A Meta-Analytic Review of the Consequences Associated with Work-Family Enrichment

Author(s): Laurel A. McNall, Jessica M. Nicklin and Aline D. Masuda

Source: Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 25, No. 3 (September 2010), pp. 381-396
Published by: Springer
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40682660 .
Accessed: 17/03/2014 09:18

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Business and
Psychology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 193.54.110.35 on Mon, 17 Mar 2014 09:18:29 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
J Bus Psychol(2010) 25:381-396
DOI 10.1007/S10869-009-9141-1

A Meta-AnalyticReviewof the ConsequencesAssociated

withWork-FamilyEnrichment
Laurel A. McNall *JessicaM . Nicklin*
AlineD. Masuda

Publishedonline: 10 October2009
© SpringerScience+BusinessMedia, LLC 2009

Abstract variablesincludingtheproportion of womenin thesample

Purpose This the
studyinvestigated relationship between as well as theconstruct label (e.g.,enrichment, facilitation,
work-to-family enrichment(WFE) and family-to-work positivespillover).
enrichment (FWE) withwork-related, non work-related, Implications Our workindicatesthatorganizations need
and health-related consequencesusingmeta-analysis. to considerways to not only reduce conflict,but also
Design/methodology/approach We conducteda meta- increaseenrichment, which will drive many important
analytic review of 21 studies (54 correlations) for WFE and outcome variables.
25 studies(57 correlations) forFWE. Originality/value This is the firstmeta-analysis on the
Findings We found thatboth WFE and FWE were pos- positive side of the work-family interface.
itivelyrelatedto job satisfaction, affectivecommitment,
and familysatisfaction but not turnover intentions. WFE Keywords Work-family balance •
was more stronglyrelated to work-relatedvariables, Work-family •
enrichmentWork-family facilitation•
whereasFWE was more stronglyrelatedto non work- Positivespillover Work-family • enhancement
relatedvariables.We also foundthatbothWFE and FWE
were positivelyrelatedto physicaland mentalhealth.
Additionally, relationshipsappeartodependon moderating As thenumberof women,dual-earner couples,and single
parentsin theworkforce increases(e.g., Bond et al. 2002)
and more individualsassume elder care responsibilities
(Society for Human ResourceManagement2003), it is
clearthatmanyemployeesare facedwiththechallengeof
This paper was presentedat the Society forIndustrialand managingworkandfamilyroles.Work-family balancehas
OrganizationalPsychologyAnnualConferencein New Orleans,LA. important for
implications individuals,organizations, and
and a
society, consequently,growingbody of research has
L. A. McNall {M)
exploredtheintersection of workand familydomains.In
Departmentof Psychology,The College at Brockport,State thepast,researchon thework-family interfacehas focused
Universityof New York, 350 New Campus Drive, Brockport,
NY 14420, USA on thenegativeconnections betweenworkand familylife
e-mail: lmcnall@brockport.edu (e.g., work-family conflict,Greenhausand Parasuraman
1999), largelyignoringthepositiveconnections. A wide
J. M. Nicklin
body of evidence from several meta-analyses indicates that
Departmentof Psychology,Universityof Hartford, 200
BloomfieldAvenue,West Hartford, CT 061 17, USA high levels of work-family conflicthave negative conse-
e-mail: nicklin@hartford.edu quences includinglowerjob and life satisfaction, higher
turnoverintentions, greatergeneralpsychologicalstrain,
A. D. Masuda
of People Management,Escuela de Alta Dirección y greatersomatic/physical symptoms, higherdepression, and
Department
Administración (EADA), Barcelona, Spain greater burnout (Allen et al. 2000; Byron 2005; Ford et al.
e-mail: amasuda@eada.edu 2007; Kossekand Ozeki 1998).

ß Springer

This content downloaded from 193.54.110.35 on Mon, 17 Mar 2014 09:18:29 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
382 J Bus Psychol(2010) 25:381-396

Severalresearchers, however,have called fora more founddifferent results(see Wayneet al. 2004, 2006). In
balancedapproachto thework-family interface by exam- thiscase, consequencesof enrichment have been foundto
ining the benefits of multiple role memberships (Frone reside in the originating role domain. Giventhisdiscrep-
2003; Parasuraman and Greenhaus2002). Consequently, ancy,it is important to betterunderstand ifeach direction
researchers have exploredthepositivesynergiesbetween of enrichment is associatedwithspecificoutcomes.It is
work and familyunder a varietyof different labels plausiblethatresultsfromthework-family conflictlitera-
(Greenhaus and Powell2006; Grzywaczand Butler2005), ture may not necessarilygeneralize to work-family
including enrichment, positivespillover, enhancement, and enrichment.
facilitation. We adopt Greenhausand Powell's (2006) In summary, theaim ofthepresentstudyis to providea
definition of "work-family enrichment", "the extentto quantitative reviewof therelationship betweenbothWFE
whichexperiences in one roleimprovesthequalityof life and FWE and a varietyof consequencesusingGreenhaus
in theotherrole" (Greenhausand Powell 2006, p. 73), as andPowell's(2006) modelofwork-family enrichment. We
our global construct because it offersthe broadestcon- arguethatsocial exchangetheory(Blau 1964) can be used
ceptualizationof the positiveside of the work-family to explainwhyenrichment is relatedto work-related and
interface at theindividuallevelof analysis.Greenhausand nonwork-related outcomes.Thatis, whenemployeesper-
Powellreviewed19 studiesthatmeasuredthepositiveside ceive thattheirorganizations are helpingthemintegrate
of the work-familyinterfaceand found that "most workand familyroles,theywill perceivetheirorganiza-
researchers usedtermsotherthanenrichment to denotethe tionsas moresupportive andconsequently feelobligatedto
concept," but all items were consistent with work-family reciprocate with favorable attitudes toward thejob and the
enrichment "because theyassess the positiveeffectof organization.Moreover,we argue thatconservations of
experiencesin one role on experiencesor outcomes in resources (COR) theory (Hobfoll2002), which suggests that
anotherrole" (p. 74). Otherresearchers have also noted peoplewithresourcesare less likelyto encounter stressful
how constructs such as positivespilloverand facilitation circumstances thatnegatively influence bothphysicaland
canbe categorized underwork-family enrichment (Carlson psychological well-being, can helpexplaintherelationship
et al. 2006; Hansonet al. 2006); thus,enrichment appears between enrichment and health-related consequences.
to be themostinclusiveconstruct. Overall, this not
paper only contributes to theextantliter-
Enrichment is recognizedas distinct fromwork-family atureby synthesizing the growingbody of researchon
conflict(Frone2003). However,similarto work-family work-family enrichment butalso further contributes to the
conflict,enrichment is bidirectional innature(Frone2003). development ofa comprehensive theoryofthework-family
Thatis, benefits can be derivedfromworkand appliedto interfaceby drawingupon a model of work-family
family[(i.e.,work-to-family enrichment (WFE)] orderived enrichment (Greenhausand Powell2006), social exchange
fromfamilyand applied to work [(i.e., family-to-work theory(Blau 1964),and COR theory(Hobfoll2002).
enrichment (FWE)]. Investigators have soughtto better
understand the relationship betweenboth directionsof
work-family enrichment and a varietyof important out- A TheoreticalFrameworkforWork-Family
comessuchas job satisfaction (e.g.,Aryeeet al. 2005),and Enrichment
familyand life satisfaction (e.g., van Steenbergen et al.
2007), butto date,no systematic reviewof the literature In thepast,one majorbarrier forwork-family researchhas
exists.Thisis problematic given that researchers are trying been the lack of an overarching and integrating theoretical
to develop a morecomprehensive understanding of the framework (Eby et al. 2005); however, Greenhaus and
work-familyinterface, which is incomplete without Powell a
(2006) recentlyprovided comprehensive theo-
including thepositiveside. reticalframework of work-family enrichment based on
Furthermore, yetit is not clear whether certain findings work by earlier theorists (Barnett Hyde 2001; Marks
and
fromthework-family conflictliterature can be appliedto 1977;Sieber1974).Forexample,Sieber's(1974) theory of
work-family enrichment. For example,drawingon the roleaccumulation is used to explainwhyindividualsmay
notionof domainspecificity (Froneet al. 1992), thereis choosetoparticipate inmultiple roles.According toSieber,
evidencethattheconsequencesof work-to-family conflict people earn various rewardsby partakingin multiple
stemfromthe familydomainwhereasconsequencesof domains,suchas (1) greater roleprivileges, (2) lowerstrain
family-to-work conflict stem from the work domain. In in one role due to a buffering effect of other roles,(3)
fact, a recent meta-analysis shows that work-to-family greater status enhancement, and (4) personality enrichment
conflictpredictsfamilysatisfaction whilefamily-to-work (e.g., greaterflexibility, moretoleranceof discrepancies).
conflict predicts job satisfaction (Fordet al. 2007). How- Moreover,Marks' (1977) expansionistapproachargued
ever,resultsfromwork-family enrichment studieshave thatsomerolesmayproducea positiveeffect intheformof

