Journal of Vocational Behavior 80 (2012) 197–210

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Vocational Behavior

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / j v b

Examining the constructs of work-to-family enrichment and

positive spillover
Aline D. Masuda a,⁎, Laurel A. McNall b, Tammy D. Allen c, Jessica M. Nicklin d
a
EADA Business School, Barcelona, Spain
b
The College at Brockport, State University of New York, Brockport, NY, USA
c
University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA
d
The University of Hartford, West Hartford, CT, USA

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

Article history: This paper reports three studies examining construct validity evidence for two recently
Received 28 March 2011 developed measures of the positive side of the work–family interface: work-to-family positive
Available online 12 June 2011 spillover (WFPS; Hanson, Hammer, & Colton, 2006) and work-to-family enrichment (WFE;
Carlson, Kacmar, Wayne, & Grzywacz, 2006). Using confirmatory factor analysis, the results
Keywords: from the first two studies indicate that the best fitting model distinguishes between WFPS and
Work–family interface WFE, each with three sub-dimensions. However, these studies also showed that several items
Work–family enrichment measuring WFE cross-loaded onto factors measuring WFPS. Results from the discriminant
Work–family positive spillover
analyses showed that the sub-dimensions of WFPS and WFE uniquely predicted job satisfaction
Job satisfaction
and life satisfaction. Yet, when WFPS and WFE were examined as one dimension, the measure
Life satisfaction
of WFE predicted life satisfaction, but the measure of WFPS did not add to the prediction above
WFE. Across both studies, WFE mediated the relationship between WFPS with both job and life
satisfaction. Lastly, Study 3 provides some evidence of the content adequacy of these items;
however, several items overlapped in content. These results suggest that enrichment and
positive spillover are distinct but related constructs, each with three sub-dimensions. Further,
more work is needed to refine the measurement of WFE and WFPS; however, this research
helps advance our understanding of the positive side of the work–family interface.
© 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Constructs defining work–family positive synergies, such as work–family enhancement (Ruderman, Ohlott, Panzer, & King,
2002) work–family positive spillover (Hanson, Hammer, & Colton, 2006), work–family enrichment (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006), and
work–family facilitation (Frone, 2003) have received increased attention in the work–family literature over the past several years.
The proliferation of constructs used to describe the positive aspects of combining work and family led to confusion about the
meaning of the positive side of the work–family interface (Wayne, 2009). Although researchers contend that these constructs
conceptually and operationally differ from each other (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006; Wayne, 2009), to our knowledge, there have
been no empirical studies based on validated measures that support this claim.
To advance research and theory with regard to the positive side of the work–family interface, it is important to establish widely
accepted definitions and validated measures of relevant constructs. Recently, Carlson, Kacmar, Wayne, and Grzywacz (2006) and
Hanson et al. (2006) published and validated comprehensive measures intended to operationalize two constructs associated with
the positive side of work and family; namely, work–family enrichment and work–family positive spillover, respectively. Using these
two validated measures we can test whether these constructs are related, different, or similar from each other. This clarification is
important because the use of arbitrary terms to describe similar constructs can impede theoretical development (Locke, 2003).

⁎ Corresponding author at: EADA—Escuela de Alta Dirección y Administración, C/Aragó, 204-08011 Barcelona, Spain. Fax: + 34 933 237 317.
E-mail addresses: amasuda@eada.edu, alinemasuda@eada.edu (A.D. Masuda), lmcnall@brockport.edu (L.A. McNall), tallen@mail.usf.edu (T.D. Allen),
nicklin@hartford.edu (J.M. Nicklin).

0001-8791/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2011.06.002
198 A.D. Masuda et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 80 (2012) 197–210

To this end we conducted three studies with two overall objectives. The first objective was to investigate whether Carlson et
al.'s (2006) work-to-family enrichment (WFE) measure can be distinguished from Hanson et al.'s (2006) work-to-family positive
spillover (WFPS) measure. Specifically, we examined construct dimensionality, content adequacy, and incremental validity of
WFPS and WFE in predicting job satisfaction and life satisfaction. We opted to focus on the work-to-family direction given that
previous research has found that this direction is most strongly linked to important work outcomes (McNall, Nicklin, & Masuda,
2010; Wayne, Musisca, & Fleeson, 2004; Wayne, Randel, & Stevens, 2006). We chose to focus on job and life satisfaction because
these variables are among the most commonly studied in the organizational behavior literature (Spector, 1997) and they are
related to relevant workplace variables (Schleier, Hansen, & Fox, 2010). By empirically examining if these constructs are different
we can advance our theoretical understanding of the positive side of the work–family interface.
The second objective was to examine the relationship between WFE and WFPS. We explored two competing mediation
questions: whether WFE (WFPS) is the intervening variable between WFPS (WFE) and job satisfaction. In Study 1 we examined
job satisfaction as the dependent variable. We replicated and expanded our results using a second sample (Study 2) by examining
job satisfaction and life satisfaction. Lastly, we examined the content adequacy of the items (Study 3). Demonstrating reasons for
why these constructs are different from each other may allow us to move toward the development of a nomological network that
captures the positive side of work–family interface. This can help reduce ambiguity and move the theory of positive work family
interactions forward.

Defining the positive side of the work–family interface

As previously mentioned, researchers have used a variety of constructs and definitions to describe positive work–family
interactions. In this study we focus on enrichment and positive spillover. Drawing on work by Edwards and Rothbard (2000),
positive spillover is defined as “the transfer of positively valenced affect, skills, behaviors, and values from the originating domain to
the receiving domain, thus having beneficial effects on the receiving domain” (1, p. 251). Work–family enrichment describes “the
extent to which experiences in one role improves the quality of life in the other role (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006 p. 73).
Wayne (2009) developed a conceptual framework intended to explain the differences between enrichment and positive
spillover. Specifically, she argues that positive spillover occurs when an individual transfers the gains from one domain to a second
domain. For example, the multitasking skills a person gains at work may be transferred and applied to the home domain. In order
for work–family enrichment to occur, Wayne says that the individual must successfully apply the gains to the other domain. Thus, if
the multitasking skills developed at work result in a higher quality of life at home, then work-to-family enrichment has occurred.
According to Wayne's model, for enrichment to occur, the individual will not only have to experience resource gains transferred
from one domain to another (positive spillover), but will also have to perceive that the resource transfer improved performance or
quality of life (enrichment). Thus, Wayne conceptualizes spillover and enrichment as “overlapping but distinct constructs” (p. 16)
and other researchers agree (Carlson et al., 2006; Hanson et al., 2006).
Despite this supposition, to date there has been no empirical research examining the relationship between positive spillover
and enrichment using Carlson et al.'s (2006) and Hanson et al.'s (2006) measures. Because these measures were developed based
on the distinct definitions of enrichment and positive spillover discussed above, we predict that differentiating these two
constructs (WFPS and WFE) will lead to a better fitting model than will treating enrichment and positive spillover as
interchangeable constructs.

Hypothesis 1. A two factor model that differentiates WFPS from WFE will be a better fit than a one factor model.

