Singapore Management University

Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University

Research Collection Lee Kong Chian School Of Lee Kong Chian School of Business
Business

2009

The Spillover of Daily Job Satisfaction onto Employees’ Family

Lives: The Facilitating Role of Work-Family Integration
Remus Ilies
Michigan State University

Kelly S. Wilson
Michigan State University

David Turley WAGNER

Singapore Management University, dwagner@smu.edu.sg

Follow this and additional works at: https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/lkcsb_research

Part of the Organizational Behavior and Theory Commons

Citation
Ilies, Remus; Wilson, Kelly S.; and WAGNER, David Turley. The Spillover of Daily Job Satisfaction onto
Employees’ Family Lives: The Facilitating Role of Work-Family Integration. (2009). Academy of
Management Journal. 52, (1), 87-102.
Available at: https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/lkcsb_research/1744

This Journal Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Lee Kong Chian School of Business at
Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Research
Collection Lee Kong Chian School Of Business by an authorized administrator of Institutional Knowledge at
Singapore Management University. For more information, please email cherylds@smu.edu.sg.
The Spillover of Daily Job Satisfaction onto Employees' Family Lives: The Facilitating Role
of Work-Family Integration
Author(s): Remus Ilies, Kelly Schwind Wilson and David T. Wagner
Source: The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 52, No. 1 (Feb., 2009), pp. 87-102
Published by: Academy of Management
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40390277
Accessed: 11-06-2018 05:53 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

Academy of Management is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access
to The Academy of Management Journal

This content downloaded from 202.161.43.77 on Mon, 11 Jun 2018 05:53:39 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
° Academy of Management Journal
2009, Vol. 52, No. 1, 87-102.

THE SPILLOVER OF DAILY JOB SATISFACTION ONTO

EMPLOYEES' FAMILY LIVES: THE FACILITATING
ROLE OF WORK-FAMILY INTEGRATION

REMUS ILIES
KELLY SCHWIND WILSON
DAVID T. WAGNER
Michigan State University

The longitudinal, multisource, multimethod study presented herein examines the role
of employees' work-family integration in the spillover of daily job satisfaction onto
daily marital satisfaction and affective states experienced by employees at home. The
spillover linkages are modeled at the within-individual level, and results support the
main effects of daily job satisfaction on daily marital satisfaction and affect at home,
as well as the moderating effect of work-family integration on the strength of the
within-individual spillover effects on home affect. That is, employees with highly
integrated work and family roles exhibited stronger intraindividual spillover effects on
positive and negative affect at home.

spillover include Heller, Watson, and Ilies's (2004)

Modern technologies such as the Internet, cellu-
lar phone, Blackberry, iPhone, and other mobile
theorizing about the likelihood of employees' off-
communication devices have enabled employees work life (e.g., family relationships) being influ-
and their family members to communicateenced withby their job satisfaction and by Judge and
each other nearly anywhere, anytime. Moreover,
Ilies's (2004) finding that employees with higher
job satisfaction tend to report significantly more
flexible work arrangements under which employ-
ees can complete some work tasks from home are affect at home.
positive
In this article, we are concerned with the spill-
increasingly prevalent. As a result, the boundary
over of a work role attitude - job satisfaction - from
between time designated for work and time desig-
work
nated for nonwork is more fuzzy, increasing to family, a process by which employees'
the
likelihood of "work-family spillover." Work-family
satisfaction with their jobs influences their feelings
spillover is defined as "the effects of workandand
attitudes experienced in the family role. Unlike
authors who study mood spillover (e.g., Williams &
family on one another that generate similarities
between the two domains" (Edwards & Rothbard,
Alliger, 1994), we focus on the spillover of job
2000: 180). Work-family spillover can be behav-
satisfaction because it is, "from the perspective of
ioral or affective in nature (cf. Carlson, Kacmar, research and practice, the most focal employee at-
Wayne, & Grzywacz, 2006; Edwards & Rothbard, titude" (Saari & Judge, 2004: 396), and because it
2000); the latter type of effect is this study's focus. has been theorized to directly influence employees'
Affective work-family spillover typically means off-work lives (e.g., Heller et al., 2004).
that work-related moods or attitudes are carried Recently, theory and research have focused on
home, or that family-related moods or attitudes arejob satisfaction as an evaluative state that varies
carried to work. Although moods and attitudes are over time (e.g., Heller & Watson, 2005; Hies & Judge,
both affective in nature, they differ in stability and2002; Hies, Schwind, & Heller, 2007). Using a sim-
target-specificity. That is, unlike a mood, which ilar conceptualization of job satisfaction, we focus
tends to be highly transient and diffuse (i.e., with- on the spillover of daily job satisfaction onto feel-
out a specific referent [Watson, 2000]), an attitude ings experienced in the family domain. Such a
is more stable and has a specific object (e.g., job focus is consistent with Locke's definition of job
satisfaction is an attitude about one's job [see Hies & satisfaction as an "emotional state [italics added]
Judge, 2004]). Judge and Ilies's (2004) finding that resulting from an appraisal of one's job or job ex-
mood at work is positively related to mood atperiences" (1976: 1300). In keeping with previous
home - a phenomenon referred to as "mood spill-theorizing (Heller & Watson, 2005; Judge & Hies,
over" (Judge & Hies, 2004; Williams & Alliger 2004; Williams, Suis, Alliger, Learner, & Wan,
1 994) - demonstrates mood-based work-family 1991), we define daily job satisfaction as an attitu-
spillover. Examples of attitudinal work-family dinal evaluation of one's job or job experiences on
87

Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holder's express
written permission. Users may print, download or email articles for individual use only.

This content downloaded from 202.161.43.77 on Mon, 11 Jun 2018 05:53:39 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 88 Academy of Management Journal February

