Journal of Vocational Behavior 81 (2012) 89–98

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Vocational Behavior

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jvb

No pain, no gain? A resource-based model of work-to-family enrichment

and conflict☆
Zheng Chen a, 1, Gary N. Powell b,⁎
a
College of Business, University of South Florida—St. Petersburg, 140 7th Avenue South, PNM 104 A, St. Petersburg, FL 33701, USA
b
Department of Management, University of Connecticut, 2100 Hillside Road Unit 1041, Storrs, CT 06269‐1041, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Work–family scholars tend to work in two largely disconnected research streams, focusing on
Received 4 May 2012 either work–family enrichment—the positive side of the work–family interface—or work–family
Available online 18 May 2012 conflict—the negative side of this interface. The purpose of this study is to suggest a reconciliation
of the two research streams by proposing and testing a resource-based model of work-to-family
Keywords: enrichment and conflict. Specifically, we propose that an individual's work role engagement has
Work–family two independent outcomes, work role resource gain and loss, and they separately mediate the
Conflict relationships between work role engagement and work-to-family enrichment and conflict. We
Enrichment
further propose that two dimensions of regulatory focus, promotion focus and prevention focus,
Work–family resources
moderate the relationships between work role engagement and work role resource gain and loss
respectively. Structural equation modeling results based on data from 1052 employees of Chinese
firms offer general support for these notions.
© 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Introduction

As more employees strive to balance work and family responsibilities, research focuses increasingly on the relationship
between work and family roles (Eby, Casper, Lockwood, Bordeaux, & Brinley, 2005). Work–family scholars tend to adopt two
different perspectives about the nature of this relationship and then conduct research in two largely disconnected research
streams by focusing on either work–family enrichment (WFE) or work–family conflict (WFC). WFE research, an emergent
research stream in recent years (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006; McNall, Nicklin, & Masuda, 2010), adopts the role accumulation
perspective (Marks, 1977), which suggests that multiple life roles are synergistic; engagement in one role generates more energy
and resources for others, as the result of which engagement in one role improves quality of life in another. In contrast, WFC
research, the dominant research stream (Eby et al., 2005), adopts the role scarcity perspective (Goode, 1960), which suggests that
a person has a fixed amount of time and energy to spend on life roles; engagement in one role depletes the resources available for
others, as the result of which people holding multiple roles experience inter-role conflict due to competing role demands and
expectations (e.g., Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). Considered together, the fundamental premises of the role accumulation and
scarcity perspectives are paradoxical; they suggest that engagement in one role simultaneously generates more resources and less
resources for the other. The purpose of the present study is to propose and test an explanation for this paradox that would help to
reconcile the two research streams.

☆ Authors' Note: This project was funded in part by a grant from the University of Connecticut's Center for International Business Education and Research
(CIBER). An earlier version of this article was presented at the Academy of Management Meeting, San Antonio, 2011. This article greatly benefited from the
insightful suggestions provided by Janet Barnes-Farrell, Qing Cao, and Yan Ling.
⁎ Corresponding author. Fax: + 1 860 486 6415.
E-mail addresses: zhengchen@mail.usf.edu (Z. Chen), gpowell@business.uconn.edu (G.N. Powell).
1
Fax: + 1 727 873 4571.

0001-8791/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2012.05.003
90 Z. Chen, G.N. Powell / Journal of Vocational Behavior 81 (2012) 89–98

To address the paradox, we draw insights from conservation of resource theory (COR) (Hobfoll, 1989) and regulatory focus
theory (Higgins, 1997, 1998). COR proposes that people are motivated to obtain and protect their resources, which refers to things
that they value (e.g. house, money, good relationships, and self-esteem), and investigates how the loss and gain of resources
impact psychological stress (Hobfoll, 1989). Resource loss is suggested to lead to stress; however, resource gain is unrelated to
stress (Hobfoll & Shirom, 2000). Our central argument is that role resource gain and loss are independent and separately mediate
the linkages of role engagement to WFE and WFC. From the perspective of regulatory focus theory (Higgins, 1996), which
emphasizes different motivational processes for achieving gain and avoiding loss, we further explain why resource gain and loss
are likely to be independent and examine how regulatory focuses moderate the degree to which individuals experience resource
gain and loss.
The study makes three unique contributions to the work–family literature. First, it attempts to reconcile the paradoxical
perspectives that underlie WFE and WFC research. We introduce two key mediators, resource gain and loss, to conceptualize why
WFE and WFC may be independent but not competing outcomes of the work–family interface. Second, although regulatory focus
has been linked to work outcomes in previous research (Lanaj, Chang, & Johnson, in press), the current research represents the
first known attempt to apply regulatory focus theory to the work–family interface. Third, although the notion that WFE and WFC
are independent constructs has been suggested in the literature (e.g., Powell & Greenhaus, 2006), it has been based mainly on the
empirical finding that the relationship between measures of the two constructs is small and non-significant; for example, the
mean value of 21 correlations reported by Greenhaus and Powell (2006) was −.02. The current research addresses how dual
outcomes of role engagement—resource gain and loss—may independently lead to WFE and WFC.

Theory

Fig. 1 depicts the framework of the current research. While we recognize that the work–family interface is bidirectional, we
focus on the direction of work to family in examining WFE and WFC in this study because phenomena in this direction are more
likely to be influenced by an organization's practices and policies (Friedman & Greenhaus, 2000). We argue that during work role
engagement, which refers to psychological presence in task behaviors that implies attention and absorption (Kahn, 1990),
individuals' role activities may be viewed as the process of gaining valuable resources while simultaneously incurring resource
losses. We further argue that resource gain and loss separately mediate the linkages of work role engagement to WFE and WFC
respectively and that regulatory focuses play important moderating roles.

