Psychological Well-Being and its

Relation to Work-Family Interaction

and Work Engagement in a Sample
of Lithuanian Employees
Loreta Gustainien
Vytautas Magnus
University, Kaunas,
Lithuania

Problem
Mental health problems are high and rising
amongst the workforce and general
population.
Traditional understanding of health mostly
stresses problem solving strategy, thus
neglecting the search for factors,
strengthening both of the individual and the
organization well-being.
Compared to other EU countries, subjective
happiness level in Lithuania is rather low.
Therefore, studying positive psychological
factors is of great importance in this country.
Loreta Gustainien, Trondheim, 2012 08 08

Mental health dimensions

Psychological illbeing (depression,
anxiety, anger)

Psychological well-being

Eudaimonic
(psychological
well-being,
Loreta Gustainien, Trondheim, 2012 08 08

Hedonic
(subjective wellbeing, happiness)
3

Hedonic well-being

Eudaimonic well-being

Representative authors

Epicurus, Hobbes, Sade,

Bentham, Bradburn,
Tennen, D. Watson,
Kahneman

Aristotle, Frankl, Ryff, Deci,

Seligman

Basic concepts

Pleasure
Positive/negative affect
Affective balance
Positive emotions
Net affect
Life satisfaction

Virtues
Self-fulfillment
Psychological growth
Aims and needs
Psychological strengths

Reference: Vasquez, Hervas, Rahona, Gomez, 2009

Loreta Gustainien, Trondheim, 2012 08 08

Psychological well-being
Carol Ryff, 1989; eudaimonic approach;
Optimal well-being at the psychological level
(positive aspects of psychological functioning
based on formulations on human
development and existential challenges of life)

Loreta Gustainien, Trondheim, 2012 08 08

Dimensions of psychological wellbeing

Self-acceptance (positive self-regard that
includes awareness of personal limitations)
Positive relations with others (developed and
kept warm ties with others)
Environmental mastery (creation of a
surrounding context so as to satisfy ones
needs and desires)

Loreta Gustainien, Trondheim, 2012 08 08

Dimensions of psychological wellbeing (cntd.)

Autonomy (a strong sense of individuality and
personal freedom)
Purpose in life (a sense of direction in life that
unifies ones efforts and challenges)
Personal growth (a sense of dynamic life-long
learning and continuous development of ones
abilities)

Loreta Gustainien, Trondheim, 2012 08 08

Work-family interaction
a process in which a workers functioning
(behaviour) in one domain (e.g. home) is
influenced by (negative or positive) load
reactions that have built up in the other
domain (e.g. work) (Geurts & Demerouti, 2003; Geurts,
Kompier, Roxburgh, & Houtman, 2003; Van Hooff et al., 2005; Geurts,
Taris, Kompier, Dikkers, Van Hooff, Kinnunen, 2005).

Loreta Gustainien, Trondheim, 2012 08 08

Work engagement (1)

as the positive antithesis of burnout (Bakker,
Demerouti, 2007).
According to this approach, work engagement
is defined as a positive, fulfilling, work-related
state of mind that is characterized by vigor,
dedication, and absorption.

Loreta Gustainien, Trondheim, 2012 08 08

Work engagement (2)

Vigor is characterized by high levels of energy and
mental resilience while working, the willingness to
invest effort in ones work, and persistence even in the
face of difficulties;
dedication by being strongly involved in one's work, and
experiencing a sense of significance, enthusiasm,
inspiration, pride, and challenge;
absorption by being fully concentrated and happily
engrossed in ones work, whereby time passes quickly
and one has difficulties with detaching oneself from
work (Schaufeli, Salanova, Gonzlez-Rom, Bakker, 2002).
Loreta Gustainien, Trondheim, 2012 08 08

10

Purpose
to investigate how psychological resources
such as psychological well-being are related to
workfamily interaction aspects and work
engagement in a sample of Lithuanian
employees, engaged in various occupations.