(2004) found very

a particular workday. However, that employees
little whoresearch
are more job-
satisfied
has examined the spillover of experience
daily more jobhome positive affect. On
satisfaction
the other hand,
onto constructs in the family this explanation
domain cannot account
measured infor
real time, at the within-individual level
why Judge and Hies found (Heller
a significant &
linkag
between employees'
Watson, 2005; Judge & Hies, 2004; job satisfaction andet
Williams their pos
al.,
1991). itive, but not their negative, affect at home. Heller
Moreover, there are conflicting findings in the and Watson (2005) did not report whether job sat-
literature regarding job satisfaction-work-family isfaction had direct effects on home positive and
spillover at the within-individual level. Specifi- negative affect, so we do not know what relation-
cally, Williams et al. (1991) failed to find a positive ship may have existed between these variables in
within-individual linkage between job satisfaction their data.
and positive affect at home, and Judge and Hies A second reason for job satisfaction spillover
(2004) were surprised that job satisfaction signifi- studies' inconsistencies could be that these studies
cantly affected only employees' positive affect (and differ in terms of (1) where the employees were
not negative affect) at home. In addition, although (i.e., at home or at work) when their job satisfaction
Heller and Watson (2005) found that job satisfac- was assessed, (2) what time of day (i.e., afternoon or
tion assessed in the afternoon predicted marital evening) employees' job satisfaction was assessed,
satisfaction assessed at night, further analyses did (3) what type of job satisfaction assessments were
not support a mediating role for mood. used (momentary or daily), (4) how much time had
One possible reason for the inconsistent findings elapsed between work and home assessments, and
among these three studies, which all measured job (5) what control variables were included in the
satisfaction on multiple occasions and assessed its analyses (or not included when they should have
within-individual associations with home out- been). For example, Williams et al. (1991: 667)
assessed daily job satisfaction ("how satisfied were
comes, is that the studies' participants may have
they that day") at the end of the day (presumably at
differed in their level of "work-family role integra-
tion." Employees with low work-family role inte- home), whereas Heller and Watson, like Judge and
gration tend to segment, or separate, their workHies,
and assessed momentary job satisfaction during
family roles (e.g., Ashforth, Kreiner, & Fugate, working hours.
2000; Nippert-Eng, 1996; Rothbard, Phillips, & Du- The reason these differences matter is that em-
mas, 2005), thus demonstrating high work-family ployees may have greater difficulty rating or be
role segmentation; in contrast, employees with
more likely to be biased when assessing their job
high work-family role integration tend to make satisfaction
lit- when they are at home rather than at
work. For this reason, unlike Williams et al. (1991),
tle distinction between their work and family roles
(Desrochers, Hilton, & Larwood, 2005; Nippert-Eng,
in the present study we measured work affect and job
1996; Olson-Buchanan & Boswell, 2006). satisfaction at work and home affect and marital sat-
An example of a highly work-family role-inte-
isfaction at home. Similarly, when it comes to report-
grated employee is someone who cannot turningoffhome affect, it may be that employees' significant
his/her Blackberry during a family vacation others
be- or spouses are better able than the employees
are themselves to assess it without work-related affect
cause of his/her intrinsic interest in seeing e-mails
from work-related colleagues; a mildly work-familyblurring this evaluation. For this reason, unlike Heller
role-integrated employee will happily (or more and Watson (2005), Judge and Hies (2004), and Wil-
happily) do so. Therefore, employees who have liams et al., in the present study we asked employees'
higher (rather than lower) levels of work-family spouses or significant others to assess the employees'
role integration ought to have greater difficulty home
sep- positive and negative affect.
arating their "work-selves" from their "family- With regard to control variables, in the context of
selves." A work role boundary perspective would measuring daily job satisfaction at the end of the
thus lead to the prediction that employees who workday and the home outcomes later at home, we
cannot separate themselves from work - thatbelieve is, it is important to control for the amount of
more work-family role-integrated employees - will time elapsed between the two measurements in
probably have more spillover at home of their job order to account for possible time trends. In addi-
(dis)satisfaction. This perspective could explain
tion, following Miner, Glomb, and Hulin (2005),
why Williams et al. (1991) found no linkage whobe- explained that using a daily baseline measure of
affect as a control variable in within-individual anal-
tween employees' job satisfaction and home affect:
their study's participants, who were working moth-
yses accounts for the lack of independence of resid-
ers, may have all been low in work-family role-uals from time series data, we believed it was impor-
integration. And it may explain why Judge and Hies
tant to control for morning affect when predicting

This content downloaded from 202.161.43.77 on Mon, 11 Jun 2018 05:53:39 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 2009 lhes, Wilson,
home affect.
morning affect
tween the work
variables.
In summary, the goal of the present study was to
improve upon previous studies concerned with job
satisfaction spillover by Williams et al. (1991),
Judge and Hies (2004), and Heller and Watson
(2005). We did so in the following ways: (1) by
including a more complete set of control measures,
(2) by assessing daily job satisfaction at work, (3) by
assessing work affect in the afternoon at work, (4)
by assessing home affect in the evening at home, (5)
by utilizing employees' spouses or significant others
to assess their home affect, and (6) by including as-
sessments of employees' level of work-family role
integration as a potential moderator of the job satis-
faction-home affect and job satisfaction-marital sat-
isfaction relationships. As a result, our study prom-
ises to answer this question with greater clarity: Do
linkages exist between employees' job satisfaction
and their home affect (i.e., positive linkage for posi-
tive affect and negative linkage for negative affect)
and between their job satisfaction and marital satis-
faction (positive linkage), and are each of these link-
ages weaker for employees who have less (rather than
more) work-family role integration?
Managers can benefit from enhanced under-
standing about job satisfaction-related work-family
spillover too. First, if daily job satisfaction has an
impact on employees' feelings experienced in the
family domain, managers could perhaps influence
the occurrence and timing of positive and negative
work events. For example, managers could sched-
ule work events or interactions in such a way that
negative events rarely occur and positive events
occur toward the end of the workday in order to
enhance employees' well-being later at home. Sec-
ond, because organizational policies can influence
the extent to which employees' work and family
roles are integrated (Kossek, Lautsch, & Eaton,
2005; Rothbard et al., 2005), information regarding
the extent to which work-family role integration
influences spillover might help managers decide to
implement various flexible work-life policies in or-
der to increase or decrease work-family role inte-
gration, depending on whether the spillover is pre-
ponderantly positive or negative in nature within
their company or work group.
This article proceeds as follows: First, we review
literature guiding hypotheses regarding home affect
and level of marital satisfaction we expect to see
associated with higher rather than lower levels of
job satisfaction. Second, we review literature guid-
ing hypotheses regarding the likely moderating
(strengthening) effect we expect employees' level of
This content downloaded from 202.161.43.77 on Mon, 11 Jun 2018 05:53:39 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
and Wagner 89
For these
work-family reasons,
role integration to have on linkages we
between
and job satisfaction
the and outcomes from the
amount of
and home sur
family domain. Third, we describe the study that
tested our hypotheses and its results. We conclude
by discussing our findings' implications for man-
agers as well as for management scholars who are
interested in better understanding when employees
are more versus less likely to experience job satis-
faction-related work-family spillover.
HYPOTHESES
The phenomenon of mood spillover is one of t
reasons we believe it is likely that employees
experience high daily job satisfaction on a partic
lar workday - a marker of a good day at work -
more likely to experience positive affect at hom
Empirical support for this view comes from Ju
and Ilies's (2004) finding that employees who
port higher levels of daily job satisfaction at wo
generally report significantly higher levels of p
tive home affect later in the day. The fact that t
relationship has been inconsistently obser
across studies, for the possible reasons that we e
plained earlier, suggests there is need to reexam
an assumed relationship of home affect with
ployees' daily job satisfaction. Thus, we predic
Hypothesis 1. On days when employees expe
rience high daily job satisfaction, they experi-
ence higher positive affect at home, compared
to days when they experience low daily job
satisfaction.
Hypothesis 2. On days when employees expe
rience high daily job satisfaction, they experi-
ence lower negative affect at home, compared
to days when they experience low daily job
satisfaction.
Our reason for distinguishing between posit
and negative home affect is that theory on affec
experiences specifies that pleasant events and
periences are more relevant to positive affe
whereas unpleasant events and experiences
more relevant to negative affect (see Watson, 20
In addition to its influence on the affective states
experienced by employees at home, daily job satis-
faction is also likely to influence evaluations such
as daily marital satisfaction. In this regard, Zedeck
discussed spillover in terms of attitudes and stated
that "it is also assumed that attitudes at work be-
come engrained and carried over into home life"
(1992: 8). Authors of previous work regarding the
spillover of daily job satisfaction onto other atti-
tudes have suggested that mood is a primary mech-
anism responsible for such spillover (e.g., Heller &
 90 Academy of Management Journal February

