03 -.03 -.25** .15*
16. Negative Affect 1.81 .53 -.02 .09 .05 .21** -.05
17. Life Satisfaction 3.77 .81 .22** -.01 -.06 -.15* .12
18. Marital Satisfaction 4.30 .91 .20** .01 .11 .11 .19**
19. SO Strain-based Conﬂict 3.12 .87 .02 -.05 .33** .08 .02
20. SO Time-based Conﬂict 2.56 .84 .05 -.06 .28** .06 .03
21. SO Emotion-based Conﬂict 1.93 .73 -.15* -.04 .09 -.08 -. 14
22. SO Behavior-based Conﬂict 1.89 .68 -.11 -.05 .10 -.02 -.17*
23. SO Emotional Exhaustion 2.75 .65 .02 -.08 .33** .10 .00
24. SO Depersonalization 1.58 .64 -.01 -.07 .03 -.10 -.13
25. SO Personal Accomplishment 2.31 .63 -.17* -.14 -.04 .00 -.22**
26. SO Positive Affect 3.53 .63 .20** .12 -.05 -.02 .18*
27. SO Negative Affect 1.76 .54 -.06 -.06 .12 .03 -.06
28. SO Life Satisfaction 3.55 .77 .17* .09 -.14 .01 .13
29. SO Marital Satisfaction 4.28 .83 .21** .13 .04 .15 .21**
30. Work-Family Integration 2.57 .92 .16* .20** .34** .01 .17*
31. Supervisor Support 3.62 .67 .04 -.19** -.09 -.18** .00
32. Family Display Rules 3.90 .76 .22** .10 .10 .03 .10

 

SO: Signiﬁcant Other Rated

( ): Reliabilities on diagonal in parentheses
* Correlation is signiﬁcant at p < .05

** Correlation is signiﬁcant at p < .01

91

TABLE 2 continued

 

 

6 7 8 9 10 ll 12
1. Emotional Display Rules
2. Behavioral Display Rules
3. Workload
4. Surface Acting
5. Deep Acting
6. Behavioral Monitoring (.84)
7. Work Effort .00 (.89)
8. Strain-based Conﬂict .14* .12 (.77)
9. Time-based Conﬂict .11 .14 .64** (.83)
10. Emotion-based Conﬂict .06 -.03 .47** .42** (.95)
ll.Behavior-based Conﬂict .06 -.17* .40** .32** .76** (.84)
12. Emotional Exhaustion .13 -.10 .62** .53** .57** .52** (.87)
13.Depersonalization .00 -.23** .27** .27** .39** .40** .41**
14. Personal Accomplishment ~.02 -.30** .22** .10 .27** .33** .33**
15. Positive Affect .03 .27** -.23** -.11 -.46** -.47** -.35**
16.NegativeAffect .08 -.14* .31** .33** .39** .37** .54**
17. Life Satisfaction -.10 .21** -.22** -.18* -.41** -.38** -.34**
18. Marital Satisfaction .03 .09 .03 .05 -.22** -.18* -.05
19. SO Strain-based Conﬂict .00 .03 .35** .29** .27** .19* .28**
20. SO Time-based Conﬂict .04 .10 .27** .41** .15* .08 .22**
21. SO Emotion-based Conﬂict -.08 .09 .24** .15 .35** .22** .22**
22.SO Behavior-based Conﬂict -.10 .03 .19* .14 .40** .29** .23**
23.80 Emotional Exhaustion .06 .04 .38** .23** .24** .16* .40**
24. SO Depersonalization .10 -.04 .05 .01 .17* .14 .01
25. SO Personal Accomplishment .00 —.l8* .07 .02 .21** .17* .20**
26.SO Positive Affect .02 .17* -.13 -.04 -.26** -.27** —.20**
27.SO Negative Affect .02 .00 .28** .13 .20** .19* .26**
28.80 Life Satisfaction .09 .16* -.16* -.14 -.26** -.l8* -.20**
29. SO Marital Satisfaction .11 .08 .03 .07 -.21** -.18* -.01
30. Work-Family Integration .09 .13* .30** .37** .25** .14* .18*

31. Supervisor Support
32. Family Display Rules

.01 .02 -.09
.15* .16* .16* .13

-.07

-.19** -.27** -.29** -.20**

-.15* .10

 

SO: Signiﬁcant Other Rated

( ): Reliabilities on diagonal in parentheses

* Correlation is signiﬁcant at p < .05

** Correlation is signiﬁcant at p < .01

92

TABLE 2 continued

 

 

13 14 15 16 17 18 19
1. Emotional Display Rules
2. Behavioral Display Rules
3. Workload
4. Surface Acting
5. Deep Acting
6. Behavioral Monitoring
7. Work Effort
8. Strain-based Conﬂict
9. Time-based Conﬂict
10. Emotion-based Conﬂict
11. Behavior-based Conﬂict
12. Emotional Exhaustion
l3. Depersonalization (.80)
14. Personal Accomplishment .32** (.61)
15. Positive Affect -.37** -.57** (.82)
16. Negative Affect .34** .35** -.31** (.86)
17. Life Satisfaction -.27** -.44** .54** -.42** (.88)
18. Marital Satisfaction -.06 -.19** .30** -.37** .59** (.97)
19. SO Strain-based Conﬂict .11 .06 -.04 .13 -.25** -.06 (.74)
20. SO Time-based Conﬂict .13 -.01 .09 .16* -.12 -.08 .62**
21. SO Emotion-based Conﬂict .07 .12 -.11 .14 -.33** -.25** .54**
22. SO Behavior-based Conﬂict .16* .16* -.17* .26** -.34** -.25** .38**
23. SO Emotional Exhaustion .15* .12 -.15 .20** .20** -.08 .68**
24. SO Depersonalization .29** .14 -.09 .10 -.19* -.25** .21**
25. SO Personal Accomplishment .12 .36** -.26** .31** -.37** -.35** .32**
26. SO Positive Affect -.10 -.28** .35** -.28** .37** .36** -.34**
27. SO Negative Affect .08 .23** -.17* .31** -.31** .27** .43**
28.80 Life Satisfaction -.13 -.29** .27** -.29** .54** .40** -.30**
29.80 Marital Satisfaction -.04 -.18* .21** -.25** .43** .66** -.05
30. Work-Family Integration -.08 -.04 .02 .13 .06 .13 .15
31. Supervisor Support -.14 -.10 .15* -.03 .07 -.11 -.12
32. Family Display Rules -.19** -.26** .31** -.10 .29** .41** .06