4DSpringer

This content downloaded from 193.54.110.35 on Mon, 17 Mar 2014 09:18:29 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
J Bus Psychol(2010) 25:381-396 383

increasedenergyforanother role.Thishappensthrough the Work-RelatedOutcomes

generation of resources,whichhelp people managework
and familydemandsmoresuccessfully. Buildingon these Enrichment maybe relatedto a numberofimportant work-
findings, Greenhaus and Powell focused on how one role relatedoutcomes,including job satisfaction (i.e., degreeof
the
improves quality of lifein another role ratherthanthepleasure derived from the job) and affective commitment
moregeneraladditiveand buffering effectsof rolepartic-
(i.e.,emotionalattachment totheorganization). Drawingon
ipation.Theirmodeladds to earlierworkby (1) expanding Greenhausand Powell's (2006) affective path,if a parent
on thenumberof resourcesthatare generatedin one role perceivesresourcesstemming fromhis or herfamilyrole
butwhichlead to benefitsin a secondrole,and (2) pro- (e.g.,bettertimemanagement skillsas a resultofparenting),
posingthatwork-family enrichment occursvia twopaths, he orsheis likelytobe a better parent, whichinturncreates
an instrumental path and an affectivepath. morepositiveemotionsat home,and thistransfers to more
In Greenhausand Powell's (2006) model,role experi- positive emotions at work (i.e., FWE). Conversely, resour-
ences offerfive categoriesof resourcesthat may be ces acquiredat work(e.g.,self-esteem) mayresultin better
acquired. These include skills and perspectives(e.g., performance at work,whichhas theeffectofcreating more
interpersonal skills,coping skills, respectingindividual positiveaffectat work,ultimatelytransferring to more
differences), psychologicaland physicalresources(e.g., positiveaffectin thefamilydomain(i.e., WFE). Thus,in
self-efficacy,hardiness,optimism),social-capitalresour- bothcases, individualsare experiencing positiveemotions
ces (e.g.,networking, information),flexibility(e.g., flexible
abouttheirwork,whichbyextensionshouldlead to higher
workarrangements), and materialresources(e.g., money, job satisfaction and affectivecommitment.
gifts).Theseresources enableimproved performance in theSocial exchangetheory(Blau 1964) can be used to
otherrole eitherdirectly(i.e., instrumental path)or indi-
explain these relationships. Social exchangetheoryhas
rectly(i.e.,theaffective path).Forexample,ifan employee been appliedto theemployer-employee relationship, such
gains multitasking skills fromhis or her parenting thatwhenfavorabletreatment
role, is perceivedby one party,
theseskillsmay directlyimprovehis or herjob perfor- the otherreciprocates, leadingto favorableoutcomesfor
mance. In otherwords,the resourcesgeneratedin one both(RhoadesandEisenberger 2002). Applyingthisto the
domaincan have a directinstrumental effecton perfor-work-family interface,when employeesperceivethattheir
mancein anotherdomain.It could also be the case that organizations are helpingthemmanageworkand family
resourcesoperatemoreindirectly at producing enrichment
roles,theyare likelyto feelsupported and caredforbythe
via positiveaffect(Greenhausand Powell 2006). That is, organization (Aryeeet al. 2005; Rhoadesand Eisenberger
experiencesgainedat home may producepositiveaffect 2002). In responseto this,employeesfeel obligatedto
towardone's familyrolein theformof enthusiasm, alert-
reciprocatetowardthe organization in the formof more
ness,and higherenergy.In turn,thispositiveaffectfrom favorableattitudesdue to the normof reciprocity. This
the familyrole may producemorepositiveaffectin the normobliges individualsto returnfavorabletreatment,
work role. Hence, Greenhausand Powell's theoretical such as responding withmorepositivefeelingsaboutthe
modelhelpsexplaindriversof enrichment, whichprovides job and theorganization (Aryeeet al. 2005; Wayneet al.
an initialunderstanding of how the enrichment 2006). Thus, drawingon both Greenhausand Powell's
process
works.Below we explorehowenrichment, in turn,maybe modelas well as social exchangetheory,we predictthat
relatedto a varietyof important outcomes. bothWFE and FWE will be positivelyrelatedto job sat-
isfaction(Hypothesesla and lb) and affectivecommit-
ment(Hypotheses 2a and 2b).
of
Consequences Work-Family Enrichment Another frequently studiedwork-related outcomeof
enrichment is turnover intentions (i.e., thoughts of leaving
Researchershave proposeda numberof different conse- the company);however,thisrelationship has resultedin
quencesof WFE and FWE. Using a typologysimilarto somewhatmixedfindings in theempiricalliterature (e.g.,
Allenet al. (2000), outcomescan be organizedintothree Balmforth and Gardner2006; Gordonet al. 2007). Based
(2) nonwork-related,
categories:(1) work-related, and (3) on Greenhausand Powell's theoreticalframework, if
health-related.Work-related variablesconsiderthe effect enrichment occurs,it is likelythatemployeeswill experi-
of enrichment on job and workplacefactors(i.e., job sat- ence more positive affecttoward work, regardlessof
affective
isfaction, commitment, turnover intentions). Non whetherit is WFE or FWE. Additionally, followingthe
work-related variablesconsidertheeffectofenrichment on logic that individuals who experienceenrichment will
familyand othernon-workfactors,such as familysatis- reciprocate withnotonlymorepositivefeelings,butalso
faction and life satisfaction.Health-relatedoutcomes behaviorsdue to social exchangetheory(Wayne et al.
includebothphysicaland mentalhealth. 2006), we expect thattheywill be less likelyto report

Ö Springer

This content downloaded from 193.54.110.35 on Mon, 17 Mar 2014 09:18:29 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
384 J Bus Psychol(2010) 25:381-396

intentions to leave theirorganizations. Thus, we predict increasesin familyand lifesatisfaction in general.Thus,

thatbothWFE and FWE will be negativelyrelatedto we predictthatbased on Greenhausand Powell's model
turnover intentions {Hypotheses 3a and 3b). and social exchangetheorythatbothWFE and FWE will
Eventhough bothdirectionsofenrichment maybe related be positivelyrelatedto bothfamilysatisfaction {Hypothe-
to workoutcomes,thequestionremainswhether one direc- ses 5a and 5b) andlifesatisfaction
{Hypotheses 6a and 6b).
tionofenrichment is morestrongly relatedto work-related As with the work-related outcomes,the questionof
outcomesthantheother.As mentioned in
earlier,findings whetherone directionof enrichment is more strongly
thework-family conflict
literaturehaveshownthatjob sat- associatedwithnon work-related outcomesalso remains
isfactionis explainedby familydomain-specific variables, unresolved.Wayne et al. (2004) foundthatFWE was
whereasfamilysatisfaction is explainedby workdomain- positivelyrelatedto familysatisfaction butnotto job sat-
specificvariables(Fordet al. 2007; Froneet al. 1997). If isfaction,which as mentionedabove, runs contraryto
enrichment operatessimilarlytoconflict, one wouldpredict findings in thework-family conflictliterature(Fordet al.
thatWFE is morecloselytiedwithfamily outcomes, whereas 2007). Yet, socialexchangetheory would predictthatFWE
FWE is morecloselyrelatedto workoutcomes. shouldbe linkedmorestrongly to non work-related out-
However,as mentionedearlier,work-family conflict comes since familyis the domainseen as providingthe
and enrichment are recognizedas distinct,independent benefit.Hence,we expectFWE to be morestrongly related
constructs (Frone2003) and as such,mayoperatediffer- to nonwork-related outcomesthanWFE {Hypothesis 7).
ently.Accordingto the definition of enrichment, when
involvement in one role (i.e., sendingrole) frequently
enrichestheotherrole (i.e., receivingrole),affectshould Health-RelatedOutcomes
improvein thatsecondreceivingrolevia theimprovement
in affectin thesendingor originating role(Greenhausand Researchhas suggestedthatparticipation in multipleroles
Powell 2006). Wayneet al. (2004) foundthatWFE was can bufferthe negativeeffectsof one role on the other
positivelyrelatedtojob satisfaction butnotto familysat- (e.g., Sieber 1974). Moreover,enrichment can generate
isfaction.Wayneet al. (2006) also foundthatWFE was resourcesthatmay be essentialfor coping withstress-
more stronglyrelatedto positivework attitudes(e.g., relatedvariables(Greenhausand Powell 2006). Similarly,
affectivecommitment). Accordingto social exchange accordingto conservationof resources(COR) theory
theory,if theworkdomainis seen as providingaffectto (Hobfoll2002), people withresourcesare less likelyto
helpa personin thefamilydomain,thentheemployeeis encounter stressful
circumstancesthatnegatively influence
likelyto reciprocate toward"thedomainseenas providing bothphysicalandpsychological well-being. Whentheydo
thebenefit (e.g.,work)"(Wayneet al. 2006,p. 450) rather encounterstress,individualswith greaterresourcesare
thanthe receivingrole domain(e.g., family).Thus, we morecapable of solvingproblemsand less likelyto be
expectWFE to be morestrongly relatedto work-related affectedby the drain of resourcesthat occurs during
outcomesthanFWE {Hypothesis 4). stressfulsituations(Hobfoll 2002). In supportof this
notion,Williamset al. (2006) foundthatgreaterenrich-
mentwas relatedto betterphysicalhealth,perhapsbecause
Non Work-RelatedOutcomes theseindividualshave a "solid resourcereservoir"(Hob-
foll 2002, p. 318) thatmakes thembetterequippedto
Severalempiricalstudieshave demonstrated thatenrich- handlestress,whichleads to greaterwell-being. Thus,on
menthas positiveeffectson one's lifeoutsideof workas the basis of both Greenhausand Powell's work-family
well as theaforementioned benefitsin theworkdomain. enrichment modelas well as COR theory, we predictthat
Involvement withfamilydomainactivities has beenlinked bothWFE and FWE will be positivelyrelatedto better
togreater (Judgeet al. 1994).Thus,itis not physicaland mentalhealth{Hypotheses
lifesatisfaction 8a and 8b). Since
surprising thatenrichment has beenrelatedto bothfamily bothphysicaland mentalhealthencompassbothworkand
and life satisfaction(e.g., van Steenbergen et al. 2007). familylife, no hypothesesare offeredregardingwhich
Accordingto Greenhausand Powell (2006), familypar- direction of enrichmentshouldyieldgreaterhealth.
is to a
ticipation likely generate variety of resources,as
explainedabove with work participation. For instance,
coping skills in a
generated family role should strengthen Moderatorsof Work-FamilyEnrichment
one's performance andpositiveaffectat home,and in turn
improveone's positiveaffectat work. It followsthat Finally,we considered possiblemoderator variablestogain
greaterpositivefeelingsand emotionsabouta familyrole a more thoroughunderstanding of the consequencesof
shouldsubsequently resultin reciprocationin theformof WFE and FWE and thestrength of suchrelationships.

