COMMUNITY, WORK & FAMILY

2020, VOL. 23, NO. 2, 201–223

https://doi.org/10.1080/13668803.2018.1473336

The development and test of a framework examining the

associations between gambling behavior, strain-based
gambling interference with work and nonwork, cognitive
disengagement, and role performance
Lillian T. Eby, Melissa Robertson, Rachel Williamson and Cynthia K. Maupin
Department of Psychology, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Despite considerable advances, existing work–family conflict Received 9 May 2016
research tends to ignore the possibility that some behaviors may Accepted 23 March 2018
transcend work and nonwork, potentially causing interference in
KEYWORDS
both domains. One such experience is gambling, which involves Work–family; gambling;
staking something of material value (often money) on an event work-nonwork; role
with an uncertain outcome in an attempt to win additional goods performance; engagement
of material values. The current study builds on and extends recent
research by examining gambling behavior as a potential source of PALABRAS CLAVE
strain-based interference with both work and nonwork within a Trabajo-familia; el juego de
sample of 259 working adults who gamble at least weekly. A dinero; trabajo vs no trabajo;
framework is developed and tested that links gambling behavior function de rolllo y
motivacion
to strain-based gambling interference with both work and
nonwork, and then links gambling interference to reduced role
performance in each respective domain. We also investigate
whether reduced cognitive engagement in each domain serves as
a partial explanatory mechanism for the deleterious effects of
gambling interference. These links are tested controlling for the
effects of overall strain-based work interference with family and
family interference with work, in order to isolate the effects of
gambling interference and provide a rigorous test of the study
predictions. Strong support was found for the proposed framework.

RESUMEN
A pesar de bastante progreso las estudios de conflicto entre trabajo
y familia, hay tendencia a desconocer la posibilidad que alguna
conducta puede sobresalir trabajo y no trabajo que causa
conflicto con las dos. Jugar par dinero, par ejemplo, supone el uso
de alga, (dinero, a menudo) en una situation cpor examinar la
conducta de 259 adultos que trabajan quienes juegan par dinero
par lo menos una vez la semana . Par el uso de armadua creada
para examinar su efecto en situaciones de trabajo y no trabajo
especialmente la conducta influida par tension. Tambien
investigamos si menos dedicacion en las dos puede explicarse
coma causa de un efecto muy deletereo quando el juego de
dinero se presenta. Tambien, examinamos efectos de la tension
de trabajo y no trabajo para isolar las efectos del jugar. Se
encontró un fuerte apoyo para el marco propuesto.

CONTACT Lillian T. Eby leby@uga.edu Department of Psychology, University of Georgia, 228 Psychology Building,
30602 Athens, Georgia
© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
202 L. T. EBY ET AL.

In the last decade, research on the work–family interface has grown dramatically. What
was once viewed as a niche topic has become the focus of both considerable interest
and intensive study. As a result of these trends, we now have an improved understanding
of the complex interplay between work and family experiences, particularly in terms of the
potential for conflict between work and family life. However, there are numerous ways that
our understanding of the work–family interface may be enhanced and expanded.
For example, research typically focuses on ‘family’ and ‘work’, examining the various
ways that these two life domains can interfere with one another. This approach has
been criticized on several grounds. As Lewis, Gambles, and Rapoport (2007) note, the scho-
larly discourse around work–family is based on some rather narrowly defined and specific
assumptions. For example, work–family issues have been traditionally framed from a
Western perspective, as a woman’s issue, and as one that is most germane to professional
employees. In addition, Lewis and Cooper (1995) argue that the exclusive focus on family
has the potential to ignore the diverse needs and identities of employees. Other scholars
have raised a similar concern, noting that aspects of nonwork other than family are impor-
tant to consider (Hall, Kossek, Briscoe, Pichler, & Lee, 2013; Keeney, Boyd, Sinha, Westring, &
Ryan, 2013). In fact, Keeney et al. (2013) conceptualized and measured work interference
with a variety of discrete life domains (e.g. health, education, community involvement,
leisure, family). They found that individuals report differences in specific forms of work-
nonwork interference and that different types of interference added unique variance to
the prediction of employee outcomes, over and above work interference with family. Exist-
ing research also tends to ignore the possibility that some behaviors may potentially cause
interference in both domains. For example, a recent qualitative study by Eby et al. (2016)
documented that the popular activity of gambling (Korn, Gibbins, & Azmier, 2003) can
create a wide range of problems in individuals’ work (e.g. absenteeism) and nonwork
(e.g. relational conflicts with family and friends) lives.
The current study builds on and extends existing research by examining gambling
behavior as a potential source of interference with both work and nonwork, within a
sample of working adults who gamble at least weekly. This provides an interdisciplinary
perspective by integrating scholarship on gambling (e.g. Grant & Potenza, 2008; Kalischuk,
Nowatzki, Cardwell, Klein, & Solowoniuk, 2006; Kourgiantakis, Saint-Jacques, & Tremblay,
2013), with theories of work–family conflict (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985) and work engage-
ment (Kahn, 1990) to propose and test a process-oriented framework. More specifically, we
examine behavioral features of pathological gambling among weekly gamblers (Lesieur &
Blume, 1987; referred to from here forward as gambling behavior) as a predictor of gam-
bling interference with nonwork and gambling interference with work. We then examine
the downstream effects of both directions of gambling interference on role performance
in both work and nonwork domains, over and above any effects due to work-nonwork
inference. This approach allows us to isolate the unique effects of gambling interference
and rule out the plausible alternative explanation that our findings may be simply due to
greater work-nonwork interference rather than gambling interference specifically. Finally,
we investigate whether cognitive disengagement in work and nonwork roles partially
mediates the association between gambling interference and role performance.
The present study makes several important contributions. Despite research document-
ing the wide range of potential problems associated with gambling, no research has
 COMMUNITY, WORK & FAMILY 203

quantitatively examined the extent to which gambling behavior is associated with inter-
ference with nonwork and work–life domains. Doing so is important because, in order
to understand the work and nonwork-related effects of gambling, it is necessary to inves-
tigate the extent to which individuals experience interference as a result of this activity, as
well as any downstream role performance consequences of such interference. We also
focus on a sample of weekly gamblers not seeking treatment. This is important because
most of what we know about the negative effects of gambling is based on samples of
self-identified problem gamblers who are either in treatment or seeking treatment for
problem gambling. This represents a very small segment of the total population of gam-
blers (Binde, 2011; Kessler et al., 2008; Shaffer, Hall, & Vander Bilt, 1999) and the effects of
gambling may be substantively different, both in scope and in magnitude, among those
who are neither in treatment nor seeking treatment. Finally, we provide an initial investi-
gation of whether conflict resulting from behavior that can be enacted in any life domain
(work, family, nonwork) may simultaneously interfere with both work and nonwork, over
and above work-nonwork interference. This approach extends existing research by inves-
tigating how behaviors that are not clearly tied to any particular life domain may create
unique gambling-related conflict.1 We then examine whether gambling interference in
turn predicts with both reduced cognitive role engagement and role performance,
beyond the well-documented effects of work-nonwork interference.

Gambling behavior as a source of strain-based interference with nonwork

and work
Gambling involves staking something of material value (often money) on an event with an
uncertain outcome in an attempt to win additional goods of material values. It includes
diverse activities such as playing the lottery, bingo, poker, blackjack and other cards
games, slot machines and other casino games, video lottery terminals, betting on sporting
events (on TV or that one plays oneself), playing dice or pool for money, and internet gam-
bling (http://law.jrank.org/pages/11847/Gambling.html). Gambling is viewed as a socially
acceptable form of recreation (McComb, Lee, & Sprenkle, 2009) with approximately 60%
of American adults gambling sometime in the last 12 months (American Gaming Associ-
ation, 2009). Although most adults gamble responsibly, population-based studies indicate
that around seven million Americans are negatively affected by gambling (Williams,
Volberg, & Stevens, 2012). Documented outcomes as a result of problem gambling
include family dysfunction, relational conflicts, financial strain, and negative employment
consequences (Downs & Woolrych, 2010; Kalischuk et al., 2006).
Far less is known about gamblers who are neither in treatment nor seeking treatment.
An exception is a recent qualitative study that documented a wide range of problems in
both the nonwork and work domain as a consequence of weekly gambling (Eby et al.,
2016). Slightly over half of the sample reported problems in close relationships (i.e. with
significant others, family, friends). About 20% reported financial problems and 14%
reported work-related problems. Less frequently reported, albeit distinct, problems attrib-
uted to weekly gambling included health problems and school-related difficulties. The
qualitative accounts provided by gamblers highlighted that many gamblers experienced
psychological distress and strain reactions (e.g. shame, reduced self-esteem, reduced
204 L. T. EBY ET AL.

psychological well-being). This provides initial evidence that gambling behavior may inter-
fere with both nonwork and work by creating strain-based conflict in both domains.