 

SO: Signiﬁcant Other Rated

( ): Reliabilities on diagonal in parentheses
* Correlation is signiﬁcant at p < .05
** Correlation is signiﬁcant at p < .01

93

TABLE 2 continued

 

1. Emotional Display Rules

2. Behavioral Display Rules
3. Workload

4. Surface Acting

5. Deep Acting

6. Behavioral Monitoring

7. Work Effort

8. Strain—based Conﬂict

9. Time-based Conﬂict

10. Emotion-based Conﬂict
11. Behavior-based Conﬂict
12. Emotional Exhaustion

13. Depersonalization

14. Personal Accomplishment
15. Positive Affect

16. Negative Affect

17. Life Satisfaction

18. Marital Satisfaction

19. SO Strain-based Conﬂict
20. SO Time-based Conﬂict
21. SO Emotion-based Conﬂict
22. SO Behavior-based Conﬂict
23. SO Emotional Exhaustion
24. SO Depersonalization

25. SO Personal Accomplishment
26. SO Positive Affect

27 . SO Negative Affect

28. SO Life Satisfaction

29. SO Marital Satisfaction
30. Work-Family Integration
31. Supervisor Support

32. Family Display Rules

SO: Signiﬁcant Other Rated

20

(.79)
.46**
.37**
.52**
.20**
.18*

21 22 23 24 25 26

(.92)

.66**
.48**
.30**
.38**

(.85)

.34** (.85)

.36** .30** (.86)

.40** .40** .32** (.75)

-.20** -.40** -.40** -.37** -.33** -.70** (.88)

.30**

.51** .38** .54** .32** .52** -.41**

-.31** -.43** -.37** -.43** -.32** -.48** .48**

-.06
.20**
-.04
.09

( ): Reliabilities on diagonal in parentheses

* Correlation is signiﬁcant at p < .05

** Correlation is signiﬁcant at p < .01

-.35** -.35** -.10
-.10 -.O6 .13
-.07 .00 -.10
.04 .02 .11

-.38** -.53** .55**
-.09 -.07 .11
-.10 -.01 -.11
-.04 -.15 .14

94

TABLE 2 continued

 

27 28

1. Emotional Display Rules

2. Behavioral Display Rules

3. Workload

. 4. Surface Acting

5. Deep Acting

6. Behavioral Monitoring

7. Work Effort

8. Strain-based Conﬂict

9. Time-based Conﬂict

10. Emotion-based Conﬂict

11. Behavior-based Conﬂict

12. Emotional Exhaustion

13. Depersonalization

14. Personal Accomplishment

15. Positive Affect

16. Negative Affect

17. Life Satisfaction

18. Marital Satisfaction

19. SO Strain-based Conﬂict

20. SO Time-based Conﬂict

21. SO Emotion-based Conﬂict

22. SO Behavior-based Conﬂict

23. SO Emotional Exhaustion

24. SO Depersonalization

25. SO Personal Accomplishment

26. SO Positive Affect

27. SO Negative Affect (.85)

28. SO Life Satisfaction -.46** (.87)
29. SO Marital Satisfaction
30. Work-Family Integration .03 .14
31. Supervisor Support .01 .03
32. Family Display Rules .05 .19*

SO: Signiﬁcant Other Rated

( ): Reliabilities on diagonal in parentheses
* Correlation is signiﬁcant at p < .05

** Correlation is signiﬁcant at p < .01

95

-.35** .56** (.96)

31

(.82)
-.09

32

(.88)

TABLE 3: Conﬁrmatory Factor Analyses with Focal Employee Ratings

 

 

Measurement Model x2 df RMSEA CFI NNFI SRMR
Demands Items 210.27 101 .07 .96 .96 .05
Labor Items 161.21 98 .05 .97 .97 .05
Work-Family Conﬂict Items 131.52 62 .08 .98 .98 .04
Well-being Items 303.64 167 .06 .98 .97 .06
Ill-being Items 172.73 87 .07 .96 .95 .07

 

Note. N=l94. x2 = chi-square statistic; df = degrees of freedom; RMSEA = root mean square error
of approximation; CFI = comparative ﬁt index; NNFI = nonnormed ﬁt index; SRMR =
standardized root mean square residual.

96

 

TABLE 4: Confirmatory Factor Analyses with Signiﬁcant Other Ratings

 

 

Measurement Model x2 df RMSEA CFI NNFI SRMR
Work-Family Conﬂict Items 109.21 62 .07 .98 .98 .04
Well-being Items 386.92 167 .09 .96 .96 .06
Ill-being Items 167.84 87 .07 .95 .95 .07

 

Note. N=l72. x2 = chi-square statistic; df = degrees of freedom; RMSEA = root mean square error
of approximation; CFI = comparative ﬁt index; NNFI = nonnormed fit index; SRMR =
standardized root mean square residual.

97

IA

TABLE 5: Structural Equation Models with Focal Employee Ratings

 

 

Structural Model x2 df RMSEA CFI NNFI SRMR
Work—Family Conﬂict 1457.81 931 .05 .93 .92 . 14
Well-being 1852.01 1246 .05 .93 .93 .1 1
Burnout 1487.05 1006 .05 .92 .91 .09
Negative Affect 1401.19 805 .06 .90 .89 .08

 

Note. N=l94. x2 = chi-square statistic: df = degrees of freedom; RMSEA = root mean square error of

approximation; CFI = comparative ﬁt index; NNFI = nonnormed ﬁt index; SRMR = standardized root
mean square residual.

98

TABLE 6: Structural Equation Models with Signiﬁcant Other Ratings

 

 

Structural Model x2 df RMSEA CFI NNFI SRMR
Work-Family Conﬂict 1371.61 931 .05 .93 .92 .12
Well-being 1785.61 1 196 .05 .93 .92 .1 1
Burnout 1459.96 1006 .05 .91 .91 .09

 

Note. N=l72. x2 = chi-square statistic; df = degrees of freedom; RMSEA = root mean square error
of approximation; CFI = comparative ﬁt index; NNFI = nonnormed ﬁt index; SRMR = standardized

root mean square residual. Also, the Negative Affect model would not converge and as a result, the
speciﬁc results are not available.