Work role resource gain as a mediator

We argue that work role resource gain mediates the relationship between work role engagement and WFE. First, we review
research on the relationship between work role engagement and WFE. Next, we argue that two relationships support mediation:
(1) work role engagement leads to work role resource gain, and (2) work role resource gain leads to WFE.
Two notable studies support the relationship between engagement in one role, work or family, and enrichment in the other
role. Graves, Ohlott, and Ruderman (2007) suggest that family role commitment leads to work role enhancement. Rothbard

A resource-based model of work-to-family enrichment and conflict a

Promotion Prevention
Focus Focus

Work-to-Family
Work Role Resource Gain Enrichment

Work Role
Engagement

Work-to-Family
Work Role Resource Loss Conflict

Fig. 1. A resource-based model of work-to-family enrichment and conflict. Solid line = hypothesized relationships; dashed line = hypothesized null relationship.
 Z. Chen, G.N. Powell / Journal of Vocational Behavior 81 (2012) 89–98 91

(2001) found that work engagement positively influences family engagement for men. The mediating role of resource gain was
not explicitly tested by these two studies; however, the notion is well imbedded in both their theoretical arguments and empirical
models. Graves et al. (2007) argue that family commitment will lead to work enhancement because family experiences will
generate resources. Rothbard's (2001) study modeled an indirect effect of higher work engagement leading to higher family
engagement through increased psychological resources, work positive affect.
The argument that individuals gain additional resources during work role engagement is rooted in the theory of role accumulation
(Marks, 1977). On the basis of role accumulation theory, role engagement has been suggested to increase individual's self-worth,
positive emotions (Rothbard, 2001), confidences, and skills (Ruderman, Ohlott, Panzer, & King, 2002).
The argument that work role resource gain in turn leads to WFE is well supported by past research. WFE occurs when work
experience benefits the family domain (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006). Greenhaus and Powell's (2006) review of prior WFE research
and McNall et al.'s (2010) meta-analysis of the consequences of WFE provide evidence that different types of resources generated
from the work role, such as flexible work schedule, work satisfaction, networking opportunities, and job complexity, enhance
WFE as well as other positive life outcomes.

Hypothesis 1. Work role resource gain positively mediates the relationship between work role engagement and WFE.

Work role resource loss as a mediator

We further argue that work role resource loss mediates the relationship between work role engagement and WFC. First, we
review research on the relationship between work role engagement and WFC. Next, we argue that two relationships support
mediation: (1) work role engagement leads to work role resource loss, and (2) work role resource loss leads to WFC.
Although the mediating role of work role resource loss between work engagement and WFC has not been explicitly examined in
past research, this notion is consistent with the umbrella argument for much WFC research. The argument is rooted both in role
theory (Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, & Rosenthal, 1964) and the role scarcity perspective (Goode, 1960), which suggest that role
activities can “use up” resources in one role and such resource drain may interfere with performance in the other. Past WFC research
has both theorized and found empirical support for the notion that role engagement and role resources are key antecedents of WFC
(Michel, Mitchelson, Kotrba, LeBreton, & Baltes, 2009).
Role engagement requires a high degree of absorption as well as attention (Kahn, 1990, 1992). Absorption could entail obsession
and intense negative emotions such as frustration (Rothbard, 2001). Role engagement can be psychologically exhausting due to the
vigilance and personal effort involved (Kahn, 1992). High cognitive and emotional engagement put individuals at risk of fatigue,
emotional exhaustion, and being cognitively worn out (Cordes & Dougherty, 1993). Therefore, individuals inevitably lose resources as
a result of role engagement.
WFC is defined in this study as the difficulty in meeting family demands that is imposed by the meeting of work demands
(Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). Eby et al.'s (2005) review found that low levels of work role resources were positively related to
WFC. We suggest that work role resource loss may deplete the total resources an individual has, thereby making those resources
less available for the family and causing WFC.
Work role engagement in turn may cause WFC due to high absorption (Kahn, 1990, 1992), which implies engrossment in the
work role. Individuals who are highly absorbed in one particular role activity may find it difficult to “shift gears” completely and
make a transition to another role. Individuals having difficulty parting with the role they are engaged in may be psychologically
and behaviorally involved in one role when physically present in another, leading to WFC (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985).

Hypothesis 2. Work role resource loss positively mediates the relationship between work role engagement and WFC.

Relationship between work role resource gain and loss

We argue that work role engagement is positively related to both work role resource gain and loss. These two proposed
relationships may seem to represent competing hypotheses, or, taken together, they may seem to suggest a curvilinear relationship
between work role engagement and the amount of work role resources. The posing of competing or curvilinear hypotheses would be
possible if resource gain and loss were to be conceptualized as opposite ends of the same continuum. However, consistent with COR
(Hobfoll, 1989) and regulatory focus theory (Higgins, 1997, 1998), we suggest that work role resource gain and loss are essentially
independent constructs. Put in simple terms, the opposite of resource “gain” is “no gain” but not “loss,” and the opposite of resource
“loss” is “no loss” but not “gain.”
The work role resource gain–loss relationship may be viewed from the perspective of COR (Hobfoll, 1989), which proposes that
people seek to obtain and protect valuable resources. However, Hobfoll and Shirom (2000) suggested that resource loss leads to stress
whereas resource gain is unrelated to stress, thereby implying that resource gain and loss may not have opposing effects on outcomes
for individuals.
Further, the work role resource gain–loss relationship may be viewed from the perspective of regulatory focus theory (Higgins,
1997, 1998), which is concerned with self-regulation systems. Self-regulation is the process in which individuals adjust or guide
their behaviors and self-conceptions in order to align themselves with desired goals or end states; put in simple terms, to seek
pleasure and avoid pain (Carver & Scheier, 1998). Regulatory focus theory (Higgins, 1997, 1998) suggests that individuals have
92 Z. Chen, G.N. Powell / Journal of Vocational Behavior 81 (2012) 89–98