Conceptual and theoretical foundations

As shown in Figure 1, we propose that gambling behavior is related to both forms of strain-
based gambling interference (i.e. gambling interference with work and gambling interfer-
ence with nonwork), which subsequently predicts reduced role performance in each
respective domain. Importantly, we propose that the effects of gambling interference
are distinct from the more routinely studied phenomenon of strain-based work-
nonwork interference (both directions) and have unique explanatory power in predicting
performance in work and nonwork roles. We further expect that decreased cognitive work
and nonwork engagement partially mediate these effects. In the following section, we
outline the theoretical rationale for the proposed framework.

Work–family conflict theory

Greenhaus and Beutell (1985) introduced work–family conflict as a specific type of inter-
role interference that occurs when activities associated with work and family roles are
mutually incompatible in some way and where participation in one role is made harder
or more stressful by virtue of participation in another role. Edwards and Rothbard
(2000) discuss this phenomenon in terms of resource drain, a situation that arises when
limited personal resources (time, attention, energy) are expended in one domain,
leaving few resources available to invest in other domains. Drawing from the core
tenets of work–family conflict theory and research indicating that gambling is associated
with problems across life domains, we suggest that gambling behavior may create inter-
ference in work as well as nonwork domains. This is because gambling is a cross-domain
activity; it can be enacted while at work (e.g. office sports betting, stopping to buy lottery

Figure 1. Framework of the effects of gambling behavior and strain-based gambling interference on
role performance. Note: Parameter estimates shown above (with the exception of the paths from gam-
bling behavior to gambling interference) control for the effects of general work interference with
nonwork, as well as nonwork interference with work, on engagement and performance in both
domains (paths not shown). Unstandardized estimates are shown; standard errors are in parentheses.
*p < .05.
 COMMUNITY, WORK & FAMILY 205

tickets during lunch break), during time away from work (e.g. buying lottery tickets at a
convenience store, playing poker with friends), and during family time (e.g. online gam-
bling while watching television with family, visiting a casino while on vacation).
Work–family conflict is widely acknowledged as multi-dimensional, consisting of strain-
based, time-based, and behavior-based conflict. It is also bi-directional such that work can
interfere with family and family can interfere with work. Literature reviews document the
negative effects of work–family conflict on a wide range of employee attitudes and beha-
viors (Amstad, Meier, Fasel, Elfering, & Semmer, 2011; Eby, Casper, Lockwood, Bordeaux, &
Brinley, 2005). Our focus is on strain-based interference due to the known psychological
effects of gambling. This includes irritability, tension, depressed mood, and distress (Amer-
ican Psychiatric Association, 2013; Downs & Woolrych, 2010; Lesieur & Rosenthal, 1991;
Spunt, Dupont, Lesieur, Liberty, & Hunt, 1998), which mirror the psychological effects of
strain-based work–family interference (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). Although studying
strain-based gambling interference is a novel extension of work–family conflict theory,
we recognize that gambling is a behavior, not a life domain. As such, our examination
of gambling interference with work and nonwork represents a departure from Greenhaus
and Beutell’s original conceptualization which focused on conflict between life domains.
Notwithstanding this notable distinction, the value in our approach is that we are able
to provide the first quantitative test of gambling interference as a predictor of role per-
formance. This has been alluded to in qualitative research on problem gambling (e.g.
Eby et al., 2016) and discussions of the negative effects of gambling on both work and
nonwork life (e.g. Kalischuk et al., 2006; Lesieur, 1998), but not examined empirically.

Engagement theory
A second theory used to anchor the current research is Kahn’s (1990, 1992) theory of
engagement. Kahn argues that individuals vary in the degree to which they are ‘psycho-
logically present’ (Kahn, 1990, p. 692) at work. He described this phenomenon as engage-
ment, or the extent to which one puts his or her self physically, cognitively, and
emotionally into the work role. Applying engagement theory to work and family, Rothbard
(2001) argued that individuals experience engagement in work as well as family roles, and
that this can be either depleting or enriching. Rothbard further discusses how engage-
ment includes both attention (e.g. cognitive availability, time spent thinking about a
role; Gardner, Dunham, Cummings, & Pierce, 1989) and absorption (intense concentration
in a role; Goffman, 1961; Kahn, 1990).

Hypothesis development
Although our research focuses on individuals who gamble at least weekly, it is important
to recognize that gamblers vary in the frequency and intensity of their gambling behavior.
This is widely discussed in the clinical psychology literature, where it is noted that individ-
uals who gamble regularly can vary considerably in behavioral symptoms of pathological
gambling. In the current research, we are interested in indicators of problem gambling
behavior, which include behaviors such as trying to win back losses, gambling more
than one intends to, and wanting to stop gambling but not being able to do so
(Lesieur & Blume, 1987). As shown in Figure 1, our first prediction posits that as gambling
206 L. T. EBY ET AL.

behavior increases, so does the likelihood that gambling will interfere with both nonwork
and work. The logic here is that as weekly gamblers invest more time, energy, and psycho-
logical resources (attention, motivation) into gambling, there will be fewer resources avail-
able for work and nonwork obligations, and this will create strain-based interference.
Hypothesis 1: Gambling behavior will be positively related to strain-based gambling interfer-
ence with work and strain-based gambling interference with nonwork.

As mentioned previously, one of the presumed reasons that work–family conflict leads
to lower role performance is resource drain (Edwards & Rothbard, 2000). In other words,
individuals have a finite amount of cognitive, psychological, and physical energy (Roth-
bard, 2001). As resources are allocated to one role, individuals become increasingly
depleted and role performance in the other domain suffers (Pleck, Stains, & Lang, 1980).
Prior empirical research supports this idea by demonstrating that work–family conflict is
negatively related to both work role performance (Frone, Russell, & Cooper, 1997; Nete-
meyer, Boles, & McMurrian, 1996) and family role performance (Frone et al., 1997). Inter-
estingly, anecdotal accounts of gamblers’ work problems (e.g. absenteeism, lateness,
and lower job performance; Downs & Woolrych, 2010; Ladouceur, Boisvert, Pépin, Loran-
ger, & Sylvain, 1994) and nonwork problems (e.g. relational conflicts, social isolation, and
feelings of guilt about not spending time with children; Corney & Davis, 2010; Lorenz &
Yaffee, 1986) suggest that strain-based gambling interference may also be related to
lower role performance in each respective domain, although this has not been examined
directly. These direct effects are shown in Figure 1 and outlined in the following
predictions:
Hypothesis 2: Strain-based gambling interference with work will be negatively related to work
performance, over and above both directions of strain-based work-nonwork conflict.

Hypothesis 3: Strain-based gambling interference with nonwork will be negatively related to

nonwork performance, over and above both directions of strain-based work-nonwork conflict.

We also expect that gambling interference may be associated with a corresponding

reduction in cognitive engagement for each respective domain (Figure 1). This is sup-
ported by engagement theory (Kahn, 1990), which notes that activities in individuals’
‘outside lives’ (p. 716) can reduce their psychological availability at work, creating distrac-
tions that make cognitive engagement at work difficult. We extend this line of reasoning
from engagement theory to the activity of gambling, drawing on research examining how
gambling relates to cognitive processes. Importantly, gamblers often report being cogni-
tively preoccupied with thoughts of gambling, such as reliving past gambling experiences
and planning future gambling activities (Beaudoin & Cox, 1999; Downs & Woolrych, 2010;
Valentine & Hughes, 2010).
Consistent with this finding, Eby et al. (2016) found that gamblers reported consider-
able disengagement from life roles (e.g. family, social, work, school) as a result of gambling
in a qualitative study of 161 weekly gamblers not in treatment. Other studies have also
documented that gamblers cognitively disengage while at work. Downs and Woolrych’s
(2010) qualitative study of 18 problem gamblers found that those who were employed
reported difficulty concentrating at work and characterized gambling as an activity that
‘challenged their thought processes’ (p. 323) while at work. Similar findings were reported
 COMMUNITY, WORK & FAMILY 207

in Corney and Davis’ (2010) qualitative study of 16 female internet gamblers. There is also
evidence that some individuals gamble as a way to escape problems (Corney & Davis,
2010; Rockloff & Dyer, 2006), which implies cognitive role disengagement. As such, we
predict:
Hypothesis 4: Strain-based gambling interference with work will be negatively related to cog-
nitive work engagement, over and above both directions of strain-based work-nonwork
conflict.