Loreta Gustainien, Trondheim, 2012 08 08

11

Sample (1)
The study included two cross-sectional
convenience samples of employees:
1) 282 respondents (85 men, 197 women):
Mean age 39.6 (SD=11.48) (men 39.48;
women 39.65);
Tenure 11.92 (SD=10.03) (men 1351;
women 11.23);

Loreta Gustainien, Trondheim, 2012 08 08

12

Sample (1): distribution of employees by

educational level (%)
70

64,5

60
50

50,6

49,4

40

35,5

30

Men
Women

20
10
0
Higher

Other
Loreta Gustainien, Trondheim, 2012 08 08

13

Sample (1): distribution of employees by marital

status (%)
90

79,3

80

67

70
60
50

Men

40
30
20

Women
22,3
16,5
5,9 8,1

10
0
Single

Married

Partners

1,2 2

1,2 0,5

Divorced

Widowed

Loreta Gustainien, Trondheim, 2012 08 08

14

Sample 2 (n=141)

51,77

48,23

Loreta Gustainien, Trondheim, 2012 08 08

Men (n=68)
Women (n=73)

15

Sample (2):distribution of employees by age

16

14,914,9

14

14,9
13,5
11,3

12
10

8,5

Men

7,1

5
3,5

4
2

2,8

2,1

Women

1,4

0
<25

25-30

31-40

41-50

51-60

Loreta Gustainien, Trondheim, 2012 08 08

61+
16

Sample (2):distribution of employees by

educational level (%)
90
77,9

80
70

61,6

60
50
40
30
20

Men

38,4

Women

22,1

10
0
Higher

Other
Loreta Gustainien, Trondheim, 2012 08 08

17

Sample (2):distribution of employees by tenure

45
40
35

39,7
35,6

30

27,4
25

25

Men

20
13,2

15

8,2

10
5

Women
10,3
6,8

8,2
5,9

11
2,92,7

2,9

0
<3 yrs

3-6 yrs

7-9 yrs 10-13 yrs 14-17 yrs 18-19 yrs 21+ yrs
Loreta Gustainien, Trondheim, 2012 08 08

18

Methods (study 1)
Psychological Wellbeing Scales (Ryff, 1989);
41-item; Cronbachs = 0.857 (subscales 0.604
0.770)
WorkFamily Interaction questionnaire
(SWING; Geurts, et. al., 2005); 27-item;
Cronbachs = 0.817 (subscales 0.761-0.808);
SWING differentiates between the direction of influence (i.e. influence
from work on private life, and vice versa) and the quality of influence (i.e.
negative versus positive influence).

Loreta Gustainien, Trondheim, 2012 08 08

19

Methods (study 2)
Psychological Wellbeing Scales (Ryff, 1989);
84-item; Cronbachs = 0.707 (subscales 0.710
0.795)
Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES); 17item; Cronbachs = 0.862 (subscales 0.618
0.786)

Loreta Gustainien, Trondheim, 2012 08 08

20

ResultsResults

Loreta Gustainien, Trondheim, 2012 08 08

21

Mean scores of Work-Family interaction among

men (n=85) and women (n=197)
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0

**
18,03

**
16,35

14,32 14,89
10,37

Neg W-F

14,58

15,93

9,68

Neg F-W
Men

Pos W-F

Pos F-W

Women

Loreta Gustainien, Trondheim, 2012 08 08

22

Mean scores of Psychological Well-Being among

men (n=85) and women (n=197)
30
29

28,01
27,44

28
27
26
25

*
28,54
28,1

25,91

**
28,82
27,36

**
28,89
27,47

25,82
25,45

Men
Women

24,71

24
23
22
Purpose

SAccep

Auton

ROthers

EMast

Loreta Gustainien, Trondheim, 2012 08 08

PgrGw
23

Correl. Coef.

Relationship between Psychological Well-Being

and Work-Family interaction among men (n=85)
0,4
0,3
0,2
0,1
0
-0,1
-0,2
-0,3
-0,4
-0,5
-0,6
-0,7
Neg W-F
Neg F-W
Pos W-F
Pos F-W

**

** *
** **
Purpose
-0,57
-0,563
-0,034
0,096

SAccep
-0,319
-0,298
0,034
0,112

** **
Auton
-0,002
-0,092
-0,082
0,02

ROthers
-0,435
-0,486
0,111
0,279

Loreta Gustainien, Trondheim, 2012 08 08

****
EMast
-0,428
-0,511
0,143
0,198

PGrow
-0,264
-0,235
0,143
0,027
24

Relationship between Psychological Well-Being and

Work-Family interaction among women (n=197)
0,3

Corr.Coef.