£} Springer

This content downloaded from 193.54.110.35 on Mon, 17 Mar 2014 09:18:29 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
J Bus Psychol(2010) 25:381-396 385

Sex Method

The relationshipbetweenenrichment and outcomesmay Sampleof Studies

differdependingon sex. Accordingto Eagly's (1987)
social role theory,genderdifferencesare a functionof To findstudiesappropriate forinclusion,we first
searched
divergentsocialrolesandsocietal
expectationsformenand databases such as PsycINFO, ERIC, Business Source
women.As a resultof genderrole socialization,thereis Complete, EBSCO, JSTOR,EconLit,Dissertation Abstracts
evidenceto suggestthatmenand womenmayview their International,and Google Scholar for studiesrelatedto
workandfamilyrolesdifferently. Forexample,womenare enrichment. Search termsincluded:work-family enrich-
morelikelytointegrate workandfamilyroleswhereasmen ment,work-family facilitation,work-family enhancement,
are morelikelyto segment,or mentallyseparate,these positivespillover,work-family balance,work-family gains,
roles(Andrewsand Bailyn 1993). Womenmay be more work-family fit.We contactedthe mostfrequently cited
likelyto adoptthisintegrativemodelin orderto balance researchers in thisarea forunpublished papers.Moreover,
workand familydemands.Even thoughgenderroleshave we conducteda manual search of referencescited in
shifted,womencontinueto spendmoretimeon household Greenhausand Powell's (2006) reviewof theenrichment
activitiesand childcare,and make more adjustments to literature.
In aneffort toincorporate studiesthatwerenotyet
theirworkschedulesthanmen(Friedmanand Greenhaus acceptedforpublication, we puta "call forpapers"on the
2000). Moreover,Wayneet al.'s (2007) modelof work- Sloan Work-Family ResearchNetworkwebsiteand the
notesthatmenandwomenuse resources
familyfacilitation Societyfor IndustrialOrganizational Psychologists'(SIOP)
differently,and this may also be a productof gender website.Lastly,we performed a manualsearchoftheSIOP
socialization.For example, it may be more socially annualconferenceprogramsfrom1995 to 2008 and the
acceptableforwomento takeadvantageof flexiblework AcademyofManagement (AOM) Proceedings archivefrom
options;thus,enrichmentmayhavea differentialimpacton 1954to 2006 to locateconference papers.
variousoutcomesdependingon sex. Therefore, sex is an
important variableforconsideration. CriteriaforInclusion

Construct
Label Over 120 studieswereidentified and evaluatedforinclu-
sion. We excludednon-empirical articles,studiesthatdid
As mentioned severallabelshavebeenused to not includeat least one of the variablesof interest,
previously, and
describethebenefitsof participating in workand family studiesthatdidnotprovidecorrelations or information that
roles(Greenhausand Powell 2006; Grzywaczand Butler allowed for the computationof correlations. We were
2005), includingenrichment, positivespillover,facilita- carefulto excludeduplicates(e.g.,dissertations/conference
tion,and enhancement. Unfortunately, distinctionsamong papersthatbecamepublishedstudies).Afterevaluating the
theselabelsare notwell understood (Hammer and Hanson studies based on the inclusion criteria,we were leftwith a
2006). Some researchersuse the terms interchangeably total sample size of 21 studies (13 published;8 unpub-
(Frone2003), whereasotherresearchers have offereddis- lished)with54 correlations fortheWFE analysis,and 25
tinctionson thevariousterminology (Carlsonet al. 2006; studies(20 published;5 unpublished) with57 correlations
Hanson et al. 2006; Wayne 2009). For example,most forthe FWE analysis.See Tables 1 and 2 fora list of
recently,Wayne(2009) arguedthatenhancement is when studiesincludedin the WFE and FWE meta-analyses,
an individualacquiresa benefitfroma particular domain, respectively.
andpositivespilloveroccurswhenindividualtransfers the
benefitto a second domain. In order for work-family Data Coding
enrichment tooccur,theindividualmustsuccessfully apply
the benefitto the otherdomain,resultingin improved We startedbycodingthepredictor variableas enrichment,
performance or qualityof life. When the benefit"ulti- positivespillover,facilitation, or enhancement. We coded
matelyyieldsenhancedfunctioning of the system(e.g., thevariablename,measureused, and reliability informa-
familyor work),thisrepresents work-family facilitation" tion(whenavailable)fortheWFE and theFWE analyses.
(Wayne2009, p. 120). In orderto provideguidancefor If a measureof work-family enrichment did not specify
futureresearch,we exploredtheconstruct label used (i.e., directionof enrichment (i.e., work-to-family or family-to-
enrichment, positivespillover,facilitation,enhancement) work), it was excluded because WFE and FWE are rec-
as a potentialmoderatorin thisstudy.Our aim is to better ognizedas conceptually distinct (Frone2003) and we were
understand how the relationships betweenthese "con- specifically interestedin thedifferent outcomesof thetwo
structs"and outcomesdiffer giventhelabel. directions.Next, we coded a large numberof criterion

4ySpringer

This content downloaded from 193.54.110.35 on Mon, 17 Mar 2014 09:18:29 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
386 J Bus Psychol(2010) 25:381-396

Table 1 Articlesincludedin WFE meta-analysis

Author Year N Predictorvariable Criterionvariables

Name Measure Job Affective Turnover Family Life Physical/

satisfactioncommitmentintentionssatisfactionsatisfactionmental
health

Aryeeet al. 2005 267 Fac Grzywaczand Marks (2000) x x

Balmforthand 2006 58 Fac Wayne et al. (2004) x x x
Gardner
Boyar and 2007 124 Fac NationalSurveyof Mid-life x x x
Mosley Development
Cardenasand 2008 225 Enrich Carlsonet al. (2006) x
Major
Hennessey 161 Enrich Carlson et al. (2006)
2007 x x
Dyson- 2006 230 Enrich AdaptedfromGrzywaczand x x x
Washington Marks (2000), Kirchmeyer
(1992b), Stephenset al.
(1997), Sumerand Knight
(2001)
Gordonet al. 2007 489 Enhan The Mid-lifeDevelopment x x x
Inventory - Part2

Grzywaczand 2003 1986 Fac NationalSurveyof Mid-life x

Bass Development
Hammeret al. 2005 234 Spill Stephenset al. (1997) x
Hanson et al. 2006 132 Spill Creatednew measure x x x
Holbrook 2005 166 Fac Creatednew measure x x x
Kinnunen 2006 202 Spill SurveyWork-Home x x
et al. InteractionNijmegen
Luk et al. 2008 212 Fac Grzywaczand Marks (2000) x

McCarthy 1999 236 Spill Modifiedversionof WFLQ- x

Sumer and Knight(2001)
Stephenset al. 1997 105 Spill Creatednew measure x x x

Swoody 2008 889 Spill Hanson et al. (2004) x x x

van 2007 352 Fac Creatednew measure x x x x x
Steenbergen
et al.
Voydanoff 2005 1816 Fac Creatednew measure x x x
Wayne et al. 2004 2130 Fac Creatednew measurebased x x
on Grzywaczand Marks
(2000)
Wayne et al. 2006 164 Enrich Creatednew measurebased x x
on Grzywaczand Marks
(2000), Wayne et al. (2004)
and Stephenset al. (1997)
Williamset al. 2006 168 Spill Grzywaczand Marks (2000) x

Enhan enhancement
Spill positivespillover,Fac facilitation,
N sample size; Predictorvariablename: Enrichenrichment,

variables, including variable name, measure used, and
reliabilityinformation(when available). Several points are
worthmentioningforthe coding of our criterionvariables.
First,unfortunately, importantcriterionvariables (i.e., job
performance,job stress, substance abuse, burnout) were
removed fromsubsequent analyses due to the small num-
ber of studies (less than four). Second, we only examined
the affectivecomponentof organizationalcommitment,as
there were not enough studies examining the other two
components of commitment,normative and continuance
commitment.Third,consistentwithFord et al. (2007), we
collapsed marital satisfaction,a specific aspect of family
life, under overall familysatisfaction,because of the sim-
ilarityof these constructs,and the factthatmany measures
of "familysatisfaction"included maritalsatisfactionitems.
Fourth,our physical and mental health category includes
physical health,mentalhealth(e.g., psychological distress,
depression) and well-being, consistent with Mesmer-