Hypothesis 5: Strain-based gambling interference with nonwork will be negatively related to

cognitive nonwork engagement, over and above both directions of strain-based work-
nonwork conflict.

As shown in Figure 1, we propose that the strain that results from gambling behavior
will have negative downstream effects on work and nonwork performance by reducing
cognitive role engagement. We know from prior research that gambling consumes con-
siderable cognitive resources. For instance, problem gamblers report intrusive thoughts
about gambling when not engaging in the behavior (Downs & Woolrych, 2010), are
easily distracted by gambling-related cues which can disrupt daily functioning (Grant &
Kim, 2001; Vizcaino et al., 2013), perseverate on previous wins or losses (Grant & Kim,
2001), and can report difficulty concentrating on non-gambling-related activities
(Corney & Davis, 2010). This suggests that those experiencing strain-based interference
as a result of gambling may be less cognitively and psychologically present in other
roles when not gambling. As such, consistent with engagement theory, the psychological,
physical, and emotional energy needed to sustain performance in on-gambling roles
(work, nonwork) may not be as readily available (Kahn, 1990, 1992). As a consequence,
role performance may suffer. This leads to our final set of predictions:
Hypotheses 6: There will be a significant indirect effect of strain-based gambling interference
with work on work performance through reduced cognitive work engagement, after account-
ing for both directions of strain-based work-nonwork conflict.

Hypotheses 7: There will be a significant indirect effect of gambling interference with nonwork
on nonwork performance and through reduced cognitive nonwork engagement, after
accounting for both directions of strain-based work-nonwork conflict.

Method
Procedure and participants
Participants were recruited from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (MTurk), a crowdsourcing
website. Data obtained using MTurk has similar psychometric properties as that collected
using traditional surveying methods (Buhrmester, Kwang, & Gosling, 2011; Paolacci,
Chandler, & Ipeirotis, 2010) and is increasingly being used in high impact journals (e.g.
Bendersky & Shah, 2013; Chua, 2013). The task description asked individuals to complete
a survey about their work and nonwork lives. We restricted the sample to individuals resid-
ing in the United States and participants received $0.10 for completing a screening ques-
tionnaire and an additional $1.00 if they qualified for and completed the full survey.
The screening questionnaire asked about gambling frequency, employment status,
hours worked, and age. To minimize guessing the eligibility criteria, several distractor
208 L. T. EBY ET AL.

questions were included (e.g. ‘On average, how many hours do you spend watching tele-
vision per day?’). Participants were directed to the full survey if they reported gambling at
least weekly, worked at least 20 hours per week, and were over 18 years old. We received
4615 responses to the screening questionnaire over a 3-month period. Of these, 332 qua-
lified to participate in the full study, representing 7% of the total responses. This figure is
slightly lower than national estimates of frequent gambling (Welte, Barnes, Wieczorek,
Tidwell, & Parker, 2002), which may be due to the fact that participants also had to be
employed. Inspection of the dataset indicated that 27 participants completed the
survey twice. The second response from these participants was excluded. An additional
46 participants were excluded from these analyses because they dropped out of the
survey prior to completing all study measures. This left a final sample size of 259.
The mean age of participants was 31.63 and nearly two-thirds of the sample were male
(n = 163). The majority of participants (79.9%) were White/Caucasian, 10.0% were Black/
African American, 7.3% were Asian, and 2.7% were other races. Participants worked an
average of 39.57 hours per week and were employed in a variety of occupations, including
professional and related occupations (30.1%), service occupations (24.7%), and manage-
ment, business, or financial operations occupations (19.3%). Nearly one-third (n = 78)
reported that they supervised employees at their current jobs. The average pay was
$2875.63 per month or $18.30 per hour. Over half (61.8%) reported that they were in a
relationship, and nearly one-third were married (28.2%). About one-third reported that
they had children (32.8%). Individuals reported engaging in a variety of gambling beha-
viors. The most frequently reported were playing the numbers or betting on lotteries
(49.4% played once a week or more), playing cards for money (27.8% played once a
week or more), and betting on sports (24.3% bet once per week or more).

Measures
All measures appear in the Appendix. Gambling behavior was measured with the South
Oaks Gambling Screen (Lesieur & Blume, 1987). This 20-question measure assesses behav-
ioral features of pathological gambling (e.g. going back to gamble after losing, gambling
more than intended, feeling guilty about gambling, wanting to stop gambling but not
being sure one could, hiding evidence of gambling to others) and is used as a screening
tool for pathological gambling. Response options vary across items, with some represent-
ing continuous response options (e.g. frequency, dollar amounts) and others representing
dichotomous (yes or no) responses. The measure is scored by adding up the number of
questions that show an ‘at risk’ response per the scoring key provided in Lesieur and
Blume. In this sample, the average sum score for the sample was 4.97 (SD = 5.02), with
scores ranging from 0 to 19. Based on the cutoff score of 5 or higher (Lesieur & Blume,
1987), 41.7% of participants screened positive for probable pathological gambling. Cron-
bach’s alpha was 0.92.
Gambling interference with work and nonwork was measured using an adapted version
of Carlson, Kacmar, and Williams’ (2000) six-item strain-based work–family conflict scale.
This scale assessed both strain-based gambling interference with work and strain-based
gambling interference with nonwork. Cognitive work and nonwork engagement were
measured using the six-item cognitive engagement subscale of Rich, Lepine, and Craw-
ford’s (2010) measure of job engagement. Parallel items were adapted to assess cognitive
 COMMUNITY, WORK & FAMILY 209

nonwork engagement (e.g. ‘During my personal time, I can concentrate on my personal

life’). Work and nonwork performance were measured using Frone et al.’s (1997) five-
item measure. Nonwork items were modified to reflect our focus on the nonwork interface
more generally rather than just family (e.g. ‘On average, how often do you fulfill personal
responsibilities?’). Response options ranged from 1 (never) to 5 (always). Work-nonwork
conflict was assessed using Carlson et al.’s (2000) strain-based work–family conflict
scale. Items that referenced family were modified to reflect our broader focus on the
nonwork interface (e.g. ‘The time that I spend on personal responsibilities often interferes
with my work responsibilities’). Unless otherwise indicated, all measures were rated on a 1
(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) scale. Coefficients alpha are shown in Table 1 and
range from .83 to .96.