two distinct self-regulatory systems: promotion focus and prevention focus, which represent individuals' chronic self-regulatory
tendencies as shaped by their upbringing (Higgins, Shah, & Friedman, 1997). Promotion-focused and prevention-focused
individuals differ in the types of outcomes that are salient to them and their consequent emotional experiences. The absence or
presence of positive outcomes (e.g., gain vs. no gain) is more salient to promotion-focused individuals, and they experience emotions
along a cheerful-dejection dimension. The absence and presence of negative outcomes (e.g., loss vs. no loss), on the other hand, are
more salient to prevention-focused individuals, and they experience emotions along a quiescence-agitation dimension (Brockner &
Higgins, 2001). Thus, regulatory focus theory suggests that resource gain and loss are not the opposite ends of the same continuum,
but instead independent constructs with markedly different outcomes.

Hypothesis 3. Work role resource gain and resource loss are not related to each other.

Promotion and prevention focus as moderators

Individuals with different self-regulatory traits adopt specific strategies to reduce the discrepancies between their current states
and desired end states. Promotion focus motivates individuals to align themselves with their ideal selves, seek growth and
advancement, and strive for the presence of positive outcomes—that is, to achieve “gain.” Prevention focus motivates individuals to
align themselves with their “ought-to” selves, seek security and safety, and strive for the absence of negative outcomes—that is, to
avoid “loss” (Brockner & Higgins, 2001). Higher levels of promotion focus may be associated with stronger “approach” inclinations for
individuals to match themselves to desired end states, whereas lower levels of prevention focus may be associated with stronger
“avoidance” inclinations to avoid mismatches to undesired end states (Higgins, Roney, Crowe, & Hymes, 1994).
Bringing the basic premises of regulatory focus theory into the work–family context, we argue that individuals have inherently
different concerns and motivations when faced with both the positive (that is, resource gain) and negative (that is, resource loss)
outcomes of work role engagement. Substantial evidence has been found that participation in work and family roles has both negative
and positive implications (Eby et al., 2005; Greenhaus & Powell, 2006). Specific strategies, depending on individuals' regulatory focuses,
may be adopted to avoid work–family resource loss and achieve work–family resource gain. Such management of the work–family
interface may facilitate individuals' efforts to achieve their goals.

Hypothesis 4. Promotion focus moderates the relationship between work role engagement and work role resource gain. The
relationship is stronger for those who are high in promotion focus than for those who are low in promotion focus.

Hypothesis 5. Prevention focus moderates the relationship between work role engagement and work role resource loss. The
relationship is weaker for those who are high in prevention focus than for those who are low in prevention focus.

Method

Sample and procedures

Data were collected through survey administration to employees of firms located in a large-scale economic development zone in
northeastern China. The surveys were administered in Chinese. For established measures, Brislin's (1980) translation–back
translation procedure was followed to create the Chinese version. The self-developed measures were developed in English and then
translated–back translated. Bentler and Chou's (1987) 5:1 ratio of observations to parameters was followed to determine sample size.
Of the approximately 1500 surveys distributed, 1052 completed surveys were returned (70% response rate). The sample of
1052 participants consisted of individuals from 42 firms in 13 industries, including 36% professional, scientific, and technical
services, 17% manufacturing, 11% educational services, 10% finance and insurance, and 26% all other industries combined. Their
average age was 31 years, 50% were female, 49% were married, and 33% had children. With respect to education, 11% had a
graduate degree or above, 49% had a bachelor's degree, 32% had an associate's degree, and 8% had a high school diploma or less.
Participants were asked to respond to survey items based on their reflections on their work–family experiences during the
most recent year. The one-year time frame was based on Hobfoll and Lilly's (1993) measurement window of long-term resource
gain and loss. Unless otherwise noted, respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed with each item using a
five-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree).

Measures

Work role engagement

Rothbard's (2001) Work Engagement Survey was adapted to measure the attention and absorption employees experienced
during the past year. Our scale consisted of seven items; a sample item is “I concentrate a lot on my work.”