£) Springer

This content downloaded from 193.54.110.35 on Mon, 17 Mar 2014 09:18:29 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
JBus Psychol(2010) 25:381-396 387

Table 2 Articles
includedin FWE meta-analysis
Author Year N Predictor
variable Criterion
variables
Name Measure Job Affective TurnoverFamily Life Physical/
satisfaction
commitmentintentions
satisfaction
satisfaction
mental
health

Allisand 2008 938 Fac (1992b)

Kirchmeyer x
O'Driscoll
Aryeeet al. 2005 267 Fac GrzywaczandMarks(2000) x x
Balmforth and 2006 58 Fac Wayneet al. (2004) x x x
Gardner
Boyarand 2007 124 Fac NationalSurveyofMid-life x x x
Mosley Development
Cohenand 1995 227 Spill Kirchmeyer(1992b) x
Kirchmeyer
Hennessey 2007 161 EnrichCarlsonet al. (2006) x x
Dyson- 2006 230 EnrichGreenhaus (2006) x x x x
Washington
Lee et al. 2008 363 Faca Notprovided x
Gordonet al. 2007 489 Enhan The Mid-lifeDevelopment x x x
- Part2
Inventory
Grzywacz and 2003 1986 Fac NationalSurveyofMid-life x
Bass Development
Hammer et al. 2005 234 Spill Stephens et al. (1997) x
Hansonet al. 2006 132 Spill Creatednewmeasure x x x
Holbrook 2005 166 Fac Creatednewmeasure x x x x
Kinnunen 2006 202 Spill SurveyWork-Home x x
et al. InteractionNijmegen
Kirchmeyerb 1992a 122 Spill Creatednew measureon x x
resourceenrichment, later
calledspillover
Kirchmeyer0 1992b 36 Spill Creatednewmeasure x
Kirchmeyer01993 109 Spill Kirchmeyer (1992b) x
Kirchmeyer 1995 221 Spill Kirchmeyer (1992b) x
McCarthy 1999 236 Spill Modifiedversion of x
WFLQ- Sumerand
Knight(2001)
Stephens et al. 1997 105 Spill Creatednewmeasure x x x
van 2007 352 Fac Creatednewmeasure x x x x x
Steenbergen
et al.
Voydanoff 2005 1816 Fac Creatednewmeasure x x x
Wayneet al. 2004 2130 Fac Creatednewmeasurebased x x
on GrzywaczandMarks
(2000)
Wayne et al. 2006 164 EnrichCreatednewmeasurebased x x
on GrzywaczandMarks
(2000),Wayneetal. (2004)
andStephens et al. (1997)
Williamset al. 2006 168 Spill GrzywaczandMarks(2000) x
N samplesize; Predictor
variablename:Enrichenrichment, Fac facilitation,
Spillpositivespillover, Enhanenhancement
a We instrumental resource
transfer
and affective resource transfer
for an overall
measureoffacilitation
averaged family family
b We andrecreation intooneoverallmeasureofpositivespillover to be consistent
withKirchmeyer
averagedparenting,
community spillover
(1995),whereonlyaveragespilloverwas provided
c Thesestudiesexaminedthreedomains(parenting, andsatisfactionwitheachdomain.We included
community, recreation)
spillover parenting
andparenting
spillover satisfaction
only

Ô Springer

This content downloaded from 193.54.110.35 on Mon, 17 Mar 2014 09:18:29 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
388 JBus Psychol(2010) 25:381-396

Magnusand Viswesvaran(2005). For studiesthatreferred forpredictor

Table 3 Averagereliabilities andcriterion
variables
to "poorhealth"we reversedthesignof thecorrelation to WFE FWE
indicategood health.If a studymeasuredbothdepression
and physicalhealth(Dyson-Washington 2006; Williams ReliabilityStudies ReliabilityStudies
et al. 2006),we averagedthecorrelations togetherto avoid Overallenrichment .76 53 .77 52
an issueof non-independence. Enrichment .86 10 .75 8
In thenextstep,we coded forthecorrelation, sample Positivespillover .82 17 .82 19
size,and samplecharacteristics. Whenpossible,we coded Facilitation .84 18 .74 24
forthemoderators describedearlier.As faras sex, some Jobsatisfaction .83 11 .83 12
studies sampled women only, others sampled mostly Affectivecommitment.82 4 .84 7
women,and still othersstudiessampledboth men and Turnover intentions .84 4 .84 4
women(e.g., dual-earner couples).Acrossall studies,the satisfaction .85 8 .83 7
Family
medianpercentage ofwomenwas 70%. Forthisreason,we Lifesatisfaction .90 2 - -
consideredsamples with greaterthan 70% women as health .86 10 .86 11
Physical/mental
"majoritywomen" samples,whereassamples withless
than70% womenweredeemedas "sex balanced"samples. is presented
Reliability Studies= numberof
as alpha-coefficient.
studiesreporting data
reliability
Forcodingpurposes, consistent
withothermeta-analyses
(e.g., Ford et al. 2007; Mesmer-Magnus and Viswesvaran
2005), threetwo-person teams (the three authorsand two Results
assistantswithone authorworkingon two teams) were
formed. Each sourcewas codedindependently, andthetwo- Tables 4 and 5 presenttheoverallresultsfortheWFE and
personteamsmetto reviewthearticles.Whencodingdis- FWE meta-analyses, respectively. A numberof statistics
crepancieswerepresent, theauthorsfirstlookedbacktothe are used to interpret theresultsof themeta-analyses, pri-
originalarticletodetermine thecorrect codingandtoensure marilyrho,confidenceand credibility intervals,and per-
thatno mistakeshad been made.In therareinstancethat centof varianceexplainedare used forinterpretation. Rho
consensuscouldnotbe reachedthethird coderwas advised. is the populationcorrelationbetweenthe predictorand
Alldiscrepancies wereresolvedandagreement wasreached. criteria(correctedforartifacts). The confidenceinterval
provides "the rangeof values that has a 95% chance of
Meta-AnalyticProcedures containingthe estimatedmean effectsize" (Hunterand
Schmidt2004,p. 205). The upperand lowerboundsof the
We conductedthe meta-analyses usingproceduresfrom 80% credibility intervalwerecalculatedusingrhoand the
Hunter andSchmidt (2004) usingtheSchmidt andLe (2004) standarddeviationof rho.If thecredibility intervalover-
software for
designed conducting psychometric meta-anal- laps zero, it is possiblethe true population is actually
rho
yses.The means and variances were corrected forsampling zero.The credibility intervalis used to determine thedis-
errorand attenuation due to measurement errorin thepre- tributionof parameter values and to determine theexis-
dictorandthecriteria Artifact
(i.e.,reliability). distributions tenceof moderators. Varianceexplainedis thepercentage
wereusedto correctformeasurement errorin thecriterion of varianceexplainedby samplingerrorand measurement
variablesbecause most,butnotall, studiesincludedreli- errorin thecriterion. If thecredibility intervalis narrow
abilityestimatesforeach measure(see Table 3). and a large percentageof varianceis explained(above
If a studyreportedcorrelations for womenand men 75%), mostlikelymoderators are notpresent(Hunterand
separately,it was coded as two separateeffectivesizes, Schmidt2004). Threeeffectsizes was theminimum cutoff
consistentwithFord et al. (2007). Longitudinalstudies to conductmoderator analyses, consistent withother meta-
reporting multipletimepointswere averagedtogether in analyses(e.g., Kossek and Ozeki 1998; Nicklin et al. in
orderto have one correlation per criterion per studyto press).Lastly,we conducted a filedraweranalysisbasedon
ensureno violationof the assumptionof independent reliabilitycorrectedmeancorrelations. The filedrawerk
samples(Hunterand Schmidt2004). A small numberof represents "thenumberof missingstudiesaveragingnull
studiesincludedmeasuresof morethanone dimensionof resultsneededto reducetheeffectsize to some specified
enrichment (e.g., development, affect,capital),in which level" (Hunterand Schmidt2004, p. 501).
case we averagedacrossthedifferent typestobe consistent
withotherwork-family meta-analyses (see Bryon2005). Work-RelatedOutcomes
Multiple dimensions of well-being(e.g., personal,family,
work) were also averaged together(e.g., Allis and In supportof Hypothesesla and lb, bothWFE (p = .34,
O'Driscoll2008). k = 14) and FWE (p = .20, k = 15) had a positive

â Springer

This content downloaded from 193.54.110.35 on Mon, 17 Mar 2014 09:18:29 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
JBus Psychol(2010) 25:381-396 389

Table 4 WFE meta-analysis

results
Variable Moderatorsk N Avg Lowerbound Upperbound p SDp Lowerbound Upperbound % File
(when r of95% of95% of 80% of 80% Var drawer
possible) confidence confidence credibility credibility k
interval interval interval interval