Results
Preliminary results
Descriptive statistics and correlations among the study variables are shown in Table 1. A
confirmatory factor analytic measurement model specifying 7-factors (gambling behavior,
gambling interference with work, gambling interference with nonwork, cognitive work
engagement, cognitive nonwork engagement, work role performance, nonwork role per-
formance) was first examined using Mplus 7.4. Because of the large number of dichoto-
mous items composing the gambling behavior measure, a fully disaggregated model
suffered from convergence and estimation problems. As a result, we used a reliability-cor-
rected approach was used for gambling behavior that allowed us to correct the latent
gambling behavior variable for unreliability without the requirement of using all the
items as indicators (Bollen, 1989). This involved fixing the disturbance term to
(1 − rxx )∗s2 and the factor loading to 1.0 (Bollen, 1989; Coffman & MacCallum, 2005; Ste-
phenson & Holbert, 2003).
The measurement model fit the data adequately (χ 2(357) = 1004.18, RMSEA = 0.08, TLI
= .90, CFI = .91, SRMR = 0.07); this degree of fit was expected given the large number of
individual items and correspondingly higher random error, as well as the fact that we
exceeded the recommended subject to item ratio of 5:1 (Bagozzi & Heatherton, 1994).
Importantly, all items had significant t-values on their respective a priori latent factor
and the standardized loadings were moderate to large. We also compared a series of
nested confirmatory factor analytic models to demonstrate discriminant validity. Of par-
ticular interest were (1) demonstrating that our gambling interference constructs were dis-
tinct from work interference with nonwork, (2) that the two dimensions of gambling
interference were distinct from one another, and (3) that our two strain-based interference
measures were distinct from their corresponding cognitive engagement measures.
Table 2 documents the results of the first two model comparisons involving our
newly developed gambling interference constructs and work-nonwork interference
constructs. As shown in Table 2, the 1-factor model provided a poor fit to the data
(χ 2(54) = 1633.72, RMSEA = 0.34, CFI = 0.54, TLI = .44, SRMR = 0.21). In the 2-factor model,
both directions of work-nonwork interference loaded onto one factor and gambling inter-
ference with nonwork and gambling interference with work loaded onto a second factor.
This model provided a better fit to the data than the 1-factor model, providing initial
 210
L. T. EBY ET AL.
Table 1. Descriptive statistics and correlations between study variables (N = 259).
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
1. GB 4.97 5.03 0.92
2. GIW 1.88 1.25 0.26** 0.96
3. GINW 2.08 1.23 0.33** 0.79** 0.93
4. CWE 3.63 1.04 −0.12 −0.40** −0.04** 0.96
5. CNWE 3.67 0.94 −0.05 −0.20** −0.20** 0.20** 0.94
6. WP 4.25 0.77 −0.17** −0.51** −0.44** 0.53** 0.26** 0.83
7. NWP 3.81 0.78 −0.12* −0.45** −0.41** 0.44** 0.43** 0.57** 0.84
8. WINW 2.85 1.14 0.06 0.23** 0.30** −0.16* −0.14* −0.18** −0.35** 0.93
9. NINW 2.37 1.04 0.18** 0.40** 0.39** −0.24** −0.16* −0.33** −0.39** 0.46** 0.91
10. Age 31.61 9.85 −0.06 −0.18** −0.13* 0.10 0.08 0.20** 0.11 0.02 −0.10 –
11. Gender 0.65 0.48 0.05 0.03 0.08 −0.16* −0.05 −0.19** −0.09 −0.01 −0.02 −0.19** –
12. Race 0.79 0.41 0.03 0.03 0.03 −0.06 −0.04 −0.06 0.05 0.12 0.01 0.01 0.04 –
13. Hours 39.54 9.82 0.05 −0.04 −0.01 0.10 −0.03 0.03 0.06 0.06 −0.08 0.15* 0.10 −0.07 –
14. Partner 0.51 0.51 0.00 −0.03 −0.06 0.11 0.11 0.13* 0.14* 0.06 −0.04 0.17** −0.16* 0.12 −0.03 –
15. Children 0.34 0.47 0.03 −0.07 −0.07 0.02 0.08 0.08 0.04 0.00 0.06 0.45** −0.26** 0.03 −0.07 0.40** –
16. Sup exp. 0.31 0.46 −0.01 −0.02 −0.01 0.10 0.02 −0.04 0.01 0.08 −0.05 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.16* 0.04 −0.04
Note: GB: gambling behavior; GIW: gambling interfering with work; GINW: gambling interfering with nonwork; CWE: cognitive work engagement; CNWE: cognitive nonwork engagement; WP: work
performance, NWP: nonwork performance; Partner: married or living with partner; Children: has children; Sup exp: supervises others.
Gender: 1 = Men, 0 = Women. Race: 1 = White, 0 = Non-White. Hours = Hours worked per week. Partner: 1 = married or partnered, 0 = Not married or partnered. Children: 1 = Yes, 0 = No. Sup exp: 1 =
Yes supervisory experience, 0 = No supervisory experience.
Coefficient alpha reliabilities are shown on the diagonal.
*p < .05.
**p < .01.
 COMMUNITY, WORK & FAMILY 211

Table 2. Goodness-of-fit indicators comparing models of gambling interference and work-nonwork

interference.
Model χ2 df χ2 diff TLI CFI RMSEA SRMR
1-Factor 1633.72*** 54 .44 .54 0.34 0.21
2-Factor 1096.48*** 53 537.24 .62 .70 0.28 0.15
3-Factor 558.66*** 51 573.82 .81 .85 0.20 0.05
4-Factor 98.69*** 48 459.97 .98 .99 0.06 0.02
Note: In 1-factor model, GIW, GINW, WIN, and NIW items all load on factor one. In 2-factor model, WIN + NIW items load on
factor one and GIW + WINW items load on factor two. In 3-factor model, WIN items load on factor one, NIW items load on
factor two, and GIW + GINW items load on factor three. In 4-factor model, GIW, GINW, WIN, and NIW items load on sep-
arate factors.
***p < .001.

support for the discriminant validity of the gambling interference and work-nonwork con-
flict constructs, although the fit for the 2-factor model was admittedly poor (χ 2(53) =
1096.48, RMSEA = 0.28, CFI = 0.70, TLI = .62, SRMR = 0.15). In the 3-factor model, work inter-
ference with nonwork and nonwork interference with work was specified as two distinct
factors, whereas gambling interference with work and gambling interference with
nonwork loaded on a single factor. The 3-factor was superior to the 2-factor model, pro-
viding additional evidence that gambling interference is unique from work-nonwork con-
flict constructs. Finally, the 4-factor model specified that items loaded on their respective a
priori factor (work interference with nonwork, nonwork interference with work, gambling
interference with nonwork, and gambling interference with work). This model provided a
good fit to the data (χ 2(48) = 98.69, RMSEA = 0.06, CFI = 0.99, TLI = .98, SRMR = 0.02) and fit
the data significantly better than did the 3-factor model (χ 2(51) = 558.66, RMSEA = 0.20,
CFI = 0.85, TLI = .81, SRMR = 0.05). This provided evidence that gambling interference is
unique from work-nonwork interference, and that gambling interference with work is dis-
tinct from gambling interference with nonwork.
Table 3 provides a comparison of the a priori 4-factor model (gambling interference
with work, gambling interference with nonwork, cognitive work engagement, cognitive
nonwork engagement) with a 2-factor model where items representing gambling interfer-
ence with work and cognitive work engagement loaded on one factor and items repre-
senting gambling interference with nonwork and cognitive nonwork engagement
loaded on a second factor. As shown in Table 3, the 4-factor model provided a good fit
to the data χ 2(129) = 303.66, RMSEA = 0.07, CFI = 0.98, TLI = .98, SRMR = 0.06) and fit the
data significantly better than did the 2-factor model (χ 2(134) = 3202.85, RMSEA = 0.30,
CFI = 0.64, TLI = .59, SRMR = 0.29). Importantly, a chi-square difference test indicated that
the a priori 4-factor model fit the data significantly better than the alternative 2-factor
model (χ 2(5) = 2900.19, p < .05).

Table 3. Goodness-of-fit indicators comparing models of gambling interference and cognitive

engagement.
Model χ2 df χ2 diff TLI CFI RMSEA SRMR
2-Factor 3203.85*** 134 .59 .64 0.30 0.29
4-Factor 303.66*** 129 2900.19* .98 .98 0.07 0.06
Note: In 2-factor model GIW + cognitive work engagement items loaded on factor one and GINW + cognitive nonwork
engagement loaded on factor two. In 4-factor model, GIW, GINW, cognitive work engagement, and cognitive
nonwork engagement items loaded on separate factors.
*p < .05.
***p < .001.
212 L. T. EBY ET AL.

