Skip to main content
NCBI home page
SAGE - PMC COVID-19 Collection logoLink to SAGE - PMC COVID-19 Collection
. 2022 Dec;43(12):3299–3320. doi: 10.1177/0192513X211044487

A Multilevel Investigation of the Effects of Daily Work–Family Interaction on Daily Affect During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Mehmet Çetin 1,✉, Bayram Dede 2, Özgür Kökalan 1, Ezgi Dede 3
PMCID: PMC9643108  PMID: 36471701

Abstract

This research aimed to examine the effects of daily work–family conflict and work–family enrichment on daily positive and negative affect levels of employees during the first phases of the COVID-19 pandemic in Turkey. The multilevel structure of the research design makes this study original. 730 day-level data were collected from 146 respondents during five consecutive workdays. One week later, a larger survey was delivered for assessing the person-level variables. The results indicated that both forms of work–family conflict significantly decreased positive affect and increased negative affect. Both types of work–family enrichment significantly increased positive affect; but only daily work to family enrichment significantly decreased daily negative affect. Findings also revealed that positive affect levels of respondents increase while negative affect levels decrease with time. On the days employees worked from distance, lower levels of positive and negative affect were experienced.

Keywords: daily work–family conflict, daily work–family enrichment, daily positive affect, daily negative affect, COVID-19 pandemic

Introduction

The significant impact of work–family interaction on individual, family, and work-related outcomes has centered the concept as a focal research interest over the last decades. Numerous studies have addressed the consequences of the bright side (work–family enrichment) and the dark side (work–family conflict) of the phenomenon (Amstad, Meier, Fasel, Elfering, & Semmer, 2011; McNall, Nicklin, & Masuda, 2010). However, radical changes shaped by the pandemic conditions re-formed the work–family interaction and interdependence and necessitated the investigation of the links between the concepts and their consequences under these unique conditions. Remote working, social distancing, and lockdowns increased the time spent at home and blurred the roles and boundaries between work and family. Also, rapid and constant changes in the dynamics, such as new working styles, the measures adopted for preventing the spread of the virus, and the psychological process individuals live through the pandemic, required longitudinal and multilevel research designs to further understand the change and intra-individual variance in the concepts.

The events happening in individuals’ lives create affective responses (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). The frequency and intensity of negative events have been escalated while the positive ones have been depleted since the beginning of the pandemic. This, in turn, profoundly affected the affective states of individuals. Numerous studies showed that increased life demands and stressors due to the conditions brought by the pandemic threaten the well-being of employees and families (Erdei & Liu, 2020; Markowska-Manista & Zakrzewska-Olędzka, 2020; Tuzovic & Kabadayi, 2020).

The conservation of resources (COR) theory suggests that individuals save and use resources to cope with stressors and negative life events, and when they are more resourceful, they can better keep their balance and well-being in challenging times (Hobfoll, 2002). Family and work can serve as shelters and significant resources for coping with the boosted life demands due to the pandemic. They can also interfere with each other as increasing numbers of employees work from home in this new life order. Although pandemic allows more time to spend with family, it also threatens the resources individuals obtain from the work–life as now they face various compulsory changes, uncertainties, and have fewer opportunities to identify and socialize with the people in the organization. Besides, increased fuzziness of the boundaries and roles between work and family with the mandatory time at home impair the resources that can be obtained from the family domain. This, in turn, harms the family and work life as it allows fewer resources to be generated and transferred between two domains.

Although remote working styles such as distance working, teleworking, or working from home have increasingly been a focus of attention among scholars and practitioners in the last decades (Valenduc & Vendramin, 2001), the COVID-19 pandemic created a drastic change in the forms of working and incomparably more people started to work from home (Wang, Liu, Qian, & Parker, 2020). As workplaces (or transportation) were not designed for social distancing, numerous organizations chose to carry their operations fully or partially to virtual environments. Many employees started to work from home all workdays or at least some workdays. Individuals carried their work to their homes, and their family lives and work lives became more interdependent and intertwined. This, inevitably increased work–family interaction and its importance on well-being. Investigation of the nature and the consequences of work–family enrichment (WFE) and work–family conflict (WFC) become more crucial given the new conditions shaped by the pandemic. This study aims to investigate the effects of daily WFC and WFE on daily positive affect (PA) and negative affect (NA) levels of employees during the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition to this, moderator effects of total time spent at home (in the last 30 days under the lockdown or for voluntary social isolation) on these relationships were addressed. The study also used variables specific to the conditions of the pandemic, such as income change due to pandemic, distance working, and days passed during the pandemic as control variables.

The current research contributes to the literature in several ways. First, the study adopts a nested, multilevel, and longitudinal approach to capture intra- and inter-individual variances and cross-level effects. Employees’ reactions and external conditions rapidly change during this unique period, making multilevel study models more crucial. The current study investigates intra-individual changes in the variables during five consecutive workdays along with inter-personal variance. This adds valuable information to the extant studies that predominantly address the study variables via single-level study designs (e.g., Allen et al., 2012; McNall, Nicklin, & Masuda, 2010). Second, the unique characteristics of the pandemic make the study novel, as the study variables are highly transformed and affected by the radical changes in the work–life and family–life conditions. Last, although previous studies have addressed the effect of WFE on PA (e.g., Carlson, Kacmar, Zivnuska, Ferguson, & Whitten, 2011), studies on the impact of WFE on NA are almost nonexistent. Similarly, while there are studies on the effect of WFC on NA (Allen et al., 2012), there are almost no studies on the effect of WFC on PA. In this respect, the research fills another gap in the literature.

The context and time of the research are distinctive in many aspects. The data for this study were collected during the early phases of the pandemic (April 2020), a month after the first COVID-19 related decease (March 15, 2020) in Turkey. During this time, people experienced various measures such as lockdowns, social distancing orders, travel restrictions, distance education, and distance working. They witnessed various adverse incidents in the family, country, and all around the world. Turkey demonstrates a highly collectivist and uncertainty-avoidant culture with feminine characteristics (Hofstede, 1984) where the family is of much importance, providing for the family is sacred, and building good relations is essential.