Job Total 14 7144 .27 .25 .43 .34 .09 .23 .45 29.30 62
satisfactionPublished 9 5473 .26 .25 .41 .33 .05 .27 .40 53.83
Unpublished5 1671 .30 .26 .50 .38 .16 .18 .58 16.08
>70% 8 1558 .39 .35 .63 .49 .11 .35 .63 38.35
women
<70% 6 5586 .24 .22 .38 .30 0 .30 .30 100
women
Enrichment 3 616 .46 .42 .66 .54 .06 .45 .62 53.85
Pos 3 1126 .18 .12 .32 .22 0 .22 .22 100
Spillover
Facilitation 7 4913 .26 .24 .40 .32 .05 .25 .38 45.56
Affective Total 5 1330 .28 .23 .47 .35 .08 .25 .45 46.39 23
commitment
Turnover Total 4 835 -.05 -.21 .07 -.07 .16 -.27 .13 22.78 0
intentions
Family Total 12 6502 .11 .06 .22 .14 .10 .02 .27 23.46 14
satisfactionpublished 7 4861 .08 .02 .18 .10 0 .10 .10 100
Unpublished5 1641 .22 .16 .40 .28 .13 .11 .44 22.80
>70% 5 786 .25 .15 .47 .31 .18 .08 .55 22.08
women
<70% 7 5716 .10 .04 .20 .12 .04 .06 .18 49.58
women
Positive 5 1523 .17 .08 .32 .20 0 .20 .20 100
spillover
Facilitation 5 4588 .07 .03 .15 .09 0 .09 .09 100
Life Total 4 1637 .26 .22 .42 .32 .13 .15 .49 16.64 17
satisfaction
Physical/ Total 13 6073 .17 .13 .29 .21 .15 .02 .40 13.81 31
mental Published 9 3411 .25 .20 .41 .31 .06 .24 .38 58.64
health
Unpublished4 844 .17 .07 .34 .21 .15 .01 .40 23.37
>70% 5 903 .16 .06 .33 .20 0 .20 .20 100
women
<70% 8 5170 .16 .13 .29 .21 .16 .00 .40 8.98
women
Facilitation 5 4532 .15 .10 .26 .18 .16 -.02 .39 6.87
Positive 7 1311 .22 .14 .42 .28 .07 .19 .37 61.88
spillover
Fromlefttoright,
thetablelistscriterion number
variables, ofeffectsizes(£),totalsamplesize(N),thesamplesizeweighted averagecorrelation
(Avgr),thelowerandupperboundsofthe95% confidence thecorrected
interval, size rho(p), thestandard
effect deviation ofrho(SDp), the
upperandlowerboundsofthe80% credibility thepercentage
interval, of variance explainedbysampling errorandmeasurement errorinthe
criterion
(% Var),andthenumber of studiesaveragingnullresults
to reducethereliability-correctedcorrelation
to .05 (File drawerk)
a When
depressionwas examined as a separate p = -.09, k = 1
category,

relationship withjob satisfaction. Similarly,both WFE
(p = .35, k = 5) and FWE =
(p .24, k = 8) demonstrated
a positiverelationshipwithaffective commitment, consis-
tentwithHypotheses 2a and 2b. In bothcases, neitherthe
credibilityintervalsnortheconfidenceintervalsincluded
zero,and theeffectsizes were small to medium(Cohen
1988); however,less than 75% of the variance was
explained,suggestingthepresenceofmoderators.Contrary
to expectations,the confidenceand credibility
intervals
includedzero forbothWFE (p = -.07, k = 4) and FWE
(p = .02, k = 4) withturnover intentions,
suggestingno
relationshipfor either directionof enrichment.Thus,

4u Springer

This content downloaded from 193.54.110.35 on Mon, 17 Mar 2014 09:18:29 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
390 JBus Psychol(2010) 25:381-396

results
Table 5 FWE meta-analysis
Variable Moderatorsk N Avg Lowerboundof Upperboundof p SDp Lowerboundof Upperboundof % File
(when r 95% confidence
95% confidence 80% credibility Var
80% credibility drawer
possible) interval interval interval interval k

Job Total 15 6751 .16 .11 .3 .20 .05 .14 .26 29.30 33
satisfactionPublished 10 5595 .15 .11 .27 .19 .04 .14 .24 67.24
Unpublished5 1156 .20 .13 .37 .25 .05 .18 .32 70.38
>70% 8 1455 .19 .10 .38 .24 .06 .16 .32 69.16
women
<70% 7 5296 .15 .11 .27 .19 .03 .15 .23 64.96
women
Positive 4 595 .22 .10 .42 .26 0 .26 .26 100
spillover
Facilitation 8 5276 .15 .11 .27 .19 .04 .13 .24 58.30
Affective Total 8 1900 .19 .12 .36 .24 .04 .18 .29 78.64 22
commitment <70% 3 840 13 <04 .28 .16 0 .16 .16 100
women
>70% 5 1060 .24 .16 .44 .30 0 .30 .30 100
women
Turnover Total 4 835 .01 -.12 .16 .02 .22 -.26 .30 13.36 0
intentions
Family Total 12 5563 .34 .33 .53 .43 .13 .26 .60 17.53 70
satisfactionPublished 9 5006 .34 .33 .53 .43 .14 .25 .61 14.65
Unpublished3 557 .33 .28 .56 .42 .04 .36 .47 80.26
Spillover 5 584 .16 .01 .37 .19 .08 .08 .30 63.39
Facilitation 5 4588 .36 .38 .54 .46 .12 .31 .61 17.64
Physical/ Total 13 6799 .17 .13 .29 .21 .06 .13 .29 42.23 31
mental Published 11 6335 .17 .12 .29 .20 .06 .13 .28 46.23
healtha .47 25.02
Unpublished4 862 .24 .16 .42 .29 .14 .11
>70% 5 903 .21 .12 .40 .26 0 .26 .26 100
women
<70% 8 5896 .17 .13 .28 .20 .07 .11 .29 30.78
women
Positive 7 1311 .22 .13 .40 .27 .07 .18 .36 60.96
spillover
Facilitation 5 5258 .16 .11 .27 .19 .05 .12 .26 34.57

thetablelistscriterion
Fromlefttoright, number
variables, ofeffectsizes(k' totalsamplesize{N),thesamplesizeweighted averagecorrelation
(Avgr),the lowerand upper bounds of the95% confidence the
interval, corrected size
effect rho(p), thestandarddeviation ofrho(SDp), the
upperandlowerboundsofthe80% credibility thepercentage
interval, ofvarianceexplained bysampling errorandmeasurement errorin the
criterion
(% Var),andthe number of studiesaveragingnull to
results reduce the reliability-corrected to
correlation .05 (File drawerk)
a When was examined as a = -.19, k = 8
depression separate p
category,

Hypotheses 3a and 3b were not supported.Finally, WFE
was more stronglyrelated to both job satisfaction and
affectivecommitmentthan FWE, thus, Hypothesis4 was
also supported.
Non Work-RelatedOutcomes
Both WFE (p = .14, k = 12) and FWE (p = .43, k = 12)
had a positiverelationshipwithfamilysatisfaction.Neither
the confidencenor the credibilityintervalsincluded zero,
thussupportingHypotheses5a and 5b. The strengthof the
effect (Cohen 1988) ranged from small (WFE) to large
(FWE); however, less than 75% of the variance was
explained; thus, moderators may be present. WFE also
demonstrateda positive relationshipwith life satisfaction
(p = .32, k - 4). Neithertheconfidencenor thecredibility
intervals included zero, thus, supportingHypothesis 6a.
Unfortunately, there were not enough studies to examine
the relationshipbetween FWE and life satisfaction.Thus,
Hypothesis6b could not be tested.Finally,FWE was more
stronglyrelatedto familysatisfactionthanWFE (consistent
with Hypothesis7).