Theoretical development and sub-dimensions of WFE and WFPS

Both Hanson et al. and Carlson et al. cite Greenhaus and Powell (2006) theory of work–family enrichment to describe their
constructs and create their measures. Greenhaus and Powell's conceptual framework was based in part on role enhancement theory,
which is the dominant theoretical perspective used to explain why individuals perceive benefits from multiple role memberships
(Marks, 1977; Sieber, 1974). According to Sieber (1974), people earn various rewards by partaking in multiple domains, such as: (1)
greater role privileges, (2) lower strain in one role due to a buffering effect of other roles, (3) greater status enhancement, and (4)
personality enrichment (e.g., greater flexibility). Based on this logic, Greenhaus and Powell (2006) offered five categories of resources
that may be acquired in one role to improve performance in the other role, either directly (instrumental path) or indirectly (affective
path). These resources include skills and perspectives (e.g., interpersonal skills, coping skills, respecting individual differences),
psychological and physical resources (e.g., self-efficacy, hardiness, optimism), social-capital resources (e.g., networking, information),
flexibility (e.g., flexible work arrangements), and material resources (e.g., money, gifts). For example, the resources employees gain in
their work role (e.g., flexibility) may directly improve their performance in their family role.
Both Hanson et al.'s and Carlson et al.'s scales include items that reflect instrumental and affective paths. However, not
only do these scales purportedly capture different constructs, there are also variations in the types of instrumental and
affective resources that are transferred from one domain to another in the respective constructs. For example, Carlson et al.'s
WFE scale captures development (e.g., skills, knowledge, behaviors), affect (e.g., positive emotional state or attitude), and
capital (e.g., security, confidence) resources, which can be transferred from work to family and result in improved functioning
as a family member. Hanson et al.'s WFPS scale includes an instrumental path that encompasses behavior-based resources
(e.g., habits) and value-based resources (e.g., money), in addition to an affective path (e.g., mood). However, the Hanson et al.
 A.D. Masuda et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 80 (2012) 197–210 199

measure was developed with the intention of capturing only transfer of resources and not the positive impact the resources
have on the other domain.
Based on Greenhaus and Powell's (2006) work–family enrichment model, a model distinguishing between instrumental and
affective path should provide better fit than a model that does not distinguish between these two paths. Moreover, based on the
different resource dimensions proposed by Carlson et al. and Hanson et al. we hypothesize that the best fitting model will further
differentiate the instrumental dimensions into sub-dimensions of resource transfer. That is, for Hanson et al.'s scale, there will be
two sub-dimensions that capture instrumental resources (i.e., value and behavior) and for Carson et al.'s scale, there will be two
sub-dimensions that capture instrumental resources (i.e., capital, development).

Hypothesis 2. A four-factor model (discriminating instrumental and affect for each scale) fits the data better than a two-factor
model.

Hypothesis 3. A six- factor model (discriminating each resource transferred for each construct) fits the data better than a four-
factor model (see Fig. 1).

Incremental validity

The usefulness of maintaining WFPS and WFE as two separate constructs in the work–family literature can be supported by
demonstrating that they both provide incremental validity over the other in the prediction of outcomes. To test for incremental
validity, we examined if WFPS and WFE each uniquely relate to job satisfaction (Study 1 and Study 2) and to life satisfaction (Study
2). A recent meta-analysis by McNall et al. (2010) demonstrated that positive work-to-family interactions relate positively to job
satisfaction (ρ = .34) and life satisfaction (ρ = .32). Further, McNall et al. found that both WFE and WFPS were significantly related
to job and life satisfaction.
Despite these findings the incremental validity of the two constructs remains untested. Given that the WFE and WFPS scales
were constructed based on the assumption that enrichment and positive spillover are unique but related constructs (Hanson et al.,
2006; Wayne, 2009), and assuming that both scales measure distinct types of resources being transferred from one domain to
another, we predict that both WFPS and WFE will contribute uniquely to the variance associated with job and life satisfaction. This
is because each concept serves a different and important function to improve life and job satisfaction. That is, satisfaction can
improve if transfer of resources occurs (i.e. spillover) and if individuals perceive this transfer as something that improves the
family domain (i.e. enrichment).

Hypothesis 4. WFPS and WFE each contribute unique variance associated with job satisfaction.

Hypothesis 5. WFPS and WFE each contribute unique variance associated with life satisfaction (Study 2 only).

Relationship between WFPS and WFE

Although most researchers seem to agree that WFPS and WFE are distinct constructs (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006; Wayne, 2009),
there is disagreement as to why they are different from each other. Carlson et al. (2006) argued that the distinction between work–
family enrichment and spillover is, “that experiences in one domain can be transferred (i.e., spillover) yet not improve the quality of life
or individual performance in the other role” (p. 133). Hence, Carlson et al. argued that spillover can occur without enrichment and this
fits with Wayne's (2009) aforementioned clarification. However, Powell and Greenhaus (2010) argued that positive spillover is
different than work–family enrichment because the focus is “on the specific transfer of positive affect, values, skills and behaviors
(Hanson et al., 2006) rather than transfer of a broad set of resources including psychological, social capital, and material resources”
(p. 15). For Powell and Greenhaus, the application of resources from one domain to another is not a sufficient condition for spillover to
occur. Instead, positive spillover occurs when the resources generate positive effects in the other domain. Therefore, Powell and
Greenhaus argue that the key distinction between these domains is the specificity level of resources being transferred. Given these two
opposing views, we test competing research questions to examine whether enrichment (positive spillover) is a proximal predictor of
job and life satisfaction and a mediator between spillover (enrichment) and job and life satisfaction.

Research question 1a. Does WFE mediate the relationship of WFPS with job satisfaction and life satisfaction?

Research question 1b. Does WFPS mediate the relationship of WFE with job satisfaction and life satisfaction?

Study 1

Methodology

Participants and procedures

Participants were recruited from the Study Response internet database Stanton and Weiss (2002). In exchange for
participation, respondents were entered into a random drawing for gift certificates. E-mail invitations were sent to 1,700 database
200 A.D. Masuda et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 80 (2012) 197–210

V1 E1

1 V2 E2

V3 E3

V4 E4

2 V5 E5

V6 E6

V7 E7

3 V8 E8

V9 E9

V10 E10

V11 E11
4
V12 E12

V13 E13

V14 E14

V15 E15
5
V16 E16

V17 E17

V18 E18

6 V19 E19

V20 E20

Fig. 1. Six factor model of work-to-family enrichment and work-to-family positive spillover. Factor 1 = work-to-family enrichment development, Factor 2 = work-
to-family enrichment affect , Factor 3 = work-to-family enrichment capital , Factor 4 = work-to-family positive spillover affect , Factor 5 = work-to-family positive
spillover behavior, Factor 6 = Work-to-family positive spillover values.
 A.D. Masuda et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 80 (2012) 197–210 201

members who indicated that they were at least 18 years old and employed. The final sample included 220 working adults (107
women, 96 men, 17 unknown), resulting in a response rate of approximately 12.9%. The sample had a mean age of 37.39 years,
SD = 11.32. Seventy percent reported living with a spouse/partner, and 53.6% of participants did not have children, 21.4% had one
child, and 24.7% had two or more children. Fourteen and a half percent of the sample worked less than 25 hours per week, 49.5%
worked between 25 to 40 hours a week, and 35.9% worked more than 40 hours per week.