99

TABLE 7: Reliability and Validity Information for Measures

 

Phase 1 Measures

 

Emotional
display rules

Best et al., 1997;
Grandey, 2003

a=.78
d=.75

First alpha reported from
Brotheridge & Grandey (2002) who
used Best et al. items: correlated
with display rules to hide negative
emotions (r=.65, p<.01) and with
emotional labor (r=.21, p<.01 for
surface acting and r=.36, p<.01 for
deep acting), but did not correlate
highly with negative affectivity
(r=.08, ns)

 

Behavioral
display rules

Lennox &
Wolfe, 1984

a=.83

Correlated with self-monitoring
(mAO, p<.01) and fear of negative
evaluation (r.=.64, p<.01), but not
extraversion( r=-.09, ns)

 

Workload

Janssen, 2001;
Ilies et al., 2007

a=.79
d=.93

Correlated with lack of autonomy
and overtime (r=.18 and .13, p<.01;
from van der Hulst; van Veldhoven
& Beckers, 2006) as well as with
work satisfaction (l=-.21, p<.05)
and work negative affect (r=.20,
p<.05), but not with innovative
performance (r=.14, ns)

 

Work-family
integration

Desrochers et al.,
2005

a=.73

Correlated as expected with
distractions at home (r=.21, p<.05)
and work-family conﬂict (r=.33,
p<.01), but no correlations
exceeded .50 which authors use as
a “rough indicator of discriminant
validity” (p. 459)

 

 

Supervisor
support

 

Shinn et al.,
1989

 

o.=.83

 

Alpha reported from Thomas &
Ganster (1995) who used Shinn et
al. items: correlated with ﬂexible
schedule (r=.21, p<.01) and control
over work and family (r=.34,

p<.01)

 

100

 

 

TABLE 7 continued

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Phase 2 Measures
Emotional Grandy, 2003; a = .88 for Surface and deep acting
labor Brotheridge & SA, .79 for correlated with each other as
[Sm-face acting Lee, 2003 DA expected (r=.43, p<.01; :27,
(SA) and deep 01 =.74 for P<-01) in Grandey (2003) and
acting (DA)] SA, .83 for Bretheridge & Lee (2003)
DA respectively
Self— Lennox & Wolfe, 01 = .77 Correlated with sensitivity to
monitoring 1984 expressive behavior of others
(r=.22, p<.01) and
individuation (r=.30, p<.01,
but not public self-
consciousness (r=.07, ns)
Work effort Brown & Leigh, = .82 and Correlated with job
1996 .83 (two involvement (r=.24, p<.01) and
samples) time commitment (.50,
p<.001) as expected.

 

Phase 3 Measures

 

Emotion-based

Adapted items from the following to compile emotion-based

 

family conﬂict

 

 

 

 

work-family conﬂict scale: Netemeyer et al., 1996; Kopelman etal., 1983;
conﬂict Carlson et al., 2000

Behavior- Carlson et al., a = .78 Correlated highly with

based work- 2000 behavior-based family-to-work

conﬂict (12.83), but did not
show extremely high
correlations (over .55) with
time- or strain-based conﬂict.

 

101

 

TABLE 7 continued

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Phase 3 Measures continued
Strain-based Kopelman et a = .89 Did not correlate extremely high
work-family al., 1983; (total (no correlations over .58) with
conﬂict Carlson et al., scale) time- or behavior-based conﬂict,
2000 ___ . 85 which Carlson et al. use as
evidence for discriminant validity
Burnout Maslach & a = .83 The Maslach Burnout Inventory
Jackson, 1981 correlated with certain job
characteristics and outcomes as
expected, as well as was validated
by behavioral ratings by outside
observers (see Maslach & Jackson,
1981)
Affect Watson & a = .83 Correlate highly with momentary,
[Positive Clark, 1994 to.90 for daily, weekly, etc. PA and NA
affect (p A) PA items (convergent correlations
and negative 11 = .35 to range from .89 to .95), whereas the
affect (N A)] .93 for PA and NA items correlate quite
NA low with each other (discriminant
correlations range from -.02 to -.18)
Life Diener et al., a = .87 Correlated highly global
satisfaction 1985 satisfaction as expected (r=.57), but
they are not equivalent constructs.
Marital Norton, 1983 a = .76 Correlates highly with relationship
satisfaction quality items as expected, but not
as highly with relationship
termination.
Time-based Kopelman et a =.89 Correlated negatively with family
work-family al., 1983 (total and life satisfactions (r=-.27 and -
conﬂict scale) .29, p<.01 respectively).
Family Erickson, 1993 a = .94 Correlated with spouse’s emotion
emotional work (r=.69, p<.01) and marital
display rules well-being (12.56, p<.01) as
expected

 

102

 

APPENDIX B: FIGURES

FIGURE 1: Overall Demands-Labor-Conﬂict Model

 

Work-Family Conﬂict

lEmotion-based

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IBehavior-based
,Ioh Demands Labor -Stra1n-based
IEmotional IEmotional
IBehaVloral IBehavroral Well-Bein
IWorkload 'Effort
-Bumout
-Affect
ILife & Marital
Satisfactions
Moderators
-Work Support (supervisor)
°Work-Family Integration

 

 

 

103

FIGURE 2: Illustration of Differential Predictions for the Demands-Labor-Conﬂict
Effects

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Demands (at work) Labor (at work) Work-to—Family Conﬂict (at home)
| ----------------- 'l | ----------------- 1 | ----------------- 1
l I l I I I
: . I l : : . l
: Emotlonal I I Emotional Labor _r__,_,l I Emotion-based I
I Display Rules l I I . Conﬂict l
I I I I I I
I | I I I I
l l I I | I
I Behavioral _I_:_. Behavioral _I_:_, Behavior-based I
I Display Rules I I Monitoring I I Conﬂict I
I I l

I I I I I I
I . I I I Strain-based I
E Workload 'I—E" Work Effort 'I—E" Conﬂict :
I l l l I I

———_—--—-—----—_-d —----_—-----—_-——J ———-_—-——---——-—_J

104

FIGURE 3: Measurement Model for Work-Family Conﬂict (Four Forms)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   
   
   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
   
   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
   
   