£) Springer

This content downloaded from 193.54.110.35 on Mon, 17 Mar 2014 09:18:29 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
JBus Psychol(2010) 25:381-396
Health-RelatedOutcomes
Consistent with Hypotheses 8a and 8b, both WFE
(p = .21, k = 13) and FWE (p = .21, k = 13) had a
positive relationshipwith physical and mental health. In
both cases, neitherthe confidencenor credibilityintervals
included zero, and less than 75% of the variance was
explained suggestingthe presence of moderators.No spe-
cifichypotheseswere proposed fordirection,butbothWFE
and FWE had an equally positive relationshipwithphysical
and mentalhealth.
ModeratorAnalyses
Moderator analyses for WFE and FWE are presented in
Tables 4 and 5, respectively.As mentionedearlier, mod-
eratoranalyses were only conductedif less than75% of the
variance was accounted for and if there were enough
studies available. Sex and constructlabel appear to influ-
ence the relationshipbetween WFE and job satisfaction.
The relationshipbetween WFE and job satisfactionwas
strongerfor samples with the majoritywomen, as well as
studiesusing enrichmentas the constructlabel. The FWE-
job satisfactionrelationshipwas also strongerfor samples
with the majority women and for those studies using
positive spillover as the construct label. Similarly, for
familysatisfaction,sex also appeared to be a moderator,
such that the relationshipbetween WFE-family satisfac-
tion was strongerforsamples comprised of predominately
women and studiesusing positive spilloveras the construct
label. FWE exhibited a strongerrelationshipwith family
satisfactionwhen facilitationwas used as a constructlabel.
For both WFE and FWE, the positive spillover label
resulted in higher physical and mental health than the
facilitationlabel.
Discussion
The purpose of thispaper was to provide a more thorough
and balanced picture of the work-family interface by
summarizingthe relationshipbetween thetwo directionsof
work-familyenrichmentand a variety of outcome vari-
ables, and to test whetherone direction is more strongly
related to specific work-related,non work-related,and
health-relatedconsequences thantheotherdirection.While
there have been several meta-analyses synthesizingthe
research on work-familyconflict,to our knowledge, the
presentstudyis the firstattemptto empiricallysynthesize
the existing literatureon the positive side of the work-
familyinterface.This researchrepresentsan importantfirst
step in integratingwhat is known about work-family
enrichment, which is useful for development of a
This content downloaded from 193.54.110.35 on Mon, 17 Mar 2014 09:18:29 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
391
comprehensivemodel of the work-familyinterface.Taken
together,we believe that the correlations found in this
study are large enough to suggest thatthese relationships
exist in the population, and that correlationsfound in a
single study are likely due to actual relationshipsrather
than mere sampling error.
Summaryof Results
Our results showed that there are a number of positive
relationshipsbetween enrichmentand work-, non work-,
and health-relatedoutcomes, although these relationships
are oftensmall to moderatein magnitude.This studyfound
that both WFE and FWE are positively associated with
work-relatedoutcomes, specifically job satisfactionand
affective commitment, consistent with Greenhaus and
Powell's (2006) model of the work-family enrichment
process and a social exchange framework(Blau 1964).
When employees perceive thattheirwork and familyroles
are enriching,they may reciprocate toward the organiza-
tion withdesired attitudesbut not necessarilyintentionsto
remain in the organization. However, the lack of support
for an enrichment-turnover intentionrelationshipmay be
due to the small numberof available studiesor the factthat
enrichmentmight facilitatefeelings and thoughtsbut not
necessarily behaviors. Future research should continue to
examine the influenceof enrichmenton organizationally
relevantbehaviors,includingturnoverintentionsas well as
other work-relatedvariables not examined in the current
study(e.g., absenteeism,job performance).
Moreover, the present study also supports previous
research and theory suggesting that enrichmentis posi-
tively related to familyand life satisfaction.Even though
we did not have enough studies to examine the FWE-life
satisfactionrelationship,thepresentresults,consistentwith
Greenhaus and Powell (2006) as well as social exchange
theory (Blau 1964), provide evidence that WFE has a
positive influenceon non work-relatedoutcomes. That is, if
employees perceive that theirfamilyis beneficial to their
career, theymay in turnfeel higherlevels of life satisfac-
tion and family satisfaction,in accordance with social
exchange theory.Similarly,FWE has a positive relation-
ship with familysatisfaction,but more research is needed
to assess the association betweenFWE and life satisfaction.
Finally,consistentwithCOR theory(Hobfoll 2002), the
presentresultsprovide supportforenrichmentas beneficial
for physical and mental health. We found thatboth WFE
and FWE were positively linked to physical and mental
health, perhaps because health is a more global category
that encompasses both work and family domains. The
generation of resources, which triggers the enrichment
process (Greenhaus and Powell 2006), seems to have
health protectivebenefitsforindividuals. It should also be
£) Springer
392
pointed out that we combined both physical and mental
healthintoone categorydue to a lack of studies examining
these differentaspects of health separately,and this may
have been anotherfactorcontributingto these results.
Furthermore,we found that the role from which
enrichmentoriginatedwas more stronglyrelatedto various
outcomes than the role from which the enrichmentwas
received, which is contraryto results in the work-family
conflictliterature.Thus, WFE had a strongereffect on
work-related outcomes: job satisfaction and affective
commitment;whereasFWE had a strongereffecton a non-
work related outcome: familysatisfaction.These findings
illuminatethe aforementionedinconsistencyin the litera-
ture regarding directionality.Our results suggest that
findingsfromthe work-familyconflictliteraturemay not
necessarily apply to work-familyenrichment.In other
words, it does not appear to be the case thatperformance
and quality of life in the receiving role should be more
affectedthan in the sending role. Instead, our resultssug-
gest thatwhile both types of enrichmentare importantfor
enhancing work and non-work satisfaction, the effect
appears to be strongerfor the role fromwhich the enrich-
mentwas generated.As Wayne et al. (2004) explained, "it
may be thatwhen individuals make attributionsabout the
benefitsof one role to the other,this primarilyresults in
more positive affectand behavioral investmentin the role
seen as providingthe benefit" (p. 124). This is consistent
with social exchange theorysuch thatindividuals seem to
reciprocatein the formof more favorableattitudestoward
the domain that is perceived as the originator of the
resource generation.That is, resources generated in the
home are more stronglyrelated to non work-relatedout-
comes, whereas resources generated at work apply more
stronglyto work-relatedoutcomes.
The resultsalso demonstratedthatmoderatorsmay play
a role in the relationship between enrichmentand the
outcomes of interest,but our moderatoranalyses in many
cases are based on a small numberof studies; thus,these
findingsshould be viewed as moreof an initialexamination
of possible trends and more research is warranted.We
foundthatbothWFE and FWE were more stronglyrelated
to job satisfactionand life satisfactionwhen the sample
included a greaterproportionof women. These relation-
ships may be strongerforwomen because women are more
likely to integratework and family roles (Andrews and
Bailyn 1993) and may experience and utilize resources
differently(Wayne et al. 2007). Interestingly,the rela-
tionship between FWE and health outcomes was also
strongerfor studies with predominantlyfemale samples,
but this was not the case for WFE. These directional
findingsare consistentwith Pleck's (1977) model of gen-
der-role socialization, which predicts that family factors
would spillover into work more for women than men.
4y Springer
This content downloaded from 193.54.110.35 on Mon, 17 Mar 2014 09:18:29 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
JBus Psychol(2010) 25:381-396
However, more research is needed to understand why
women seem to be more healthyand happyin theirlives by
partakingin both work and familyroles; our results indi-
cate thatenrichmentcould be one explanatoryvariable.
Furthermore,we found that constructlabel moderated
relationships with enrichment,but again, these results
should be viewed cautiously as some of these results are
based on only three samples. Even though we based our
meta-analyseson Greenhaus and Powell's conceptualiza-
tion of "enrichment",many constructs(i.e., facilitation,
spillover, enhancement) have been used to explain the
positive side of the work-family interface. Indeed, an
examination of Tables 1 and 2 also shows a variety of
measures thathave been employed in this literature.Carl-
son et al. 's (2006) measureof work-familyenrichmentand
Hanson et al. 's (2006) measure of positive spillover have
been used with greaterfrequencyin more recent studies
conducted after 2006. We found that in some cases,
enrichmentand spillover resulted in slightlylarger effect
sizes than facilitation,which supportsthe idea that these
constructsare related but distinct (Hanson et al. 2006;
Wayne 2009). Additionally,these resultscould also reflect
the distinctionsin labels proposed by Wayne (2009). As
mentioned earlier, Wayne proposed that when positive
spilloveroccurs, an individual applies a resourcefromone
domain to a second domain, and work-familyenrichment
takes it one step furtherwiththe successfulapplicationof a
resource from one domain to a second domain. On the
otherhand, when enhancementoccurs, an individual may
gain a resource froma domain but not necessarily apply
this benefitto anotherdomain or improvedomain quality.
Based on these distinctions,both positive spillover and
work-familyenrichmentmay yield strongereffect sizes
compared with enhancement,for example, because posi-
tive spillover and enrichmentmay be a more proximal
predictorof outcomes while enhancementmay be a more
distal predictor.Unfortunately, it is difficultto draw any
conclusions about facilitationbecause the conceptualiza-
tionof facilitationin some of the earlierstudiesincluded in
this meta-analysis do not reflectWayne's more recent
conceptualization,which defines facilitationas improved
systemfunctioning.Our studyencourages furthermeasure
development, refinementand construct validity studies
testingWayne's conceptual model.
Along these lines, futureresearch should attemptto
develop a nomological network that could explain the
relationships between these concepts. For example,
enhancementand positive spillover could be lower level
factors that define the higher level constructof work-
familyenrichment,but more researchis needed. Construct
refinementis fundamentalto the developmentof a theory
(Locke 2003), and as of now, the literatureon positive
work-familyinteractionshas been difficultto synthesize.
J Bus Psychol(2010) 25:381-396 393