Watson, 2005). That is, daily daily jobjob

satisfaction spillover is independent
satisfaction of
spills
over onto daily marital satisfaction mood spillover, on anby exploratory
coloring basis. em-
ployees' assessments of their marriages via an af-
fective pathway (Heller & Watson, 2005). These
authors asserted that, because attitudes have im- The Influence of Work-Family Role Integration
portant affective components, job satisfaction at on the Spillover of Daily Job Satisfaction
work influences marital satisfaction at home be-
cause the two attitudes are associated with mood at According to role boundary theory, individuals
create and maintain boundaries around the work
work and at home, respectively, and work mood
and family domains as a way of simplifying and
spills over to mood at home.
Besides the affective mechanism, to the extent ordering their environment (Ashforth et al., 2000;
that work and family roles are not completely seg-
Nippert-Eng, 1996). The boundaries separating
work and family roles are idiosyncratic, and differ-
mented, employees are likely to discuss their work
ences among employees' degrees of work-family
experiences and perhaps their subjective assess-
role integration-segmentation, which fall on a con-
ments of their workdays with their spouses or sig-
nificant others after work. For those who thus dis- tinuum ranging from high segmentation to high
integration (Olson-Buchanan & Boswell, 2006), are
cuss their work experiences, sharing positive work
influenced by the natures of their jobs and their
experiences (which cause high job satisfaction)
individual characteristics (Kossek et al., 2005).
should increase daily marital satisfaction, as sug-
Therefore, individuals differ in the extent to which
gested by laboratory research showing that when cou-
they allow, consciously or not, their daily job assess-
ples shared positive events, their relationship satis-
ments to influence their feelings and attitudes. That
faction increased (Gable, Gonzaga, & Strachman,
is, work-family role segmentation limits the psycho-
2006). There is also empirical evidence supporting an
logical influence of work on the family domain, thus
intraindividual link between daily job and daily mar-
ital satisfaction. Heller and Watson (2005) found that limiting the spillover of job satisfaction. Individuals
who segment their work and family roles are less
job satisfaction at work, measured in the afternoon,
likely to think about work while they are at home
predicted marital satisfaction measured at night over
because they focus primarily on the role relevant to
multiple days (within individuals). These authors did
the life domain in which they are operating at that
not, however, examine the influence of work-family
time. Therefore, the home affect of employees with
role integration on the process of spillover from work
low work-family role integration (i.e., high work-fam-
to family; we turn to this influence next. Drawing on
the theorizing and empirical evidence reviewed ily role segmentation) should be less strongly influ-
above, we predict: enced by the quality of their work experiences (re-
flected in daily job satisfaction) than is the home
Hypothesis 3. On days when employees expe- affect of those with high work-family role integration.
rience high daily job satisfaction, they report In addition, employees with highly integrated work-
higher marital satisfaction for that day ("daily family roles are more likely to discuss their work
marital satisfaction"), compared to days when experiences and subjective assessments of their work-
they experience low daily job satisfaction. days with their spouses or significant others aftei
work, therefore showing a stronger link between theii
The first three hypotheses concern the spillover
of daily job satisfaction onto home affect and daily daily job satisfaction and daily marital satisfaction
marital satisfaction. Our main focus is on the spill- (than those employees with segmented work and
over of daily job satisfaction, and not on the spill- family roles will show). Therefore, we predict:
over of mood, because day-to-day differences in
Hypothesis 4. The tendency for employees with
daily job satisfaction largely reflect differences in
higher (rather than lower) daily job satisfaction
an employee's subjective assessment of the quality
to experience higher positive affect at home (as
of his or her workday, whereas mood at work can
predicted by Hypothesis 1) is stronger for em-
be subject to work and nonwork influences, such as
ployees who are more rather than less work-
internal feelings (Watson, 2000). Nevertheless,
family role-integrated.
mood spillover is a causal mechanism that may
explain the spillover of daily job satisfaction onto Hypothesis 5. The tendency for employees with
employees' experiences in the family domain (see higher (rather than lower) daily job satisfaction
Heller & Watson, 2004). Therefore, in addition to to experience lower negative affect at home (as
examining the direct spillover effect of daily job predicted by Hypothesis 2) is stronger for em-
satisfaction on mood at home and marital satisfac- ployees who are more rather than less work-
tion (Hypotheses 1-3), we also examine whether family role-integrated.

This content downloaded from 202.161.43.77 on Mon, 11 Jun 2018 05:53:39 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 2009 Hies, Wilson, and Wagner 91

Hypothesis 6. The
because they
tendency
did not complete the final measurefor of em
higher (rather than
work-family rolelower) daily
integration. Finally, after match- jo
ing the work and home
to experience higher data from employees
daily and
marital
at home (as predicted by
spouses or significant others, we removed data for 9 Hyp
stronger for employees
of the remaining participants because whothey did not are
than less work-family
have at least four matchedrole-integra
sets of responses.
In sum, the final sample consisted of 101 employ-
ees and their spouses or significant others (67 percent
METHODS of the initial sample). We obtained job titles for all of
the employee participants in the final sample. An
Participants
analysis of these job titles revealed that participants
The sample of employees included in the current held jobs dealing with secretarial or administrative
study participated in a broader study on work and support work (34%), communications and coordina-
family by Hies, Schwind, Wagner, Johnson, DeRue, tion (15%), research activities (13%), information
and Ilgen (2007). However, with the exception of technology (13%), and other areas (25%).
the scores reflecting employees' positive and nega- The employees had an average age of 42.7 years
tive affect at work (assessed at the end of the work- and an average tenure of 12.7 years. Seventy-eight
day), none of the variables used in that study were percent were female; 48 percent had no children at
used in the hypothesis tests reported here. We re- home; and 43 percent had one or two children
cruited participants from a pool of university em- living at home. In the final sample, all but one of
ployees including administrative professionals, su- the focal participants were married, and the one
pervisors, and clerical-technical employees. In the exception lived in a domestic partnership. No de-
recruitment e-mail, we briefly described the study mographic measures were obtained from spouses
and emphasized that, to enroll in it, employees had or significant others. We performed independent
to be married or cohabiting with a significant other, sample t-tests to compare the demographic data
and their spouses/significant others needed to agree from the employees included in the data analysis
to participate. Interested participants were directed to with the demographic data of the employees who
an online registration page where they created a submitted the latter but did not complete the entire
unique user name and password. The first 150 indi- study. We found no significant differences between
viduals to register were allowed to participate in the the two groups of employees on any of the demo-
study and comprised our initial sample. graphic variables mentioned above.
Participation in the study was voluntary, and
employees and their spouses/significant others Procedures
were compensated for their participation (employ-
ees received up to $75, and spouses/significant oth- Surveys were used to assess perceptions and/or
ers up to $40, depending on how many surveys feelings from employees and their spouses/signifi-
they completed). Of the university employees who cant others. These surveys were given via the inter-
signed up to participate in the study, 147 com- net to employees at work and provided to their
pleted an initial survey requesting demographic spouses/significant others on paper. A paper sur-
information. Of this sample, 7 individuals indi- vey was also given to the employees in this study to
cated they were not married or did not live with a use when reporting their daily marital satisfaction in
significant other willing to participate. Twenty ad- the evening of each workday. The paper surveys con-
ditional participants did not respond to any of the tained an instruction to immediately seal them in
daily surveys at work. Although we do not know accompanying envelopes addressed to the research-
the reasons that prevented each of these employees ers and to mail these the next morning. Telephone
from participating, we received e-mails from sev- interviews with employees* spouses or significant
eral individuals who indicated that they could not others also occurred between 7 and 9 p.m. of each
continue participating because their spouses or sig- workday of the study (beginning in phase 2).
nificant others could no longer participate; they In phase 1 of the study, the employees' Internet-
had received new work assignments; they had to based survey assessed demographic variables and
travel during the study period and could not fulfill various individual difference variables such as
the study requirements; or health or family issues "trait positive affect" and "trait negative affect."
prevented continuing. Four of the remaining par- Employees' spouses or significant others also com-
ticipants did not complete any home measures, and pleted a paper survey in which they rated their
thus their data were not usable. Six additional par- spouses'/significant others' general levels of job
ticipants were eliminated from the final analyses satisfaction and their own global marital satisfac-