Measures
The survey questions were mixed across different constructs and dimensions to avoid response bias. Participants were asked to
indicate agreement with each item using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). Table 1 provides the
items for WFPS and WFE. Reliabilities are reported in Table 2.

Work-to-family positive spillover. The 11-item Hanson et al. (2006) WFPS scale was used.

Work-to-family enrichment. The 9-item (Carlson et al., 2006) WFE scale was used.

Job satisfaction. The 3-item scale (Spector et al., 2004) was used to assess job satisfaction. A sample item was “In general, I like my
work.”

Control variables. We examined gender, age, education, marital status, number of children, and number of hours per week worked
as controls.

Table 1
Items included in the analyses. a,b,c

Types of scales Type of items Study1 Study2 Study3 Study 3

correct incorrect

Work-to-family enrichment (Carlson et al., 2006)

1. Helps me to understand different viewpoints and this helps me V1 (development) X 63% 37%
be a better family member.
2. Helps me to gain knowledge and this helps me be a better V2 (development) X 46% 54%
family member.
3. Helps me acquire skills and this helps me be a better family member. V3 (development) X X 46% 54%
4. Puts me in a good mood and this helps me be a better family member. V4 (affect) X 48% 52%
5. Makes me feel happy and this helps me be a better family member. V5 (affect) X 66% 34%
6. Makes me cheerful and this helps me be a better family member. V6 (affect) X 44% 56%
7. Helps me feel personally fulfilled and this helps me be V7 (capital) X X 57% 43%
a better family member.
8. Provides me with a sense of accomplishment and this helps me be V8 (capital) X X 68% 32%
a better family member.
9. Provides me with a sense of success and this helps me be a better V9 (capital) 77% 23%
family member.

Work-to-Family Positive Spillover (Hanson et al., 2006)

1. When things are going well at work, my outlook regarding family V10 (Affect ) X X 36% 64%
life is improved.
2. Being in a positive mood at work helps me to be in a positive mood V11 (Affect) X 72% 28%
at home.
3. Being happy at work improves my spirits at home. V12 (Affect) X X 66% 34%
4. Having a good day at work allows me to be optimistic with my family. V13 (Affect ) 53% 47%
5. Skills developed at work help me in my family life. V14 (Behavioral) X 52% 48%
6. Successfully performing tasks at work helps me to more effectively V15 (Behavioral) X X 35% 65%
accomplish family tasks.
7. Behaviors required by my job lead to behaviors that assist me in my V16 (Behavioral) 64% 36%
family life.
8. Carrying out my family responsibilities is made easier by using V17 (Behavioral) X X 45% 55%
behaviors performed at work.
9. Values developed at work make me a better family member. V18 (Value) 62% 38%
10. I apply the principles of my workplace values in family situations. V19 (Value) X 66% 34%
11. Values that I learn through my work experiences assist me in fulfilling V20 (Value) 51% 49%
my family responsibilities.
a
“X” indicates that the item cross-loaded onto other factors.
b
Bolded items are problematic across all three studies.
c
Correct means number of times items were mapped correctly. Incorrect means number of times items were mapped incorrectly.
202 A.D. Masuda et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 80 (2012) 197–210

Table 2
Descriptive statistics and correlations among study variables (Study 1 data, N = 220).a

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

1. Gender 1.53 .50 –

2. Education 4.40 1.63 − .08 –
3. Working hours 5.82 1.92 − .24** .13 –
4. Age 37.39 11.32 − .07 .03 − .12 –
5. Children .82 1.08 .15* − .01 .11 − .13 –
6. Marital status .70 .46 .20** .08 .05 .07 .29** –
7. WFPS 3.57 .70 .05 .04 − .04 .17* .11 0.09 (.92)
8. WFE 3.58 .80 .07 .05 − .04 .18** .09 0.11 .84** (.94)
9. WFE development 3.59 .85 .04 .01 .03 .12 .10 0.12 .78** .90** (.85)
10. WFE affect 3.54 .90 .07 .07 − .09 .20** .07 0.10 .74** .93** .73** (.87)
11. WFE capital 3.62 .83 .08 .05 − .03 .21** .09 0.08 .82** .92** .78** .82** (.88)
12. WFPS affect 3.90 .66 .07 .04 .02 .14* .11 0.12 .82** .62** .56** .51** .65** (.82)
13. WFPS behavior 3.39 .84 .02 .07 − .05 .14 .10 0.07 .93** .81** .76** .72** .77** .62** (.88)
14. WFPS value 3.37 .87 .04 .01 − .09 .16* .10 0.06 .91** .82** .76** .75** .77** .61** .83** (.85)
15. Job satisfaction 3.78 .83 .15* − .03 − .02 .18* .06 0.06 .53** .60** .48** .58** .58** .42** .45** .56** 1

*p b .05, **p b .01.

a
Alpha coefficients are presented in parentheses. All positive spillover and enrichment items range from 1–5. Higher scores indicate more spillover/enrichment.
WFE = work-to-family enrichment; WFPS = work-to-family positive spillover.

Results

See Table 2 for correlations and descriptive statistics for Study 1. Prior to the analysis, we examined the variables for accuracy of
data entry, missing values, and the fit between their distributions and the assumptions of multivariate analysis. The data were free
from any multivariate outliers.
To test Hypotheses 1–3 we conducted Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFA) using EQS and maximum likelihood estimation
with raw data as input to compare the fit of four a priori models. We chose CFA instead of Exploratory Factor Analyses (EFA)
because CFA is more appropriate to test a priori hypotheses than is EFA (Raykov & Marcoulides, 2006). To evaluate the fit of
the models the incremental fit index (IFI), comparative fit index (CFI), Standardized rood mean square residual (SRMR), and
root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) (Bentler, 1995; Hu & Bentler, 1999) were examined, (see Table 3). A value
of .90 for the IFI and the CFI and .06 for the RMSEA indicates a good fit between the hypothesized model and the observed data
(Bentler, 1995).
First, we tested a one-factor model, in which all items in Table 1 were indicative of a single factor. Second, we tested a two-
factor model, with WFE items as indicative of a WFE factor, and the WFPS items as indicative of a WFPS factor (see Fig. 1). Third, we
tested a four-factor model in which items measuring work-to-family development and work-to-family capital were loaded onto
an “instrumental WFE” latent factor and items measuring work-to-family affect loaded onto an “affect WFE” latent factor.
Similarly, two other factors were created in which items measuring behavior-based and value-based positive spillover loaded onto
an “instrumental WFPS” latent factor and items measuring affect-based positive spillover loaded onto an “affect WFPS” latent
factor. The final model tested Hanson et al.'s (2006) three factor model and Carlson et al.'s (2006) three factor model. In all cases,
the latent variables were correlated and errors were uncorrelated.
Table 3 shows that the six factor model fit the data significantly better than the one-factor, two-factor, and four-factor models,
supporting Hypotheses 1–3. However, the RSMEA score of .07 from the six-factor model showed that the best model did not result
in optimal fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999). For this reason, we also looked at the modification indexes based on the LM test. Results
showed that 10 items loaded across different factors (see Table 4 for items that cross-loaded). Subsequently, we tested the six-
factor model without the cross-loading items and results showed a significantly better fitting model (see Table 3).