0,2

0,1

**

0
-0,1
-0,2

**

** **

-0,3
-0,4

**
**

Purpose
Neg W-F -0,144
Neg F-W -0,339
Pos W-F
0,137
Pos F-W
0,137

SAccep
-0,187
-0,194
0,108
0,095

Auton
-0,058
-0,067
0,001
0,119

ROthers
-0,278
-0,315
0,132
0,147

Loreta Gustainien, Trondheim, 2012 08 08

**

**
**
EMast
-0,293
-0,346
0,165
0,263

**

PGrow
-0,198
-0,243
0,131
0,118
25

Conclusions: study 1
Women, compared to men, had higher scores
on purpose in life, positive relations with
others, environmental mastery and personal
growth;
Men, compared to women, had higher scores
on negative work-family interaction; while
women had higher scores on positive familywork interaction.
Loreta Gustainien, Trondheim, 2012 08 08

26

Conclusions: study 1
Both among men and women lower scores on
psychological well-being (purpose, self
acceptance, positive relations with others,
environmental mastery and personal growth)
were related to higher scores on negative
work-family and family work interaction.

Loreta Gustainien, Trondheim, 2012 08 08

27

Conclusions: study 1
Higher scores on positive relations with others
were related to higher scores on positive familywork interaction in men.
Higher scores on positive relations with others
were related to higher scores on positive familywork interaction, and higher scores on
environmental mastery were related to higher
scores on positive family-work and work-family
interaction in women.
Loreta Gustainien, Trondheim, 2012 08 08

28

Mean scores of Work Engagement among men

(n=68) and women (n=73)
25

22,6

20,87

20

19,6 19,65
17,26

16,5

15
Men
Women

10
5
0
Vigour

Dedication

Absorption

Loreta Gustainien, Trondheim, 2012 08 08

29

Mean scores of Psychological Well-Being among

men (n=68) and women (n=73)
62
60
58

*
60,07
56,52

**
59,54
**
56,63

56
53,46

54
52

**
54,27

**
58,04

56

59,23
56,72

53,35

Men

50,63

Women

50
48
46
44
Purpose

SAccep

Auton

ROthers

EMast

Loreta Gustainien, Trondheim, 2012 08 08

PGrow
30

Relationship between Psychological Well-Being and

Work Engagement among men (n=68)
0,5
0,4
Corr.Coef.

0,3

**
*

**

0,2
0,1
0
-0,1
-0,2
-0,3

Purpose
Vigour
0,299
Dedication
0,043
Absorption -0,143

SAccep
0,335
0,111
-0,062

Auton
0,113
0,026
-0,203

*
ROthers
0,28
-0,021
-0,263

Loreta Gustainien, Trondheim, 2012 08 08

EMast
0,399
0,186
-0,057

PGrow
0,283
0,171
-0,09
31

Corr.Coef.

Relationship between Psychological Well-Being

and Work Engagement among women (n=73)
0,35
0,3
0,25
0,2
0,15
0,1
0,05
0
-0,05
-0,1
-0,15

Purpose
Vigour
0,186
Dedication -0,025
Absorption -0,01

SAccep
0,074
0,039
0,217

Auton
0,178
0,131
0,038

ROthers
0,299
0,17
0,122

Loreta Gustainien, Trondheim, 2012 08 08

EMast
0,104
-0,083
0,052

PGrow
0,199
0,051
-0,047
32

Conclusions: study 2
Men, compared to women, had higher scores
on purpose in life, self acceptance,
autonomy, positive relations with others,
environmental mastery;
Men and women did not differ in their scores
on work engagement.

Loreta Gustainien, Trondheim, 2012 08 08

33

Conclusions: study 2
In men higher scores on purpose in life, selfacceptance, relations with others,
environmental mastery and personal growth
were related to higher scores on vigour; lower
scores on relation with others was related to
higher absorbtion.
In women higher scores on relations with
others were related to higher scores on
vigour.
Loreta Gustainien, Trondheim, 2012 08 08

34

Comparison of mean scores of psychological well-being, work-family

interaction and work engagement in groups of men and women
Gender

Purpose

SAccep

Auton

ROthers

EMast

PGrow

Men
(n=85)
(n=68)
Women
(n=197)
(n=73)
Gender

Neg W-F

Neg F-W

Pos W-F

Pos F-W

Men (n=85)
Women (n=197)
Gender

Vigour

Dedication

Absorption

Men (n=68)
Women (n=73)
Loreta Gustainien, Trondheim, 2012 08 08

35

Relationship among psychological well-being

work-family interaction and work engagement
Purpose
Neg W-F
Neg F-W

SAccep

Auton

ROthers

EMast

PGrow

+
+

Pos W-F
Pos F-W
Vigour

+
+

Dedication

Absorption
+ - positive relationship, women; - - negative relationship, men
+ - positive relationship, men; - - negative relationship, women

Loreta Gustainien, Trondheim, 2012 08 08

36