Thispaperrepresents an important firststepin developing and also limitsour abilityto makecausal inferences.We
a broaderand morecomprehensive theoryof the work- concurwithCasper et al. (2007) thatmore researchis
familyinterface, but more work is needed on how to needed from multisourcedata. Moreover,researchers
integratethese constructs. shouldexaminethework-family enrichment processover
Similarly,moreworkis also neededto betterunderstand timebyemploying longitudinaldesigns,followingthelead
therelationship betweenvariousdimensions ofenrichment of Hammeret al. (2005).
(e.g.,development, affect,capital,efficiency;Carlsonet al.
2006) and outcomevariables.Most studiestendto aggre- Implications
gatethesedimensions intoone overallWFE or FWE var-
iable,butmoretheoryis neededto betterunderstand how From a theoretical perspective, this is the firststudyto
thesedimensionsmay differentially relateto outcomes. integratethe current literatureon theconsequencesasso-
Given that meta-analysesprimarilyexamine bivariate ciated with work-familyenrichment.Greenhausand
relationships,futureresearchwouldbenefitfromexamin- Powell's (2006) modelhelpsexplaintheresourcegenera-
ing how WFE and FWE influenceimportant outcomes tionprocessand whyenrichment occurs.Our findings also
whencontrolling forothervariables(e.g., familycharac- support theuse of socialexchangetheory in explaining the
teristics/demands). relationshipbetween enrichment and domain-specific out-
Finally,in orderto trulyintegrate theliteratureand to comes. WFE may be moreclosely relatedto workout-
a
generate global model of the work familyinterface, comes and FWE may be morecloselyrelatedto family
futureresearchshouldexaminehow work-to- familycon- outcomesdue to the normof reciprocity, whichobliges
flictand family-to-work conflictinteractwithWFE and individualstoreciprocate towardthedirection ofthesource
FWE. Giventhatbothconflictand enrichment are relatedof enrichment. This studyalso lendssupportfortheuse of
to familyand workrelatedoutcomes,it is possiblethat COR theoryin understanding the relationship between
these differentconstructsmay interactto influence enrichment and health-related outcomes.Throughresource
outcomes. generation,individualsseem betterable to cope with
stressfulsituations,resultingin increasedpsychological
Limitations and FutureDirections and physicalwell-being.Takentogether, ourstudybegins
to answerthe "what" questions(i.e., outcomesof work-
Our goal was to synthesize thecurrent researchliterature familyenrichment). More workis neededto addressthe
on enrichment butlimitations of thisstudymustbe noted. "why"and "how" questionsbehindthe enrichment-out-
First,we acknowledgethe relativelysmall numberof comesrelationships.
studiesincludedin our meta-analyses, butthenumberof Based on the resultsof study,we can offerseveral
articleslocatedis consistentwitha work-family conflict practicalimplications. Our studyshowsthatwork-family
meta-analysis(see Mesmer-Magnusand Viswesvaran enrichment positivelyinfluenceswork, non-work,and
2005) and we believethisrepresents a usefulfirststepin health-related variables;thus,it is important fororganiza-
integratingthepositiveside of thework-family interface. tionsto considernotonlywaysto reduceconflict butalso
Second, we were interestedin several otheroutcome to develop strategiesfor increasingenrichment. Along
variablesa priori;however,we werelimitedin our selec- theselines,practitioners may wish to exploreotherwork
tionofoutcomevariablesinthepresentpaperbecauseonly arrangements (e.g., part-time work,flextime)as a means
a small numberof researchers have examinedthesepar- forimproving work-family enrichment (McNall et al. in
ticularvariables,anditis thereforeinappropriateto subject press).Otherresearchindicatesthatperceivedsupportfor
thesevariablesto meta-analysis. Therefore,we encourage non-work domains,frombothsupervisors as well as the
futureresearchto continueexaminingthe relationship largerorganizational culture,is relatedto enrichment (fora
betweenenrichment andotherimportant outcomevariables recentreview,see Kelly et al. 2008). Thus, supervisors
(e.g., burnout,alcohol/drug abuse,job stress).Similarly, may need trainingon how to demonstrate supportand
somepotentialmoderator analyses were eliminated due to toward
sensitivity employees who managemultipleroles
too feweffectsize estimates(e.g., familycharacteristics, and to help promotea familysupportiveorganizational
work hours,organizationaltenure).Despite the small culture.Job design may also play a criticalrole. For
numberof estimatesforsome relationships, we feel that instance,Grzywaczand Butler(2005) foundthatindivid-
futureresearchcan benefitfromthisempiricalreviewof uals in jobs withmoreautonomyand varietyand whose
the literature
in orderto facilitatemoreresearchon this jobs requiredgreatersubstantivecomplexityand social
topic. Finally,the majorityof correlationsused in our skillsreported higherlevelsof work-to-family facilitation.
meta-analyses were drawnfromcross-sectional and self- Similarly, Voydanoff (2004) found that enablingresources
reportdata,whichhas thepotentialto inflatecorrelations (autonomyand learningopportunities) and psychological