Theoretical Framework and Hypothesis Development

COR theory is the most comprehensive and robust framework to understand the complexity of the interplay between work and family as the resources between two domains are interdependent and threaten or foster each other (Westman et al., 2004b). Theory suggests that resources obtained in one domain can be transferred or used for coping with the adversities in other domains, which in turn increase levels of well-being and save individuals from possible adverse outcomes.

Family and work are vital sources that individuals are motivated to sustain and use to protect other resources (Westman et al., 2004b). When an external threat attacks and reduce the resources, individuals engage in renewing them in the current or other domains to balance the demands and resources (Freedy and Hobfoll, 1994). When there is a treat in the work–life, people can replenish their resources in the family domain, or it can also happen in the other direction. Work to family or family to work enrichment can help individuals replenish their resources to better cope with problems and sustain their positive state. Greenhaus and Powell (2006) describe WFE as a significant resource that can be used for mitigating the adverse effects of negative events and stressors. Carlson et al. (2014) supported this link with their findings indicating significant associations between both components of WFE and positive mood and psychological distress. McNall, Nicklin, & Masuda (2010) provided evidence for the significant link between WFE and mental and physical health.

The affective pathway in the WFE is structured on the spillover of resources and affect from one role to the other that facilitates the PA employee experiences in these roles (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006; Ilies, Wilson, & Wagner, 2009). The resources generated in one role can enable employees to achieve better performance in the other, and this can indirectly foster the PA (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006).

PA reflects how enthusiastic, active, and agile the person feels, while NA reflects how angry, guilty, fearful, and nervous the person feels (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988: 1063). Subjective well-being is conceptualized as the nature and the extent of the self-evaluation of people’s life experiences as positive or negative; thus, PA and NA are constructed as the components of subjective well-being along with life satisfaction (Diener, Suh, Lucas, & Smith, 1999). Busseri (2018)’s comprehensive meta-analysis provides supporting evidence for PA and NA to be significant components of subjective well-being. PA and NA are independent but related constructs, and the relationship between PA and NA is stronger in emotional times (Diener & Emmons, 1984).

Skills and emotions can spill over between life domains (Grzywacz & Marks, 2000). Emotions and experiences in the workday affect life and emotions at home (Repetti & Wood, 1997; Schulz, Cowan, Pape Cowan, & Brennan, 2004). This spillover can occur in both negative and positive ways. Dissatisfaction at the job role is a fundamental source of family stress and can reflect family members’ emotions (Nelson, O’Brien, Blankson, Calkins, & Keane, 2009). On the other hand, daily positive spillover from work is crucial for family health as it crossovers to other family members from working parents. Lawson et al. (2014) demonstrated that mothers' positive mood significantly impacted children’s sleep quality, physical health, and positive affect.

Individuals undertake multiple roles in work or family environments, which can have some positive consequences. For example, considering the role of parents at home, taking care of the children, and learning to be patient can contribute to managerial skills. They can be more patient with people they work with, enhance their empathy skills, and strive for their development. From another point of view, one’s experience in the job can also positively impact family life. An individual who tries to get things done by convincing others at the workplace and developing conflict resolution skills will be able to solve family-related troubles more effectively by using those skills in the family domain. WFE is defined as “the extent to which experiences in one role improve the quality of life in the other role” (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006: 73). If the resources and states contribute to family life, it is called work to family enrichment, and if the family dynamics contribute to work–life, it is referred to as family to work enrichment (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006).

WFE can serve as a resource and foster affective organizational attitudes such as affective commitment (Wayne, Randel, & Stevens, 2006). Moreover, Graves, Ohlott, and Ruderman (2007) provided evidence for the positive association between WFE and perceived performance. WFE can also serve as a source for high-quality experiences in the family. For instance, Van Steenbergen, Kluwer, and Karney (2014) provide evidence for the link between WFE and marital satisfaction.

On the other hand, work and family can also threaten resources obtained in the other domain. WFC depletes the resources of the individual and even can result in burnout (Westman et al., 2004a). WFC identifies the conflicts that one experiences between work and family roles (Deuling & Burns, 2017: 327), and it includes “role pressures from the work and family domains that are mutually incompatible in some respect” (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985: 77). These conflicts include problems with time management, psychological strain, and behaviors. For example, there are generally accepted behavior patterns in management. An executive can be expected to be confident, emotionally stable, aggressive, and impartial. However, he/she can be expected to be warm and emotional during communication with family members. If individuals cannot adjust their behaviors to meet expectations in different roles, they will likely have conflicts between these roles (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985: 80–82). These conflicts can also occur in both directions. Both work–family conflict and family–work conflict occur in different domains of life while people try to meet conflicting demands of these domains (Howard, Donofrio, & Boles, 2004: 377). Both forms of WFC were related to stress, negative affect, and mental health (Zhou, Da, Guo, & Zhang, 2018). Allen et al. (2000) grouped consequences of WFC under work-related (e.g., job satisfaction), non–work-related (e.g., family satisfaction), and stress-related (e.g., burnout) categories. Findings of (Ilies et al., 2007) demonstrate that PA and NA at home and work are strongly associated and how individuals behave at home is significantly predicted by WFC and PA at home. Kafetsios (2007) indicated that WFC has a negative effect on PA and a positive effect on NA and psychological distress that employees experience at work and outside the workplace.

Built on COR theory and the pattern of extant findings in the literature, we hypothesize a negative link between both forms of daily WFE and NA and a positive association with PA (Hypothesis 1). We hypothesize the opposite for WFC. We suggest a negative association between both forms of daily WFC and PA and a positive link between WFC and NA (Hypothesis 2).

Voluntary, quality and planned time spent with family can have positive outcomes. When individuals devote time to their families without doing work-related tasks, it can provide opportunities to replenish the resources. However, when it is compulsory and intertwined with other roles and duties, excessive time spent at home can be detrimental to resources individuals benefit from between domains. Being indoors for a long time, especially with others that cannot satisfy their social needs in the ways they are used to, can be stressful. For instance, as schools and parks are closed due to the pandemic, parents need to satisfy all needs of their children that were supported by others like teachers or friends.

Although the workload is positively associated with negative affect and WFC (Ilies et al., 2007), Matjasko & Feldman (2006) demonstrated that the spillover of anxiety was less likely on the days fathers worked longer hours. Despite working longer on the day may increase the negative mood, the spillover was weaker. One reason for this can be the less time spent at home, which allows lower interaction with family members. The time spent at home can strengthen the effects of work and family on each other. The cognitive states of individuals regarding how their minds are occupied with work are determinative on the quality and outcomes of time spent with the spouses (Harrison & Wagner, 2016).

Several studies emphasize the role of lockdown and time spent at home on psychological outcomes. Every-Palmer et al. (2020) address the adverse psychological effects of lockdown, such as anxiety, family violence, and suicidality. Weerakoon, Jetelina, and Knell (2020) demonstrated evidence for the positive link between time spent at home and binge drinking during the COVID-19 pandemic. Stieger, Lewetz, and Swami (2020) showed that time spent outside (instead of at home) during the pandemic was positively associated with psychological well-being.

Given the findings mentioned above in the literature, we suggest that time spent at home during the pandemic will strengthen the negative association between WFC and PA and the positive link between WFC and NA (Hypothesis 3). We also hypothesize that time spent at home during the pandemic will weaken the positive link between WFE and PA and the negative link between WFE and NA (Hypothesis 4). Figure 1 depicts the model and suggested associations of the study. Hypotheses of the study are listed below:

  • H1: Higher levels of daily WFE will be significantly related to reduced levels of daily NA and higher levels of PA.

  • H2: Higher levels of daily WFC will be significantly related to reduced levels of daily PA and higher levels of NA.

  • H3: Time spent at home during the pandemic will strengthen the negative association between WFC and PA and the positive link between WFC and NA.

  • H4: Time spent at home during the pandemic will weaken the positive link between WFE and PA and the negative link between WFE and NA.

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Research model.

Method

Participants and Procedure

After preparing the questionnaire to be used within the scope of the research, the ethics committee process was started. In Turkey, all academic studies during COVID-19 pandemic should be sent to the Republic of Turkey Ministry of Health to take permission. After this permission is obtained, if desired, a second ethics commission can be applied. Therefore, the first permission was obtained from the Republic of Turkey Ministry of Health with protocol number 2021-01-31T13_01_09 in this study.

We delivered brief daily questionnaires for five consecutive workdays asking employees’ levels of daily WFC, WFE and PA, and NA. We also asked whether they worked from distance that day. Second-level (person-level) data were collected with another form. One-item questions requesting the change in household income due to pandemic and total time spent under lockdown along with the categorical questions asking demographic information were added to this person-level form, which was delivered one time only. All dependent and independent variables in the research model (Figure 1) are day-level variables (measured daily for five consecutive days). The moderating variable (time spent at home) and all the control variables (except distance working) are person-level variables (measured one time). We asked respondents if they worked from home or at the workplace each day. Daily and person-level responses were matched via a code that the respondents created to ensure anonymity. Day-level data for this study were collected during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic between the dates April 13 and 18, 2020. Person-level data (second level) were collected the following week. Given the conditions pandemic entailed, we delivered and collected all forms via online channels. A convenience sampling method was adopted, and our sampling criteria limited our respondents to over 20 years old, white-collar employees working in various sectors in Turkey. Data from respondents who provided a general (one time) response and five consecutive day-level responses were taken in the analyses, and others who failed to give any data point were excluded. Given the demanding nature of the data collection process, to collect sufficient complete data, we did not focus on sectors. Analyses were conducted with 730-day, level, and 146 person-level data. In other words, 146 respondents provided 146 person-level and 730 day-level (146x5) data that were matched in the analyses. The ages of the respondents were ranging from 20 to 66, with an average of 38.42% of the respondents were female, and 62% were married. Mean time spent at home under lockdown was 21 days (in the last 30 days). Mean tenure was 14 years. 2/3 of the employees completed post-graduate studies.

Measures

All measures (except categorical questions) used a five-point Likert-type scale. Items in daily scales were slightly modified (when necessary) for assessing day-level variables. We utilized the PANAS scale (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988) to evaluate day-level positive and negative affect. The scale was translated and validated by Gençöz (2000). We just modified the instructions for asking the affect levels of employees for that day instead of a period. Seven items from the original 20 were selected (following the purpose of the study) to keep the daily survey short.

WFC was assessed by the scale developed by Haslam et al. (2015) and adapted to Turkish by Akın et al., 2017. The original scale has ten items in total for measuring work to family and family to work conflict. For measuring daily WFC, we used six items from the scale to keep the daily form as short as possible and slightly modified them to ask about the work–family interaction on that day. WFE was assessed by the short version of the work–family enrichment scale developed by Kacmar et al. (2014) and adapted to Turkish by Akçakanat and Uzunbacak (2019). Scale measures work to family enrichment and family to work enrichment with six items (3 each). We also asked for demographic variables: gender, marital status, age, and education. We also used one-item categorical questions to assess distance working and income change due to the pandemic and the time spent at home. We asked if the respondents worked from home or at the office on that day in the daily form. We asked how the household income changed due to conditions of the pandemic with options ranging from “decreased a lot” to “increased” and how many days in the last month the respondent spent at home under lockdowns or voluntary social isolation at the person-level (one time) survey.

Results

Overview of Analysis

Our data structure consists of day-level variables nested in individuals. Each respondent provided 5 days of daily responses and one time person-level variables. To analyze variance in both levels simultaneously, we tested our hypothesis via Hierarchical Linear Modeling using HLM statistical program. Before that, we used SPSS for preliminary analyses and the computation of the variables.

We conducted conditional models that include only level 1 and level 2 intercepts to explain each daily variable as the single dependent variable without any independent variables. This shows whether there is sufficient intra-individual variance for necessitating multilevel analysis. Results (intra-individual variance ratio to total variance) indicate substantial level 1 (within-person) variance for all day-level variables ranging from 51% to 60% (Table 1). Reliability statistics (true variance total variance ratio, see: Nezlek and Plesko, 2003) calculated by HLM are given in Table 1. They indicate high reliability for all measures.

Table 1.

Reliabilities and Variance Components.

Variable Intercept Within-person variance Between-person variance Percent of within-person variance Reliability Means
PA 3.25** 0.44 0.43 51 0.84 3,2598
NA 2.45** 0.52 0.43 55 0.86 2,4531
WTFENR 3.10** 0.81 0.60 57 0.87 3,1091
FTWENR 3.22** 0.66 0.61 52 0.84 3,2295
WTFCON 2.25** 0.65 0.56 54 0.85 2,2511
FTWCON 1.92** 0.69 0.46 60 0.88 1,9219
Open in a new tab

Note.: PA = positive affect, NA = negative affect, WTFENR = work to family enrichment, FTWENR = family to work enrichment, WTFCON = work to family conflict, FTWCON = family to work conflict. **P < .01.

Zero-Order Correlations

Correlations among the study variables are presented in Table 2. Correlations depicted above the diagonal are person-level correlations calculated through the aggregation of days (N = 146). We aggregated the scores by calculating the means (of 5 days) for each participant to analyze the correlations between level 1 and level 2 variables. Correlations below the diagonal are within-person correlations. These day-level correlations are calculated through group-centered single-predictor equations (N = 730). The difference created in the variance by adding one variable to explain the other to the null model was compared with the variance before. Correlations were calculated as the square root of this ratio for each combination. Results of the correlation analysis provide preliminary evidence for further analyzing our hypothesis. Dependent variables demonstrate significant associations with the independent variables.

Table 2.

Zero-Order Associations Among Study Variables.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. PA 1 -,513a ,440a ,456a -,172b -,149 ,149 -,024
2. NA -,397a 1 -,118 -,095 ,543a ,482a -,074 -,074
3. WTFENR ,295a -,064 1 ,733a ,026 ,087 ,016 ,015
4. FTWENR ,243a -,002 ,477a 1 ,075 ,028 ,000 ,012
5. WTFCON -,139b ,309a ,056 ,113b 1 ,665a ,075 -,110
6. FTWCON -,131b ,256a ,094 ,001 ,332a 1 -,088 ,011
7. DIST work -,081b ,084b ,053 -,001 -,047 ,001 1 ,166b
8. DAYS ,095b -,128b -,064 ,102b ,192a ,058 ,001 1
9. Gender -,044 -,071 -,021 -,068 -,061 -,063 ,337a -,070
10. Marital S. -,054 ,003 ,045 ,061 -,053 -,058 -,043 ,066
11. Edu -,002 -,022 -,049 -,080 -,045 -,043 -,175b -,041
12. Age ,114 -,131 ,076 ,043 -,097 -,024 -,118 -,010
Open in a new tab

Note. PA = positive affect, NA = negative affect, WTFENR = work to family enrichment, FTWENR = family to work enrichment, WTFCON = work to family conflict, FTWCON = family to work conflict. Correlations above the diagonal are between-person correlations (means across days, N = 146). Correlations below the diagonal (day-level) were computed through group-centered single-predictor equations (N = 730).

aCorrelation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

bCorrelation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Tests of Hypotheses

Table 3 depicts the multilevel estimates for the models predicting dependent variables of the study. Level 1 predictors were taken into analyses as group-centered (centered in accordance to the means of each individual across days), and level 2 variables were taken as grand-mean centered. We entered the same predictor variables for each dependent variable. We controlled our results for the demographic variables and aforementioned variables about the conditions entailed by the pandemic. Demographic variables, the change in household income, and the total time spent at home under lockdown were taken as person-level variables. Along with daily independent variables (forms of WFC and WFE), distance working was taken in the last models. We also kept the time logs to control for days to see if the days passing with the pandemic have significant effects on the dependent variables.

Table 3.

Multilevel Estimates for Models Predicting Dependent Variables of the Study.

PA NA
Variable Est SE T Est SE T
Intercept 3.259 0.58 55.37a 2.453 0.06 38.04a
Time spent at home −0.017 0.01 −2.01b 0.004 0.00 0.50
Days 0.040 0.01 2.51b −0.033 0.01 −2.12b
Distance working −0.166 0.08 −2.06b −0.211 0.08 −2.37b
W to F Enr. 0.208 0.04 5.07a −0.088 0.04 −2.16b
TSH −0.002 0.00 −0.52 0.000 0.00 0.04
F to W Enr. 0.120 0.04 2.62b −0.024 0.04 −0.61
TSH −0.010 0.00 2.69b 0.00 0.00 1.18
W to F Conf. −0.111 0.03 −3.06b 0.193 0.04 4.28a
TSH −0.009 0.00 −2.68b −0.00 0.00 −0.64
F to W Conf. −0.098 0.04 −2.02b 0.195 0.05 3.85a
TSH 0.001 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.64
Open in a new tab

Working from distance coded as 1. Working in regular workplace coded 0.

aSignificant at the 0.01 level.

bSignificant at the 0.05 level.

To make it easier to read and follow the results, we summarized all outputs for the dependent variables in the same table and extracted the variables from the table if they did not show any significant relationship with any of the dependent variables. None of the demographic variables and income change establishes any significant relationship with the dependent variables; thus, their direct effects are not depicted in the table. In the daily forms, respondents were asked if they worked from home or at the workplace on that workday. Distant working was negatively related to both positive and negative affect. On the days employees worked from distance, they experienced less positive and negative affect. We also added the day numbers in the model. As time during the pandemic passes by, positive affect levels of respondents increase, and negative affect levels decrease.

After controlling for the aforementioned variables, both forms of daily WFC demonstrated a positive association with NA and a negative relationship with PA. Daily work to family enrichment increased daily PA and decreased daily NA. Daily family to work enrichment increased daily PA but did not show a significant relationship with NA.

Time spent at home had a negative direct cross-level effect on PA levels. Its moderator role on the relationship between family to work enrichment and PA and work to family conflict and PA were significant. Time spent at home dampens the positive relationship between family to work enrichment and PA. The positive relationship between daily family to work enrichment and daily positive affect is weaker for employees who have spent more time at home under lockdown. Additionally, time spent at home strengthens the negative relationship between work to family conflict and PA.

We plotted the interactions to probe the nature of the associations visually (Figure 2). One SD high above the mean was labeled as “high,” and one SD above the mean was labeled as “low” (Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2013). Figure 2 demonstrates that the interactions are following the propositions of the study. With this pattern of results, Hypothesis 2 (regarding the effects of WFC) is fully supported, while Hypothesis 1, 3, and 4 are partially supported.

Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Open in a new tab

Plots for the interactions.

Discussion

The adverse effects of the pandemic have taken a heavy toll on every life domain. Conditions shaped by this challenging time threaten the well-being of individuals and deplete their resources. Elevated levels of time spent at home due to the measures such as lockdowns and social distancing increase the work–family interaction and its importance on work outcomes.

The focal aim of this study was to investigate how work–family interaction was related to well-being under pandemic conditions. Along with the effects of daily work–family interaction on daily affect levels, we also analyzed the role of time spent at home and other pandemic-specific conditions. The findings of the study provide supporting evidence for the hypothesized associations. Both forms of daily WFC are significantly related to daily PA and NA in the proposed way. Work to family enrichment also demonstrated significant effects on the dependent variables in the expected way. Family to work enrichment was positively associated with PA, but findings did not support the link between family to work enrichment and NA. Although no extant studies addressed day-level associations among study variables in one model, these findings are coherent with results in the literature addressing one side of the associations in single-level research designs (e.g., WFC-well-being; Moreno-Jiménez et al., 2009; WFE-well-being; Koekemoer & Olckers, 2019). The findings of Michel and Clark (2009) are in accordance with the current study’s findings as they indicate significant correlations between both WFE constructs and PA but no significant correlation between WFE and NA. Results are also in line with the theory. Consistent with the conservation of resources theory, individuals use the resources they generate at different life domains to cope with adversities and increased life demands during the pandemic. Findings emphasize the importance of work–family interaction on employee well-being under these unique circumstances.

We also aimed to investigate the role of time spent at home on the variables and their associations. Time spent at home (in the last 30 days) had a negative direct cross-level effect on PA levels. The moderating role of total time spent at home was significant on the relationship between family to work enrichment and positive affect and the link between work to family conflict and positive affect. The positive relationship between daily family to work enrichment and daily positive affect is weaker for employees who have spent more time at home under lockdown. Additionally, time spent at home strengthens the negative relationship between work to family conflict and PA.

Typically, increased time spent with the family can foster resources and satisfaction at home, but under pandemic circumstances, prolonged and compulsory time at home can have the opposite effects. We checked for possible links between work–family interference and total time spent at home (last month). The multilevel analysis results showed that time spent at home had no significant cross-level direct effects on WFC and WFE. But time spent at home acted as a significant moderator on the association between work to family conflict and NA and family to work enrichment and PA.

Additionally, the study examined control variables that are structured on relevant pandemic conditions, such as distance working and income change due to pandemic, along with the demographic variables. Genders can differ in how they carry the moods from work to home. For instance, negativity at work is carried as angrier marital behavior by women while men demonstrate more withdrawn behavior (Schulz et al., 2004). Various demographic variables are addressed as determinants of work–family interaction and its relationships with other variables (e.g., Jain & Nair, 2019). Hence, we added demographics into our analysis as control variables. None of the demographical variables showed a significant relationship with dependent variables. This is consistent with the findings of Allen et al. (2012) as they indicated no moderating effects of gender, parental status, or marital status between the work–family interaction and well-being. The level of education did not demonstrate significant effects either. One reason for this pattern of findings may be the sample characteristics that did not capture equal numbers from different levels of education. Household income change due to the pandemic also showed no significant relationship with the dependent variables. The findings of Major, Klein, and Ehrhart (2002) support these results as they found no significant relationship between perceived financial needs and work interference.

Distant working was negatively related to both positive and negative affect. Employees experienced higher levels of both PA and NA on the days they worked from home. This can be considered as the family domain became more affect inducing than the workplace under pandemic conditions. WFE and WFC being in the act together may be the reason behind this pattern of findings. These results are compatible with the conceptualization of PA and NA concepts as related but independent constructs that are not necessarily opposite (Diener & Emmons, 1984). Alternatively, we also examined whether distance working changed the levels of WFE and WFC. Results indicated no significant effects of distance working WFE and WFC. Instead, distance working had significant direct effects on PA and NA levels.

The current study enhanced our knowledge on the nature of associations among study variables by addressing intra-individual daily variance and cross-level effects. Work and family interdependence and environments are highly dynamic in nature, and they necessitate daily studies to comprehend inter- and intra-individual variation in time (Lawson et al., 2014). Rapid and radical changes brought by the pandemic added even more variance and dynamism to these concepts. Moreover, examining these variables under the unique conditions of the pandemic furthered our understanding of the links between concepts. Pandemic-related variables such as the time passed during the pandemic, distance working, income change, and time spent at home added more insights to explore the patterns among variables.

Results indicate that time mitigates adverse psychological effects of the pandemic on well-being. Respondents demonstrated higher PA and lower NA levels in time. One possible reason for these findings is that during the pandemic, employees are getting used to the conditions that the pandemic brings over time. This also shows the importance of multilevel and longitudinal research designs to capture the real nature of the concepts during the pandemic. As findings supported the links between work–family interaction and well-being, we additionally checked for the effects of time on WFC and WFE. Results revealed that respondents experience lower levels of WFC and WFE as time goes by. It is impotent to note that the study was conducted in the early phases of the pandemic (approximately 1 month after the first COVID-19 patient detected in Turkey). The reason behind the positive effect of time can be the fact that individuals recover from the shock and learn and adopt new ways to cope with the demands of the pandemic in time. They develop better home offices, learn to cope with this new lifestyle, and manage their time and roles more effectively for lower levels of work–family interference and higher enrichment levels.

Readers should keep in mind that the cultural characteristics of Turkey can be influential on the variables and their relationships. Turkey is characterized as a highly collectivist and uncertainty-avoidant culture (Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov, 2005). These characteristics with solid aspects of femininity create a novel context and limit the generalizability of the study findings. Given these cultural dynamics, supreme importance is devoted to family, and family life is very central. The centrality of work is relatively lower, and loyalty to traditions is high. Social ties are loosely knit, individual objectives are more prominent, and individuals are more expected to care for themselves in individualistic societies (Hofstede, 1984). Self-concept is more structured as “we” than “I” in collectivistic cultures; thus, taking care of their in-group and families is more expected (Kim, Triandis, Kâğitçibaşi, Choi, & Yoon, 1994). Role obligations and relatedness are more critical in collectivistic cultures, while freedom, autonomy, and personal achievement are more dominant in individualistic ones (Lu, Gilmour, Kao, & Huang, 2006). Following the aforementioned value differences, conceptualization and understanding of work and family phenomena may differ between collectivistic and individualistic cultures (Billing et al., 2014; Yang, Chen, Choi, & Zou, 2000). Work is more like a tool for personal achievement in individualistic cultures, while it is more viewed as a tool for providing for family needs in collectivistic societies.

Working more can be considered as a sacrifice to provide for the well-being of the family in a collectivistic society while it can cause more dissonance in individualistic ones as work and career are considered as personal objectives and desires (Billing et al. 2014). Working more (for the family) is less likely to be perceived as a reason for WFC in collectivistic cultures (Lu et al., 2006). Billing et al. (2014) provided evidence indicating that vertical and horizontal collectivism is negatively related to WFC while vertical individualism is positively related to WFC. Accordingly, Lu et al. (2006) supported the difference between collectivistic and individualistic cultures regarding WFC. Their findings demonstrated that sharing household chores and increased work demands were more related to WFC in British respondents compared to Taiwanese employees.

Along with the highly collectivistic structure, feminine characteristics of Turkish culture support the “work for life (or family)” notion more than the “life for work” idea. Even with this approach for work and family, the effects of WFC and WFE on affect levels were significant. One possible explanation for this is the uniqueness of the pandemic conditions and the rapid change in work and family interaction. Working overtime or long hours at the workplace and not being at home with the family is no longer the central theme in the WFC. With the contemporary dynamics, being at home with two roles at a time and increased family demands (e.g., more involvement with the children) are more central for work–family interference. Still, studies conducted in more individualistic and masculine cultures may demonstrate differing results.

Another limit for the generalizability of the results is the convenience sampling method of the study. Although the present research captures various sectors and demographic characteristics, future research focusing on sectors or work domains can further our understanding of the links between study variables. Different work designs and sectors can demonstrate differing natures regarding the work–family interaction during the pandemic. The present study address participants from numerous sectors; thus, it is not enabling to differentiate sectors and different work domains.

Alternative working styles will be dominant even after the post-pandemic era. Over time, organizations and individuals will develop new ways to manage the work–life balance and sustain their well-being through resources generated from both domains. Work and family stand as significant resources to cope with the psychological strain of the pandemic. Policies enhancing WFE and preventing WFC can be highly influential on the well-being levels of employees. Cross-cultural, longitudinal, and multilevel research designs addressing other possible dynamics underlying the associations between work–family interaction and well-being can further enlighten the links between concepts under these dynamic conditions.

Footnotes

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding: The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Mehmet Çetin https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9773-9714

Bayram Dede https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0172-9130

Özgür Kökalan https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2372-9198

Ezgi Dede https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3975-0904

References

  1. Akçakanat Ö. Ü. T., Uzunbacak Ö. Ü. H. H. (2019). Kısaltılmış İş-aile zenginleşmesi ölçeği türkçe formunun geçerlik ve güvenilirlik çalışması. Journal of Academic Researches and Studies, 11(20), 172-179. DOI: 10.20990/kilisiibfakademik.456614. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Akın A., Tunca M., Bayraktar İ. (2017). İş Aile Çatışması Ölçeği (İAÇÖ) Türkçe Formu Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması (The Study of the Validity and Reliability of the Turkish Form of Work Family Conflict Scale) II. Uluslararası Sosyal Bilimler sempozyumu (ASOS Congress), pp. 39-43, Alanya, 18-19-20 May2017. DOI: 10.17755/esosder.68461. [DOI]
  3. Allen T. D., Herst D. E., Bruck C. S., Sutton M. (2000). Consequences associated with work-to-family conflict: a review and agenda for future research. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5(2), 278. DOI: 10.1037/1076-8998.5.2.278. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Allen T. D., Johnson R. C., Saboe K. N., Cho E., Dumani S., Evans S. (2012). Dispositional variables and work–family conflict: a meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80(1), 17-26. DOI: 10.1016/j.jvb.2011.04.004. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  5. Amstad F. T., Meier L. L., Fasel U., Elfering A., Semmer N. K. (2011). A meta-analysis of work–family conflict and various outcomes with a special emphasis on cross-domain versus matching-domain relations. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 16(2), 151. DOI: 10.1037/a0022170. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Billing T. K., Bhagat R., Babakus E., Srivastava B. N., Shin M., Brew F. (2014). Work–family conflict in four national contexts: a closer look at the role of individualism–collectivism. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 14(2), 139-159. DOI: 10.1177/1470595813502780. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  7. Busseri M. A. (2018). Examining the structure of subjective wellbeing through meta-analysis of the associations among positive affect, negative affect, and life satisfaction. Personality and Individual Differences, 122, 68-71. DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2017.10.003. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Carlson D. S., Hunter E. M., Ferguson M., Whitten D. (2014). Work–family enrichment and satisfaction: mediating processes and relative impact of originating and receiving domains. Journal of Management, 40(3), 845-865. DOI: 10.1177/0149206311414429. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. Carlson D., Kacmar K. M., Zivnuska S., Ferguson M., Whitten D. (2011). Work–family enrichment and job performance: a constructive replication of affective events theory. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 16(3), 297. DOI: 10.1037/a0022880. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Cohen J., Cohen P., West S. G., Aiken L. S. (2013). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  11. Deuling J. K., Burns L. (2017). Perfectionism and work–family conflict: self-esteem and self-efficacy as mediator. Personality and Individual Differences, 116, 326-330. DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2017.05.013. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Diener E., Emmons R. A. (1984). The independence of positive and negative affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47(5), 1105. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.47.5.1105. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Diener E., Suh E. M., Lucas R. E., Smith H. L. (1999). Subjective wellbeing: three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 276. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.276. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Erdei C., Liu C. H. (2020). The downstream effects of COVID-19: a call for supporting family wellbeing in the NICU. Journal of Perinatology, 40(9), 1283-1285. DOI: 10.1038/s41372-020-0745-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Every-Palmer S., Jenkins M., Gendall P., Hoek J., Beaglehole B., Bell C., Stanley J. (2020). Psychological distress, anxiety, family violence, suicidality, and wellbeing in New Zealand during the COVID-19 lockdown: a cross-sectional study. Plos One, 15(11), e0241658. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0241658. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Freedy J. R., Hobfoll S. E. (1994). Stress inoculation for reduction of burnout: a conservation of resources approach. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 6(4), 311-325. DOI: 10.1080/10615809408248805. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  17. Gençöz T. (2000). Pozitif ve negatif duygu durum ölçeği: geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması [Positive and negative affect schedule: a study of validity and reliability]. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi, 15, 19-28. DOI: 10.31461/ybpd.475567. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  18. Graves L. M., Ohlott P. J., Ruderman M. N. (2007). Commitment to family roles: effects on managers’ attitudes and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 44. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.44. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Greenhaus J. H., Beutell N. J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Academy of Management Review, 10(1), 76-88. DOI: 10.5465/amr.1985.4277352. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  20. Greenhaus J. H., Powell G. N. (2006). When work and family are allies: a theory of work–family enrichment. Academy of Management Review, 31(1), 72-92. DOI: 10.5465/amr.2006.19379625. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. Grzywacz J. G., Marks N. F. (2000). Reconceptualizing the work–family interface: an ecological perspective on the correlates of positive and negative spillover between work and family. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5(1), 111. DOI: 10.1037/1076-8998.5.1.111. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Harrison S. H., Wagner D. T. (2016). Spilling outside the box: the effects of individuals’ creative behaviors at work on time spent with their spouses at home. Academy of Management Journal, 59(3), 841-859. DOI: 10.5465/amj.2013.0560. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. Haslam D., Filus A., Marowska A., Sanders M. R., Fletcher R. (2015). Development and initial validation of a self-report measure of work family conflict for use with parents. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 46(3), 346-357. DOI: 10.1007/s10578-014-0476-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Hobfoll S. E. (2002). Social and psychological resources and adaptation. Review of General Psychology, 6(4), 307-324. DOI: 10.1037/1089-2680.6.4.307. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. Hofstede G. (1984). Culture’s consequences: international differences in work-related values (5). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage. [Google Scholar]
  26. Hofstede G., Hofstede G. J., Minkov M. (2005). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind (2). New York: McGraw-Hill. [Google Scholar]
  27. Howard W. G., Donofrio H. H., Boles J. S. (2004). Inter‐domain work‐family, family‐work conflict and police work satisfaction. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, 27(3), 380-395. DOI: 10.1108/13639510410553121. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  28. Ilies R., Schwind K. M., Wagner D. T., Johnson M. D., DeRue D. S., Ilgen D. R. (2007). When can employees have a family life? the effects of daily workload and affect on work–family conflict and social behaviors at home. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1368. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1368. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Ilies R., Wilson K. S., Wagner D. T. (2009). The spillover of daily job satisfaction onto employees’ family lives: the facilitating role of work–family integration. Academy of Management Journal, 52(1), 87-102. DOI: 10.5465/amj.2009.36461938. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  30. Jain S., Nair S. K. (2019). Exploring job and family satisfaction: scale validation and role of demographic variables. Asia-Pacific Journal of Management Research and Innovation, 15(4), 138-152. DOI: 10.1177/2319510x19883089. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  31. Kacmar K. M., Crawford W. S., Carlson D. S., Ferguson M., Whitten D. (2014). A short and valid measure of work-family enrichment. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 19(1), 32. DOI: 10.1037/a0035123. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Kafetsios K. (2007). Work–family conflict and its relationship with job satisfaction and psychological distress: the role of affect at work and gender. Hellenic Journal of Psychology, 4(1), 15-35. [Google Scholar]