Work role resource gain and loss

The Conservation of Resources Evaluation (COR-E) (Hobfoll, Lilly, & Jackson, 1991) was incorporated with Greenhaus and
Powell's (2006) definition of work–family resources to develop the work role resource gain and loss scales, which include
 Z. Chen, G.N. Powell / Journal of Vocational Behavior 81 (2012) 89–98 93

subscales corresponding to five types of resources: skills, perspectives, psychological resources, social capital, and flexibility;
complete scales are available from the authors. The participants were asked to rate separately (1 = not at all or very little, 5 = a
great deal) the loss and gain pertaining to each type of work role resource that they experienced during the past year. Although
Greenhaus and Powell (2006) also identified physical and material resources, we focus on intangible (as opposed to tangible)
resources in this study.
The skills and perspectives subscales included five and four items, respectively, named in Greenhaus and Powell's (2006) research.
Sample items are “coping skills,” and “respect for individual differences,” respectively. To operationalize psychological resources,
corresponding COR-E scale items were identified to match items in Judge, Erez, Bono, and Thoresen's (2003) Core Self-Evaluation
Scale, yielding seven items. A sample item is “feeling competent at work.” For social capital, COR-E items were incorporated with
resources named in Greenhaus and Powell's (2006) research, yielding four items. A sample item is “influence over others at work.”
Hyland's (2000) two-item flexibility scale was adapted to measure flexibility, and a third item was added to reflect individuals'
discretion to determine the pace at which to perform work tasks (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006). A sample item is “the freedom to vary
my work schedule.”

Work-to-family enrichment
Hanson, Hammer, and Colton's (2006) and Wayne, Musisca, and Fleeson's (2004) scales were adapted in this study. Items in
many of the existing WFE scales measure both work resources and WFE. For example, in the item from the Hanson et al. (2006)
scale, “Being in a positive mood at work helps me to be in a positive mood at home,” the first part “being in a positive mood at
work” is a type of work role resource that should be empirically separated from “help me to be in a positive mood at home,” which
measures the affective component of WFE. For purposes of our study, it was necessary to distinguish between work role resource
gain and WFE in survey items. Caution was taken to ensure that the final WFE items did not include any work role resources. The
above item was revised to “My work experiences help me to be in a positive mood at home.” The measure consisted of nine items.

Work-to-family conflict
Carlson, Kacmar, and Williams (2000) nine-item scale was adapted as needed to distinguish between work role resource and
WFC. Further, two conflict items from the Carlson et al. (2000) scale were revised to measure “conflict” rather than “no enrichment.”
For example, the item “The problem-solving behaviors I use in my job are not effective in resolving problems at home,” which conveys
“no enrichment,” was revised to “The problem-solving behaviors I use in my work are detrimental when used to solve problems at
home” to convey “conflict.”

Regulatory focuses
We used Lockwood, Jordan, and Kunda's (2002) 18-item promotion/prevention scale to measure regulatory focuses. Employees
rated on a scale of 1–5 (1= not at all true of me, 5 = very true of me) the degree to which the promotion and prevention focus
statements described them. A sample promotion focus item is, “I frequently imagine how I will achieve my hopes and aspirations.” A
sample prevention focus item is, “In general, I am focused on preventing negative events in my life.”

Control variables
Gender was controlled because considerable research suggests that men and women have fundamentally different work–family
experiences (Barnett & Hyde, 2001). Because the individual's family situation may influence the work–family interface (Friedman &
Greenhaus, 2000), marital status (married/unmarried) and whether the participants had children were controlled. Because human
capital and life stage may have an impact on the work–family interface (Friedman & Greenhaus, 2000), education (measured as the
highest degree attained) and age were controlled.

Analysis

Structural equation modeling (SEM) analyses were performed using Amos to model the main effects. We also used Mplus, which
uses maximum likelihood estimation and is parsimonious for modeling latent variable interactions (Muthen & Muthen, 2006), to
model the regulatory focuses interaction effects. First, we conducted a series of confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) to examine the
convergence and discriminant validity for the measurements. Second, we tested the linear hypotheses. To test hypotheses of
mediation, we followed the four steps recommended by Baron and Kenny (1986). Lastly, we tested hypotheses of moderation.
To assess model fit, we examined CFI and RMSEA using thresholds recommended by Kenny (2010): CFI ≥ .90, acceptable fit,
CFI ≥ .95, excellent fit; RMSEA b .10, acceptable fit, RMSEA b .05, excellent fit. We also assessed χ 2 statistics to compare the fit of
nested models.
The potential for common method bias was assessed using Harman's single-factor test (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff,
2003). This test yielded a very poor fitting model (χ 2 = 22783.72, df = 2647; CFI = .41, RMSEA = .15), indicating that common
method bias did not result in one general factor accounting for the majority of the covariance among the measures.
Convergent validity was assessed and confirmed by conducting a series of CFAs in SEM for each latent variable (that is, work
engagement, work resource gain and loss, WFC and WFE, and prevention and promotion focuses). Work resource gain and loss are
second order latent variables with five first order latent indicators representing five different types of resources (skills, perspectives,
psychological resources, social capital, and flexibility). We evaluated each item's loading on the corresponding latent variable and
retained the items that had significant loadings and at the same time yielded adequate fit indices (CFI ≥ .90; RMSEA b .08). All latent
94 Z. Chen, G.N. Powell / Journal of Vocational Behavior 81 (2012) 89–98