This content downloaded from 202.161.43.77 on Mon, 11 Jun 2018 05:53:39 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
92 Academy of Management Journal February

tion (spouses returned the Rothe, 1951). The directly

surveys items were modified
to the to reflect
researchers in postage-paid the rating perspective (e.g., "[first name of focal
envelopes).
In phase 2 of the study,employee]
which feels began one
fairly satisfied withweek
his/her present
after the completion of job"). phase 1, the
Our measure employees
of job satisfaction from the em-
completed an Internet survey ployee's
inperspective
the morning was daily job satisfaction
and in of
the afternoon of each workday, andalso
the employee, in the via
assessed evening
the five-item at
Bray-
home, they completed a paper field-Rothe
survey Index that
(Brayfield & Rothe,
asked 1951) modi-
them
to rate their level of marital satisfaction for that
fied to represent state, rather than global,day evalua-
tions of job
(i.e., daily marital satisfaction). satisfaction. Themorning
Employees' scale included the
survey assessed their positivefollowing and negative
items: "Right now, I findaffect
real enjoyment
("morning positive and negative affect
in my work," "Duringat mostwork")
of the past as
houraI have
control for possible serial effects, as about
felt enthusiastic explained
my work,"in "At the
this very
section on control variablesmoment,
below. I feelEmployees' after-
fairly satisfied with my job," "Right
noon survey assessed their now,
daily job satisfaction
each minute of work seems like it and
will never
end"
work positive affect and work (reverse-coded),
negative and "At
affect the present time,
("after-
noon positive and negative I affect
consider my atjobwork"). In con-
rather unpleasant" (reverse-
trast to the employees, during phase
coded). Both 2 themeasures
job satisfaction spousesused a rating
and significant others completed one
scale ranging from survey
1, "strongly per to 5,
disagree,"
workday, in the form of a"strongly
telephone
agree." interview. The
interviewer (who phoned between
Employees97dailyand 9 p.m.)
marital was The
satisfaction.
a representative of a surveydaily
research organization
marital satisfaction of employees andwas as-
asked each spouse/significant other to rate the affec-
sessed using a five-item scale (Norton, 1983)
tive state of his or her spouse/significant
adapted to represent state other (the
satisfaction. Items in-
employee). cluded, "Right now, I feel that I have a good mar-
In phase 3 of the study, which began on the
riage or relationship," "At this moment, I feel that
Monday following the completion of phase 2, the
my relationship with my partner is very stable,"
employees completed an internet survey that as-
"Today, our marriage has been very strong," "To-
sessed the extent to which they integrated their
day, I have really felt like part of a team with my
work and family roles. No surveys or telephone
partner," and "My relationship with my partner has
interviews were provided to employees' spouses or
made me happy today" (1 = "strongly disagree," to
significant others during phase 3 of the study.
5 "strongly agree") (The individual who was not
Because all participants had Monday to Friday
work schedules, the two- week duration of the officially married was instructed to evaluate his/
her satisfaction with the relationship as if he/she
study gave each participant the opportunity to re-
were married.)
spond to 10 surveys of each type (morning, after-
noon, and evening), with each spouse/significant Spouses9 global marital satisfaction. We used
Norton's (1983) scale, with general instructions, to
other also having the opportunity to respond to 10
surveys. We obtained 838 morning surveys and 796 measure spouses'/significant others' marital satis
afternoon surveys from employees at work (re- faction. This measure differed from the daily mea-
sponse rates of 83 and 79 percent, respectively). sure in that it referred to global, rather than daily,
marital satisfaction. The scale items were, "I feel
Employees responded to 867 surveys from home
(an 86 percent response rate), and spouses/signifi- that I have a good marriage or relationship," "I feel
cant others responded to a total of 621 nightly that my relationship with my partner is very sta-
surveys (a 61 percent response rate). ble," "Our marriage is very strong," "I really feel
like part of a team with my partner," and "My
relationship with my partner makes me happy."
We used this one-time global rating of spouses'/
Measures
significant others' marital satisfaction to provide
Job satisfaction. Two types of job satisfaction external validity to the employee's ratings of
some
were assessed, the first from the perspective of marital
the satisfaction; we did not measure spouses'/
employee and the second from the perspective of significant others' daily satisfaction because the fo-
the employee's spouse or significant other. Our cus of the job satisfaction-marital satisfaction anal-
measure of employees' job satisfaction from theiryses was on employees' own marital satisfaction.
spouses'/significant others' perspective was gen-The spouses'/significant others' marital satisfaction
eral job satisfaction of the employee, assessedmeasure
via used the same five-point scale as the two
the five-item Brayfield-Rothe Index (Brayfield measures
& described above.

This content downloaded from 202.161.43.77 on Mon, 11 Jun 2018 05:53:39 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
2009 Hies, Wilson, and Wagner 93

Employees9 positive
homeand negativ
variables, w
fect at work. We assessed employ
measuring the ti
negative affect at work during
workday job satis the
noon positive affectee'sat home work survey
and af
affect at work) of tion, each and workday (2) the o t
the 20 adjectival descriptors
significant of other moo
tive and Negative We controlled
Affect for these amounts of time in all the
Schedule (
within-individual analyses.
Clark, 1994). Specifically, the ten a
tors from the positive scale
For the analyses were
predicting positive "int
and negative
siastic," "excited," "strong," "pro
affect at home, to account for possible autocorrela-
tion in the home
spired," "attentive," affect scores, we controlled
"active" and for the "
ten adjectives from the
positive and negative negative
affect scores employees had
set," "irritable,"
reported in the morning from work. These control "g
"distressed,"
"ashamed," "nervous," "jittery,"
variables were assessed every morning, via the in- "a
tile." This survey was administer
ternet, using the same scales and response options
used to assess were
internet. Employees afternoon positive and negative af-to
asked
fect at work (see
tent to which they experienced eac above).
described by the Finally,
PANAS following the suggestion
adjectivesof an anony-
were completingmous the survey
reviewer, we created two job type (1 = "s
classifica-
all," to 5, "very tions;
much").we defined the first type as a supporting role
Employees9 home at work, which positive
included such time-bound and
jobs as
To assess the home positive
secretary, administrative and
assistant, and other simi- n
lar positions;in
the focal employees we defined
this the secondstudy,
type as more
significant othersautonomouswere roles, which included jobs such
asked by as t
human resourcescale,
cate, via a five-point analyst, communications
the manager,
exte
believed that the focal
and editor. employee
The primary distinction we sought to
various positive and
highlight concerned negative
the relatively rigid temporalaf
and spatial requirements of
emotions that evening. the supporting
The roles,
telep
presented the 20 versus theadjective
more flexible boundaries of the autono-descr
PANAS (see above) mous roles, in and oura implicit
randomexpectation was that o
ing positive and employees
negativewith more autonomousaffect jobs would have
more work-family role-integrated
telephone interviewer instructed roles. We in-
cluded the job type
cant others to select one classification
of as a the
control in thefo
"slightly or not analyses
at examining
all," the moderating
"a influence
little of
"quite a bit," orwork-family
"very role integration
much," on the strength of the an
were coded 1, 2, job3, satisfaction
4, spillover.
and 5, respec
Employees9 work-family role in
extent to which each participant in
Analytic Strategy
grated work and family roles was
slightly modified To test the intraindividual spillover
version of the effects of t
daily job satisfaction and the cross-level moderat-
Family Role Integration-Blurring S
ing hypotheses,
et al., 2005). At the end we used aof hierarchical
the linear mod-
stu
responded to the eling (HLM) framework. For each items:
following criterion, we
cult to tell wheretestedmy a model that regressed daily criterion
work life scores
end
on the dailyto
life begins," "I tend job satisfaction
integrate scores at the first level m
ily duties when I (within
work participants) ofat analysis. Importantly, the
home," a
there is a clear daily
boundary betwee
job satisfaction scores were centered relative to
each respondent's
my role as a parent or average family
score to form deviations m
scored). The anchor
from respondents'points characteristic means. As for
many au- t
thors have explained
measure work-family (e.g., Hies, Scott,
role & Judge, 2006;
integrat
Sonnentag, 2003), this centering
1, "strongly disagree," to approach5, eliminates
"stro
therefore, higher all the between-individual
scores variance
are in the predictor
asso
integrated scores and therefore the roles.
work-family estimates represent strictly
Control within-individual
variables. associations.
Because work
over effects are To test our hypothesis
likely to that employees
depend will expe- o
time elapsed rience higher positivethe
between affect at home on days when
assessm