 

 

 

 

 

 

q 1
q2
Emotion-
q3 based
q4 Conﬂict
q5
q6
Behavior-
‘17 based
q8 Conﬂict
q9
q10
ql 1
q 1 2
q l 3
ql4
(115 Strain-based
q17
q l 8
q l 9
q20
q2 l
q22
Time-based
q23 Conﬂict
q24

 

 

 

105

macaw a” map—9:3— mncwsos Zone—mg wows—8 A3535: _mwxu—mrooe awe—38$ men <<o~w-.o-mm3=< 003:9 0:80.58
*eAbH .2699
Zion be

 

melee.“ >o::m

 

 

\oov

.Ncuwuw

mBomos-ewmoa 084:2

 

masses». 0523. ”58

Cone >095

 

. _ 1....
mosaic—reﬁne 003:2

 

 

wan—Saca— UmmEmv. WES

 

.M—xcw

**
(<35er .3 \\Ii/V. .8 v man—:2- cameo 00:25

208” a: a: 3:083. Bono—m @8828. a: use $2 $08 .8130 e=o£5m 5o usage 58.: :88; an; 0593:». use
c3353: Emu—3‘ 3:8 use £04588 8 none—m8 £5. own: 9305 En mean mm 55 men 90 Econ 85 8:22 58.: @083
568337..

 

 

 

 

106

3ch m” 9:888. map—mac: Zoom—Em W856 Aamxmaca 585.com amaaﬁomv won <<o=-_w9=m 05838
. 3*...

._. eA em“ .2650.
ZHEB

          

 
    

weaned >oaam 33......

k
_m
*

45‘

W853 >289

   

masses». 9823 5:8 .Nmna .
hon... Done tyne—am
.3

 

5?. $5395:

 

 

33*

 

«<2:er IV 2518. 328330:
.35..

/
B

208“ E a: 85883— 5085 38028. 3: use $9 $80 mo” #8 e=o¢<m=m En adage 582 9088 9.0.. 0:20:25—
86 cornice». Emu—3. 2.8 mag £250va 8 none—m8 39 men: 050: 30 mean mm 55 men 90 :52. use éozonmzm
58—: 3088 483026;.

 

 

 

107

3ch on 9208:: macmnmo: Zone—5m 58:8 A3335: 30:38: 8:338v 3a wee—5:. 05838

...eA.ow...._.eA.e_ -8.
213 .

mason >n::m u _ u...

 

 
  

mBozoa. mes—58:0:

 

9:03:3— UWES. ”£8

  

 

 

 

 

message. 9823. 5:8

.Nmai

Iv $882: spouse‘s—mm?

.33.. 33*...

/ IIII\I

.8

229 _: a: 8588:: Bond; 2888:. 2: MS: :09 £80 8: $8 m=o§:m :8 8:35: 58:. @888 an;
0398:: 9:: 60:383. Eaves. 3:8 :2. 22.583 8 none—:8 2:: 80: 0:5: :6 82:0 .8 Sea woe So :58 a5:

 

955.: 58:: 3088 48:08:55..

108

 

.70 3...:(C .. .3» 74— .

3ch ﬂ map—9:8— mncwmoa Zeno—5m ﬂame—8 Guam—5:5 _mwnzrooa omzaﬁamv m9 Zommné >28”
* _VA bu“ “cg—VA .c—

212
.8 mango >o:=m
\ be:

maozoaa Div—3 ”5%
be“;

new Con—u >o:=m -bo

 

 

 

 

 

warmsoqm— Dan—3 x53 . warming.»— Zoazoasm

anmasw >209

 

 

V

n;
**
29525 .3

208” H: m: 3.58:: Bono—m 588:8? 3.: 83 ad— ﬁono man #00 3.95% 9a @0325 $8.: @888 ch: @3022.»—
EE 6338:: Emu—3 2.8 25 $3583 8 neg—ma SE. nun: 090: Sn mun—o mm 5.0 we So 502. 58.: $088 3
:5 33a Scan...

109

FIGURE 8: Interactive Effect of Work-Family Integration and Deep Acting on Life
Satisfactiona

“The numbers represent scores on life satisfaction. Low deep acting and work-family
integration represent one standard deviation below the mean on their respective scores;
high scores are one standard deviation above the mean.

 

4.2 [

 

4.1 i

 

4.0 i
3.9 'L 7
n x

3.8 tr /

 

\

 

 

‘
3.6 i
. F r
I /
3.4 It K
L
l

3.2

 

 

\
L_ Wt- resent.

 

Low: Deep Acting High: Deep Acting

 

F—A— Low: W-F Integration +High: W-F Integration j

 

110

FIGURE 9: Interactive Effect of Work-Family Integration and Behavioral Monitoring on
Behavior-Based Work-Farnily Conﬂicta

3The numbers represent scores on behavior-based conﬂict. Low behavioral monitoring
and low work-family integration represent one standard deviation below the mean on
their respective scores; high scores are one standard deviation above the mean.

 

2.5 .
2.4 E 4

2.2 fl
2.1 E E
2.0 L / E

 

 

 

 

Low: Behavioral Monitoring High: Behavioral Monitoring

 

E—t— Low: W-F Integration +High: W-F Integration 1

 

111

FIGURE 10: Interactive Effect of Work-Family Integration and Behavioral Monitoring
on Emotional Exhaustiona

3The numbers represent scores on emotional exhaustion. Low behavioral monitoring and
work-family integration represent one standard deviation below the mean on their
respective scores; high scores are one standard deviation above the mean.

 

3.3 . E
3.2 l

 

 

3.1 E

3.0 l /' .
2.9 ' /

2.7 E /
2.6 5

 

 

 

 

 

—- — —. _______ ‘
2.5 F
2.4
2.3 T
Low: Behavioral Monitoring High: Behavioral Monitoring

 

—A— Low: W—F Integration '+High: W—F Integration E

 

112

APPENDIX C: ITEM NIEASURES

Emotional display rules (Best et al.. 1997'LGrandeL 2003):
*Notes items used in ﬁnal analyses

P‘S‘PPP!‘

7.