first-order and second-order variables used in the final model demonstrated good fit (CFI ranging from .92 to .99, RMSEA ranging from
.01 to .05).
Item(s) were dropped as needed based on the above CFAs to achieve good fitting models. The latent variables used in the final
model include: work role engagement (α = .75), a four item scale yielding χ 2 = 5.57 (df = 2), with CFI = .99 and RMSEA = .01;
work role resource gain, a five latent indicator, second order variable including five items for skills (α = .86), four items for
perspectives (α = .75), seven items for psychological resources (α = .87), three items for social capital (α = .84), and three items
for flexibility (α = .88), yielding χ 2 = 1050.28 (df = 224), with CFI = .95 and RMSEA = .03; work role resource loss, a five latent
indictor, second order variable including five items for skills (α = .81), four items for perspectives (α = .72), seven items for
psychological resources (α = .79), three items for social capital (α = .76), and three items for flexibility (α = .78), yielding
χ 2 = 1005.45 (df = 224), with CFI = .92 and RMSEA = .04; work-to-family conflict (α = .75), a six item scale yielding χ 2 = 51.89
(df = 9), with CFI = .97 and RMSEA = .03; work-to-family enrichment (α = .81), a six item scale yielding χ 2 = 29.17 (df = 9), with
CFI = .99 and RMSEA = .02; promotion focus (α = .82), an eight item scale yielding χ 2 = 89.78 (df = 20), with CFI = .97 and
RMSEA = .03; and prevention focus (α = .67), a nine item scale yielding χ 2 = 17.52 (df = 22), with CFI = .93 and RMSEA = .06.
Discriminant validity of the five variables that measured individuals' work–family experiences (that is, engagement, gain, loss,
WFC, and WFE) was established by loading all indicators to a series of one to five factor models. The five-factor model
demonstrated superior fit compared to all other models (χ 2 = 4694.42, df = 1742; CFI = .90; RMSEA = .05). Since resource gain
and resource loss were second-order latent variables, the discriminant validity of their corresponding five first-order latent
variables was established and confirmed in a similar fashion. We further examined each pair of resource gain and resource loss
first order latent variables and compared the fit of a series of paired models. For each pair compared, the two-factor model
demonstrated significantly better fit. The discriminant validity between prevention and promotion focuses was established by
comparing a one- and a two-factor model. All final latent variables used in the model demonstrated acceptable validity.

Results

Table 1 contains correlations and descriptive statistics for all study variables. Fig. 2 presents the results of the linear model. The
fit statistics for the final linear model were CFI = .90 and RMSEA = .04, indicating good fit.
To specify correctly the paths of our structural model and test for Hypothesis 3, we conducted an overall CFA and examined the
correlations among our latent variables. Recall that we measured resource gain and loss using exactly the same scales, then asked
the participants to report separately the amount of gain and loss experienced. The use of the common scale format to measure
these two constructs might have become a significant source of common method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003). We followed the
single-method-factor approach to control for this particular bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003). The overall CFA demonstrated good fit
(CFI = .91; RMSEA = .04), and the correlation between work role resource gain and loss was .03 (ns), supporting Hypothesis 3.
Although we did not hypothesize a relationship between WFC and WFE, we also examined this relationship as we specified the
structural model. The correlation between these two variables was −.04 (ns), which was consistent with past research.
To test the hypotheses of mediation following Baron and Kenny's (1986) steps, we adopted James, Mulaik, and Brett's (2006)
suggestion to examine mediation effects using SEM, expressed as the following two equations:

M ¼ bmx X þ e ð1Þ

Y ¼ byx: mX þ bym: xM þ e: ð2Þ

Table 1
Means, standard deviations, and correlations.a

Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1. Sex 1.51 0.50 –

2. Age 30.61 8.12 − 0.02 –
3. Marital status 1.50 0.50 0.04 0.27 –
4. Child 1.66 0.47 − 0.03 − 0.65 − 0.27 –
5. Education 2.56 1.31 0.01 0.11 − 0.01 − 0.13 –
6. Work role engagement 3.44 0.70 0.01 0.06 − 0.02 0.00 − 0.08 –
7. Work role resource gain 2.91 0.83 0.01 − 0.04 − 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.33 –
8. Work role resource loss 1.85 0.59 − 0.08 0.00 0.00 − 0.06 0.21 − 0.34 − 0.15 –
9. Work-to-family enrichment 3.15 0.69 0.00 0.07 0.01 − 0.05 − 0.06 0.52 0.38 − 0.22 –
10. Work-to-family conflict 2.71 0.68 − 0.09 − 0.07 0.00 0.03 0.08 0.09 − 0.02 0.22 − 0.04 –
11. Promotion focus 3.29 0.62 0.01 − 0.15 − 0.06 0.14 − 0.05 0.45 0.29 − 0.20 0.40 0.16 –
12. Prevention focus 2.96 0.57 − 0.05 − 0.02 − 0.02 − 0.01 0.08 0.22 0.16 0.05 0.26 0.23 0.48
a
n = 1052, coding was as follows: sex: 1 = male, 2 = female; marital status: 1 = not married, 2 = married; child: 1 = yes, 2 = no; education: 1 = lower than
high school, 2 = high school, 3 = associate degree, 4 = undergraduate, 5 = graduate degree. Variables 6–14 were aggregated scores based on the items retained
after CFAs. Correlations with absolute value of .07 or greater are significant at the p b .05 level or better.
 Z. Chen, G.N. Powell / Journal of Vocational Behavior 81 (2012) 89–98 95

Results of hypothesized linear model a

Promotion Prevention
Focus Focus
.58**
.27** -.02 (ns)

2nd Order .26** Work-to-

Resource Family
Gain Enrichment
.24**
Work Role
Engagement
.03(ns)

-.37**
.29** Work-to-Family
2nd Order
Resource Conflict
Loss

.26**
a
Model fit: CFI=.90; RMSEA=.04. *p<.05, **p<.01. Resource Gain = Work Role Resource Gain; Resource Loss= Work Role
Resource Loss; both are second-order variables with five first-order latent indicators.