Table 3
Comparison of Work-to-Family Enrichment and Positive Spillover Factor Structures (Study 1 data). a,b,c,d,e

Structure χ2 Δχ2 df Δdf IFI CFI SRMR RMSEA RMSEA confidence interval

One factor 600** 170 .86 .86 .06 .11 .10–.22

Two factor 519** 81** 169 1 .89 .89 .06 .10 .09–.11
Four factor 378** 140** 164 5 .93 .93 .05 .08 .07–.09
Six factor 323** 55** 155 9 .95 .95 .05 .07 .06–.09
Six factorsc 31** 292** 20 135 .99 .99 .02 .05 .00–.08
Six factorsd 102** 71** 50 30 .97 .97 .07 .07 .05–.09
a
All x2 and Δχ2values are significant at p b .001.
b
IFI = incremental fit index; CFI = comparative fit index; RMSEA = root-mean-square error of approximation.
c
Analyses with cross items deleted.
d
Analyses done with items that cross loaded in all studies deleted.
 A.D. Masuda et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 80 (2012) 197–210 203

Table 4
Cross Loadings into the 6 Factors (Study1) a,b.

Items Factors

Work-to-family Work-to-family spillover

enrichment

F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6
WFED WFEA WFEC WFPSA WFPSB WFPSV

V1. Helps me to understand different viewpoints and this helps me be a better family member. 1 .20
V2. Helps me to gain knowledge and this helps me be a better family member. .81
V3. Helps me acquire skills and this helps me be a better family member. .55 .66 .34
V4. Puts me in a good mood and this helps me be a better family member. .29 .61 .02 .02
V5. Makes me feel happy and this helps me be a better family member. .41 .80 − .24 − .04 − .11
V6. Makes me cheerful and this helps me be a better family member. .94
V7. Helps me feel personally fulfilled and this helps me be a better family member. − .24 1.10
V8. Provides me with a sense of accomplishment and this helps me be a better family member. .23 .64
V9. Provides me with a sense of success and this helps me be a better family member. .81
V10.When things are going well at work, my outlook regarding family life is improved. .12 .27 .11 .34 .15 .56
V11. Being in a positive mood at work helps me to be in a positive mood at home. .76
V12. Being happy at work improves my spirits at home. .02 .26 .97 .74 − 1.19
V13. Having a good day at work allows me to be optimistic with my family. .81
V14. Skills developed at work help me in my family life. .87
V15. Successfully performing tasks at work helps me to more effectively accomplish family tasks. .20 .72
V16. Behaviors required by my job lead to behaviors that assist me in my family life. .77
V17. Carrying out my family responsibilities is made easier by using behaviors performed at work. − .10 .84
V18. Values developed at work make me a better family member. .89
V19. I apply the principles of my workplace values in family situations. .68
V20. Values that I learn through my work experiences assist me in fulfilling my family responsibilities. .85

The numbers in bold are standarized loadings that are cross loadings.
a
An X indicates that the items cross loaded into that factor and that if deleted chi-square improves significantly at p b .05 (based on Lmtest).
b
WFED = work-to-family enrichment developmental based, WFEA = work-to-family enrichment affective based, WFEC = work-to-family enrichment capital
based, WFPSA = work-to-family positive spillover affect based, WFPSB = work-to-family positive spillover behavioral based, WFPSV = work-to-family positive
spillover value based.

To test Hypothesis 4, which stated that WFE would predict unique variance associated with job satisfaction above and beyond
that of WFPS, we ran hierarchical regression using the overall factors of WFE and WFPS (including the cross-loading items), and
each of the sub-dimensions of WFE and WFPS. The control variables were entered into the first step, WFPS in the second step, and
WFE in the third step. Results showed that after introducing the control variables in the first step, WFPS contributed uniquely to
the variance associated with job satisfaction, ΔR² = .29, F (1,195) = 86.56, p b .01. Further, WFE contributed uniquely to the
variance associated with job satisfaction above that of WFPS, ΔR² = .07, F (1,194) = 23.42 p b .01. We conducted a similar analysis,
except we reversed the order (i.e., WFE in the second step after the controls and WFPS in the third step). WFE contributed uniquely
to the variance of job satisfaction, ΔR² = .35, F (1,195) = 117.73, p b .01. However, WFPS did not add to the prediction of job
satisfaction above WFE, ΔR² = .01, F (1, 194) = 1.74, p b .01. Thus, using the aggregated variable, Hypothesis 4 was partially
supported. Specifically, WFE contributed above and beyond WFPS, but WFPS did not add to prediction above WFE.
We conducted similar regression analyses using the WFE sub-dimensions and the WFPS sub-dimensions. Results showed that
WFE had an incremental relationship above that of WFPS, ΔR² = .07, F (3,194) = 8.72, p b .01. However, WFPS sub-dimensions also
contributed uniquely to the prediction of job satisfaction above that of WFE, ΔR² = .04, F (3,194) = 4.70, p b .01. Based on the sub-
factors, both WFE and WFPS related uniquely to job satisfaction.
To address the research questions, we used the causal step approach to test mediation proposed by Baron and Kenny (1986).
Specifically mediation occurs when (1) the IV is significantly related to the mediator, (2) the IV is significantly related to the DV in
the absence of the mediator, (3) the mediator is significantly related to the DV, and (4) relationship between the IV on the DV
decreases upon the addition of the mediator to the model. Table 5 reports that WFE mediated the WFPS - job satisfaction
relationship. On the other hand, WFPS was not a mediator of WFE-job satisfaction relationship.

Discussion of Study 1

The Study 1 results support the contention that WFE and WFPS are distinct yet related constructs. Specifically, results from the
CFA showed that the 6 factor model was the best fitting model. This model differentiates WFE and WFPS and the original sub-
dimensions proposed by Hanson et al. (2006) and Carlson et al. (2006). The results also showed that both the sub-dimensions of
WFE and the sub-dimensions of WFPS uniquely predicted job satisfaction. However, the aggregated measure of WFPS did not
predict job satisfaction above WFE. Instead, WFE was a mediator between the WFPS and job satisfaction relationship. Furthermore,
there were a significant number of cross-loadings. These results should be interpreted with caution given that the response rate
was 13%. To help determine if these findings generalize, we conducted a second study using life satisfaction and job satisfaction as
dependent variables.
204 A.D. Masuda et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 80 (2012) 197–210

Table 5
WFE as a Mediator between WFPS and Job Satisfaction Relationship (Study 1) a,b.