Test of hypotheses 1–7

The study hypotheses were tested using Anderson and Gerbing’s (1988) two-step model-
ing approach in Mplus 7.4. With this approach, the measurement model is first estimated
to assess construct validity (reported above). This is followed by the simultaneous esti-
mation of the measurement and structural sub-models. This provides a comprehensive
assessment of both convergent and discriminant validity of the measurement model
and presuming adequate measurement model fit, provides a test of the hypothesized
links in the structural model. Based on best practices for calculating indirect effects
(Shrout & Bolger, 2002), we calculated bootstrapped standard errors (1000 samples) for
all parameter estimates. The unstandardized path coefficients and associated standard
errors are shown in Figure 1. To examine the unique effects of gambling interference,
we specified both work interference with nonwork and nonwork interference with work
as predictors of engagement and performance in both domains. We allowed these two
interference variables to co-vary with each other and with the two gambling interference
measures (cf. Williams, Vandenberg, & Edwards, 2009). These paths are not included in
Figure 1 because we are not interested in the explanatory effects of work-nonwork inter-
ference; rather we wanted to interpret the effects of gambling interference over and above
work-nonwork interference.2
Overall model fit statistics suggested that the model provided an adequate fit to the
data, χ 2(539) = 1327.21, p < .00, RMSEA = 0.08, 90% C.I. [0.07,0.08], CFI = 0.91, TLI = .90,
SRMR = 0.11, although the SRMR was slightly above the recommended cutoff of 0.10.
Hypothesis 1 predicted a positive relationship between gambling behavior and both direc-
tions of gambling interference. This hypothesis was supported (b = .12. SE = .01, p < .05
and b = .15, SE = .01, p < .05, for gambling interference with work and gambling interfer-
ence with nonwork, respectively). Hypothesis 2 predicted that gambling interference
with work would be negatively associated with work performance after controlling for
both directions of work-nonwork conflict. This hypothesis was supported (b = −0.24,
S.E. = 0.06, p < .05). Similarly, hypothesis 3 predicted a negative relationship between gam-
bling interference with nonwork and nonwork performance, after controlling for both
directions of work-nonwork conflict. This hypothesis was also supported (b = −0.15, S.E.
= 0.04, p < .05). Hypotheses 4 and 5 predicted that gambling interference with work and
gambling interference with nonwork would be negatively related to cognitive work and
nonwork engagement, respectively, after controlling for both directions of work-
nonwork conflict. The results supported both predictions (b = −0.37, S.E. = 0.07, p < .05
for work engagement and b = −0.11, S.E. = 0.05, p < .05 for nonwork engagement),
although it should be noted that a non-significant (R 2 = 0.05; p = .13) proportion of var-
iance was accounted for in cognitive nonwork engagement by gambling interference
(and work-nonwork interference and gambling behavior). Finally, hypotheses 6 and 7 pre-
dicted significant indirect effects of gambling interference on role performance through
cognitive role engagement, after accounting for any effects of work-nonwork conflict.
Indirect effects were tested using the effects decomposition feature in Mplus 7.4. There
was a significant indirect effect from gambling interference with work to work perform-
ance (b = −0.11, S.E. = 0.03, p < .05) through cognitive work engagement. Likewise, there
was a significant indirect effect from gambling interference with nonwork to nonwork
 COMMUNITY, WORK & FAMILY 213

performance through cognitive nonwork engagement (b = −0.04, S.E. = 0.02, p < .05).
Therefore, hypotheses 6 and 7 were also supported.

Post hoc supplementary analyses

Although the proposed hypotheses were supported, the overall fit of our a priori model
was slightly lower than the more conservative standards for good fit (Hu & Bentler,
1998). Therefore, we examined modification indices to probe for potential model
misspecification. This process revealed that the inclusion of originally non-hypothesized
cross-domain paths from cognitive work engagement to nonwork performance (b =
0.27, S.E. = 0.06, p < .05) as well as from cognitive nonwork engagement to work
performance (b = 0.17, S.E. = 0.06, p < .05) resulted in a significantly better fitting model
(χ 2(537) = 1283.72, RMSEA = 0.07, 90% C.I. [0.0.68,0.078], CFI = 0.92, TLI = .91, SRMR = 0.09;
Δχ 2(2) = 43.49, p < .05). All significant paths tested in the original model remained signifi-
cant in this revised model with one exception. In this cross-domain model, the
direct effect of gambling interference with nonwork to nonwork performance was
non-significant (b = −0.07, S.E. = 0.04, p = .08).

Discussion
The purpose of the current study was to develop and test a framework relating gambling
behavior to gambling interference with both work and nonwork, and link gambling inter-
ference to role performance. We also investigated whether reduced cognitive engage-
ment served as a partial explanatory mechanism linking gambling interference to role
performance. Four general conclusions can be reached from this study. First, gambling
behavior was found to predict both strain-based gambling interference with work and
gambling interference with nonwork. Second, after controlling for both directions of
strain-based work-nonwork conflict, we found that both types of strain-based gambling
interference predicted cognitive engagement and role performance. Finally, we found
initial evidence that cognitive role disengagement may be one reason for reduced role
performance as a result of strain-based gambling interference. In the sections that
follow, we elaborate on our findings, discuss implications for theory and future research,
and outline practical implications.

Gambling behavior and strain-based gambling interference

Our finding that gambling behavior predicts strain-based interference that manifests in
both the work and nonwork domain compliments and extends existing research on gam-
bling and the work–family interface in several ways. We documented that even in a non-
clinical sample, gambling behavior predicts strain-based gambling interference with work
and nonwork. We also developed a reliable and valid multi-dimensional measure of strain-
based gambling interference that can be used in follow-up research aimed at further
exploring how strain-based interference as a result of gambling may affect individuals’
work and nonwork lives. Similar to research documenting that the two directions of
strain-based work–family conflict are positively correlated (Mesmer-Magnus & Viswes-
varan, 2005), Table 1 illustrates that those who reported greater gambling interference
214 L. T. EBY ET AL.

with work were also more likely to indicate more gambling interference with nonwork.
This is consistent with the widely endorsed idea that gambling can create difficulties for
individuals in both the work and nonwork domains simultaneously (e.g. Corney & Davis,
2010). We also add to the scholarly discussion on how the traditional focus on ‘work’
versus ‘family’ may miss important nuances of individuals’ lived experience.

Effects of gambling interference on employee engagement and performance

We also offer initial evidence that strain-based gambling interference may hinder role per-
formance, which has been alluded to in the prior literature on gambling (e.g. Downs &
Woolrych, 2010; Eby et al., 2016; Valentine & Hughes, 2010), but has not been measured
directly. These unique effects of gambling on performance outcomes are noteworthy;
recall that in testing our predictions regarding the effects of gambling interference, we
held constant any effects that may be due to work interference with nonwork, or
nonwork interference with work. Our findings here are consistent with prior anecdotal
accounts that problem gambling can lead to a host of detrimental career and job out-
comes, including gambling-related lateness, performance decrements, excessive absen-
teeism, and even job loss (Downs & Woolrych, 2010; Ladouceur et al., 1994). There is
also research on spousal reports of pathological gamblers’ difficulty fulfilling role obli-
gations in the family (Kourgiantakis et al., 2013) which also aligns with the results of the
current study.
This study also identified one potentially important explanation for why strain-based
gambling interference may relate to lower role performance: reduced cognitive engage-
ment. As a motivational construct that represents both the amount of attention and inten-
sity of one’s focus and concentration (Kahn, 1990; Rich et al., 2010; Rothbard, 2001), it
follows that role performance may suffer when cognitive engagement is lower. Indeed,
prior research has identified work engagement as an explanatory mechanism for under-
standing how various individual, job, and work context factors relate to job performance
(Christian, Garza, & Slaughter, 2011). In the work–family literature, engagement has simi-
larly been examined as a mediating mechanism to understand the potentially depleting
effects of work and family role involvement (Rothbard, 2001).
Our findings are consistent with prior qualitative accounts of problem gamblers. For
example, Downs and Woolrych’s (2010) study of 18 problem gamblers in the United
Kingdom identified a pattern of inability to concentrate at work due to gambling and
decreased ability to engage in work tasks due to preoccupation with debt and losses.
Similar findings are reported in Ladouceur et al.’s (1994) descriptive study of 60 individuals
participating in Gamblers Anonymous. There are also numerous qualitative accounts of
problem gamblers disengaging from family life (Valentine & Hughes, 2010) and reducing
parental involvement (Corney & Davis, 2010) as a result of gambling.
Interestingly, we found unexpected cross-domain pathways between engagement and
performance that improved model fit. The idea that engagement in one domain may be
associated with performance in another domain is discussed in theories of work–family
spillover (e.g. Edwards & Rothbard, 2000) and work–family facilitation (Greenhaus &
Powell, 2006). For example, in the reciprocal spillover model, Edwards and Rothbard
propose that general mood is influenced by specific events in both work and family
domains, and this general mood becomes a common cause of role performance in
 COMMUNITY, WORK & FAMILY 215

both domains. Applied to our findings, it may be that cognitive disengagement in one role
generates negative emotional reactions that then spill over and reduce performance in
both work and nonwork domains. Greenhaus and Powell suggest a slightly different
mechanism may be operating here. They propose that resources in one role affect per-
formance in that same role, which in turn generates affect in the originating role. Cross-
domain effects occur when the affect generated in one role spills over to influence per-
formance in a different role. In the current study, it may be that resources lost due to dis-
engagement in the work (nonwork) role reduces work (nonwork) role performance and
also generates negative affect in the work (nonwork) role. Then, through the spillover
process, the negative affect that is generated in the work (nonwork) role crosses over to
hamper performance in the nonwork (work) role. Both of these explanations suggest
more nuanced mediational chain than what is proposed in the current study, and as
such remain speculative at this time. Nonetheless, our post hoc finding suggests that
additional research is needed to explore other intervening mechanisms and common
cause explanations for the cross-domain associations found in the current study
between cognitive engagement and role performance. Additional research is also
needed to disentangle causal direction; it is possible that engagement and performance
have reciprocal effects whereby cognitive disengagement leads to lower role perform-
ance, which in turn leads to further reductions in engagement over time.

Implications for future research

Given the many ways that gambling can be enacted (e.g. at work, at home, during leisure
time while not at home; alone, with friends, with family members), it may be important to
consider not just strain-based gambling interference, but also behavior- and time-based
interference. As discussed by Greenhaus and Beutell (1985), behavior-based conflict
occurs when patterns of behavior in one role may be incompatible with role expectations
for another role. Gambling is associated with behaviors such as impulsivity, delinquency,
and exaggerated self-confidence (Johansson, Grant, Kim, Odlaug, & Götestam, 2009). Inter-
estingly, these behaviors are at odds with expected role behavior in both work (e.g.
emotionally composed, confident, dutiful, helpful) and nonwork (e.g. warm, trusting,
agreeable) settings. This suggests that behavior-based conflict may occur as individuals
shift gears behaviorally from gambling to participation in various life roles. In terms of
time-based gambling interference, it is noteworthy that the criteria for disordered gam-
bling in the DSM-V (American Psychiatric Association, 2013) include reference to time
spent gambling at the expense of other activities and difficulty cutting back on gambling.
As such, it seems possible that time-based gambling interference among non-clinical
samples may likewise predict cognitive disengagement and reduced role performance.
Another time-related consideration is that gambling is often referred to as a ‘hidden’
problem (Downs, 2010, p. 253), meaning that family members, friends, and work col-
leagues may have no idea about an individual’s gambling until the behavior escalates
to a point where it leads to a crisis such as bankruptcy or marital problems (McComb
et al., 2009). In fact, it seems likely that some of the effects of gambling may be character-
ized by nonlinear change. Social-psychological research on relational turning points
(Becker et al., 2009; Huston, Surra, Fitzgerald, & Cate, 1981) provides a rich base of theoriz-
ing about how specific events can transform relationships, evoking nonlinear change that
216 L. T. EBY ET AL.

can range from trivial to dramatic (Bolton, 1961). Future research would benefit from a
consideration of the ‘tipping point’ at which gambling behavior or gambling interference
results in negative performance outcomes in the work and family domains.
Finally, prior research has consistently provided accounts of how problem gambling
can negatively affect the gambler’s significant other (e.g. Dickson-Swift, James, &
Kippen, 2005; Kourgiantakis et al., 2013) and children (e.g. Darbyshire, Oster, & Carrig,
2001). This highlights the need for research that empirically examines crossover effects
– the inter-individual dyadic transmission of one person’s experience to another person
(Westman, 2001). Crossover effects have been widely discussed in interdisciplinary
research on gambling (e.g. Downs & Woolrych, 2010; Kalischuk et al., 2006; Valentine &
Hughes, 2010), but have not been subject to study among intact dyads. It seems particu-
larly important to examine the extent to which strain-based gambling interference with
nonwork, as reported by the gambler, relates to both partner and well as child outcomes
such as psychological well-being, physical health symptoms, and family functioning.
In terms of practical implications, our results suggest that organizations ought to be
concerned with employees’ gambling behaviors. Our findings, combined with qualitative
research on the effects of gambling at work, suggest that gambling interference may be
associated with reduced cognitive engagement at work and both directly and indirectly
with reduced work performance. These results suggest that organizations may consider
supporting employees seeking treatment for problem gambling. For example, some
health insurance plans offer coverage for gambling treatment. Another option may be
to allow employees to take sick leave in order to receive treatment for problem gambling.
Although organizations may have little control over nonwork gambling, efforts could be
made to regulate employee gambling while at work (e.g. prohibiting office betting
pools, restricting gambling-related website access) in order to limit the negative effects
of gambling interference on engagement and performance. It is also likely that employee
gambling is more common in some locations and occupations than others; for example,
some research suggests that employees of gaming venues are at higher risk for pathologi-
cal gambling compared to the general population (Shaffer, Vander Bilt, & Hall, 1999). Like-
wise, research by Rush, Veldhuizen, and Adlaf (2007) suggests that problem gambling is
higher in areas that are more proximal to gaming venues; as a result, managing employee
gambling may be particularly important for organizations that are physically proximal to
casinos and sports betting locations.

Study limitations
Like all research, this study has several limitations. One concern is external validity given
that participants were drawn from a convenience sample. We decided to use MTurk to
collect the study data due to the difficulty of identifying individuals that gamble at least
weekly a priori, particularly from a non-clinical setting. MTurk enabled us to screen thou-
sands of potential participants relatively quickly to obtain a sample of individuals who met
the study criteria. Although not without limitations, the chosen approach was preferable to
alternatives such as snowball sampling, where systematic bias can be introduced by asking
individuals to recruit similar others to participate in the research. There is also growing evi-
dence that MTurk samples are highly diverse and of comparable quality to samples
 COMMUNITY, WORK & FAMILY 217

recruited using other methods (Buhrmester et al., 2011; Paolacci et al., 2010). Nonetheless,
replication using other samples is needed before definitive conclusions can be reached.
Another methodological concern relates to the cross-sectional design and use of self-
report measures. These design features raise potential concerns regarding reverse causal-
ity and common method bias. However, role performance is typically conceptualized as an
outcome, prior research and theory has positioned engagement as a mediator leading to
performance, and our framework was based on solid theorizing. Nonetheless, we urge
future research to use more methodologically rigorous designs (e.g. longitudinal and
experimental designs) to allow more definitive conclusions regarding causal direction.
In terms of common method bias, both the gambling interference and cognitive engage-
ment measures can only be obtained by self-assessment and the pattern of correlations
shown in Table 1 suggest minimal shared variance (between 4% and 6%). However, it is
possible that gambling behavior and role performance could both be reported by
someone other than the focal employee. For example, a significant other might report
on the gambler’s gambling behavior, although this may create concerns about under-
reporting because gamblers often hide their gambling from others (Downs, 2010;
McComb et al., 2009). The assessment of role performance could benefit from using super-
visor-ratings of work performance and ratings of nonwork performance from family
members or close friends.
Finally, notwithstanding the supportive findings for cognitive engagement as a mediat-
ing mechanism linking gambling interference to performance, there are other unmeasured
aspects of engagement that were not examined. Kahn’s (1990) initial description of engage-
ment focused on the investment of physical, cognitive, and emotional energy. Subsequent
research by Rich et al. (2010) developed and validated a three-dimensional measure, and in
the present research we focused exclusively on cognitive engagement. This decision was
informed by research on gambling, which frequently discusses a wide range of cognitions
and cognitive processes associated with gambling. In addition, the items representing phys-
ical engagement (e.g. ‘I strive as hard as I can to complete my job’; ‘I work with intensity on
my job’) and emotional engagement (e.g. ‘I am enthusiastic in my job’; ‘I am interested in my
job’) were less amenable to modification to represent nonwork engagement. Nonetheless,
future research might explore other conceptualizations of engagement that capture more
breadth than cognitive engagement and would allow for comparisons across different
aspects of engagement. For example, the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (Schaufeli &
Bakker, 2004; http://www.wilmarschaufeli.nl/publications/Schaufeli/Test%20Manuals/Test_
manual_UWES_English.pdf) assesses vigor (energy, resilience), dedication (meaningfulness,
proudness), and absorption (task immersion).
In closing, this study provides an initial framework for understanding how gambling
interference may relate to work and nonwork performance through cognitive engage-
ment. We hope that this study will provide a basis for future research on gambling and
the work-nonwork interface. We suggest that an interdisciplinary perspective drawing
from psychology, management, and family studies may be fruitful in understanding and
mitigating the effects of gambling on work and nonwork life. Furthermore, we suggest
that work–family researchers focus additional attention on other domain-spanning activi-
ties (e.g. mobile phone and social media usage) that have the potential to contribute to
conflict between various life roles in an effort to further understand the complex inter-
action between work and nonwork life.
218 L. T. EBY ET AL.

Notes
1. Participants confirmed that gambling was a cross-domain activity. On average participants
reported that 9% of their time spent gambling was done at work, although there was substan-
tial variability in this estimate (SD = 20%, range = 0–100%).
2. The parameter estimates associated with work interference with nonwork and nonwork inter-
ference with work are available upon request from the first author. We also tested the struc-
tural model excluding nonwork and work interference. The pattern of significant findings was
identical both with and without nonwork and work interference controls.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes on contributors
Lillian T. Eby is Professor of Psychology and Director of the Owens Institute for Behavioral Research at
the University of Georgia. Her research interests are in the area of occupational health psychology
with a particular emphasis on relationships at work and the work–family interface.
Melissa E. Robertson received her Ph.D. in Industrial-Organizational Psychology at the University of
Georgia. Her research interests center on the work-life interface, dyadic and relational processes in
work and family life, and occupational health.
Rachel L. Williamson received her Ph.D. in the Industrial-Organizational Psychology program at the
University of Georgia. Her research interests include personality and employee well-being, with
emphasis on the integrity of data in terms of measurement and methods.
Cynthia K. Maupin is a doctoral candiate in the Industrial-Organizational Psychology program at the
University of Georgia. Her research interests include the study of leadership, leadership develop-
ment, teams, and social networks.

References
American Gaming Association. (2009). Facts at your fingertips: U.S. Commercial casino industry.
Washington, DC: Author.
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th
ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
Amstad, F. T., Meier, L., Fasel, U., Elfering, A., & Semmer, N. K. (2011). A meta-analysis of work-family
conflict and various outcomes with a special emphasis on cross-domain versus matching-domain
relations. Journal of Organizational Health Psychology, 16, 151–169.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and rec-
ommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411–423.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Heatherton, T. F. (1994). A general approach to representing multifaceted personality
constructs: Application to state self-esteem. Structural Equations Modeling, 1, 35–67.
Beaudoin, C. M., & Cox, B. J. (1999). Characteristics of problem gambling in a Canadian context: A pre-
liminary study using a DSM-IV-based questionnaire. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 44, 483–487.
Becker, J. A., Johnson, A. J., Craig, E. A., Gilchrist, E. S., Haigh, M. M., & Lane, L. T. (2009). Friendships are
flexible, not fragile: Turning points in geographically-close and long-distance friendships. Journal
of Social and Personal Relationships, 26, 347–369.
Bendersky, C., & Shah, N. P. (2013). The downfall of extraverts and rise of neurotics: The dynamic
process of status allocation in task groups. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 387–406.
 COMMUNITY, WORK & FAMILY 219

Binde, P. (2011). What are the most harmful forms of gambling? Analyzing problem gambling preva-
lence surveys. CEFOS Working Papers, 12. Retrieved from http://gupea.ub.gu.se/bitstream/2077/
26165/1/gupea_2077_26165_1.pdf
Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York, NY: Wiley.
Bolton, C. D. (1961). Mate selection as the development of a relationship. Marriage and Family Living,
23, 234–240.
Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s mechanical Turk: A new source of inex-
pensive, yet high-quality data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 3–5.
Carlson, D. S., Kacmar, K. M., & Williams, L. J. (2000). Construct and initial validation of a multidimen-
sional measure of work-family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 56, 249–276.
Christian, M. S., Garza, A. S., & Slaughter, J. E. (2011). Work engagement: A quantitative review and test
of its relations with task and contextual performance. Personnel Psychology, 64, 89–136.
Chua, R. J. (2013). The costs of ambient cultural disharmony: Indirect intercultural conflicts in social
environment undermine creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 1545–1577. doi:10.5465/
amj.2001.0971
Coffman, D. L., & MacCallum, R. C. (2005). Using parcels to convert path analysis models into latent
variable models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 40, 235–259.
Corney, R., & Davis, J. (2010). The attractions and risks of Internet gambling for women: A qualitative
study. Journal of Gambling Issues, 24, 121–139.
Darbyshire, P., Oster, C., & Carrig, H. (2001). The experience of pervasive loss: Children and young
people living in a family where parental gambling is a problem. Journal of Gambling Studies, 17,
23–45.
Dickson-Swift, V. A., James, E. L., & Kippen, S. (2005). The experience of living with a problem gambler:
Spouses and partners speak out. Journal of Gambling Issues, 13, 1–22.
Downs, C. (2010). Gambling and social responsibility. Community, Work, & Family, 13, 253–255.
Downs, C., & Woolrych, R. (2010). Gambling and debt: The hidden impacts on family and work life.
Community, Work & Family, 13, 311–328.
Eby, L. T., Casper, W. J., Lockwood, A., Bordeaux, C., & Brinley, A. (2005). Work and family research in
IO/OB: Content analysis and review of the literature (1980–2002). Journal of Vocational Behavior,
66, 124–197.
Eby, L. T., Mitchell, M., Gray, C., Provolt, L., Lorys, A., Fortune, E., & Goodie, A. S. (2016). Gambling-
related problems across life domains: An exploratory study of non-treatment seeking weekly gam-
blers. Community, Work & Family., 19, 604–620.
Edwards, J. R., & Rothbard, N. P. (2000). Mechanisms linking work and family: Clarifying the relation-
ship between work and family constructs. Academy of Management Review, 25, 178–199.
Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & 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, 325–335.
Gardner, D. G., Dunham, R. B., Cummings, L. L., & Pierce, J. L. (1989). Focus of attention at work:
Construct definition and empirical validation. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 62, 61–77.
Goffman, E. (1961). Encounters: Two studies in the sociology of interaction. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.
Grant, J. E., & Kim, S. W. (2001). Demographic and clinical features of 131 adult pathological gamblers.
Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 62, 957–962.
Grant, J. E., & Potenza, M. N. (Eds.). (2008). Pathological gambling: A clinical guide to treatment.
Washington, DC: American Psychiatric.
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, 31(1), 72–92.
Hall, D. T., Kossek, E. E., Briscoe, J. P., Pichler, S., & Lee, M. D. (2013). Nonwork orientations relative to
career: A multidimensional measure. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 83, 539–550.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underpar-
ameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3, 424–453.
220 L. T. EBY ET AL.

Huston, T. L., Surra, C., Fitzgerald, N. M., & Cate, R. (1981). From courtship to marriage: Mate selection as
an interpersonal process. In S. Duck & R. Gilmour (Eds.), Personal relationships 2: Developing personal
relationships (pp. 53–88). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Johansson, A., Grant, J. E., Kim, S. W., Odlaug, B. L., & Götestam, K. G. (2009). Risk factors for proble-
matic gambling: A critical literature review. Journal of Gambling Studies, 25, 67–92.
Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work.
Academy of Management Journal, 33, 692–724.
Kahn, W. A. (1992). To be fully there: Psychological presence at work. Human Relations, 45, 321–349.
Kalischuk, R. G., Nowatzki, N., Cardwell, K., Klein, K., & Solowoniuk, J. (2006). Problem gambling and its
impact on families: A literature review. International Gambling Studies, 6, 31–60.
Keeney, J., Boyd, E. M., Sinha, R., Westring, A. F., & Ryan, A. M. (2013). From “work–family” to
“work–life”: Broadening our conceptualization and measurement. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 82, 221–237.
Kessler, R. C., Hwang, I., LaBrie, R., Petukhova, M., Sampson, N. A., Winters, K. C., & Shaffer, H. J. (2008).
DSM-IV pathological gambling in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication. Psychological
Medicine, 38, 1351–1360.
Korn, D., Gibbins, R., & Azmier, J. (2003). Framing public policy towards a public health paradigm for
gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies, 19, 235–256.
Kourgiantakis, T., Saint-Jacques, M. C., & Tremblay, J. (2013). Problem gambling and families: A
systematic review. Journal of Social Work Practice in the Addictions, 13, 353–372.
Ladouceur, R., Boisvert, J.-M., Pépin, M., Loranger, M., & Sylvain, C. (1994). Social cost of pathological
gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies, 10, 399–409.
Lesieur, H. R. (1998). Costs and treatment of pathological gambling. Annals of the American Academy
of Political and Social Science, 556, 153–171. doi:10.1177/0002716298556001012
Lesieur, H. R., & Blume, S. B. (1987). The South Oask Gambling Screen (SOGS): A new instrument for
the identification of pathological gamblers. American Journal of Psychiatry, 144, 1184–1188. doi:10.
1176/ajp.144.9.1184
Lesieur, H. R., & Rosenthal, R. J. (1991). Pathological gambling: A review of the literature. Journal of
Gambling Studies, 7, 5–39.
Lewis, S., & Cooper, C. L. (1995). Balancing the work/home interface: A European perspective. Human
Resource Management Review, 5, 289–305.
Lewis, S., Gambles, R., & Rapoport, R. (2007). The constrains of a “work-life balance” approach: An
international perspective. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18, 360–373.
Lorenz, V. C., & Yaffee, R. A. (1986). Pathological gambling: Psychosomatic, emotional and marital dif-
ficulties as reported by the gambler. Journal of Gambling Behavior, 2, 40–49.
McComb, J. L., Lee, B. K., & Sprenkle, D. H. (2009). Conceptualizing and treating problem gambling as
a family issue. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 35, 415–431.
Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., & Viswesvaran, C. (2005). Convergence between measures of work-to-family
and family-to-work conflict: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67,
215–232.
Netemeyer, R. G., Boles, J. S., & McMurrian, R. (1996). Development and validation of a work-family
conflict and family-work conflict scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 400–410.
Paolacci, G., Chandler, J., & Ipeirotis, P. G. (2010). Running experiments on Amazon mechanical Turk.
Judgment and Decision Making, 5, 411–419.
Pleck, J. H., Stains, G. L., & Lang, L. (1980). Conflicts between work and family life. Monthly Labor
Review, 103, 29–32.
Rich, B. L., Lepine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. (2010). Job engagement: Antecedents and effects on job
performance. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 617–635.
Rockloff, M. J., & Dyer, V. (2006). The four Es of problem gambling: A psychological measure of risk.
Journal of Gambling Studies, 22, 101–120.
Rothbard, N. P. (2001). Enriching or depleting? The dynamics of engagement in work and family roles.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 655–684.
 COMMUNITY, WORK & FAMILY 221