Fig. 2. Results of hypothesized linear model. Model fit: CFI = .90; RMSEA = .04. *p b .05, **p b .01. Resource gain = work role resource gain; resource loss = work
role resource loss; both are second-order variables with five first-order latent indicators.

Eq. (1) tests the direct effect from the exogenous variable (X) to the mediation variable (M). This is equivalent to Baron and
Kenny's (1986) test of step 2. The results of the structural model supported the direct effect between work role engagement and
work role resource gain (β = .24, p b .01). However, contrary to the hypothesized positive relationship between work role
engagement and work role resource loss, the relationship was significant but negative (β = −.37, p b .01). Nonetheless, we
proceeded to test the related mediation effects due to our having found a significant (although opposite) relationship between X
and M. These significant direct effects satisfied Baron and Kenny's (1986) step 1 requirement.
Eq. (2) tests that both X and M have direct and unique effects on the endogenous variable (Y). This is equivalent to Baron and
Kenny's (1986) steps 1 and 3. SEM results revealed that the direct effect of work engagement on WFE (β = .58, p b .01) and WFC
(β = .26, p b .01), as well as the direct effect of work role resource gain on WFE (β = .26, p b .01) and work role resource loss on
WFC (β = .29, p b .01), were significant, thereby satisfying steps 1 and 3.
To test Baron and Kenny's (1986) step 4, we conducted the Sobel test to test the significance of the indirect effects of work role
engagement on WFE and WFC via resource gain β = .07 (p b .01) and loss β = −.15 (p b .01) respectively. Note that the indirect effect
related to Hypothesis 2 was negative due to the direct effect from engagement to resource loss having been negative. As a result, all
four of Baron and Kenny's (1986) steps were satisfied, and we found support for Hypothesis 1 as a partial mediational relationship.
Hypothesis 2 was not supported, however, due to the negative relationship between work role engagement and resource loss.

Fig. 3. Moderating effect of promotion focus on relationship between work engagement and work role resource gain.
96 Z. Chen, G.N. Powell / Journal of Vocational Behavior 81 (2012) 89–98

Lastly, we tested the hypotheses of moderation. We introduced each interaction term to the corresponding linear path to
examine model improvement over the baseline model, where we restricted the interaction path. Adding the interaction between
promotion focus and work role engagement to the equation predicting work role resource gain yielded a significant model
improvement (Δχ 2 = 15.77, Δdf = 1, p b .01, β = .27, p b .01). This interaction is plotted in Fig. 3, which indicates that the
relationship between work engagement and resource gain was more positive for high-promotion-focus individuals than for
low-promotion-focus individuals. Thus, Hypothesis 4 was supported. However, adding the interaction between prevention
focus and work engagement to the equation predicting work role resource failed to improve the fit of the model (Δχ 2 = 15.77,
Δdf = 1, p b .01, β = .00, ns). Thus, Hypothesis 5 was not supported.

Discussion

The title of the article asks whether individuals' engagement in work–family roles is a “no pain, no gain” process. The results of
the study answer “no” to this question. While the common phrase “no pain, no gain” suggests that gain and loss are positively
related, we found that “gain” and “loss” are rather independent constructs. Further, the mediational analyses suggest that work role
resource gain and loss separately mediate the paths from work role engagement to WFE and from work role engagement to WFC.
Taken together, our findings address the paradox that suggests that role engagement leads to both more and less work–family
resources and support our central argument that resource gain and loss are independent mediators that separately account for the
linkages of role engagement to WFE and WFC.
Although our central argument was supported, Hypothesis 2, which proposed that resource loss would positively mediate the
relationship between work role engagement and WFC, was not. Contrary to what we hypothesized for the first step of the positive
mediation—that work role engagement is positively related to resource loss—we found a negative relationship. This is an example
of an “inconsistent mediation” (MacKinnon, Fairchild, & Fritz, 2007) in which resource loss acts as a suppressor variable between
the positive relationship of work engagement and WFC. Inconsistent mediation occurs when one mediated effect has a different
sign than another. McFatter (1979) provided an example of workers making widgets to illustrate inconsistent mediation, where
the suppressor “boredom” mediates the relationship between “workers' intelligence” and “widget production.” While intelligent
workers may produce more widgets, this positive relationship may be reduced because intelligent workers tend to get bored.
Similarly, our results suggest that a stronger positive relationship between work engagement and WFC is suppressed to a weaker
positive relationship due to the suppressor “resource loss.”
The reason work role engagement and resource loss are negatively related may be the fact that when individuals are at their best
and feeling authentic, they are less likely to feel resource loss associated with their cognitive and emotional efforts. Role engagement
reflects an expression of one's preferred self, and it entails a sense of flow (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997) and playfulness (Kahn, 1990).
Csikszentmihalyi (1997) studied climbers, artists, and doctors who are highly engaged in their jobs. For these individuals, the long
hours engaged in role performance may seem short when they feel inspired and challenged. High levels of loss of psychological and
social resources may be unimportant to them because they are experiencing a heightened sense of self that was undreamed of before.
On the other hand, a low level of role engagement reflects an effortless, detached, and impersonal self (Kahn, 1990), which may
generate negative effects such as boredom, sluggishness, and depression leading to increased resource loss.
Regarding the moderation relationships, we found evidence that promotion focus interacts with role engagement and has an
impact on resource gain. Those who are promotion-focused indeed experience a stronger relationship between their work
engagement and resource gain. The failure to demonstrate how prevention focus affects the relationship between work role
engagement and resource loss may be due to the hypothesized main effect (that is, work role engagement increases work-to-family
resource loss) having been found to be in the reverse direction. Thus, the mechanisms of the interaction effect may be different from
what we suggested in the argument for prevention focus as a moderator.