£) Springer

This content downloaded from 193.54.110.35 on Mon, 17 Mar 2014 09:18:29 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
394
rewards, suchas respectandmeaningful work,wererelated
to work-to-
familyfacilitation.Thus, designingjobs that
increaseemployees'senseof controlovertheirworktime
may be an importantstep to improvingwork-family
enrichment (e.g.,Thomasand Ganster1995).
In summary, resultsfromourmeta-analyses
supportthe
idea thatparticipationin one rolemayenrichthequalityof
lifein a secondrole.Our findings suggestthattheenrich-
mentprocessis relatedto important personaland organi-
zationaloutcomes.In particular, individualswho perceive
greaterenrichment seem to reciprocate withmorefavor-
able attitudestowardthe originating role. Thus, efforts
shouldbe made to notonlyreduceperceptions of work-
familyconflictbutalso to increaseperceptions of work-
familyenrichment.
Acknowledgment We thankVipanchi Mishra and AndrewD'Ag-
ostinofortheirassistancewithcodingand Sylvia Roch forherhelpful
comments.
References
Referencesmarkedwithan asterisk(*) indicatestudies
includedin the meta-analysis.
Allen, T. D., Herst,D. E. L., Brück, C. S., & Sutton,M. (2000).
Consequencesassociatedwithwork-to-family conflict:A review
and agenda forfutureresearch.Journalof OccupationalHealth
Psychology,5, 278-308.
*Allis, P., & O'Driscoll, M. (2008). Positiveeffectsof nonwork-to-
work facilitationon well being in work,familyand personal
domains.Journalof Managerial Psychology,25(3), 273-291.
Andrews,A., & Bailyn,L. (1993). Segmentationand synergy:Two
modelslinkingworkand family.In J.C. Hood (Ed.), Men, work,
and family(pp. 262-275). NewburyPark,CA: Sage.
*Aryee,S., Srinivas,E. S., & Tan, H. H. (2005). Rhythmsof life:
Antecedentsand outcomesof work-family balance in employed
parents.JournalofAppliedPsychology,90, 132-146.
*Balmforth,K., & Gardner,D. (2006). Conflict and facilitation Greenhaus,J.H., & Powell, G. N. (2006). When workand familyare
betweenwork and family:Realizing the outcomes for organi-
zations.New Zealand Journalof Psychology,35(2), 69-76.
Barnett,R. C, & Hyde,J.S. (2001). Women,men,work,and family.
AmericanPsychologist,56, 781-796.
Blau, P. (1964). Exchangeand powerin social life.New York: Wiley.
Bond, J. T., Thompson,C. A., Galinsky,E., & Prottas,D. (2002).
Highlightsof thenationalstudyof thechangingworkforce. New
York: Families and Work Institute.
*Boyar,S. L., & Mosley,D. C. (2007). The relationship betweencore
self-evaluationsand workand familysatisfaction: The mediating Grzywacz,J.G., & Marks,N. F. (2000). Reconceptualizingthework-
role of work-familyconflictand facilitation.Journalof Voca-
tional Behavior,71, 265-281.
Byron,K. (2005). A meta-analytic reviewof work-family interference
and its antecedents.Journalof Vocational Behavior,67, 169-
198.
*Cardenas, R. A., & Major, D. A. (2008, April). An inclusive
environment'simpact on the work-family interface.In D. A.
Major (Chair), Exploringlinkagesbetweendiversityand work-
£) Springer
This content downloaded from 193.54.110.35 on Mon, 17 Mar 2014 09:18:29 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
J Bus Psychol(2010) 25:381-396
family research. Symposium conducted at the 23rd Annual
Conferenceof the Society for Industrialand Organizational
Psychology,San Francisco,CA.
Carlson, D. S., Kacmar, K. M., Wayne, J. H., & Grzywacz, J. G.
(2006). Measuringthepositiveside of thework-family interface:
Developmentand validationof a work-family enrichment scale.
Journalof VocationalBehavior,68, 131-164.
Casper, W. J.,Eby, L. T., Bordeaux,C, Lockwood, A., & Lambert,
D. (2007). A reviewof researchmethodsin IO/OB work-family
research.Journalof Applied Psychology,92, 28-43.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral
sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale,NJ:LawrenceErlbaumAssociates.
*Cohen,A., & Kirchmeyer, C. (1995). A multidimensional approach
to therelationbetweenorganizationalcommitment and nonwork
participation. Journalof VocationalBehavior,46* 189-202.
*Dyson-Washington, F. (2006). The relationshipbetweenoptimism
and work-family enrichment and theirinfluence on psychological
well-being.Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation,Drexel Univer-
sity,Philadelphia,PA.
Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior:A social-role
interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Eby, L. T., Casper,W. J.,Lockwood,A., Bordeaux,C, & Brinley,A.
(2005). Work and familyresearchin IO/OB: Contentanalysis
and reviewof the literature (1980-2002). Journalof Vocational
Behavior,66, 124-197.
Ford, M. T., Heinen, B. A., & Langkamer,K. L. (2007). Work and
familysatisfaction and conflict:A meta-analysis of cross-domain
relations.Journalof Applied Psychology,92, 57-80.
Friedman,S. D., & Greenhaus,J. H. (2000). Workand family:Allies
or enemies?Whathappenswhenbusinessprofessionalsconfront
lifechoices. New York: OxfordUniversityPress.
Frone,M. R. (2003). Work-family balance.In J.C. Quick& L. E. Tetrick
(Eds.), Handbookofoccupationalhealthpsychology (pp. 143-162).
Washington, DC: AmericanPsychologicalAssociation.
Frone,M. R., Russell,M., & Cooper, M. L. (1992). Antecedentsand
outcomesof work-family conflict:Testinga modelof thework-
familyinterface.Journalof Applied Psychology,77, 65-78.
Frone,M. R., Yardley,J.K., & Markel,K. S. (1997). Developingand
testing an integrativemodel of the work-familyinterface.
Journalof VocationalBehavior,50, 145-167.
*Gordon,J.R., Whelan-Berry, K. S., & Hamilton,E. A. (2007). The
relationshipamong work-familyconflict and enhancement,
organizationalwork-familyculture, and work outcomes for
olderworkingwomen.Journalof OccupationalHealth Psychol-
oev. 12. 350-364.
Greenhaus,J.H., & Parasuraman,S. (1999). Handbookofgenderand
work.ThousandOaks, CA: Sage Publications,Inc.
allies: A theoryof work-family enrichment. AcademyofManage-
mentReview,31, 72-92.
*Grzywacz,J. G., & Bass, B. L. (2003). Work,family,and mental
health:Testingdifferent models of work-family fit.Journalof
Marriage and Family,65, 248-262.
Grzywacz, J. G., & Butler, A. B. (2005). The impact of job
characteristicson work-family facilitation:Testinga theoryand
distinguishinga construct.Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology,10, 97-109.
familyinterface:An ecological perspectiveon the correlatesof
positive and negative spillover between work and family.
Journalof OccupationalHealth Psychology,5, 111-126.
*Hammer,L. B., Cullen,J.C, Neal, M. B., Sinclair,R. R., & Shafiro,
M. V. (2005). The longitudinaleffectsof work-familyconflict
and positive spillover on depressive symptomsamong dual-
earnercouples. Journalof OccupationalHealth Psychology,10,
138-154.
J Bus Psychol(2010) 25:381-396
Hammer,L. B., & Hanson,G. (2006). Work-family enrichment. In J.
H. Greenhaus& G. A. Callanan (Eds.), Encyclopediaof career
development(Vol. 2, pp. 869-871). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hanson,G. C, Hammer,L. B., & Colton,C. L. (2004). Development
and validation of a multidimensionalscale of work-family
positivespillover.Paper presentedat the Academy of Manage-
mentAnnualMeeting,New Orleans,LA.
♦Hanson,G. C, Hammer,L. B., & Colton, C. L. (2006). Develop-
mentand validationof a multidimensional scale of perceived
work-family positivespillover.Journalof Occupational Health
Psychology,11, 249-265.
♦Hennessey,K. D. (2007). Work-family balance: An explorationof
conflictand enrichment for womenin a traditionaloccupation.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation,Universityof Maryland,
College Park. MD.
Hobfoll, S. E. (2002). Social and psychological resources and
adaptation.Reviewof General Psychology,6, 307-324.
*Holbrook,S. (2005). Developmentand initialvalidationofthework-
family facilitation scale. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Universitvof Florida.Gainesville.FL.
Hunter,J.E., & Schmidt,F. L. (2004). Methodsofmeta-analysis(2nd
ed.). ThousandOaks, CA: Sage Publishers.
Judge,T. A., Boudreau,J. W., & Bretz, R. D. (1994). Job and life
attitudesof male executives.JournalofAppliedPsychology,79,
767-782.
Kelly, E. L., Kossek, E. E., Hammer,L. B., Durhan,M., Bray,J.,&
Chermack,K. (2008). Gettingtherefromhere: Researchon the
effectsof work-family initiativeson work-family conflictand
business outcomes. The Academy of ManagementAnnals, 2,
305-349.
♦Kinnunen, U., Feldt,T., Geurts,S., & Pulkkinen,L. (2006). Types of
work-familyinterface:Well-being correlatesof negative and
positive spillover between work and family. Scandinavian
Journalof Psychology,47, 149-162.
*Kirchmeyer, C. (1992a). Nonworkparticipation and workattitudes:
A test of scarcityvs. expansion models of personal resource.
Human Relations,45(8), 775-795.
*Kirchmeyer, C. (1992b). Perceptionsof nonwork-to-work spillover:
Challengingthe common view of conflict-ridden domain rela-
tionships.Basic and Applied Social Psychology,13, 231-249.
*Kirchmeyer,C. (1993). Nonwork-to-workspillover: A more
balanced view of the experiencesand coping of professional
womenand men. GenderRoles, 25(9/10), 531-552.
*Kirchmeyer, C. (1995). Managingthe work-nonwork boundary:An
assessmentof organizationalresponses.Human Relations,48,
515-536.
Kossek, E. E., & Ozeki, C. (1998). Work-familyinterference,
policies, and the job-life satisfactionrelationship:A review
and directions for organizational behavior-humanresources
research.JournalofApplied Psychology,83, 139-149.
Locke, E. (2003). Good definitions:The epistemologicalfoundation
of scientificprogress.In J. Greenberg(Ed.), Organizational
behavior the state of science (pp. 415-445). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates.
*Lee, E. S., Chang,J.Y., & Kim, H. (2008, August).The sunnyside
of the work-family interfacein Korea: Can familylifefacilitate
work life? Paper presentedat the Academy of Management
Meeting,Anaheim,CA.
*Luk,M. D., Winkel,D. E., & Shaffer,M. (2008, August).The effect
of workplace conflict and facilitation on well-being: Do
individualdifferences matter?Paper presentedat the Academy
of ManagementMeeting,Anaheim,CA.
Marks, S. R. (1977). Multiple roles and role strainsome notes on
human energytime and commitment.American Sociological
Review,2, 921-936.
This content downloaded from 193.54.110.35 on Mon, 17 Mar 2014 09:18:29 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
395
♦McCarthy,N. B. (1999). Relations betweenwork-family interface
modes and patternsof coping behavior. Unpublisheddoctoral
dissertation, George Mason University, Fairfax,VA.
McNall, L. A., Masuda, A. D., & Nicklin,J. M. (in press). Flexible
workarrangements withjob satisfactionand turnoverintentions:
The mediatingrole of work-to-family enrichment.Journalof
Psychology:interdisciplinary & Applied.
Mesmer-Magnus,J. R., & Viswesvaran, C. (2005). Convergence
betweenmeasuresofwork-to-family and family-to-work conflict:
A meta-analytic examination.JournalofVocationalBehavior,67,
215-232.
Nicklin,J. M., Mayfield,C. O., Caputo, P. M., Arboleda, M. A.,
Cosentino,R. E., Lee, M., et al. (in press). Does telecommuting
increaseorganizationalattitudesand outcomes:A meta-analysis.
CMRD Journalof ManagementResearch.
Parasuraman,S., & Greenhaus,J. H. (2002). Toward reducingsome
critical gaps in work-familyresearch.Human Resource Man-
agementReview,12, 299-312.
Pleck, J. H. (1977). The work-family role system.Social Problems,
24, 417^42.
*Polk, D. M. (2003). Relational identity, social support,and marital
satisfaction:A frameworkusing equityand spillover.Unpub-
lished doctoraldissertation, Kent State University, Kent,OH.
Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger,R. (2002). Perceived organizational
support:A reviewof the literature. JournalofAppliedPsychol-
ogy,87, 698-714.
Schmidt,F. L., & Le, H. (2004). Softwarefor the Hunter-Schmidt
meta-analysismethods. Iowa City, IA: Universityof Iowa,
Departmentof Management& Organization.
Sieber,S. D. (1974). Toward a theoryof role accumulation.American
Sociological Review,39, 567-578.
Society for Human Resource Management.(2003, December). HR
professionals see more employees struggle with eldercare.
http://www.businessknowhow.com/manage/eldercare.htm.
Retrievedon 19 Feb 2009.
♦Stephens,M. P., Franks,M. M., & Atienza,A. A. (1997). Wheretwo
roles intersect:Spilloverbetweenparentcare and employment.
Psychologyand Aging,72(1), 30-37.
Sumer,H. C, & Knight,P. A. (2001). How do people withdifferent
attachmentstyles balance work and family? A personality
perspectiveon work-familylinkage. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology,86, 653-663.
*Swoody, C. A. (2008). The role of work eustress in work-family
positive spillover.Paper presentedat the annual conferenceof
the Society forIndustrialand OrganizationalPsychology,New
York, NY.
Thomas,L. T., & Ganster,D. C. (1995). Impactof family-supportive
work variables on work-familyconflictand strain:A control
perspective.Journalof Applied Psychology,80, 6-15.
*van Steenbergen,E. F., Ellemers,N., & Mooijaart,A. (2007). How
workand familycan facilitateeach other:Distincttypesof work-
familyfacilitationand outcomesforwomenand men.Journalof
Occupational Health Psychology,12, 279-300.
Voydanoff,P. (2004). The effectsof workdemandsand resourceson
work-to-family conflictand facilitation.JournalofMarriageand
Family,66, 398-412.
*Voydanoff,P. (2005). Social integration, work-family conflictand
andjob and maritalquality.JournalofMarriageand
facilitation,
Family,67, 666-679.
Wayne,J. H. (2009). Reducingconceptualconfusion:Clarifyingthe
positiveside of workand family.In D. R. Crane & J.Hill (Eds.),
Handbook offamilies and work: Interdisciplinary perspectives
(pp. 105-140). Lanham, MD: UniversityPress of America.
*Wayne,J. H., Musisca, N., & Fleeson, W. (2004). Consideringthe
role of personalityin the work-family experience:Relationships
Ö Springer
396 J Bus Psychol(2010) 25:381-396

of thebig fiveto work-familyconflictand facilitation.

Journalof *Williams,A., Franche,R. L., Ibrahim,S., Mustard,C. A., & Layton,
VocationalBehavior,64, 108-130. F. R. (2006). Examiningthe relationshipbetweenwork-family
J. H., Randel, A. E., & Stevens, J. (2006). The role of spillover and sleep quality. Journal of Occupational Health
*Wayne,
identityand work-familysupportin work-familyenrichment Psychology,11, 27-37.
and its work-relatedconsequences. Journal of Vocational
Behavior,69, 445-461.

£) Springer

This content downloaded from 193.54.110.35 on Mon, 17 Mar 2014 09:18:29 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions