Available online at www.behaviorsciences.

com

Reef Resources Assessment and

Management Technical Paper
ISSN: 1607-7393
RRAMT 2014- Vol. 40, 2014, 1

Work-Family Enrichment, Work Engagement and Overall health:

An Iranian study
Marzieh Malekiha1*, Mohmmad Reza Abedi 2, Iran Baghban 2, Abass Johari 3, Maryam
Fatehizade2
1

Ph.D. student of career counseling, Department of counseling, University of Esfahan, Iran (Corresponding author)
2
Associate Professor, Department of Counseling, University of Esfahan, Iran
3
Associate Professor, Department of Technology, University of Cameron ,USA

Abstract:
This paper examined the relation work engagement, overall health, work-to-family enrichment and family-to- work enrichment
among sample of 468 married employees that have worked in one governmental university in Iran. Using multivariate regression
(GLM) for analysis of data, we found that overall heath and dedication have significant associations with work-to-family
enrichment and family-to-work enrichment. The results showed that there is no relation between demographic variables and workto-family and family- to- work enrichment. We identified the contributions of the study to the work- family enrichment literature
and discussed the implications of the findings for future research.
2014 Published by RRAMT France Ltd.
Keywords: Work-family enrichment; Work-family engagement; Overall health

Introduction
Work and family are arguably the two core domains of adult life. In applied psychology, there is increasing interest
in investigating the relationship between these two central life domains. For the past decades, psychological research
has mainly focused on the negative effects (e. g., conflict) of being involved in work and family simultaneously.
(Casperet al., 2007) while often overlooking the positive effects. On the other in recent years, the importance of
managing the boundary between work and family roles has come to the fore on organizational research. This is because
work and family are essential components in the lives of most people (Andrews &Withey, 1976; Campbell & et al,
1976).Most of researchers agree that when a person has difficulty in striking this balance, there may potentially be
several detrimental outcomes. Conversely, if a person successfully manages his or her multiple roles, these roles may
enrich his or her life (Rothbard, et al.2006). On the other hand, employees who experience enrichment between work
and family tend to demonstrate improved physical health, lower absenteeism, and higher job performance. (Van
Steenbergen & Ellemers, 2009).
Theory and hypotheses this study makes several contributions by addressing two important issues in the literature on
work-family enrichment. First, surprisingly little evidence exists illustrating the relation between work- to-family
enrichment and family to-work enrichment. Therefore, the overall objective of this study is first, to examine the

Reef Resources Assessment and Management Technical Paper, Vol. 40 (4), 2014, 1, pp. 827-835

relevant antecedents of work-to-family enrichment proposed by Greenhouse and Powell (2006); second, to extend
Western theories of work- family enrichment to samples in Iranian employees.
Theoretical Underpinning of the study
The majority of work-family research has focused on negative spillover between demands and outcomes and between
the work and family domains (e.g., work-family conflict; Eby, Casper, Lockwood, Bordeaux, & Brinley, 2005). The
theory that guided this research was in most cases role stress theory (Greenhaus& Beutell, 1985) or the role scarcity
hypothesis (Edwards & Rothbard, 2000). However, according to spillover theory, work-related activities and
satisfaction also affect non-work performance, and vice vera .Recently, in line with the positive psychology movement
(Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi,2000),work-family interaction research has also included concepts of positive spillover
(Bakker & Schaufeli,2008; Grzywacz& Marks, 2000).This emerging focus supplements the dominant conflict
perspective by identifying new ways of cultivating human resource strength. Greenhaus and Powell (2006) suggested
that work-family enrichment best captured the mechanism of the positive work- family interface, and conceptualized
work-family enrichment as" the extent to which experiences in one role improve the quality of life in the other
role"(pp.73). Research on the positive aspects of the work-family interface suggests that employees balancing both
domains may actually receive enriching rewards (Powell &Greenhaus, 2010). Greenhouse and Powell (2006)
specified an instrumental path and an affective path by which work and family resources promote work-family
enrichment. In this dual-path model, five types of resources generated from participation in a role were identified:
skills and perspectives, psychological and physical resources, social capital resources, flexibility, and material
resources. The instrumental path indicates that resources accumulated in role a (work or family) can directly promote
high performance in role B(family or work).The affective path suggests that resources derived from role A produce
positive affect in role A, which in turn promote higher performance in role Additionally, through both the instrumental
and affective paths, the resources derived in role promote positive affect in role B,due to the effect of improved
performance in role According to theses propositions, a role state that is characterized by high performance and
positive affect should be the most proximal factor in predicting work-family enrichment.Conceptually,work
engagement could represent a critical factor in testing Greenhaus and Powell s (2006) theoretical propositions.
Conceptually, Work engagement is defined and operationalized by vigor, dedication, and absorption'(Schaufeli,
Salanova, Gonzales-Roma, & Bakker, 2002,pp.74).That is in engagement, fulfillment exists in contrasts to the voids
of life that leave people feeling empty as in burnout. Rather than a momentary, specific emotional state, engagement
refers to a more persistent and pervasive affective-cognitive state. Vigor is characterized by high levels of energy and
mental resilience while working, and willingness to invest effort in one's work, and persistence even in the face of
difficulties. Dedication refers to being strongly involved in one's work, and experiencing a sense of significance,
enthusiasm, inspiration, pride, and challenge. Absorption is characterized by being fully concentrated and happily
engrossed in one's work, whereby time passes quickly and one has difficulties with detaching oneself from work
(Bakker &Leiter, 2010; Schaufeli&Salanova, 2007; Schaufeli&Taris, 2005; Schaufeli& et al.2006).On the other
handwork engagement is a positive, fulfilling, affective-motivational state of work-related well-being that can be seen
as the antipode of job burnout. Engaged employees have high levels of energy, and enthusiastically involved in their
work (Bakker,Schaufeli,Leiter,& Taris,2008).Most scholar s agree that engagement includes an energy dimension and
an identification dimension. Thus, engagement is characterized by a high level of vigor and strong identification with
one's work.
From the affect perspective, employees with high work engagement should co- exist with positive affect and cognition,
as they feel vigorous and work on meaningful tasks. Furthermore, when people are fully concentrated, they tend to
feel time passes quickly, which is a typical happy experience (Seligman, Rashid,& Parks, 2006).From a performance
perspective, employees with high work engagement feel a strong identity with their work, and they perspective their
work as meaningful, inspirational and challenging, thus they tend to apply knowledge, and utilize skills and resources
828

Reef Resources Assessment and Management Technical Paper, Vol. 40 (4), 2014, 1, pp. 827-835

to a greater extent at work(Bakker&Demerouti,2007).Research has indeed shown that work engagement is positively
related to job performance (Demerouti&Cropanzano,2010).Hence, conceptually, work engagement resembles the
states of high performance and positive affect.
Theoretical reasoning also points to the positive relationships between work engagement and the two-path process
underlying work-family enrichment. According to Greenhouse and Powell s (2006) first instrumental path,
knowledge, skills, and various resources in role A will directly improve performance in role B.We argue that the
knowledge, skills, and various resources at work are transferred and utilized in the family domain through the
experience of high work engagement. Highly engaged employees are characterized by strong identity with the work,
and recognition of meaning and significance in the work. Highly engaged employees also welcome challenges and
believe that they will continuously learn and grow from work(Bakker &Leiter,2010).Because engaged workers believe
what they do at work is meaningful and they can better cognitively crystalize the knowledge ,skills , and various
resources , which in turn are more readily transferred to their family domain. Similarly, according to Greenhouse and
Powell s (2006) affect path (Knowledge, skills , and various resources in role A will lead to positive affect in both
roles A and B),highly engaged employees are characterized by vigor, energy, and a happy mood at work. This mood
may directly spill over to the family domain and facilitate family role performance, which in turn would enhance the
positive mood in family domain. Therefore we suggest:
Hypotheses 1a.Dedication will be related to WFE.
Hypotheses 1b.Vigor will be related to WFE.
Hypotheses 1c.Absorpation will be related to WFE.
Under the influence of work family conflict, these has been an implicit assumption of domain specific city dynamics
, which suggests that job resources primarily lead to WFE, while family resources primarily lead to FEW. However,
empirical findings suggest that certain predictors that are significantly related to one type of enrichment are also
significantly related to the other type of enrichment .For example Lu et al. (2009). Found that both support and support
from family-friendly coworkers gad positive effects on both FEW and WFE. If Greenhouse and Powell s (2006)
propositions are true, the performance and affect enriching process between work and family roles may in fact be
reciprocal. Thetis, the knowledge, skills, and various resources derived from either role set will yield both WFE and
FEW. Thus we suggest,
Hypotheses 2a .Dedication will be will be related to FEW.
Hypotheses 2b.Vigor will be will be related to FEW.
Hypotheses 2c .Absorption will be will be related to FEW.
Studies have also found relationship between work-family conflict and adverse health outcomes. Most of these
findings suggest the opposite of work- family enrichment- that conflict contributes a decrease in physical and mental
health. For example, Frone et al. (1997 a) and Frone, Russell, and Barnes (1996 b) reported that conflict is related to
increased levels of depression, poor physical health, hypertension between work-family conflict and somatic
complaints, as well as depression. Madsen, John, and Miller (2005) also found a significant relationship between
higher employee perceptions of both work- to family and family-to- work conflict and their own perceptions of
personal mental and physical health. In combination these studies present persuasive evidence that both work-family
enrichment and workfamily conflict are related either favorable that both (enrichment) and unfavorable (conflict)
to health outcomes. Thus we suggested,
Hypotheses 3 a. Overall health will be related to WFE.
Hypotheses 3 b. Overall health will be related to FEW.
Finally, with regarding to overall health and work engagement, we suggested:
Hypotheses 4.Overall health and work engagement predicting WFE
Hypotheses 4.Overall health and work engagement predicting FWE

828

Reef Resources Assessment and Management Technical Paper, Vol. 40 (4), 2014, 1, pp. 827-835

Method
Sample
A total 490 questionnaire were distributed to married male and female employees in one governmental university in
Iran .Although, the response rate was 0/100,22 questionnaires were later discarded because of missing data. Therefore,
the effective response rate was approximately 0/97 and exceeded on 468 participants. This sample was selected
randomly among all of married male and female employees that work in nine department of university .Of the 468
respondents, 229 (49 %) were male, and 239 (51%) were female. Among of all participants 31.4 were in less than 30
ages, 15.6 % were in the 30-40 age range; 36.8 % were in the 40-50 age range; 16.2 % were in the 50 or older age
range. .Regarding to income at month, 29.5 % have income 35 $ at month; 19.2% have income at range of 35 to 65$
at month; 30.6 % have income in the range of 65$ to 100$ at month, and 20.7 % have income in the range of 100 $
above. Regarding to job position, 53% were dual earner; 18.4 % were spouse earner and 28.6 % only husband earner.
Regarding to work hours 19.2 % have work hours less than 35 hours per week; 36.8 % work between 35 to 45 hours
per week; 31.23 % have work hours between 40 to 45 hours per week and .9 % above 40 hours per week. Regarding
life stage 15.6 % were without child ; 57.5 % have child or children in the range 6-12 age, 17.1 % have child or
children in the range 13-18 age and 9.8 % have child or children 18 age or older. Regarding control on work 22%
have without control on their work; 35.9 % have rarely control, 11.5% have sometime control on their work; 20.1 %
have often control and 10.3 % have perfect control on their work.
Measure
Work-family enrichment
A 24 item adaptation of scale developed by Carlson et al. (2006) was used to measure the dimensions of work-family
and family work enrichment. Three dimensions were reflected in each direction of enrichment (WFE; affect,
development, capital; FEW: affect, development, efficacy). Four items measured each dimension, participants
responded to the items on a 5 point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Cronbach
alpha reliabilities reported by Carlson et al. (2006) for their full scale was high (=0/92) and for each subscale the
reliabilities exceeded the conventional level acceptance of 0/70 (Hair et al., 2003). The above measure was chosen
because it incorporates the multiple dimensions, the two elements (transfer of resource and enhanced functioning) and
the bi-directional nature of enrichment (Carlson et al., 2006).
The Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES)
The Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) has been developed base on definition of work engagement that
includes vigor, dedication, and absorption, a three-dimensional questionnaire has been developed. (Schaufeli&
Bakker, 2003; Schaufeliet al., 2002).UWES contains 17 items .The UWES items are scored from 0("never") to
6("always").In this scale vigor has been assess through 6 item(e.g., At my work, I feel that I am bursting with energy)5
items for dedicating(e.g., I find that work that I do full of meaning and purpose)and 6 item for assess absorption(e.g.,
Time flies when I'm working) has been applied.
Overall health questionnaire
In this research for assess of overall health we used one scale that was an adapted 7-item health instrument that
developed by Madsen, John, and Miller (2005). It was used to measure overall health perceptions (i.e., mental,
emotional, physical). It was originally adapted from subscales within Hanpachern s (1997) Revised Margin in Life
instrument (Madsen et al., 2005).The Cronbach alpha for this sale was accepted( 0.85, Stoddard and et al., 2007).The
Cronbach s alpha of this scale in this study 0.83.
Demographic questionnaire
838

Reef Resources Assessment and Management Technical Paper, Vol. 40 (4), 2014, 1, pp. 827-835

In this study demographic questionnaire include of age( coded as under 30 age =1, in the range of 30-39 age =2, in
the range of 40-49 age =3, 50 or older age= 4), gender (coded as male=1 and female=2), income at month( coded as
35 $ at month=1, between 35 to 65$ at month=2, 65$ to 100$ at month=3, 100 $ above= 4), job position ( coded as
dual earner=1, only spouse earner=2, only husband earner=3), work hours (coded as under 35 hours per week=1;
35 to 45 hours per week=2; 40 to 45 hours per week=3 , above 40 hours per week=4), life stage (coded as without
child=1, child(or) children in the range of 6-12 age=2, child(or) children in the range of 13-18 age=3; child(or)
children 18 or older age=4), control on work ( without control=1, rarely control=2, sometime =3, perfect control =4 ).
Results:
Table 1 provides the correlations, means, and standard deviations of study variables. Correlation coefficients with
work-to-family enrichment and family- to- work enrichment indicated no relationship of demographic factors but for
life stage (-.12, p<0.01). Overall health was significant correlation with work-to-family enrichment (.63, p<0.01) and
family- to- work enrichment (.51 p<0.01). Among of work engagement subscales, dedication was more strongly
related to work-to-family enrichment (.49, p<0.01) and family-to-work enrichment (.39, p<0.01). Absorption was
more related to work-to-family enrichment (.46, p<0.01) and family-to-work enrichment (.36, p<0.01). Vigor was
negative related to work-to-family enrichment (.39, p<0.01) and family-to-work enrichment (.29, p<0.01). To test the
study s hypotheses, we conducted hierarchical multiple regressions. Overall health and all subscales of work
engagement were entered to model as independent variables and work-to-family enrichment , family- to- work
enrichment were the dependent variables on subsequent steps(refer to Table 2). A two-step model was used to
determine the effect of overall health and work engagement on work-to-family enrichment and family- to- work
enrichment. For two dependent variables, the first step introduced overall health .The second step, work engagement
subscales as independent variables added to model. The result of multiple regressions has shown table 2. As shown in
Table 2, among of independent variables overall health and dedication have significant relationship with work-tofamily enrichment and was explained totally .46 of proportion of variance work-to-family enrichment. Also, overall
health and dedication explain.29 proportion of variance of family-to-work enrichment that shows direct relationship
between these variables and family-to-work enrichment.
Table 1 Descriptive statistics and correlations among study variable
Variable
1.WFE a
2. FEW b
3. Overall health
4.Dedication
5. Vigor
6.Absorption
7.Age
8.Gender
9.Incom at
month
10.Job position
11.Work hours
12.Life stage
13.Control on
work

SD

8.85
10.51
9.03
19.95
27.38
37/90
2.37
1.51
2.42

38
43.56
2.46
5.50
9.35
8/82
1.09
.51
1.11

1.94
2.41
2.21
2.61

.92
.95
.82
1.32

10

1 ,82** .63** .49** .39** .46** 0.05

-.04
-.04
1 .51** .39** .29** .36**
-.02
-.04 -.006
1 .41**
.06
.01
.07
-.07 -.005
1 .76** .89** .15**
-.07
.06
1 .76** .17** --.09* .007
1 .16** -.12**
.03
1 -.23** .25**
1
-.04
1

-.02
-.006
.009
.04
-.003
.05
.32**
-.18**
.40**

11

12

13
.03
-.07
.04
.03 -.12**
-.05
.06
-.08 .09*
.15**
-.04
.07
.16**
-.06
.06
.10*
-.04
.01
.34** .30** .18**
-.04
-.01
.07
.37** .21** .29**

1 .38** 0/10* .12*

1 .17** .25**
1 .29**
1

a WFE= Work-to-family enrichment; b FEW= Family-to-work engagement

*p<0.05. , **P<0.01. , ***p<0.001.
838

Reef Resources Assessment and Management Technical Paper, Vol. 40 (4), 2014, 1, pp. 827-835

Variable

Table 2 Result of hierarchical regression predicting WFE, FWE

SE

T
R 2
F
df
p

Total R 2

Regression 1: Overall health and Dedication predicting WFE

Step 1
Health
Step 2
Health
Dedication

2.626

.129

.632

17.559

.40

308.325

1,467

<0.001

.40

1.843

.134

.515

13.780

.066

201.392

1,466

<0.001

.46

.453

.060

.282

7.556

Regression 2: Overall health and Dedication predicting FWE

Step 1
Health
Step 2
Health
Dedication

.513

12.854

.263

165.213

1,467

<0.001

.263

.035

98.096

1,466

<0.001

.29

2.180

.170

1.817

.182

.427

9.976

.392

.082

.206

4.806

Discussion:
The aim of this present study was to empirically test the research propositions put forward by Greenhouse and Powell
(2006). We examined relevant antecedents that lead to work-family enrichment to extend research of work-family
enrichment to Iranian society. As Carelson et al. (2006) and Greenhouse and Powell (2006) have argued, the findings
of this study suggest that employees do perceive a positive connection between work and family. The result of this
study showed that there is significant correlation between three subscale's work engagement and work-to-family
enrichment and family-to-work enrichment. Therefore hypotheses1a, 1b, 1c, 2a, 2b, 2c were confirmed. Consistent
with the theoretical propositions of Greenhouse and Powell (2006), merely role resources may not result in workfamily enrichment; however, if these resources are helpful for role performance and promote role experiences, the
role performers are more likely to transfer the gains from one role to another role. Our results support the hypothesis
that role resources are important antecedents of work engagement, supporting the motivational path in the JD-R model.
(Bakker &Demerit, 2007;Bakker et al., 2008). Past research tended to assess the positive effects of role resources on
work-family enrichment, compared to the role resources variables such as family-friendly, organizational policies,
supervisor support, job autonomy, and family support, work engagement had a greater impact on work-family
enrichment, these findings that work engagement is an important factor that enables work-family enrichment.
Additionally, employees who experience work engagement welcome challenges and believe that they will
continuously learn and grow from work(Bakker & Leiter,2010).Because engaged workers believe what they do at
work is meaningful and they can better cognitively crystalize the knowledge ,skills , and various resources , which in
turn are more readily transferred to their family domain. Similarly, according to Greenhouse and Powell s (2006)
affect path (knowledge, skills , and various resources in role A will lead to positive affect in both roles A and B),highly
engaged employees are characterized by vigor ,energy, and a happy mood at work. This mood may directly spill over
to the family domain and facilitate family role performance, which in turn would enhance the positive mood in family
domain.
832

Reef Resources Assessment and Management Technical Paper, Vol. 40 (4), 2014, 1, pp. 827-835

The result of this study shows that there is significant correlation between overall health and work-to-family
enrichment and family-to- work enrichment. Thus 3a and 3b were confirmed. Yet it is clear that there is a relationship
between work- to- family enrichment and family- to- work enrichment and individual health. Nevertheless, in today's
workplace health is seen as directly influencing the bottom line. On the other hand this study also suggests that that
work-family enrichment and health may influence one another. Overall health and mental-emotional health were
strongly correlated to enrichment in the family-work direction, suggesting that family participation supports the
mental-emotional and overall health of an individual. These findings also support those of Grzwacz and Bass (2003),
Hanson et al. (2006), Grzwacz (2000), and Barnett and Baruch (1986), who also found positive health behaviors
(lower mental illness, depression, and problem; higher overall mental and physical health) are associated with
simultaneous involvement in work and family roles. This study only measured the employee s perceptions of health,
not actual health. However, perceptions are an important measure of various dimensions of health and overall
wellbeing; they have been used in many respected studies (e. g., Frone et al., 1997 a). Most of the previously healthrelated studies (e. g., Frone et al., 1997b; Frone et al ., 1996; Madson et al ., 2005; Major et al., 2002). Some research
also have been found that there is positive relationship between physical and mental health and work-family
enrichment (e.g., Dyson-Washington,2006),another positive side of work-family interaction such as work-family
facilitation( Allis & O Driscoll, 2008; Holbrook, 2005; Vaydanoff,2005; Grzywacz& Bass,2003; Van Steenburgen et
al., 2007)and work-family spillover( Hammer et al., 2005 ;Kinnunen et al.,2006;McCarthy,1999;Stephens et al.,1997;
Williams et al., 2006)and physical and mental health that these finding is congruence with result of this research. Last
our hypothesis in this study was examining the role of overall health and work engagement in predicting of workfamily enrichment and family-work enrichment. The results showed that overall health and dedication strongly
predicting work-to-family enrichment and family-to-work enrichment.
Limitation and future research
Like any study, there are limitations that must be acknowledged. First, these studies were cross-sectional and based
on self-report data, which has the potential to inflate correlations and limits the ability to make causal inferences.
Additionally, research should examine positive work-family interaction by employing longitudinal designs; following
the lead of Hammer, Cullen, Neal, Sinclair, and Shafiro (2005).There are several recommendations for future research.
First, research needs to be continued to determine the causality of work-family enrichment construct with other
variables; specifically an investigation in to employee s perceptions of a stronger link between work- to- family
enrichment and family- to- work enrichment and variety of possible moderating and influential factors may be helpful.
This research only addressed a few. Understanding what factors in work and family life influence enrichment could
be valuable to employees as they strive to find balance in these roles. Third, future research should also focus on other
demographic variables which may be mediating influences in the work family interface. Finally qualitative research
exploring the specific supportive behaviors that are linked to higher work- family enrichment would be valuable.
Practical and theoretical implications
The present research contributes to theory in several ways. First, it provides clarification between the three most
frequently used constructs in the different domain that also not consider. Second, this study clarifies some of the
confusion with regard to the relationship between work engagement, overall health, work- to-family enrichment and
family-to-work enrichment. Finally, this study provides new evidence showing that employees who possess overall
health and dedication are able to experience and perceive positive synergies between work and life domain. These
findings indicate to managers the importance of valuing employees family lives because family lives because family
life is an important source of support and meaning for employee's engagement in the workplace. For employees, our
findings suggest that work means much more than in instrumental support for family.

833

Reef Resources Assessment and Management Technical Paper, Vol. 40 (4), 2014, 1, pp. 827-835

References:
Allis,P., &O Driscoll,M. (2008). Positive effects of network-to-work facilitation on wellbeing in work, family and personal domains. Journal of
Managerial psychology, 23(3), 273-291.
Andrews, F., &Withey, S. (1976). Social Indicators of Well- Being. New York: Plenum Press.
Bakker,A.B., &Schaufeli, W.B.(2008). Positive organizational behavior: engaged employees in flourishing organizations. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 29, 147-154.
Bakker, A. B., &.,Leither, M.P. (Eds.).(2010). Work engagement : A handbook of essential theory and research. New York: Psychology Press.
Bakker, A. B., &Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22, 309- 366.
Bakker,A.B., Schaufeli, W.B., Leiter,M P., &Taris, T.W. (2008). Work engagement: An emerging concept in occupational health psychology.
Work & Stress,22,187-200.
Barnett, R. & Baruch, G.K. (1986). Women s involvement in multiple roles and psychological distress. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 49(1),135-145.
Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., & Rodgers, W. L. (1976).The Quality of American Life. Gray. Modern Differential Geometry.CRE Press, 1998.
Carlson, D. S., Kacmar, K. M., Wayne, J. H., &Grzwacz, J .G. (2006).Measuring the positive side of the work-family interface: Development and
validation of a work-family enrichment scale. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 131-164.
Demorouti, E., &Cropanzona. (2010). from thought to action: Employee work engagement and job performance. In A. B. Bakker, & M. P. Leiter
(Eds.), Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research. New York: Psychology Press.
Dyson-Washington, F. (2006).The relationship between optimism and work-family enrichment and their influence on psychological well-being.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA.
Eby, L. T., Casper, W. J., Lockwood, A., Bordeaux, C., &Brinley, A. (2005). A retrospective on work and family research in IO/OB: A content
analysis and review of the literature [Monograph]. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 124-197.
Edwards, J. R, &Rothbard, N. P. (2000). Mechanisms linking work and family: Clarifying the relationship between work and family constructs.
Academy of Management Review, 25,178-199.
Frone, M. R., Yardley, J.K.& Markel, K.S. (1997). Developing and testing an integrative model of the work-family interface. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 50,145-167.
Frone, M.R., Russell. & Cooper, M.L. (1997). Relation of work- family conflict to health outcomes: A four-year longitudinal study of employed
parents. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 70(4),325-335.
Frone,M.R., Russell,M., &Barnes,G.M.(1996). Work-family conflict, gender and health related outcomes: A study of employed parents in two
community samples. Journal of Occupational Heath Psychology,1(1),57-67.
Frone,M.R., YardleyJ.K., &Markel,K.S.(1997). Developing and testing an integrative model of the work-family interface. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 50,145-167.
Greenhaus, J. H., &Beutell,N.J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles.Academy of Management Review, 10, 76-88.
Greenhaus, J. H., &Powell,G. N. (2006). When work and family are allies: A theory of work family enrichment. Academy of Management Review,
10, 76-88.
Grzywacz, J.G., & Marks, N.F. (2000).Conceptualizing the work- family interfaces: An ecological perspective on the correlates of positive and
negative spillover between work and family. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5,111-126.
Grzywacz,J.G.&Bass,B.L.(2003). Work, family and mental health: Testing different models of work-family fit. Journal of Marriage and Family,
65(1), 248-262.
Hair, J. F ., Babin, B., Money, A. H., &Samoul, P. (2003). Essentials of business research methods. Hobonken, NJ: Wiley.
Hammer,L.B., Cullen,J.C., Neal,M.B., Sinclair, R.R., &Shafiro, M. V. (2005). The longitudinal effects of work- family conflict and positive
spillover on depressive symptons among dual-earner couples.Journal of Occuupational Health Psychology, 10,138-154.Doi: 10.1037/10768998.10.2.138.
Hanpachern, C., Morgan, G.A.,&Griego, O.V. (1998). An extension of the theory of margin: A framework for assessing reading for change. Human
Resource Development Quarterly,9(4),336-350.
Hanson, G.C., Hammer,L.B. & Colton, C.L. (2006). Development and validation of a multidimensional scale of perceived work-family positive
spillover . Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,11(3),249-265.
Holbrook, S. (2005). Development and initial validation of the work-family facilitation scale. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Florida, Gainesvills,FL.
Kinnunen,U., Feldt,T., Geurts,S.,&Pulkkinen,L. (2006). Types of work-family interface: Well-being correlates of negative and positive spillover
between work and family. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 47, 149-162.
Lu, J. F., Siu, O. L., Spector, P., & Shi, K. (2009). Antecedents and outcomes of a four fold taxonomy of work-family balance in Chines employed
parents. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 14, 182- 192.
Madsen, S.R., John, C.R., &Miller,D. (2005). Work-family conflict and health: A study of workplace, psychological, and behavioral correlates.
Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, 6(3), 225-247.
838

Reef Resources Assessment and Management Technical Paper, Vol. 40 (4), 2014, 1, pp. 827-835
Major,V.S., Klein,K.J., &Ehrhart,M.G. (2002). Work time, work interference with family,and psychological distress. Journal of Applied
Psychology,87(3),427-436.
McCarthy, N. B. (1999). Relations between work-family interface modes and patterns of coping behavior .Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
George Mason University, Fairfax, VA.
Powell, G. N., &Greenhouse, J. H. (2010). Sex, gender, and the work family interface: Exploring negative and positive interdependencies. Academy
of Management Journal, 53.
Rothbard,N.P.,& Tracy .L. D. (2006). Research Perspectives: Managining the work-human interface. In Jones, Fiona, Burke, Ronald J and Western,
Mina (Ed.) Work-Life Balance: A psychological Perspective. Psychology Press, New York.
Schaufeli, W, B., Salanova, M., Gonzalez-Roma, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A confirmative
analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, 71-92.
Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources and their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 293-315.
Schaufeli, W. B., &Salanova, M. (2007). Efficacy or inefficacy , that s the question: Burnout and work engagement , and their relationship with
efficacy. Anxiety , Stress, & Coping, 20, 177- 196.
Schaufeli, W. B., &Taris, T. W. (2005). The conceptualization and measurement of burnout: Common ground and worlds apart. Work & Stress,
19, 356-362.
Schaufeli, W.B., Martinez,I., Marques Pinto, A., Salanova,M., Bakker, A.B. (2002). Burnout and engagement in university students: A cross
national study. Journal of Cross- Cultural Psychology, 33, 464-481.
Schaufeli, W.B., Taris, T. W., & Bakker, A. B. (2006). Dr. Jekyll or Mr. Hyde: On the differences between work engagement and workaholism.
In: R, Burke (Ed.), Work hours and work addiction (pp. 193-252). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
Schaufeli,W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2003).. Utrecht Work Engagement Scale: Preliminary Manual .Department of Psychology, Utrecht University,
The Netherlands: (available from www.schaufeli.com).
Seligman, M. E. P., Rashid, T., & Parks, A. C. (2006).Positive psychology. American Psychologists, 61 , 774-788.
Seligman, M., &Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. The American Psychologist, 55, 5-14.
Stephens,M.P., Franks,M.M., &Atienza, A.A.(1997). Where two roles intersect: Spillover between parent care and employment. Psychology and
Aging,12(1),30-37.
Stoddard,M., Madsen,S.R. (2007). Toward an understanding of the link between work- family enrichment and individual health. Academy of
Human Resource Development Conference of the Americas.
Van Steenbergen, E. F., &Ellemres, N. (2007). Is managing the work- family interface worthwhile? Benefits for employee health and performance.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 617-627.
Voydanoff,P. (2005). Social integration, work-family conflict and facilitation, and job and ,marital quality. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67,
666-679.
Williams, A., Franche, R.L., Ibrahim,S., Mustard, C.A., &Layton,F.R. (2006). Examining the relationship between work- family spillover and sleep
quality. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11,27-37.

838