Rush, B., Veldhuizen, S., & Adlaf, E. (2007). Mapping the prevalence of problem gambling and its
association with treatment accessibility and proximity to gambling venues. Journal of Gambling
Issues, 20, 193–213.
Schaufeli, W., & Bakker, A. (2004). UWES: Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (preliminary manual, version
1.1). Department of Psychology, Utrecht University. Retrieved from http://www.wilmarschaufeli.nl/
publications/Schaufeli/Test%20Manuals/Test_manual_UWES_English.pdf
Shaffer, H. J., Hall, M. N., & Vander Bilt, J. (1999). Estimating the prevalence of disordered gambling
behavior in the United States and Canada: A research synthesis. American Journal of Public
Health, 89, 1369–1376.
Shaffer, H. J., Vander Bilt, J., & Hall, M. N. (1999). Gambling, drinking, smoking and other health risk
activities amongst casino employees. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 36, 365–378.
Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New pro-
cedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7, 422–445.
Spunt, B., Dupont, I., Lesieur, H., Liberty, H. J., & Hunt, D. (1998). Pathological gambling and substance
misuse: A review of the literature. Substance Use & Misuse, 33, 2535–2560.
Stephenson, M. T., & Holbert, R. L. (2003). A Monte Carlo simulation of observable versus latent vari-
able structural equation modeling techniques. Communication Research, 30(3), 332–354.
Valentine, G., & Hughes, K. (2010). Ripples in a pond: The disclosure to, and management of, problem
internet gambling with/in the family. Community, Work & Family, 13, 273–290.
Vizcaino, E. J. V., Fernandez-Navarro, P., Blanco, C., Pone, G., Navio, M., Moratti, S., & Rubio, G. (2013).
Maintenance of attention and pathological gambling. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 27, 861–867.
Welte, J. W., Barnes, G. M., Wieczorek, W. F., Tidwell, M. C., & Parker, J. (2002). Gambling participation in
the US – results from a national survey. Journal of Gambling Studies, 18, 313–337.
Westman, M. (2001). Stress and strain crossover. Human Relations, 54, 717–751.
Williams, L. J., Vandenberg, R. J., & Edwards, J. R. (2009). 12 structural equation modeling in manage-
ment research: A guide for improved analysis. The Academy of Management Annals, 3, 543–604.
Williams, R. J., Volberg, R. A., & Stevens, R. M. G. (2012). The population prevalence of problem gam-
bling: Methodological influences, standardized rates, jurisdictional differences, and worldwide
trends. Guelph: Ontario Problem Gambling Research Centre.

Appendix
Gambling Behavior (South Oaks Gambling Screen, Lesieur & Blume, 1987)

1. When you gamble, how often do you go back another day to win back money you lost?
1. Never
2. Some of the time (less than half the time) I lost
3. Most of the time I lost
4. Every time I lost
2. Have you ever claimed to be winning money gambling but weren’t really? In fact, you lost?
1. Never (or never gamble)
2. Yes, less than half the time I lost
3. Yes, most of the time
3. Do you feel you have ever had a problem with gambling?
1. No
2. Yes, in the past, but not now
3. Yes
4. Did you ever gamble more than you intended to? (yes or no)
5. Have people criticized your gambling? (yes or no)
6. Have you ever felt guilty about the way you gamble or what happens when you gamble? (yes or
no)
7. Have you ever felt like you would like to stop gambling but didn’t think you could? (yes or no)
222 L. T. EBY ET AL.

8. Have you ever hidden betting slips, lottery tickets, gambling money, or other signs of gambling
from your spouse, children, or other important people in your life? (yes or no)
9. If you answered yes to question 11): Have money arguments ever centered on your gambling?
(yes or no)
10. Have you ever borrowed from someone and not paid them back as a result of your gambling?
(yes or no)
11. Have you ever lost time from work (or school) due to gambling? (yes or no)

If you borrowed money to gamble or pay gambling debts, who or where did you borrow from? (yes
or no to each of the following sources)

12. From household money

13. From your spouse or significant other
14. From other relatives or in-laws
15. From banks, loan companies, or credit unions
16. From credit cards
17. From loan sharks
18. You cashed in stocks, bonds, or other securities
19. You sold personal or family property
20. You borrowed on your checking account (passed bad checks)

Strain-Based Gambling Interference with Work (adapted from Carlson et al., 2000)

1. Due to stress associated with gambling, I am often preoccupied with gambling at work.
2. Because I am often stressed from gambling, I have a hard time concentrating on my work.
3. Tension and anxiety from gambling often weakens my ability to do my job.

Strain-Based Gambling Interference with Nonwork (adapted from Carlson et al., 2000)

1. When I get done gambling I am often too frazzled to participate in activities in my personal life.
2. I am often so emotionally drained from gambling that it prevents me from participating in activi-
ties in my personal life.
3. Due to all the pressures associated with gambling, sometimes when I come home I am too
stressed to do other things I enjoy.

Cognitive Work Engagement (Rich et al., 2010)

1. At work, my mind is focused on my job.

2. At work, I pay a lot of attention to my job.
3. At work, I focus a great deal of my attention on my job.
4. At work, I am absorbed by my job.
5. At work, I can concentrate on my job.
6. At work, I devote a lot of attention to my job.

Cognitive Nonwork Engagement (adapted from Rich et al., 2010)

1. During my personal time/during my off-time, my mind is focused on my personal life.

2. During my personal time, I pay a lot of attention to my personal life.
3. During my personal time, I focus a great deal of my attention on my personal life.
4. During my personal time, I am absorbed by my personal life.
5. During my personal time, I can concentrate on my personal life.
6. During my personal time, I devote a lot of attention to my personal life.
 COMMUNITY, WORK & FAMILY 223

Work Performance (Frone et al., 1997)

On average, how often do you …

1. Adequately complete assigned duties?

2. Fulfill responsibilities specified in your job description?
3. Perform tasks that are expected of you?
4. Neglect aspects of the job you are obligated to perform? (reverse scored)
5. Fail to perform essential duties? (reverse scored)

Nonwork Performance (Frone et al., 1997)

On average, how often do you …

1. adequately complete duties in your personal life?

2. fulfill personal responsibilities?
3. perform personal tasks that are expected of you?
4. neglect aspects of your personal life you are obligated to perform? (reverse scored)
5. fail to perform essential duties in your personal life? (reverse scored)

Strain-Based Work Interference with Nonwork (modified from Carlson et al., 2000 to reference
‘nonwork’ rather than family)

1. When I get home from work I am often too frazzled to participate in activities in my personal life.
2. I am often so emotionally drained when I get home from work that it prevents me from partici-
pating in personal activities.
3. Due to all the pressures at work, sometimes when I come home I am too stressed to do other
things I enjoy.

Strain-Based Nonwork Interference with Work (modified from Carlson et al., 2000 to reference
‘nonwork’ rather than family)

1. Due to stress in my personal life, I am often preoccupied with personal matters at work.
2. Because I am often stressed from responsibilities in my personal life, I have a hard time concen-
trating on my work.
3. Tension and anxiety from my personal life often weakens my ability to do my job.
Copyright of Community, Work & Family is the property of Routledge and its content may
not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.