  33. Kim U., Triandis H., Kâğitçibaşi C., Choi S- C., Yoon G. (1994). Triandis, Çiğdem. Individualism and collectivism: theory, method, and applications. New York: Sage Publications. [Google Scholar]
  34. Koekemoer E., Olckers C. (2019). Women’s wellbeing at work: their experience of work–family enrichment and subjective career success. In Theory, Research and Dynamics of Career Wellbeing (pp. 259-282). Cham: Springer. [Google Scholar]
  35. Lawson K. M., Davis K. D., McHale S. M., Hammer L. B., Buxton O. M. (2014). Daily positive spillover and crossover from mothers’ work to youth health. Journal of Family Psychology, 28(6), 897. DOI: 10.1037/fam0000028. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Lu L., Gilmour R., Kao S. F., Huang M. T. (2006). A cross‐cultural study of work/family demands, work/family conflict and wellbeing: the Taiwanese vs British. Career Development International, 11(1), 9-19. DOI: 10.1108/13620430610642354. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  37. Major V. S., Klein K. J., Ehrhart M. G. (2002). Work time, work interference with family, and psychological distress. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 427. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.87.3.427. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Markowska-Manista U., Zakrzewska-Olędzka D. (2020). Family with children in times of pandemic–what, where, how? dilemmas of adult-imposed prohibitions and orders. Society Register, 4(3), 89-110. DOI: 10.14746/sr.2020.4.3.05. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  39. Matjasko J. L., Feldman A. F. (2006). Bringing work home: the emotional experiences of mothers and fathers. Journal of Family Psychology, 20(1), 47. DOI: 10.1037/0893-3200.20.1.47. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. 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(3), 381-396. DOI: 10.1007/s10869-009-9141-1. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  41. Michel J. S., Clark M. A. (2009). Has it been affect all along? a test of work-to-family and family-to-work models of conflict, enrichment, and satisfaction. Personality and individual Differences, 47(3), 163-168. DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2009.02.015. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  42. Moreno-Jiménez B., Mayo M., Sanz-Vergel A. I., Geurts S., Rodríguez-Muñoz A., Garrosa E. (2009). Effects of work–family conflict on employees’ wellbeing: the moderating role of recovery strategies. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 14(4), 427. DOI: 10.1037/a0016739. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Nelson J. A., O’Brien M., Blankson A. N., Calkins S. D., Keane S. P. (2009). Family stress and parental responses to children’s negative emotions: tests of the spillover, crossover, and compensatory hypotheses. Journal of Family Psychology, 23(5), 671. DOI: 10.1037/a0015977. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Nezlek J. B., Plesko R. M. (2003). Affect-and self-based models of relationships between daily events and daily wellbeing. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(5), 584-596. DOI: 10.1177/0146167203029005004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Repetti R. L., Wood J. (1997). Effects of daily stress at work on mothers’ interactions with preschoolers. Journal of Family Psychology, 11(1), 90. DOI: 10.1037/0893-3200.11.1.90. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  46. Schulz M. S., Cowan P. A., Pape Cowan C., Brennan R. T. (2004). Coming home upset: gender, marital satisfaction, and the daily spillover of workday experience into couple interactions. Journal of Family Psychology, 18(1), 250. DOI: 10.1037/0893-3200.18.1.250. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Stieger S., Lewetz D., Swami V. (2020). Psychological wellbeing under conditions of lockdown: an experience sampling study in Austria during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Happiness Studies, 22, 2703-2720. DOI: 10.31234/osf.io/qjhfp. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Tuzovic S., Kabadayi S. (2020). The influence of social distancing on employee wellbeing: a conceptual framework and research agenda. Journal of Service Management, 32(2), 145-160. DOI: 10.1108/josm-05-2020-0140. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  49. Valenduc G., Vendramin P. (2001). Telework: from distance working to new forms of flexible work organisation. Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research, 7(2), 244-257. DOI: 10.1177/102425890100700208. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  50. Van Steenbergen E. F., Kluwer E. S., Karney B. R. (2014). Work–family enrichment, work–family conflict, and marital satisfaction: a dyadic analysis. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 19(2), 182. DOI: 10.1037/a0036011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Wang B., Liu Y., Qian J., Parker S. K. (2020). Achieving effective remote working during the COVID‐19 pandemic: a work design perspective. Applied Psychology= Psychologie Appliquee, 70, 10-1111. DOI: 10.1111/apps.12290. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Watson D., Clark L. A., Tellegen A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Wayne J. H., Randel A. E., Stevens J. (2006). The role of identity and work–family support in work–family enrichment and its work-related consequences. Journal of vocational behavior, 69(3), 445-461. DOI: 10.1016/j.jvb.2006.07.002. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  54. Weerakoon S. M., Jetelina K. K., Knell G. (2020). Longer time spent at home during COVID-19 pandemic is associated with binge drinking among US adults. The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 47(1), 98-106. DOI: 10.1080/00952990.2020.1832508. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Weiss H. M., Cropanzano R. (1996). Affective events theory: a theoretical discussion of the structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at work. Research and Organizational Behavior, 18, 1-74. [Google Scholar]
  56. Westman M., Etzion D., Gortler E. (2004. a). The work–family interface and burnout. International Journal of Stress Management, 11(4), 413. DOI: 10.1037/1072-5245.11.4.413. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  57. Westman M., Hobfoll S. E., Chen S., Davidson O. B., Laski S. (2004. b). Organizational stress through the lens of conservation of resources (COR) theory. In Exploring Interpersonal Dynamics. Bingley, United Kingdom: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. DOI: 10.1016/s1479-3555(04)04005-3. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  58. Yang N., Chen C.C., Choi J., Zou Y. (2000). Sources of work–family conflict: a Sino-US comparison of the effects of work and family demands. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 113-123. DOI: 10.2307/1556390. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  59. Zhou S., Da S., Guo H., Zhang X. (2018). Work–family conflict and mental health among female employees: a sequential mediation model via negative affect and perceived stress. Frontiers in psychology, 9, 544. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00544. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Family Issues are provided here courtesy of SAGE Publications

RESOURCES