Reassure others who are distressed or upset.*

Remain calm even when you are astonished.*

Express feelings of sympathy (e. g., be kind and understanding).*
Express friendly emotions (e.g., smile).*

Part of my job is to make others feel good.*

My workplace does not expect me to express positive emotions as part of my job.
(reverse coded)

My organization would say that part of my job is to be friendly and cheerful.*

Behavioral display rules (Lennox & Wolfe. 1984):

1. At my work, employees are expected to behave in appropriate ways.
2.
3. On the job, when I am uncertain how to act I am encouraged to look to the

I am expected to behave in a manner that makes me ﬁt in at work.

behavior of others for cues.*

At work, I should pay attention to the reactions of others regarding my behavior
in order to avoid being out of place.*

On the job, the slightest look of disapproval from a person with whom I am
interacting is expected to make me change my approach.*

My behavior at work often depends on how I feel others wish me to behave.*

Workload (Janssen, 2001; Ilies et al., 2007):

PWHQE‘PPPT‘

My workload is high.*

I have to work fast.*

I have too much work to do.*

I have to work extra hard to ﬁnish a task.*

I work under time pressure.*

I can do my work in comfort. (reverse coded)
I deal with a backlog at work.*

I have problems with the pace of my work.

I have problems with my workload.

Emotional labor (Grandv. 2003'. Brotheridge & Lee. 2003; items 1-5 refer to surface
acting; items 6-10 deep acting):

l.
2.
3.

I fake a good mood.*
I put on an act it order to deal with others in an appropriate way.
I pretend to have emotions I need to display for my job.*

113

Emotional labor items continued:

4. I put on a ‘mask’ in order to display the emotions I need for my job.*
5. I resist expressing my true feelings.
6. I generally try to look at the positive side of things to change how I feel.
7.
8
9.
1

I attempt to focus on happier things.

. I try to actually experience the emotions I must show. *

I make an effort to actually feel the emotions I need to display to others. *

O. I really try to feel the emotions I have to show as part of my job. *

Behavioral Monitoring (Lennox & Wolfe. 1984):

1.
2.

3.

I alter my behavior at work if I feel that something else is called for.*

On the job, I control the way I come across to people, depending on the
impression I wish to give them.*

At work, when I feel that the image I am portraying isn’t working, I can readily
change it to something that does.*

I have trouble changing my behavior at work to suit different people and
situations. (reverse coded)

I adjust my behavior to meet the requirements of any situation I ﬁnd myself in at
work.*

Even when it might be to my advantage, it is difﬁth for me to put up a good
front at work. (reverse coded)

Once I know what the situation calls for at work, I regulate my actions
accordingly.*

Work effort (Brown & Leigh. 1996):

9:59P!”

When there’s a job to be done, I devote all my energy to getting it done.*
When I work, I do so with intensity.*

I work at my full capacity in all of my job duties.*

I strive as hard as I can to be successful in my work.*

When I work, I really exert myself to the fullest.*

Emotion-based work-family conﬂict (Netemeyer et al.. 1996; Kopelman et al.. 1983;
Carlson et al., 2000):

l.

2.

9'9.”

The emotional demands of my job make it difﬁcult for me to express appropriate
emotions at home.*

The emotions required by my job often prevent me from contributing to our
home/family life.*

The emotional demands of my work interfere with our home and family life.*

I am not able to display appropriate emotions at home because of my work.*
The emotions that are necessary for my job make it difﬁcult for me to meet
emotional demands here at home.*

114

Behavior-based work-family conﬂict (Carlson et al.. 2000):

l.

I am not able to monitor or control my behavior at home as I do at work.*

2. The behavioral demands of my job make it difﬁcult for me to engage in

appropriate behaviors at home.*

Behavior that is appropriate for me at work interferes with my family life here at
home.*

The behaviors I perform that make me effective at work do not help me to be a
better spouse or family member.*

The behaviors that are necessary for my job make it difﬁcult for me to meet
behavioral demands here at home.*

S_tr_z_tin-based work-family conflict (Kopelman et al., 1983; Carlson et al., 2000):

 

9999!"?

8.

9.

The demands of my job make it difﬁcult for me to be relaxed at home.*

After work, I come home too tired to do some of the things I would like to do.*
Because my work is demanding, at times I am irritable at home.*

It is difﬁcult for me to relax when I am away from work.

Tension and anxiety from work often creep into my family life.

I often feels I am rushing to get my nonwork responsibilities taken care of in
order to get back to work.

I am often stressed by trying to balance my responsibilities when work interferes
with the rest of my life.

I am often so drained when I get home from work that it prevents me from
contributing to my family.

I am often preoccupied with work while I am at home.

10. Due to all the pressures at work, sometimes when I come home I am too stressed

to do the things I really enjoy.

11. Sometimes I feel overwhelmed by all of my responsibilities at work.

Burnout (Maslach & Jackson, 1981 ):

Emotional exhaustion component:

1.
2.
3.

9908.05"?

I feel emotionally drained from my work.*

I feel used up at the end of the day.*

I feel fatigued when I get up in the morning and have to face another day on the
job.*

Working with people is really a strain for me.

I feel burned out from my work.*

I feel frustrated after work.*

I feel I’m working too hard.*

Working with people puts too much stress on me.

I feel like I’m at the end of my rope.*

115

Burnout items continued:

Depersonalization component:

1. I feel I treat others as if they were impersonal ‘objects’.*
2. I feel I am callous toward others.*

3. I worry that I am becoming emotionally hardened.*

4. I don’t really care about what happens to others.*

5. I feel others blame me for some of their problems.

Personal accomplishment component:

WﬂgMPPP!‘

I easily understands how others feel about things.
Ideal very effectively with problems.*

I feel I’m positively inﬂuencing others lives.

I feel very energetic.*

I can easily create a relaxed atmosphere with others.
I feel exhilarated after working closely with others.
I feel I’ve accomplished many worthwhile things.*
I deal with emotional problems very calmly.*

Affect (Watson & Cla_r_k. 1994k

The ten adjective descriptors for the positive scale include:

QFHQMPPN!‘

Interested*
Enthusiastic*
Excited*
Strong*
Proud*

Alert *
Inspired*
Attentive*
Active*

10. Determined*
The ten adjective descriptors for the negative scale include:

1. Upset*
2. Irritable*
3. Distressed*
4. Guilty*
5. Scared*
6.
7
8
9
1

Ashamed*

. Nervous*
. J ittery*

Afraid*

O. Hostile*

116

 

Life satisfaction (Diener et al.. 1985):

9:595"?

If I could live my life over, I would change almost nothing.*
I am satisﬁed with my life.*

So far, I got the important things I want in life.*

The conditions of my life are excellent.*

In most ways my life is close to ideal.*

_hiarital satisfaction (Norton. 1983k

P‘PP’PT‘

I feel that I have a good marriage or relationship.*

I feel that my relationship with my spouse or signiﬁcant other is very stable.*
Our marriage or relationship is very strong.*

I really feel like part of a team with my spouse/signiﬁcant other.*

My relationship with my spouse or signiﬁcant other has made me happy.*

Work-famin integration (Desrochers et al.. 2005):

1. It is often difﬁcult to tell where my work life ends and my family life begins.*
2.
3. In my life, there is a clear boundary between my career and my role as a spouse or

I tend to integrate my work and family duties when I work at home.*

family member. (reverse-scored)*

Supervisor support (Shinn et al., 1989):

1.

PWNQMPPN

Switched schedules (hours, overtime hours, vacation) to accommodate my family
responsibilities.*

Listened to my problems.*

Was critical of my efforts to combine work and family. (reverse coded)*
Juggled tasks or duties to accommodate my family responsibilities.*

Shared ideas or advice.*

Held my family responsibilities against me. (reverse coded)*

Helped me to ﬁgure out how to solve a problem.*

Was understanding or sympathetic.*

Showed resentment of my needs as a working parent or family member. (reverse
coded)*

117

Family emotional display rules (Erickson, 1993 ):

l. Confide your innermost thoughts and feelings.*

2. Let your family members (e. g., spouse, children, etc.) know you have faith in
them.*

3. Sense when a family member is disturbed about something.*

4. Offer others encouragement.*

5. Give your spouse or family compliments.*

6. Stick by your family in times of trouble.*

7. Act affectionately toward your spouse/signiﬁcant other.*

8. Communicate your feelings about the future of your family.*

Time-based work-family conﬂict (Kopelman et al.. 1983):

1. My work takes up time that I would like to spend with family or friends.*
2. My work schedule often conﬂicts with my family life.*
3. I have so much work to do that it takes away from my personal interests.*

118

REFERENCES

Adelmarm, P. K., & Zajonc, R. B. (1989). Facial efference and the experience of
emotion. Annual Review of Psychology, 40, 249-280.

Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A
review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 193, 411-423.

Ashforth, B. E., & Humphrey, R. H. (1993). Emotional labor in service roles: The
inﬂuence of identity. Academy of Management Review, 18 , 88—115.

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.

Avolio, B. J ., Sosik, J. J ., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. (2003). Leadership models, methods,
and applications. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds), Handbook

of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 277-307).
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Barsade, S. G., Brief, A. P., & Spataro, S. E. (2003). The affective revolution in
organizational behavior: the emergence of a paradigm. In J. Greenberg (Ed.),
Organizational behavior: The state of the science (pp. 3-52). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.

Bartolome, F. (1972) Executives as human beings. Harvard Business Review, 50, 62-69.

Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. M. (1998). Ego-depletion: Is

the active self a limited resource? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
74, 1252-1265.

Beal, D. J ., Trougakos, J. P., Weiss, H. M., & Green, S. G. (2006). Episodic processes in
emotional labor: Perceptions of affective delivery and regulation strategies. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 91, 1053-1065.

Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative ﬁt indexes in structural models. Psychological
Bulletin, 107, 238-246.

Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Signiﬁcance tests and goodness of ﬁt in the
analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588-606.

Best, R. G., Downey, R. G., & J ones, R. G. (1997, April). Incumbent perceptions of

emotional work requirements. Paper presented at the12th annual conference of the
Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, St. Louis, MO.

119

Bono, J. E., & Vey, M. A. (2005). Toward understanding emotional management at
work: A quantitative review of emotional labor research. In C. E. Hartel, & W. J.
Zerbe (Eds.), Emotions in organizational behavior (pp. 213—233). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.

Brief, A. P., Butcher, A. H., & Roberson, L. (1995). Cookies, disposition, and job
attitudes: The effects of positive mood-inducing events and negative affectivity on
job satisfaction in a ﬁeld experiment. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 62, 55-62.

Brotheridge, C. M., & Lee, R. T. (2003). Development and validation of the Emotional
Labor Scale. Journal of Occupation and Organizational Psychology, 76, 365-379.

Brown, S. P., & Leigh, T. W. (1996). A new look at psychological climate and its
relationships to job involvement, effort, and performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 81, 358-368.

Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model ﬁt. In K. A.
Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Bruck, C. S., & Allen, T. D. (2003). The relationship between Big Five personality traits,
negative affectivity, Type A behavior, and work-family conﬂict. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 63, 457— 472.

Butler, A. B., Grzywacz, J. G., Bass, B. L., & Linney, K. D. (2005). Extending the
demands-control model: A daily diary study of job characteristics, work-family

conﬂict and work-family facilitation. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 78, 155-169.

Byron, K. (2005). A meta-analytic review of work-family conﬂict and its antecedents.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67, 169—198.

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.

Casper, W. J ., Eby, L. T., Bordeaux, C., Lockwood, A., & Lambert, D. (2007). A review
of research methods in IO/OB work-family research. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 92, 28—43.

Cortina, J. M., Chen, G., & Dunlap, W. P. (2001). Testing interaction effects in LISREL:

Examination and illustration of available procedures. Organizational Research
Methods, 4, 324-360.

120

Cote, S. (2005). A social interaction model of the effects of emotion regulation on work
strain. Academy of Management Review, 30, 509—530.

Day, D. V., & Schleicher, D. J. (2006). Self-monitoring at work: A motive-based
perspective. Journal of Personality, 74, 685-714.

Day, D. V., Schleicher, D. J ., Unckless, A. L., & Hiller, N. J. (2002). Self-monitoring
personality at work: A meta-analytic investigation of construct validity. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 87, 390—401.

Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., & Bulters, A. J. (2004). The loss spiral of work pressure,
work-home interference and exhaustion: Reciprocal relations in a three-way study.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64, 131—149.

Desrochers, 8., Hilton, J. M., & Larwood, L. (2005). Preliminary validation of the work-
family role integration-blurring scale. Journal of Family Issues, 26, 442-466.

Diefendorff, J. M., Croyle, M. H., Gosserand, R. H. (2005). The dimensionality and
antecedents of emotional labor strategies. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 339-
357.

Diefendorff, J. M., & Richard, E. M. (2003). Antecedents and consequences of emotional
display rule perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 284-294.

Diefendorff, J. M., Richard, E. M., & Croyle, M. H. (2006). Are emotional display rules
formal job requirements? Examination of employee and supervisor perceptions.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79, 273—298.

Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J ., & Grifﬁn, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life
scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71—75.

Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Lucas, R. E. (2003). Personality, culture, and subjective well-
being: Emotional and cognitive evaluations of life. Annual Review of Psychology,
54, 403-425.

Dikkers, J. S. E., Geurts, S. A. E., Kompier, M. A. J ., Taris, T. W., Houtman, I. L. D., &
van den Heuvel, F. (2007). Does workload cause work-home interference or is it the

other way around? Stress and Health, 23, 303-314.

Dubinsky, A. J ., & Hartley, S. W. (1986). A path-analytic study of a model of
salesperson performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 14, 36-46.

Du Toit, S.H.C. & Mels, G. (2002). Supplementary Notes on Multiple Imputation.
Available at http://www.ssicentral.com/1isrel/techdocs/imputation.pdf.

121

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.

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.

Erickson, R. J. (1993). Reconceptualizing emotion work: The effect of emotion work on
perceptions of marital quality. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 55, 888-900.

Erickson, R. J. & Wharton, A. S. (1997). Inauthenticity and depression: Assessing the
consequences of interactive service work. Work and Occupations, 24, 188—213.

Ford, M. T., Heinen, B. A., Langkamer, K. T. (2007). Work and family satisfaction and
conﬂict: A meta-analysis of cross-domain relations. Journal of Applied Psychology,
92. 57-80.

Frye, N. K., & Breaugh, J. A. (2004). Family-friendly policies, supervisor support, work-
family conﬂict, family-work conﬂict, and satisfaction: A test of a conceptual model.
Journal of Business and Psychology, 19, 197-220.

Geurts, S. A. E., Taris, T. W., Kompier, M. A. J ., Dikkers, J. S. E., Van Hooff, M. L. M.
& Kinnunen, U. M. (2005). Work-home interaction from a work psychological

perspective: Development and validation of a new questionnaire, the SWING. Work
and Stress, 19, 319-339.

Gardner, D. G. (1986). Activation theory and task design: An empirical test of several
new predictions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 411-418.

Goldberg, L. S., & Grandey, A. (2007). Display rules versus display autonomy: Emotion
regulation, emotional exhaustion, and task performance in a call center simulation.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12, 301-318.

Gosserand, R. H., & Diefendorff, J. M. (2005). Emotional display rules and emotional
labor: The moderating role of commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90,
1256-1264.

Grandey, A. A. (2000). Emotion regulation in the workplace: A new way to
conceptualize emotional labor. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 95-
1 10.

Grandey, A. A. (2003). When “the show must go on”: Surface acting and deep acting as
determinants of emotional exhaustion and peer-rated service delivery. Academy of
Management Journal, 44, 86—98.

122

Grandey, A. A., Dickter, D. N ., & Sin, H. P. (2004). The customer is not always right:
Customer aggression and emotion regulation of service employees. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 25, 397-418.

Grandey, A. A., Fisk, G. M., & Steiner, D. D. (2005). Must "service with a smile" be
stressful? The moderating role of personal control for American and French
employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 893-904

Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conﬂict between work and family
roles. Academy of Management Review, 10, 76—88.

Greenhaus, J. H., Parasuraman, S., Granrose, C. S., Rabinowitz, S., & Beutell, N. J.

(1989). Sources of work-family conﬂict among two-career couples. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 34, 133—153.

Heller, D., & Watson, D. (2005). The dynamic spillover of satisfaction between
work and marriage: The role of time, mood and personality. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 90, 1273-1279.

Hinkin, T. R. (1995). A review of scale development practices in the study of
organizations. Journal of Management, 21, 967—988.

Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The managed heart: The commercialization of human feeling.
Berkeley: University of California Press.

Hulin, C. L., Roznowski, M., & Hachiya, D. (1985). Alternative opportunities and
withdrawal decisions: Empirical and theoretical discrepancies and an integration.
Psychological Bulletin, 97, 233-250.

Ickes, W., & Barnes, R. D. (1977). The role of sex and self-monitoring in unstructured
dyadic interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 315-330.

Ilies, R., Schwind, K. M., Wagner, D. T., Johnson, M. D., Derue, D. S., & Ilgen, D. R.
(2007). When can employees have a family life? The effects of daily workload and
affect on work-family conﬂict and social behaviors at home. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 92, 1368-1379.

Ilies, R., Wilson, K. S., & Wagner, D. T. (2009). The spillover of daily job satisfaction
onto employees’ family lives: The facilitating role of work-family integration.
Academy of Management Journal, 52, 87-102.

J anssen, O. (2001). Fairness perceptions as a moderator in the curvilinear relationships
between job demands, and job performance and job dissatisfaction. Academy of
Management Journal, 44, 1039—1050.

123

 

Johnson, H. M., & Spector, P. E. (2007). Service with a smile: Do emotional intelligence,
gender, and autonomy moderate the emotional labor process? Journal of
Occupational and Health Psychology, 12, 319-333.

Joreskog, K., & Sorbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8: User’s reference guide. Chicago:
Scientiﬁc Software International.

Judge, T. A., & Ilies, R. (2004). Affect and job satisfaction: A study of their relationship
at work and at home. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 661—673.

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.

Kanter, R. M. (1977). Work and family in the United States: A critical review and agenda
for research and policy. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Karasek, R. A. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain:
Implications for job redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 285—308.

Kelloway, E. K., Gottlieb, B. H., & Barham, L. (1999). The source, nature, and direction
of work and family conﬂict: a longitudinal investigation. Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, 4, 337—346.

Kopelman, R. E., Greenhaus, J. H., & Connolly, T. F. (1983). A model of work, family,
and interrole conﬂict: A construct validation study. Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance 32, 198—215.

Kossek, 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.