Implications for theory and research

The current study attempts to reconcile theory and research on WFE and WFC—the positive and negative sides of the work–family
interface respectively—by introducing two key mediators, work role resource gain and loss. Through a COR and regulatory focus
theory perspective, we attained a better understanding of why “gain” and “loss” are independent constructs both theoretically and
empirically. Current findings suggest that resource gain and loss separately and partially mediate the relationship between role
engagement and WFE and WFC respectively. Not only were separate mediation paths found to exist, but work role resource gain and
loss and WFE and WFC were also found to be unrelated. These results support the notion that the paths leading from work role
engagement to WFE and WFC are independent. Overall, the findings of the current study offer an explanation for the paradox in the
work–family literature that suggests that role experiences both deplete and generate resources simultaneously.
The proposed resource-based model contributes to theory on the work–family interface in several respects. First, it extends the
Greenhaus and Powell (2006) work–family enrichment model by identifying role engagement as an antecedent to resource
generation, the starting point of their model. Second, it incorporates work-to-family conflict and enrichment into the same theoretical
model by proposing that they represent dual outcomes of role engagement. Third, it builds on Rothbard's (2001) model, which
suggests that role engagement can simultaneously lead to positive and negative affect, and it incorporates other types of resources in
addition to the emotional resources examined by Rothbard (2001).
The current study also contributes to the empirical progression of work–family research. First, most existing work–family
research is based on the U.S./Western context and conducted using U.S./Western samples. The need to study work–family issues
 Z. Chen, G.N. Powell / Journal of Vocational Behavior 81 (2012) 89–98 97

in different populations has been suggested by several researchers (e.g., Powell, Francesco, & Ling, 2009). The current study
answers the call for such research by examining survey responses of Chinese workers. Second, we developed new measures and
improved existing scales for future studies. Specifically, we integrated the Greenhaus and Powell (2006) theory with Hobfoll et
al.'s (1991) COR-E and developed and validated the work role resource gain and loss scale. We further made improvements to
existing measures of WFE and WFC to separate out the work role resource components. The WFE and WFC scales used in the
current study eliminate the contaminating effects of work role resources, thus providing more precise measures of the constructs
of interest.
We recommend that further attention be devoted to how regulatory focus theory may contribute to understanding of the
work–family interface. Promotion focus and prevention focus may vary across individuals as well as across situations (Higgins,
1996). In this study, we examined these two types of regulatory focus as individual difference variables. Future research should
examine the impact of the situational variability of regulatory focus on the degree to which employees experience work role resource
gain and loss. For example, organizations and leaders may influence employees' self-regulation focus by directing employees'
attention to different types of behavioral standards through behavioral role modeling, the use of language and symbols, or incentive
systems (Brockner & Higgins, 2001). We expect that both the regulatory focus orientation of an organizational policy and the
regulatory focuses of the organization's leader play important roles in terms of work role resource gain and loss.
We also recommend that cultural moderators of the basic linkages in our model be explored. National culture may influence
the proposed mechanisms involving regulatory focus pertaining to the work–family interface (Powell et al., 2009). It is suggested
that people who hold security, tradition, and conformity values tend to have a prevention focus (Kirk & Van Dijk, 2007). Cultures
characterized by high power distance (conformance to authority) and traditionality (adherence to traditional values) may
influence their members' work–family interface through a mechanism similar to a prevention regulatory focus.

Limitations

The current study has several limitations that should be acknowledged. First, because most of its variables were measured
from the same source, common method variance is a threat to the study's validity. However, Harman's one-factor test (Podsakoff
et al., 2003) suggested that a common factor did not account for the majority of variance. Second, in terms of research design, the
mediation relationship should be considered through a temporal lens. Data should ideally be collected at different time points to
capture the mediation relationships in the model.
Third, we assessed only intangible work role resources and not tangible resources that might have influenced the relationships
examined. In addition, an important personal resource—time—was not included in the current study. Future research is needed to
expand on the current study by including additional types of resources. Lastly, while the original Lockwood et al. (2002) prevention
focus scale used in our study has a Cronbach's alpha value of .75, the value for our prevention focus scale (α= .67) was slightly below
recommended levels. This suggests that our attempt to measure regulatory focuses in the Chinese context needs improvement. Low
reliability in the prevention focus scale may have also contributed the failure to detect the interaction effect suggested in Hypothesis 5.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this research suggests that work role resource gain and loss are not at the opposite ends of a continuum but are
essentially independent constructs that separately mediate the relationships between work role engagement and work-to-family
enrichment and conflict respectively. Further theory and research that help to reconcile the largely disconnected research streams
in the work–family literature on enrichment and conflict is recommended.