This content downloaded from 202.161.43.77 on Mon, 11 Jun 2018 05:53:39 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
94 Academy of Management Journal February

they have experienced higher

main effects predicted
daily by our
job firstsatisfaction
three hypothe-
ses, we estimated a
(Hypothesis 1), we estimated model 3, which was (model
model constructed 1
by adding work-family
that predicted home positive affect role with
integration and job type
morning
at the second
positive affect at work (to accountlevel of analysis
for in HLM, as predic-
autocorrela
tors for
tion), time lag (to control of the first-level
timeintercepts
trends), and slopes,and
to the dai
model used
job satisfaction, at the first to test Hypotheses
level of analysis 1, 2, and 3 (i.e.,
in to HLM
model 1). This at
No predictors were included addition
theconstituted
secondthe only differ-
level
ence between the
analysis. This same procedure wastwo sets of analyses
used to (that is,
test o
hypothesis that the converse
model 3, used to would
test Hypothesisalso be to
4, was identical true
namely, that employees modelwill 1, used to test Hypothesis 1, with
experience lowerthe excep- neg-
ative affect at home on tion
days of the when
two predictors included have
they at the second expe
rienced higher daily job level of analysis in model 3). (Hypothesis
satisfaction As noted, job type was 2
the only difference being included
theas a control
usevariable,
of whereas
home work-fam-
negativ
ily role of
affect as the criterion and integration
morningwas the substantive moderator
negative af
specified in Hypotheses
fect at work as the methodological control variabl 4, 5, and 6.
To test our hypothesis that employees will expe-
rience more daily marital satisfaction RESULTS on days whe
they have experienced higher daily job satisfaction
Table 1 presents
(Hypothesis 3), we estimated the between-that
a model and within-ind
pre-
vidual correlations
dicted daily marital satisfaction among the
with variables
daily used to
job sattes
isfaction and time lag, atthe the
hypotheses
firstand the internal
level ofconsistency
analys rel
in HLM (no predictorsabilities
were of the
usedscores (for
at the thedaily second
variables, t
level). Because we did notinternal
have consistency
measures values represent
of morn- averag
ing marital satisfaction, computed
unlike over
withdays). As
thenoted, to validate
tests of the th
first two hypotheses, we did not
self-reported scorescontrol forby
with those provided mor
an ind
ing scores on the criterion.
pendent source, we also collected one-time, genera
In supplemental analyses, we other
spousal/significant also examined
ratings of employees' job
whether the effects specified
satisfaction and in Hypotheses
ratings of spouses'/significant 1,
othe
and 3 were maintainedownwhen
marital satisfaction.
mood The correlation between av-
spillover w
controlled for. To test this, we estimated
eraged (self-reported) model
daily job satisfaction scores and 2
for each of the three criteria, one-time spousalareports was .38 [p < .01), and
procedure the
identic
to the model describedaverage above, with
level of employees' the
daily marital excepti
satisfaction
that we also included the afternoon affect at work correlated at .46 (p < .01) with the marital satisfaction
scores as predictor variables at the first level of of their spouses/significant others.
analysis. Theorizing and empirical findings by Interestingly, at the between-individual level, the
Judge and Hies (2004) support the tendency for average affect scores provided by the spouses/sig-
positive affect in one domain (e.g., at work) to spill nificant others did not correlate consistently with
over to positive affect, but not negative affect, in a the average daily satisfaction scores provided by
different domain (e.g., home), and the tendency for the employees. We suspect that the low cross-sec-
negative affect in one domain (e.g., at work) to spill tional validity of the aggregate affect scores was
over to negative affect, but not positive affect, in a caused by augmented effects of rating biases such
different domain (e.g., home). For this reason, as acquiescence (Watson & Tellegen, 2002). How-
when predicting home positive affect we included ever, acquiescence error is less pronounced in sin-
afternoon positive affect at work as a predictor; gle ratings, and we essentially controlled for acqui-
and when predicting home negative affect, we escence in intraindividual analyses by centering
included afternoon negative affect at work as a the predictor scores relative to their means for each
predictor. In contrast, when predicting daily mar- participant (see Watson and Tellegen [2002] for an
ital satisfaction, employees' positive and nega- in-depth treatise on acquiescence in single ratings
tive affect assessed in the afternoon at work were and aggregated scores). Indeed, at the intraindi-
included as predictor variables since we did not vidual level, home positive and negative affect
have strong reasons to believe that one of the (spouse-reported) correlated with the daily satisfac-
affect variables would be more relevant than the tion scores in the expected directions. Importantly,
other for marital satisfaction. within individuals, spousal reports of employees'
To test our interaction hypotheses (Hypotheses 4, affect were significantly correlated with self-re-
5, and 6), all of which regard how the strength of ports that we collected for the broader work-family
employees' work-family role integration affects the research project (Hies et al., 2007) for both positive

This content downloaded from 202.161.43.77 on Mon, 11 Jun 2018 05:53:39 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 2009 lhes, Wilson, and Wagner 95

TABLE 1

Between- and Within-Individual Correlations among Study Variables3

Variables11 Mean s.d. 1 2 3456789

1. Afternoon positive affect at work 2.93 0.79 (.94) -.15** .39** -.01 .09+ -.14*
(self-rated)
2. Afternoon negative affect at work 1.22 0.33 -.08 (.86) -.35** .03 -.07* .18**
(self-rated)
3. Daily job satisfaction (self-rated, at 3.66 0.59 .54** -.24* (.86) .08* .10** -.18*
work, in the afternoon)
4. Daily marital satisfaction (self- 4.11 0.59 .15 -.02 .13 (.93) .10* -.16**
rated, at home, in the evening)
5. Home positive affect (spouse-rated, 2.89 0.69 .12 -.06 -.03 .06 (.88) -.11*
at home, in the evening)
6. Home negative affect (spouse-rated, 1.24 0.29 -.26* .09 -.24* -.05 .09 (.91)
at home, in the evening)
7. General job satisfaction (spouse- 3.56 0.72 .17 -.02 .38** .09 .18 -.22+ (.83)
rated; one-time rating)
8. Spouse general marital satisfaction 4.34 0.71 -.11 .14 -.01 .46** .19 -.12 .17 (.91)
(spouse-rated; one-time rating)
9. Work-family integration (self-rated; 2.34 0.73 -.02 .10 .07 -.11 -.01 .14 .17 .19+ (.72)
one-time rating)
10. Job type (coded from job titles) 0.34 0.48 .05 -.25* .03 -.02 .14 -.11 .06 -.07 -.19+

a The correlations below the diagonal represent between-individual associations (for variables 1 through 8, w
individual correlations using individuals' aggregated scores; n = 86-101, pairwise). The correlations above
within-individual associations (over time) and were estimated from fixed-effects HLM models with single level
2 predictors [n - 621-867, pairwise). Reliabilities are reported on the diagonal; for the within-individual variabl
averaged over measurements.
bJob type was coded as follows: support role (e.g., secretarial) = 1, other = 0. The morning affect control
employees at work) are not included in this table.
+ p< .10
* p < .05
**p< .01
***p < .001
Two-tailed tests.