Kozlowski, S. W. J ., & Bell, B. S. (2003). Work groups and teams in organizations. In
W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, R. J. Klimoski, & I. B. Weiner (Eds.), Handbook of
psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology. New York: Wiley.

Kruml, S. M., & Geddes, D. (2000). Exploring the dimensions of emotional labor: The
heart of Hochschild’s work. Management Communication Quarterly, 14, 8-49.

Lambert, E. G., Hogan, N. L., Camp, S. D., & Ventura, L. A. (2006). The impact of

work-family conﬂict on correctional staff. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 6,
3 7 1-3 87.

Lambert, E. G., Pasupuleti, S., Cluse-Tolar, T., Jennings, M., & Baker, D. (2006). The
impact of work-family conﬂict on social work and human service worker job

satisfaction and organizational commitment: An exploratory study. Administration
in Social Work, 30, 55-74.

124

 

Lapierre, L. M., & Allen, T. D. (2006). Work-supportive family, family-supportive
supervision, use of organizational beneﬁts, and problem-focused coping:
implications for work-family conﬂict and employee well-being. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 11, 169-181.

Lee, R. T., & Ashforth, B. E. (1996). A meta-analytic examination of the correlates of the
three dimensions of job burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81 , 123-133.

Lennox, R. D., & Wolfe, R. N. (1984). Revision of the self- monitoring scale. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 1349-1364.

Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1981). The measurement of experienced burnout. Journal
of Occupational Behaviour, 2, 99-113.

Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. P. (2008). Early predictors of job burnout and engagement.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 498-512.

Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of
Psychology, 52, 397-422.

Mathieu, J. E., Tannenbaum, S. 1., & Salas, E. (1992). Inﬂuences of individual and
situational characteristics on measures of training effectiveness. Academy of
Management Journal, 35, 828-847.

Meijman, T. F., & Mulder, G. (1998). Psychological aspects of workload. In P. J. D.
Drenth, & H. Thierry (Eds.), Handbook of work and organizational psychology:
Work psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 5-33). Hove, U.K.: Psychology Press.

Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., & Viswesvaran, C. (2005). Convergence between measures of
work-to-family and family-to-work conﬂict: A metaanalytic examination. Journal
of Vocational Behavior, 67, 215—232.

Montgomery, A. J ., Panagopolou, E., de Wildt, M. and Meeks, E. (2006). Work-family
interference, emotional labor and burnout. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21,
36—51.

Morris, J. A., & Feldman, D. C. (1996). The dimensions, antecedents, and consequences
of emotional labor. Academy of Management Review, 21, 986—1010.

Netemeyer, R. G., Boles, J. S., & McMurrian, R. (1996). Development and validation of
work-family conﬂict and family-work conﬂict scales. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 81, 400—410.

Norton, R. (1983). Measuring marital quality: A critical look at the dependent variable.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 45, 141-151.

125

Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M. and MacKenzie, S. B. (2006). Organizational citizenship
behavior: Its nature, antecedents, and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Rafaeli, A., & R. I. Sutton, R. I. (1987). Expression of emotion as part of the work role.
Academy of Management Review, 12, 23-37.

Rothbard, N. P. (2001). Enriching or depleting? The dynamics of engagement in work
and family roles. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 655—684.

Rothbard, N. P., Phillips, K. W., & Dumas, T. L. (2005). Managing multiple roles: Work-
family policies and individuals’ desires for segmentation. Organizational Science,
16, 243-258.

Scherrnelleh-Engel, Moosbrugger, H., & Muller, H. (2003). Evaluating the ﬁt of
structural equation models: Tests of signiﬁcance and descriptive goodness-of-ﬁt
measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8, 23-74.

Schmeichel, B. J ., Vohs, K. D., & Baumeister, R. F. (2003). Intellectual performance and
ego depletion: Role of the self in logical reasoning and other information
processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 33—46.

Shinn, M., Wong, N. W., Simko, P. A., & Ortiz-Torres, B. (1989). Promoting the well-
being of working parents: Coping, social support, and ﬂexible job schedules.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 1 7, 31—55.

Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic conﬁdence intervals for indirect effects in structural
equations models. In S. Leinhart (Ed.), Sociological methodology 1982 (pp. 290-
312). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Snyder, M. (1974). Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 30, 526-537.

Snyder, M. (1987). Public appearance/private realities: The psychology of self-
monitoring. New York: Freeman.

Snyder, M., & Gangestad, S. (1986). The nature of self-monitoring. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 125—129.

Sonnentag, S., & Frese, M. (2003). Stress in organizations. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen,
& R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of psychology: Industrial and
organizational psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 453-491). New York: Wiley.

Spector, P. E., Dwyer, D. J ., & J ex, 8. M. (1988). Relation of job stressors to affective,

health, and performance outcomes: A comparison of multiple data sources. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 73, 11-19.

126

Thomas, L. T., & Ganster, D. C. (1995). Impact of family-supportive work variables on
work-family conﬂict and strain: A control perspective. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 80, 6-15.

Toegel, G., Anand, N., & Kilduff, M. (2007). Emotion helpers: The role of high positive
affectivity and high self-monitoring managers. Personnel Psychology, 60, 337-366.

Wallace, J. E. (1999). Work-to-nonwork conﬂict among married male and female
lawyers. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 797-816.

Warren, J. A., & Johnson, P. J. (1995). The impact of workplace support on work-family
role strain. Family Relations, 44, 163-170.

Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1994). The PANAS-X: Manual for the Positive and Negative
Aﬁect Schedule—Expanded form. Iowa City: University of Iowa.

Wharton, A. S., & Erickson, R. I. (1993). Managing emotions on the job and at home:
Understanding the consequences of multiple emotional roles. Academy of
Management Review, 18, 457-486.

Wilk, S. L., & Moynihan, L. M. (2005). Display rule “regulators”: The relationship
between supervisors and worker emotional exhaustion. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 90, 917-927.

Zapf, D. (2002). Emotion work and psychological wellbeing: A review of the literature
and some conceptual considerations. Human Resource Management Review, 12,
237—268.

Zapf, D., Vogt, C., Seifert, C., Mertini, H., & Isic, A. (1999). Emotion work as a source

of stress: The concept and development of an instrument. European Journal of
Work and Organizational Psychology, 8, 371-400.

127

 

   

"11111111111111ﬁlliﬂllllllﬂlﬂllllll“