Variable β SEβ β t R² Δ F df p Total R²

Regression 1 : WFE predicting Job Satisfaction

Step 1 .06* 6.22 2,200 b .01 .06
Age .00 .00 .08 1.37
Gender .19 .09 .12 2.10**
Step 2 .35** 118.05 1, 199 b .01 .41
WFE .63 .06 .60 10.86**
Regression 2: WFPS predicts WFE
Step 1 .04* 3.17 2, 200 b .05 .03
Age .00 .05 .01 − .25
Gender .00 .02 − .01 − .24
Step 2 .68** 475.42 1, 199 b .001 .71
WFPS .74 .03 .84 21.80**
Regression 3: WFPS predicts Job Satisfaction
Step 1 .06** 6.22 2, 200 b .05 .06
Age .01 .00 .09 1.68
Gender .21 .09 .13 2.29*
Step 2 .29** 88.58 1, 199 b .001 .35
WFPS .65 .07 .54 9.41**
Regression 4: WFE and WFPS predicting Job Satisfaction
Step 1 .06** 6.22 2, 200 b .05 .06
Age .01 .00 .07 1.34
Gender .19 .09 .11 2.13
Step 2 .36** 69.29 2, 198 b .001 .42
WFPS .17 .12 .14 1.40
WFE .51 .11 .48 4.74**
a
WFE = work-to-family enrichment; WFPS = work-to-family positive spillover.
b
* p b .05, **p b .01.

Study 2

Methodology

Participants and procedures

Participants were recruited by undergraduate college students enrolled in a psychology course at a University in the Northeast
United States. Students were asked to recruit up to four working adults in exchange for extra credit. The final sample included 222
working adults (159 women, 62 men, 1 unknown). The sample had a mean age of 37.39 years, SD = 11.32. Sixty-two percent
reported living with a spouse/partner, and 63% of participants did not have children, 14.4% had one child, and 22.5% had two or
more children. Fourteen percent of the sample worked less than 25 hours per week, 39.5% worked between 25 to 40 hours a week,
and 46.4% worked more than 40 hours per week. Twenty eight percent of the sample held high school degrees, 27.5% had
bachelor's degrees, 22.5% had masters degrees or higher, 20.3% had associates degrees, and 1.8% did not have a high school degree.

Measures

Work-to-family positive spillover, work-to family enrichment, and job satisfaction were measured using the same items
described in Study 1. The construction of the survey was done in a similar matter as in study 1. Reliabilities are in Table 6.

Life satisfaction
The 5-item (Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985) life satisfaction scale was used based on a 5-point Likert scale
(1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). A sample item is “In most ways my life is close to ideal.”

Results

As in Study 1, the data were first screened and found to be free of any multivariate outliers. Correlations among study variables
are reported in Table 6. The main results are shown in Table 7. The results of Study 2 were similar to Study 1, in support of
Hypotheses 1–3. That is, the best fitting model was a six-factor model. However, because the best model did not result in optimal fit
based on the RMSEA, we also looked at the modification indexes. Results showed that 12 items cross-loaded across different factors
(see Table 8 for items that cross loaded in Study 2). After deleting these items the model significantly improved (see Table 7).
To test Hypothesis 4, we used similar analyses as in Study 1 and found results consistent with Study 1. Specifically, results
showed that after introducing the control variables in the first step, WFE contributed uniquely to the variance of job satisfaction,
ΔR² = .39, F (1, 211) = 156.65, p b .01. However, WFPS did not contribute above and beyond WFE, ΔR² = .00, n.s. We conducted
similar analyses in the reverse order. In this case, WFPS contributed uniquely to job satisfaction above the control variables,
 A.D. Masuda et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 80 (2012) 197–210 205

Table 6
Correlations among study variables (Study 2 data, N = 222)a.

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

1. Gender 1.72 .45 –

2. Education 3.45 1.25 − .08 –
3. Working Hours 5.17 1.91 − .08 .25** –
4. Age 4.42 2.63 − .05 .13* .31** –
5. Children .67 1.02 − .01 − .03 .01 .10 –
6. Marital Status 1.62 .49 − .14* .24** .19** .31** .23** –
7. WFPS 3.75 .58 .18** .11 .02 .07 .03 .00 (.91)
8. WFE 3.82 .68 .23** .12 − .01 .10 .08 .01 .67** (.91)
9. WFE development 3.95 .71 .27** .14* .01 .05 .04 − .03 .66** .79** (.84)
10. WFE affect 3.52 .91 .14* .10 − .02 .13 .14* .02 .50** .89** .51** (.91)
11. WFE capital 4.00 .77 .20** .07 − .01 .08 .00 .03 .58** .88** .55** .69** (.88)
12. WFPS affect 4.04 .63 .20** .11 .05 .05 − .03 .09 .80** .48** .46** .34** .43** (.89)
13. WFPS behavior 3.63 .68 .13 .14* .02 .04 .02 − .03 .88** .64** .68** .44** .53** .54** (.86)
14. WFPS value 3.46 .73 .12 .02 − .02 .08 .09 − .04 .86** .61** .54** .52** .50** .47** .74** (.81)
15. Job satisfaction 3.95 .92 .08 .19** .19** .21** .07 .149* .43** .65** .38** .62** .63** .32** .37** .42** (.93)
16. Life satisfaction 3.64 .79 .03 .08 − .17* − .03 .10 .17* .15* .26** .20** .22** .24** .03 .19** .19** .26** (.89)
a
Alpha coefficients are presented in parentheses. All positive spillover and enrichment items range from 1 to 5. Higher scores indicate more spillover/
enrichment. WFE = work-to-family enrichment. WFPS = work-to-family positive spillover * p b .05, **p b .01.

Table 7
Comparison of work family enrichment and positive spillover factor structures (Study 2 data). a,b

Structure χ2 Δχ2 df Δdf IFI CFI SRMR RMSEA RMSEA confidence interval

One factor 1397** 170 .59 .59 .12 .19 .18–.19

Two factor 1121** 185** 169 1 .69 .69 .11 .17 .16–.17
Four factor 631** 490** 164 5 .85 .85 .07 .12 .11–.13
Six factor 369** 262** 155 9 .93 .93 .06 .08 .07–.09
Six factorc 5.22** 364** 5 150 .1 1 .01 .01 .00–.09
Six Factord 85 80** 50 45 .98 .98 .04 .06 .04–.08
a
All x2 and Δχ2values are significant at p b .001.
b
IFI = incremental fit index; CFI = comparative fit index; RMSEA = root-mean-square error of approximation.
c
Analyses done with cross items deleted.
d
Analyses done with items that cross loaded in all studies deleted.

ΔR² = .15, F (1, 211) = 42.23, p b .01. When WFE was entered in the third step, it added uniquely to the prediction of job
satisfaction, ΔR² = .23, F (1, 210) = 95.18, p b .01. Hence, Hypothesis 4 was partially supported. Consistent with Study 1, WFE
contributed above and beyond WFPS. However, WFPS did not add to the prediction above WFE. We also conducted similar
analyses using the sub-dimensions of both WFE and WFPS. Results were similar using the sub-dimensions compared with results
using the aggregated variables. Thus, unlike Study 1 we report results with aggregated variables.
To test Hypothesis 5, we also conducted regression analyses. Using aggregated measures of WFE and WFPS results showed that
after introducing the control variables in the first step, WFE contributed uniquely to the variance of life satisfaction, ΔR² = .06, F (1,
211) = 15.40, p b .01. However, WFPS did not contribute above and beyond WFE, ΔR² = .00, n.s. We conducted similar analyses in
the reverse order. In this case, WFPS contributed to variance in life satisfaction, ΔR² = .02, F (1,211) = 3.65, p b .05. When WFE was
entered in the third step, it added uniquely to the prediction of life satisfaction, ΔR² = .05, F (1,210) = 12.16, p b .01. Hence, using
aggregated variables, WFE predicted life satisfaction above WFPS, but WFPS did not predict life satisfaction above WFE.
We also tested Hypothesis 5 using the three WFE sub-factors and the three WFPS sub-dimensions. This time, results showed
WFE predicted life satisfaction above and beyond the control variables WFPS, ΔR² = .06, F (1, 211) = 15.4, p b .01. However, the
sub-factors of WFPS did not add to the prediction of life satisfaction above the sub-dimensions of enrichment. We conducted
similar analyses in the reverse order. This time, the sub-dimensions of WFPS predicted life satisfaction above and beyond that of
the control variables, ΔR² = .05, F (3, 209) = 4.19, p b .01 and the WFE sub-dimensions added significantly to the prediction above
the sub-dimensions of WFPS, ΔR² = .05, F (3,209) = 4.19, p b .01. Hence, Hypothesis 5 was partially supported; WFE and WFPS
have unique relationships with life satisfaction when the sub-dimensions are examined. However, using the aggregated measure
WFE predicted life satisfaction above WFPS, but WFPS did not predict life satisfaction above WFE.
As in Study 1, mediation was tested using the Baron and Kenny (1986) approach. Similar to Study 1, WFE was a mediator
between WFP and job satisfaction (see Table 8) and WFE was a mediator between WFPS and life satisfaction (see Tables 9 and 10).

Discussion of Study 2

Consistent with Study 1, the results of Study 2 showed that the best fitting model was the six factor model that differentiated
between the constructs of WFPS and WFE and also each of their sub-dimensions. The results of Study 2 also showed that WFE
206 A.D. Masuda et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 80 (2012) 197–210

Table 8
Cross loadings into the 6 factors (Study2). a,b

Items Factors

Work-to-family Work-to-family positive

enrichment spillover

F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6
WFED WFEA WFEC WFPSA WFPSB WFPSV

V1. Helps me to understand different viewpoints and this helps me be a better family member. .81
V2. Helps me to gain knowledge and this helps me be a better family member. 1 .01 .18
V3. Helps me acquire skills and this helps me be a better family member. .72 .12 .02
V4. Puts me in a good mood and this helps me be a better family member. .83
V5. Makes me feel happy and this helps me be a better family member. .87
V6. Makes me cheerful and this helps me be a better family member. .94 .01
V7. Helps me feel personally fulfilled and this helps me be a better family member. .16 .41 .40 .06
V8. Provides me with a sense of accomplishment and this helps me be a better family member. .05 .12 .80
V9. Provides me with a sense of success and this helps me be a better family member. .96
V10.When things are going well at work, my outlook regarding family life is improved. .54 .59 .39
V11. Being in a positive mood at work helps me to be in a positive mood at home. .16 .84
V12. Being happy at work improves my spirits at home. .97 .04
V13. Having a good day at work allows me to be optimistic with my family. .85
V14. Skills developed at work help me in my family life. .61 1.21 .89
V15. Successfully performing tasks at work helps me to more effectively accomplish family tasks. − .09 .85
V16. Behaviors required by my job lead to behaviors that assist me in my family life. .79
V17. Carrying out my family responsibilities is made easier by using behaviors performed at work. − .10 .37 .44
V18. Values developed at work make me a better family member. .74
V19. I apply the principles of my workplace values in family situations. .25 .09 .30 .26
V20. Values that I learn through my work experiences assist me in fulfilling my family responsibilities. .78

The numbers in bold are standarized loadings that are cross loadings.
a
An X indicates that the items cross loaded into that factor and that if deleted chi-square improves significantly at p b .05 (Based on Lmtest).
b
WFED = work-to-family enrichment developmental based, WFEA = work-to-family enrichment affective based, WFEC = work-to-family enrichment capital
based, WFPSA = work-to-family positive spillover affect based, WFPSB = work-to-family positive spillover behavioral based, WFPSV = work-to-family positive
spillover value based.

contributed uniquely to job satisfaction above and beyond WFPS. However, WFPS did not contribute to job satisfaction above and
beyond WFE. Further, WFE mediated the WFPS and job satisfaction relationship.
Results showed a similar pattern when predicting life satisfaction. Specifically, WFE predicted life satisfaction above WFPS, but
not the other way around. However, both the sub-dimensions of WFE and WFPS uniquely contributed to life satisfaction. Further,
WFE mediated the WFPS and life satisfaction relationship. This supports Wayne (2009); WFE is a more proximal predictor of
outcome variables and WFPS is an antecedent of enrichment. That is, in order for enrichment to occur, spillover needs to occur first.
Of note, consistent with Study 1, in Study 2 multiple items cross loaded and the measurement model improved significantly

Table 9
Mediating role of WFE on the WFPS and Job Satisfaction Relationship (Study 2). a,b

Variable Β SEβ Β t R² Δ F df p Total R²

Regression 1 : WFE predicting Job Satisfaction

Step 1 .04* 9,76 1,220 b .01 .05
Age .05 .02 .14 2.75**
Step 2 .44** 153,42 1,219 b .001 .44
WFE .85 .07 .63 12.38**
Regression 2: WFPS predicting WFE
Step 1 .05* 12,39 1,219 b .01 .05
Gender .17 .08 .11 2.30**
Step 2 .42** 117,04 1,218 b .001 .47
WFPS .77 .05 .66 13.07**
Regression 3: WFPS predicting Job Satisfaction
Step 1 .04* 9,73 1,220 b .01 .04
Age .07 .02 .17 2.98**
Step 2 .17* 48,53 1,219 b .01 .22
WFPS .66 .09 .41 6.96**
Regression 4: WFE and WFPS predicting Job Satisfaction
Step 1 .04* 9,73 1,220 b .01 .04
Age .04 .01 .14 2.74*
Step 2 .40* 76,33 2,218 b .01 .44*
WFPS .01 .11 − .00 − .07
WFE .86 .09 .63 9.25**
a
WFE = work-to-family enrichment; WFPS = work-to-family positive spillover.
b
* p b .05, **pb .01.
 A.D. Masuda et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 80 (2012) 197–210 207

Table 10
Mediating role of WFE on the WFPS and Life Satisfaction Relationship (Study 2). a,b

Variable Β SEβ β t R² Δ F df p Total R²

Regression 1 : WFE predicting Life Satisfaction

Step 1 .06** 8.34 1,218 b .001 .07
Marital Status .34 .10 .21 3.24
Working Hours − .09 .03 − .20 − 3.17
Step 2 .07** 16.54 2,219 b .001 .14
WFE .30 .07 .26 4.06
Regression 2: WFPS predicting WFE
Step 1 .45** 178.57 1,220 b .001 .45
WFPS .78 .06 .67 13.36
Regression 3: WFPS predicting Life Satisfaction
Step 1 .06** 8.34 2,219 b .001 .07
Marital Status .34 .10 .21 3.21
Working Hours − .09 .03 − .21 − 3.19
Step 2 .02** 5.39 1,218 b .01 .09
WFPS .21 .09 .15 2.32
Regression 4: WFE and WFPS predicting Life Satisfaction
Step 1 .07** 8.34 2,219 b .001 .07
Marital Status .34 .10 .21 3.23**
Working Hours − .08 .03 − .20 − 3.15**
Step 2 .07** 8.34 2,217 b .001 .14
WFPS − .05 .12 − .04 − .46
WFE .33 .10 .28 3.32**
a
WFE = work-to-family enrichment; WFPS = work-to-family positive spillover.
b
*p b .05, **p b .01.

when these items were deleted. To try and better understand the basis for the cross-loadings, we conducted a content adequacy
study.

Study 3

Content adequacy

Content adequacy is a way to estimate content validity and it is defined as “the degree to which a measure's items are a proper
sample of the theoretical content domain of a construct” (Schriesheim, Powers, Scandura, Gardiner, & Lankau, 1993, p. 386). To
estimate the content adequacy of the WFE and WFPS items, we recruited 85 undergraduates students from a medium sized
University in the Northeast to participate in exchange for extra credit. Although college students have limited full time work
experience, based on Schriesheim et al. (1993) we deemed college students as content adequacy raters appropriate on the basis
that they possess the intellectual capacity to read task statements and categorize them into a priori categories. The respondents
were 31% male and 53% were female, and had an average age of 19 years. We asked participants to first familiarize themselves with
the definitions of work–family enrichment and work–family positive spillover, and then examine each of the WFE and WFPS items
and indicate which definition the item most appropriately reflected. The order of the items presented to participants was
randomized. The number of times an item was mapped to a definition was calculated. Some researchers argue that an item must
be placed 80% of the time in the correct category in order to be retained (Carlson et al., 2006) whereas others have argued that an
item can have 70% cut-off (Schriesheim & Hinkin, 1990). Table 1 shows that only two items met the 70% cut off score.

Post-hoc analyses

Based on results from all three studies, we deleted the items that were found to be consistently problematic (see Table 1). After
deleting these items we conducted similar analyses using the data from Study 1 and Study 2. Results from Study 1 did not change.
For Study 2, results pertaining to job satisfaction also did not change. However, when testing Hypothesis 5 with the newly refined
measure aggregated, WFPS predicted life satisfaction and WFE added to the prediction above and beyond. The results when
looking at sub-dimensions remained the same. Further, the mediation results also remained the same.

Discussion of Study 3

The results from Study 3 provide additional evidence that a number of items used to represent the two constructs overlap.
These results indicate that much more work needs to be done to improve the scales measuring WFE and WFPS. Note that in Studies
1 and 2 the items that cross loaded across constructs were deleted, resulting in significant differences. However, it is important to
note that by deleting these items we are in essence creating a new scale measuring unique sub-dimensions, which may be tapping
into more specific resources. More studies need to be done to further understand what these sub-constructs are capturing.
208 A.D. Masuda et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 80 (2012) 197–210

General discussion summary of findings

The present research represents an important step toward a better understanding of the operationalization of WFE and WFPS.
First, this study lends empirical support for researchers' claims that WFPS and WFE are related, but distinct constructs (Carlson et
al., 2006; Powell & Greenhaus, 2010; Wayne, 2009). Consistent with Carlson et al.'s (2006) and Hanson et al.'s (2006)
comprehensive models of enrichment and spillover, our CFA shows that the best fitting model differentiates between enrichment
and spillover and captures the different instrumental and affective resources. Further, both Study 1 and Study 2 showed that the
sub-dimensions of WFPS and WFE had unique contributions when predicting job satisfaction and life satisfaction. However, when
looking at the aggregated variables, WFPS did not add significantly to the prediction of job satisfaction above WFE. Instead, only
WFE contributed above and beyond WFPS. These results also emphasize the importance of using the sub-scales that capture the
different resources being transferred from one domain to another.
Second, this study provides empirical evidence as to why WFE and WFPS are different from each other. Carlson et al. (2006) and
Wayne (2009) argued that spillover is an antecedent of enrichment while Powell and Greenhaus (2010) argued that spillover is
different than work–family enrichment because the resources being transferred in positive spillover are more specific. In Study 1
and Study 2 WFE was a mediator between WFPS and job satisfaction and not the other way around. In study 2, WFE also mediated
the relationship between WFPS and life satisfaction. These results show that theoretically WFPS can be an antecedent of enrichment
instead of an outcome. Specifically, it lends empirical support to Wayne's (2009) conceptual framework differentiating WFE from
WFPS.
Across all three studies, our results showed that several items cross-load onto both constructs. When these items were deleted,
the measurement model significantly improved. Further, the results from the content analyses showed that only two items were
mapped correctly onto their definitions at least 70% of the time. These results suggest that other items need to be developed to
better differentiate between these two constructs (see Table 1).
There could be at least three reasons for the observed cross loadings. First, although these items were developed to measure
one construct (e.g., WFPS) they could be measuring the other construct (e.g., WFE) and vice versa. For example, WFPS items that
imply gaining a resource from work improves ability to accomplish family tasks could be capturing WFE as well. Based on Wayne
(2009) framework, the items measuring WFPS should only describe transfer of positive resources and not the transfer of positive
resources that would lead to overall improvement in the family domain (Wayne, 2009). For example, the item “Having a good day
at work allows me to be optimistic with my family” could be a good sample of the theoretical domain of WFSP. As noted, this item
describes improvements in a specific area of the family domain (i.e. being optimistic with family) instead of describing overall
improvement in the family domain (e.g. family life is improved). People may agree that having a good day at work makes them
more optimistic with their family. However, they may not agree that having a good day at work makes them a better family
member.
The second reason for the observed cross loadings could be that the construct of WFE actually includes the construct of WFPS.
As some authors argued, one condition to experience enrichment is to first experience spillover (Wayne, 2009). If this is the case, it
is expected that items capturing WFE may be also capturing WFPS. As observed, the items from the WFE scale are double-barreled.
That is, the first idea captured is whether transfer of positive resources occurred while the second idea is whether they believe the
resource being transferred leads to increased performance in that particular life domain. Hence, it is possible that the WFE items
also capture WFPS. This may have caused some confusion when participants were trying to match the items with the definitions.
We encourage the development of different ways to capture enrichment. One possibility would be to measure positive spillover
and correlate this with performance measures as a way to tap enrichment.
The third reason that may explain why the items above cross loaded in all samples was because some of these items were
actually measuring more specific resources such as behavior and skills instead of social capital and material resources intended to
be measured by enrichment (Powell & Greenhaus, 2010). For example, the items from the WFE scale that were initially developed
to measure the transfer of broader developmental resources could be in fact measuring the transfer of more behavioral resources.
For example, the item “Helps me acquire skills and this helps me be a better family member” cross loaded into WFPS values and
behavior sub-dimension, and the item “Helps me feel personally fulfilled and this helps me be a better family member” also cross
loaded in WFPS behavior. Hence, there is also a need to revise these items to ensure that they are capturing the resources that they
were intended to capture.