affect (r = .24, p < .001) and negative affect (r = .34, which shows a positive and significant effect of
p < .001), which supports the validity of the spou- daily job satisfaction on positive affect at home
sal reports of affect. (ß = 0.15, p < .01) in our test of model 1 to predict
Before explicitly testing the hypotheses, we positive affect at home.
examined whether there was sufficient intraindi- Hypothesis 2 predicted that on days when em-
vidual variance in the daily scores to warrant mod- ployees experience high daily job satisfaction, they
eling intraindividual relationships by computing will experience lower negative affect at home than
the proportion of the total variance in the daily they will on days when they experience low daily
scores that was associated with within-individual job satisfaction. Support for this is seen in Table 2,
variation (from null HLM models). Indeed, a sub- which shows a negative and significant effect of
stantial proportion of the total variance (25-55%) daily job satisfaction on negative affect at home
was caused by day-to-day fluctuations in each mea- (ß = -0.17, p < .01) in our test of model 1 to predict
sured score, which is consistent with previous negative affect at home.
work examining within-individual fluctuations in Hypothesis 3 predicted that on days when em-
affect and satisfaction (e.g., Hies & Judge, 2002). ployees experience high daily job satisfaction, they
will report higher daily marital satisfaction than
they will on days when they experience low daily
Hypothesis Tests
job satisfaction. This hypothesis was also sup-
Hypothesis 1 predicted that on days when em- ported, as seen in Table 2: The effect of daily job
ployees experience high daily job satisfaction, they satisfaction on daily marital satisfaction was posi-
will experience higher positive affect at home than tive and significant (ß = 0.10, p < .05) in our test of
they will on days when they experience low daily model 1 to predict daily marital satisfaction.
job satisfaction. Support for this is seen in Table 2, Hypothesis 4 predicted that the tendency for

This content downloaded from 202.161.43.77 on Mon, 11 Jun 2018 05:53:39 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 96 Academy of Management Journal February

TABLE 2

Results of HLM Analyses Testing the Intraindividual Effects of Job Satisfaction on

Home Affect and Marital Satisfaction0

Home Positive Home Negative Daily Marital

Affect (Spouse- Affect (Spouse- Satisfaction (Self-
Rated, in the Rated, in the Rated, in the
Evening) Evening) Evening)

Variables ß t ß t ß t

Model 1
Intercept 2.91 38.15** 1.25 35.11** 4.12 67.38**
Time lag (coded) 0.11 1.93* 0.04 0.65 -0.09 -1.52
Daily job satisfaction (self-rated, in the afternoon) 0.15 3.28** -0.17 -2.55** 0.10 2.13*
Model 2
Intercept 2.91 36.15** 1.25 34.02** 4.12 67.34**
Afternoon positive affect at work (self-rated) 0.04 0.47 -0.01 -0.31
Afternoon negative affect at work (self-rated) 0.11 1.74* 0.07 1.41
Time lag (coded) 0.10 1.88* 0.05 1.10 -0.10 -1.79*
Daily job satisfaction (self-rated, in the afternoon) 0.16 2.73** -0.13 -2.03* 0.10 2.24*

a Daily job satisfaction, measured with reports provided by employees from work each afternoon before leavin
predictor in these analyses. In the model 2 analyses, we included the affect scores reported by employees at the end
positive and negative affect) as predictors to account for work-to-home mood spillover. When predicting positive a
home, models 1 and 2 also controlled for morning positive or negative affect at work, respectively, to account for
in the data. The regression coefficients for these controls were close to 0 (ranging from -.03 to .01) and nonsignific
1 predictor scores at the individuals' means to eliminate between-individual variance. The main effects of job satisf
standardized.
* p < .05
**p< .01
One-tailed directional tests.

employees with higher (rather than lower) daily isfaction and work-family role integration when pre-
job satisfaction to experience higher positive af- dicting home negative affect (see Table 3). This
fect at home (as predicted by Hypothesis 1) will interactive effect is illustrated in Figure 2, which
be stronger for employees who are more rather shows that individuals with highly integrated work
than less work-family role-integrated. As shown and family roles strongly feel the effects of a dissatis-
in Table 3, which presents the estimates for fying day on the job, resulting in high levels of nega-
model 3, the data supported this hypothesis intive affect on days when they report low daily job
that the interactive effect of daily job satisfaction
satisfaction, and low levels of negative affect on days
and work-family role integration was positive when they experience high daily job satisfaction. In
and significant when predicting home positive
contrast to the employees rating high on work-family
affect. Figure 1 depicts this interactive effect
role integration, those employees with segmented
graphically, showing that individuals with
roles experienced a positive (albeit weak) relation-
highly integrated work and family roles experi-
ship between daily job satisfaction and negative af-
ence a strong, positive relationship between self-
fect, and there were relatively large differences in
ratings of daily job satisfaction at work and spou-
sal ratings of their positive affect at home, home negative affect on days of dissatisfying work
whereas the relationship was weak (actually neg- between employees with highly integrated, versus
ative) for those with segmented roles. highly segmented, roles.
Hypothesis 5 predicted that the tendency for em- Finally, Hypothesis 6 predicted that the ten-
ployees with higher (rather than lower) daily job sat- dency for employees with higher (rather than
isfaction to experience lower negative affect at home lower) daily job satisfaction to experience more
(as predicted by Hypothesis 2) will be stronger for daily marital satisfaction at home (as predicted by
employees who are more rather than less work-family Hypothesis 3) will be stronger for employees who
role-integrated. This hypothesis was also supported are more rather than less work-family role-inte-
by the data, as evidenced by the negative and signif- grated. This hypothesis did not receive support, as
icant effect for the interaction between daily job sat- the interactive effect of daily job satisfaction and

This content downloaded from 202.161.43.77 on Mon, 11 Jun 2018 05:53:39 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 2009 lhes, Wilson, and Wagner 97

TABLE 3
Results of Cross-Level HLM Analyses Testing the Moderating Effect of Work-Family Integration

Daily Marital
Home Positive Affect Home Negative Affect Satisfaction (Self-
(Spouse-Rated, in the (Spouse-Rated, in the Rated, in the
Evening) Evening) Evening)

Variables ß t ß t ß t

Model 3
Intercept 2.90 38.95** 1.25 35.32** 4.12 68.96**
Time lag (coded) 0.10 1.75* 0.03 0.73 -0.09 -1.39
Job satisfaction (self-rated, in the afternoon) 0.17 3.88** -0.22 -3.12** 0.09 1.95*
Work-family integration (self-rated, one- -0.02 -0.26 0.04 0.65 -0.12 -1.53
time rating)
Work-family integration X job satisfaction 0.12 2.02* -0.12 -2.33* 0.02 0.38

a The models predicting positive and negative affect at home controlled for morning positive or negat
account for possible autocorrelation in the data (the regression coefficients for these controls are were .0
negative affect, respectively, both nonsignificant). In estimating the moderating effects of work-fami
type at level 2 (the effects of job type are discussed in the section presenting supplementary results). Le
at the individuals' means to eliminate between-individual variance. The intraindividual effects o
standardized; the main effect of work-family integration is an interindividual effect; the level 2 estimat
the increase in the magnitude of the intraindividual effect of job satisfaction, in standardized poi
deviation increase in the work-family integration score.
* p < .05
**p< .01
One-tailed directional tests.

FIGUREI
Interactive Effect of Work-Family Integration and Job Satisfaction on Home Posit

3.30-1

3.10- ^r

Positive Hom
Spouse-Reported 2*90" ^^ ^"^ -^
^r "** *£
2.70- ^^

2.50-1 - -

Low Job Satisfaction High Job Satisfaction

l"-1^ Low work-family integration ~^^ High work-family integration]

a Low job satisfaction and low work-family integration represent scores one standard deviation below the grand means on the
respective measures; high scores are one standard deviation above grand means.

work-family role integration was not significant over is controlled, we did several supplemental
when predicting daily marital satisfaction. tests. First, we tested whether daily job satisfaction
predicts home affect when afternoon affect at work
is controlled. Introducing the positive and negative
Supplemental Results affect scores reported by employees at the end of
To test whether the effects specified in Hypoth- their workdays (on the same survey on which they
eses 1, 2, and 3 are maintained when mood spill- reported job satisfaction) into the regressions pre-

This content downloaded from 202.161.43.77 on Mon, 11 Jun 2018 05:53:39 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
98 Academy of Management Journal February

FIGURE 2
Interactive Effect of Work Family Integration and Job Satisfaction on Home Negative Affect
1.70-1

1.50- ^V.