References

Barnett, R. C., & Hyde, J. S. (2001). Women, men, work, and family: An expansionist theory. American Psychologist, 56, 781–796.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical
considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.
Bentler, P. M., & Chou, C. (1987). Practical issues in structural modeling. Sociological Methods and Research, 16, 78–117.
Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translations and content analysis of oral and written materials. In H. C. Triandis, & W. W. Lambert (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural
psychology, vol. 2. (pp. 349–444)Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Brockner, J., & Higgins, E. T. (2001). Regulatory focus theory: Implications for the study of emotions at work. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
86, 35–36.
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.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1998). On the self-regulation of behavior. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Cordes, C. L., & Dougherty, T. W. (1993). A review and an integration of research on job burnout. Academy of Management Review, 18, 621–656.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Finding flow: The psychology of engagement with everyday life. New York: Basicbooks.
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.
Friedman, S., & Greenhaus, J. (2000). Allies or enemies? What happens when business professionals confront life choices. New York: Oxford University Press.
Goode, W. J. (1960). A theory of role strain. American Sociological Review, 25, 483–496.
Graves, L. M., Ohlott, P. J., & Ruderman, M. N. (2007). Commitment to family roles: Effects on managers' attitudes and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,
92, 44–56.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles. The Academy of Management Review, 10, 76–88.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Powell, G. N. (2006). When work and family are allies: A theory of work–family enrichment. Academy of Management Review, 31, 72–92.
98 Z. Chen, G.N. Powell / Journal of Vocational Behavior 81 (2012) 89–98

Hanson, G. C., Hammer, L. B., & Colton, C. L. (2006). Development and validation of a multidimensional scale of perceived work–family positive spillover. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 11, 249–265.
Higgins, E. T. (1996). Knowledge activation: Accessibility, applicability, and salience. In E. T. Higgins, & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic
principles (pp. 133–168). New York: Guilford.
Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52, 1280–1300.
Higgins, E. T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, vol.
30. (pp. 1–46)New York: Academic Press.
Higgins, E. T., Roney, C., Crowe, E., & Hymes, C. (1994). Ideal versus ought predilections for approach and avoidance: Distinct self-regulatory systems. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 276–286.
Higgins, E. T., Shah, J., & Friedman, R. (1997). Emotional responses to goal attainment: Strength of regulatory focus as moderator. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 72, 515–525.
Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44, 513–524.
Hobfoll, S. E., & Lilly, R. S. (1993). Resource conservation as a strategy for community psychology. Journal of Community Psychology, 21, 128–148.
Hobfoll, S. E., Lilly, R. S., & Jackson, A. P. (1991). Conservation of social resources and the self. In H. O. F. Veiel, & U. Baumann (Eds.), The meaning and measurement
of social support (pp. 125–142). Washington, D.C.: Hemisphere.
Hobfoll, S. E., & Shirom, A. (2000). Conservation of resources theory: Applications to stress and management in the workplace. In R. T. Golembiewski (Ed.),
Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 57–81). New York, NY: Dekker.
Hyland, M. M. (2000). Flexibility in work arrangements: How availability, preferences and use affect business outcomes. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of
the Academy of Management, Toronto, ON.
James, L. R., Mulaik, S. A., & Brett, J. M. (2006). A tale of two methods. Organizational Research Methods, 9, 233–244.
Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E., & Thoresen, C. J. (2003). The Core Self-Evaluations Scale: Development of a measure. Personnel Psychology, 56, 303–331.
Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Review, 19, 17–50.
Kahn, W. A. (1992). To be fully there: Psychological presence at work. Human Relations, 45, 321–349.
Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P., Snoek, J. D., & Rosenthal, R. A. (1964). Organizational stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. New York: Wiley.
Kenny, D. A. (2010). Welcome to David A. Kenny's home page. Retrieved December 20, 2010, from. http://davidakenny.net/kenny.htm
Kirk, D., & Van Dijk, D. (2007). Motivation to lead, motivation to follow: The role of self-regulatory focus in leadership processes. Academy of Management Review,
32, 500–528.
Lanaj, K., Chang, C.-H. D., & Johnson, R. E. (in press). Regulatory focus and work-related outcomes: A review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin. Advance
online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0027723.
Lockwood, P., Jordan, C. H., & Kunda, Z. (2002). Motivation by positive and negative role models: Regulatory focus determines who will best inspire us. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 854–864.
MacKinnon, D. P., Fairchild, A. J., & Fritz, M. S. (2007). Mediation analysis. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 593–614.
Marks, S. R. (1977). Multiple roles and role strain: Some notes on human energy, time and commitment. American Sociological Review, 42, 921–936.
McFatter, R. M. (1979). The use of structural equation models in interpreting regression equations including suppressor and enhancer variables. Applied
Psychological Measurement, 3, 123–135.
McNall, L. A., Nicklin, J. M., & Masuda, A. D. (2010). A meta-analytic review of the consequences associated with work–family enrichment. Journal of Business and
Psychology, 25, 381–396.
Michel, J. S., Mitchelson, J., Kotrba, L., LeBreton, J. M., & Baltes, B. B. (2009). A comparative test of work–family conflict models and critical examination of work–family
linkages. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74, 199–218.
Muthen, L. K., & Muthen, B. O. (2006). Mplus user's guide (4th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthen & Muthen.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and
recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.
Powell, G. N., Francesco, A. M., & Ling, Y. (2009). Toward culture-sensitive theories of the work–family interface. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 597–616.
Powell, G. N., & Greenhaus, J. H. (2006). Is the opposite of positive negative? Untangling the complex relationship between work–family enrichment and conflict.
Career Development International, 11, 650–659.
Rothbard, N. P. (2001). Enriching or depleting? The dynamics of engagement in work and family. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 655–684.
Ruderman, M. N., Ohlott, P. J., Panzer, K., & King, S. N. (2002). Benefits of multiple roles for managerial women. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 369–386.
Wayne, J. H., Musisca, N., & Fleeson, W. (2004). Considering the role of personality in the work–family experience: Relationships of the big five to work–family
conflict and facilitation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64, 108–130.