Limitations 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 also limits the ability to make causal inferences. Other studies
measuring WFPS and WFE from different sources is desirable and may help the refinement of these measures. Additionally,
researchers should examine positive work–family interaction by employing longitudinal designs, following the lead of Hammer,
Cullen, Neal, Sinclair, and Shafiro (2005).
Although our results suggest that WFE was a mediator between WFPS and job satisfaction, follow-up studies are needed to
understand how different sub-dimensions relate to outcomes (e.g., job performance, organizational citizenship behaviors). Future
studies should also examine whether WFE mediates the relationship between positive spillover and other outcome variables.
Lastly, the goal of our study was to examine only two constructs in the work-to-family direction. Future studies should examine
other constructs that measure the positive side of work and family (e.g., facilitation) and also include the family-to-work direction.
 A.D. Masuda et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 80 (2012) 197–210 209

Practical and theoretical implications

The present research contributes to theory in several ways. First, it provides clarification between the two most frequently used
constructs in the literature that examine the positive side of work and family interface. As Locke (2003) suggested, strong
definitions are the epistemological foundation of social sciences. This study clarifies these definitions by not only showing that
WFE and WFPS are different from each other, but by also showing that it is important to distinguish the different resources that are
being transferred when one is experiencing enrichment and positive spillover. In fact, in Study 1 the unique effect of enrichment
and positive spillover on job satisfaction was observed only when we used the sub-dimensions in the regression analyses instead
of the aggregate variables.
Second, this study clarifies some of the confusion with regard to the relationship between WFE and WFPS. While some authors
have argued that the difference lies in the level of specificity of resources being transferred (Powell & Greenhaus, 2010) others
have suggested that spillover is an antecedent of enrichment (Wayne, 2009). This study provides support for the idea that
spillover is an antecedent of enrichment and not the reverse. This is an important step toward the development of a nomological
network that explains the positive side of the work and family interface.
Third, this study encourages the development of measures that not only capture the differences between enrichment and
positive spillover but also the differences between the resources being transferred. With more refined measures we can begin
testing whether different resources relate with different outcome variables (i.e. health-related variables, work-related variables or
family- related variables), or how these resources relate with each other to predict outcome variables. For example, transfer of
affect resources (e.g. mood) could be more closely related with affect related outcome variables such as job satisfaction, while
transfer of instrumental resources (e.g. skill) could be more closely related with other variables such as job performance. Further,
the concept of enrichment can be applied and measured not only at the individual and organizational level but also at the
community level.
Our research also encourages the development of measures that capture enrichment and spillover at multiple levels of
analyses. This is because resources gained from other forms of social interaction could also be transferred to the workplace.
Coleman's (1988) concept of social capital may be used to expand the nomological network of enrichment. Coleman explains that
multiple entities comprised of social structures facilitate individual or organizational actions. He argues that the resources
obtained from these social interactions can be transformed into human capital. Hence, based on Coleman´s conceptualization of
social capital, enrichment can occur not only between work and family but also between communities, social networks,
friendships and work. For example, Coleman mentioned that in some communities adults are expected to watch over children
who play alone. Living in communities that provide this type of support can improve one's mood, which in turn can be transferred
to the workplace. Hence, we encourage expanding the nomological network that defines positive synergies between work and
non-work domains considering multiple levels of analyses and including resources that can be gained from other types of social
interaction.
Finally, this study provides additional evidence showing that employees who are able to perceive positive synergies between
work and life domains are generally more satisfied with their jobs and life in general. These findings should encourage
organizations to educate employees on the benefits they can obtain from participating and multiple roles, and develop
interventions to facilitate resource generation across work and family domains.

References

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical
considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173.
Bentler, P. M. (1995). EQS structural equations program manual. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software.
Carlson, D. S., Kacmar, K. M., Wayne, J. H., & Grzywacz, 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. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2005.02.002.
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95–S120 supplement.
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75. doi:10.1207/
s15327752jpa4901_13.
Edwards, J. R., & Rothbard, N. P. (2000). Mechanisms linking work and family: Clarifying the relationship betwee work and family constructs. Academy of
Management Review, 25, 178–199. doi:10.2307/259269.
Frone, M. R. (2003). Work–family balance. In J. C. Quick, & L. E. Tetrick (Eds.), Handbook of Occupational Health psychology (pp. 143–162). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Powell, G. N. (2006). When work and family are allies: A theory of work–family enrichment. Academy of Management Review, 31, 72–92. doi:
10.1016/j.jvb.2005.02.002.
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
symptoms among dual-earner couples. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10, 138–154. doi:10.1037/1076-8998.10.2.138.
Hanson, G. C., Hammer, L. B., & Colton, C. L. (2006). Development and validation of a multidimensional scale of perceived work–family positive spillover. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 11, 249–265. doi:10.1037/1076-8998.11.3.249.
Hu, L. -t., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation
Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118.
Locke, E. A. (2003). Good definitions: The epistemological foundation of scientific progress. In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Organizational behavior: The state of the science
(pp. 415–444). (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Marks, S. R. (1977). Multiple roles and role strain some notes on human energy time and commitment. American Sociological Review, 2, 921–936.
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 &
Psychology, 25, 381–396. doi:10.1007/s10869-009-9141-1.
Powell, G. N., & Greenhaus, J. H. (2010). Sex, gender and the work–family interface: Exploring negative and positive interdependencies. Academy of Management
Journal, 53, 513–534. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2005.02.002.
210 A.D. Masuda et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 80 (2012) 197–210

Raykov, & Marcoulides, G. A. (2006). A first course in structural equation modeling. (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Ruderman, M. N., Ohlott, P. J., Panzer, K., & King, S. N. (2002). Benefits of multiple roles for managerial women. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 369–386. doi:
10.2307/3069352.
Schleier, D. J., Hansen, S. D., & Fox, K. E. (2010). Job attitudes and work values. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (vol. 3).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Schriesheim, C. A., & Hinkin, T. R. (1990). Influence tactics used by subordinates: A theoretical and empirical analysis and refinement of the Kipnis, Schmidt, and
Wilkinson Subscales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 246–257. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.75.3.246.
Schriesheim, C. A., Powers, K. J., Scandura, T. A., Gardiner, C. C., & Lankau, M. J. (1993). Improving construct measurement in management research: Comments and
quantitative approach for assessing the theoretical content adequacy of paper-and-pencil survey-type instruments. Journal of Management, 19, 385–417. doi:
10.1177/109442819922002.
Sieber, S. D. (1974). Toward a theory of role accumulation. American Sociological Review, 39, 567–578.
Spector, P. E. (1997). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes, and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Spector, P. E., Cooper, C. L., Poelmans, S., Allen, T. D., O`Driscoll, M., Sanchez, J. I., et al. (2004). A cross- national comparative study of work/family stressors, working
hours, and well-being: China and Latin America vs. the Anglo world. Personnel Psychology, 57, 119–142. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2004.tb02486.x.
Stanton, J. M., & Weiss, E. M. (2002). Online panels for social science research: An introduction of the StudyResponse Project (Tech. Rep. No. 13001. Syracuse, NY:
Syracuse University, School of Information Studies.
Wayne, J. H. (2009). Cleaning up the constructs on the positive side of the work–family interface. In D. R. Crane, & J. Hill (Eds.), Handbook of families and work:
Interdisciplinary perspectives. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Wayne, J. H., Musisca, N., & Fleeson, W. (2004). Considering the role of personality in the work–family experience: Relationships of the big five to work–family
conflict and facilitation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64, 108–130. doi:10.1016/S0001-8791(03)00035-6.
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, 445–461. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2006.07.002.