Negative Home Affect, 1.30- ^V.

Spouse-Reported ^SVS^ ^ **&

0.90-1
Low Job Satisfaction High Job Satisfaction

| - & Low work-family integration -*- High work-family integration]

a Low job satisfaction and low work-family integration represent scores one standard deviation below the grand m
respective measures; scores are one standard deviation above grand means.

dieting home affect did not diminish the effect-0.16,

of p < .05). This moderating effect showed that
daily job satisfaction on home positive affect employees
(the with support roles (e.g., secretary) expe-
standardized regression coefficient actually rienced
in- less spillover between their daily job and
creased by .01), whereas the effect of daily marital
job satisfaction than those with more autono-
satisfaction on home negative affect decreased mous work roles.
slightly in magnitude (from -0.17 to -0.13) but
remained statistically significant (p < .05). The in- DISCUSSION
traindividual effect of daily job satisfaction on
daily marital satisfaction predicted by HypothesisThe
3 findings of the present study allow
was also maintained when we introduced work make three conclusions that offer novel contribu-
positive and negative affect scores into the regres-
tions to the literature on work-family spillover. Our
sion predicting daily marital satisfaction (see
first conclusion is that the spillover of daily job
Table 2). satisfaction does not exist only at the experiential
Second, we tested whether work-family role in-level but that, in fact, employees express the affec-
tegration moderated the spillover of mood from tive results of daily job satisfaction at home in such
work to home; results supported such a moderating a way that others can observe them. This first con-
effect only for positive affect. That is, the results clusion
of is based on the results indicating that em-
multilevel models predicting home affect scores ployees' daily job satisfaction ratings are related to
reported by spouses or significant others with work spousal/significant other evaluations of the em-
affect scores reported by employees in the after- ployees' affective states at home. Second, we can
noon and including work-family role integration conclude
as that the spillover of daily job satisfaction
a cross-level moderator showed that work-family onto both mood at home and daily marital satisfac-
role integration strengthened the relationship be- tion cannot be fully explained by work-to-home
tween work positive affect and home positive af-
mood spillover, because the effects of daily job
satisfaction were maintained (or decreased, but
fect; although work negative affect had a significant
effect on home negative affect, work-family rolewere nonetheless significant) when we controlled
integration did not influence the strength of thisfor the effects of mood at work. Third, this study
effect (these results are not shown in the tables). attests to the importance of individual differences
Finally, although job type did not moderate the in work-family role integration in spillover from
spillover of daily job satisfaction onto home posi-work to family; this conclusion is driven by the
tive and negative affect, it had a significant moder-
finding that the extent to which employees inte-
ating effect on the relationships between daily job
grate their work and family roles is positively re-
satisfaction and daily marital satisfaction (ßlated = to the strength of the spillover of daily job

This content downloaded from 202.161.43.77 on Mon, 11 Jun 2018 05:53:39 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
2009 Hies, Wilson, and Wagner 99

satisfaction onto positive

our and ne
data support
home. We next identify theoret
in that work aff
in the afternoon
implications corresponding to th
nificant
conclusions enabled other
by our re
findin
and negative af
showed that wor
Affective Outcomes of Job Satisfa
not fully explain
Expressed in the Family
faction onto both
As we explained in the introdu
satisfaction. We
tant
stream of research hascontribution
shown that
dition to reports
tion influences employee's the affeo
authors
marital satisfaction (e.g.,
(Heller Hel
& Wats
be other
Hies, 2004). Our study pathway
extends the
tributions by showinging the that day's daily wo
influences not only family what - through
employ
their family roles fluences affect
butand satisfaction
alsoat home. Ourwhat
data
significant others do not observe.
allow us to test these speculations,
Given but our t
findings suggest
affect for employees' that developingbehavio
social and testing a
roles (Hies et al.,conceptual
2007; model that specifies additional mech-
Repetti, 198
anisms (beyondinfluences
daily job satisfaction mood spillover) that might ex- sp
other assessments plain the
of spillover of job satisfaction wouldhom
employee be a
fruitful endeavor.
be a first step toward developing
hensive model that specifies not on
ees' work lives influence their own
Work-Family Role Integration Has an Important
also how employees' work lives in
Role in the Spillover Process
of their spouses/significant others
Unlike previous researchers
members. For example, our examining daily job
findin
satisfaction affect
faction-influenced spillover, we followed Ashforth
is some et al.'s
(2000) request
spouses/significant for empirical research
others examining the
suggest
concept of role
ble that employees' segmentation-integration by stat
affective inte-
mitted to spousesgrating role boundary
and theory with spillover
other theory
family
and testing whether
haps via emotional work-family role integration
contagion (Ha
& Rapson, 1994;moderates
Hies, the strength of the within-individual ef- &
Wagner,
fects of daily job satisfaction
In addition, although we on affect at home and
collect
daily marital satisfaction.
nificant other reports of In this respect, our find-
employe
did not assess ing that the extent to which
spouses' or employees
signifiintegrate
their work and family roles
reactions to employees' work is positively related
exper to
isfaction. As an the strength of the spillover of daily job satisfaction
anonymous revie
onto positive and negative affect at home repre-
is possible that spouses/significant
to employees' job sents dissatisfaction
a novel contribution to the literature. w
macy and support, With increasing
thereby interest in telecommuting
amelio and
tive effect of jobflexible work arrangements (Conlin, 2006), organi-
dissatisfaction
zations must consider the
home affect. Following this implications of such
argum
work arrangements for employee would
that daily job satisfaction attitudes and
lated to positive well-being.
home As an increasing
affect amount of work when is
and intimacy are brought home, time andhigh.
very space boundaries, which
We
possibilities withare largelyoura function of the job, become thus
data; blurred.
This could lead to greater
that future research work-family role integra-spo
measure
tion and, presumably,
intimacy and examine greater spillover
the role of job atti-
of
tudes onto attitudes and affective states in the
the spillover process.
home domain. Our results showing that job type
did not moderate the spillover of daily job satisfac-
Mood Spillover tion
Does suggest that Not
the moderationComplet
of spillover may be
Satisfaction Spillover
a result of boundary permeability, which is a psy-
Mood spillover is
chological aspect an importa
of integration (rather than a struc-
linking work tural aspectfamily
and associated with the job) that employees
domai

This content downloaded from 202.161.43.77 on Mon, 11 Jun 2018 05:53:39 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
100 Academy of Management Journal February

can control to some extent. ees,Therefore,

but also their roles asaspouses/significant
potential oth-
application of this research ers
is and
toparents.
train Because work can be aon
employees source of
enriching and
how to integrate work and family fulfillingso
roles, experiences
that (Csikszentmi-
the
halyi & LeFevre,
employees can experience greater 1989), we propose
personal that by integrat-
benefit
from their positive reactionsing work and family
to, anddomains employees can mag-
evaluations
of, work. nify the benefits of the positive features of work,
Although our emphasis hasand we suggest
been onthatthe future research should examine
relation-
the role of work-family
ship between daily job satisfaction and home role integration
out-in work-
family enhancement.
comes, employees with highly integrated work and
family roles experience higher levels of negative
affect and lower levels of positive affect when they
Limitations
are dissatisfied with their work. of the Study and training
Therefore, Future
Research Needs
employees in how to segment their work and fam-
ily roles, especially when their jobs are frustrating
The present research entails several limitations.
or dissatisfying, can minimize the
First, even negative
though impactother re-
the spousal/significant
of their work evaluations on their personal well-
ports of employees' affect converged with self-re-
being. Clearly, the utility of each approach (training
ports, other factors besides employees' affective
employees to integrate versus segment their work-
states may have influenced the spousal/significant
family roles) is contingent upon the typical level of
other ratings. For instance, it is possible that em-
satisfaction that employees have with their jobs.
ployees shared the highlights or frustrations of the
Nevertheless, it would be useful for work-family
day with their spouses or significant others,
research to examine the effects of work-family role
thereby enabling the latter to make inferences re-
integration for positive and negative spillover sep-
garding the employees' affective states at home. We
arately. If employees could learn how to maximize
suggest that future research on job satisfaction
positive spillover and counteract the effects of neg-
spillover include a measure assessing the extent to
ative spillover (perhaps using mood repair strate-
which employees discuss their workdays with their
gies), their family lives and general well-being
would be enhanced.
spouses or significant others; such a research de-
sign would enable one to examine the extent to
Following other authors (e.g., Kossek et al., which interpersonal sharing of work events is re-
2005), we believe that work-family role integration
sponsible for the effects of self-rated job satisfaction
is influenced by both job characteristics and indi-
on spouse/significant other-rated home affect. Sec-
vidual differences, yet it seems that the latter is
ond, our sample was unbalanced on gender (only
more relevant for the current study because all the
22 percent male), which limits the generalizability
individuals comprising our sample had jobs thatof these results. Furthermore, this imbalance pre-
were similar in terms of the flexibility of their
cluded us from conducting meaningful analyses by
work-role time boundary (all participants worked
gender, such as examining whether gender predicts
on an 8-5 schedule). In our view, future research
work-family role integration or spillover strength.
that distinguishes between person-based and job-
To address this limitation, we suggest that future
based components of work-family role integration
can further contribute to the literature on work-
research on this topic should recruit gender-bal-
anced samples. A final limitation is that because
family spillover by examining which aspect is more
the work-family role integration measure was given
important in moderating the spillover effects. Dif-
after the daily surveys were completed, it is possi-
ferentiating such components would also be valu-
ble that the daily surveys had a reactive effect on
able for practitioners because it would reveal the
participants' responses on the work-family role in-
extent to which organizations can influence work-
tegration scale.
family role integration through job design.
Another area in which future research can con-
tribute to the work-family literature concerns work-Conclusion
family enhancement. In our view, the integration of
work and family roles represents a means by which The present study contributes to the literature on
employees can capitalize on the positive facets ofwork and family by examining the spillover of
their jobs. By psychologically increasing the per-daily job satisfaction to the home domain using
meability of the boundary between work and fam- multisource, multimethod data in a within-indi-
ily roles, individuals eliminate the walls betweenvidual design. In addition, the study extends the
the two roles, thereby permitting positive work ex- work-family literature both theoretically and em-
periences to enrich not only their roles as employ- pirically by proposing and testing a model that

This content downloaded from 202.161.43.77 on Mon, 11 Jun 2018 05:53:39 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 2009 Hies, Wilson, and Wagner 101

Hies, R., Schwind, K., & Heller,

supports the integration of D. 2007. Employee
spillo
well-being: A multi-level model linking work and
role boundary theory.
non- work domains. European Journal of Work
and Organizational Psychology, 16: 326-341.
REFERENCES
Hies, R., Schwind, K., Wagner, D. T., Johnson, M., DeRue,
D. S., & Ilgen, D. R. 2007. When can employees have
Ashforth, B. E., Kreiner, G. E., & Fugate, M. 2000. All in
a day's work: Boundaries and micro role transitions.a family life? The effects of daily workload and affect
Academy of Management Review, 25: 472-491. on work-family conflict and social activities at
home. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 1368-
Brayfield, A. H., & Rothe, H. R. 1951. An index of job
1379.
satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 35:
307-311. Hies, R., Scott, B. A., & Judge, T. A. 2006. The interac-
tive effects of personal traits and experienced
Carlson, D. S., Kacmar, K. M., Wayne, J. H., & Grzywacz,
states on intraindividual patterns of citizenship
J. G. 2006. Measuring the positive side of the work-
behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 49:
family interface: Development and validation 561-575. of a
work-family enrichment scale. Journal of Voca-
tional Behavior, 68: 131-164. Hies, R., Wagner, D. T., & Morgeson, F. P. 2007
tive linkages in teams: Individual differen
Conlin, M. 2006. Smashing the clock: No schedules. No
contagion susceptibility and individualism/
meetings. Inside Best Buy's radical reshaping of
tivism. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92:
the workplace. BusinessWeek, 4013(December 1148.
11): 60-68.
Judge, T. A., & Hies, R. 2004. Affect and job satisfactio
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & LeFevre, J. 1989. Optimal expe-
A study of their relationship at work and at home.
rience in work and leisure. Journal of Personality
Journal of Applied Psychology, 89: 661-673.
and Social Psychology, 56: 815-822.
Kossek, E. E., Lautsch, B. A., & Eaton, S. C. 2005. Flexi-
Desrochers, S., Hilton, J. M., & Larwood, L. 2005. Prelim-
bility enactment theory: Implications of flexibility
inary validation of the work-family role integration-
type, control, and boundary management for work
blurring scale. Journal of Family Issues, 26: 442-466.
family effectiveness. In E. E. Kossek & S. J. Lamber
Edwards, J. R., & Rothbard, N. P. 2000. Mechanisms (Eds.), Work and life integration: Organizational
linking work and family: Specifying the relation- cultural, and individual perspectives: 243-261.
ships between work and family constructs. Acad- Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
emy of Management Review, 25: 178-199.
Locke, E. A. 1976. The nature and causes of job satisfac-
Gable, S. L., Gonzaga, G. G., & Stractanan, A. zuuö. win tion. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of indus
you be there for me when things go right? Support- trial and organizational psychology: 1297-1349.
ive responses to positive event disclosures. Jour- Chicago: Rand McNally.
nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91:
904-917.
Miner, A. G., Glomb, T. M., & Hulin, C. 2005. Experienc
sampling mood and its correlates at work. Journal of
Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Rapson, R. L. 1994. Emo-
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78
tional contagion. New York: Cambridge University
171-193.
Press.
Nippert-Eng, C. 1996. Calendars and keys: The cl
Heller, D., & Watson, D. 2005. The dynamic spillover of cation of "home" and "work." Sociological For
satisfaction between work and marriage: The role of 11: 563-582.
time, mood and personality. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 90: 1273-1279. Norton, R. 1983. Measuring marital quality: A cri
look at the dependent variable. Journal of Marria
Heller, D., Watson, D., & Hies, R. 2004. The role of
and Family, 45: 141-151.
person versus situation in life satisfaction: A crit-
ical examination. Psychological Bulletin, 130: Olson-Buchanan, J. B., & Boswell, W. R. 2006. Blur
574-600. boundaries: Correlates of integration and segmen
tion between work and nonwork. Journal of Voc
Hies, R., & Judge, T. A. 2002. Understanding the dynamic
tional Behavior, 68: 432-445.
relationship between personality, mood, and job sat-
Repetti,Or-
isfaction: A field experience sampling study. R. L. 1989. Effects of daily workload on subse-
ganizational Behavior and Human Decision Pro-behavior during marital interaction: The roles
quent
cesses, 89: 1119-1139. of social withdrawal and spouse support. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 57: 651-659.
Hies, R., & Judge, T. A. 2004. An experience-sampling
measure of job satisfaction: Its relationships with Rothbard, N. P., Phillips, K. W., & Dumas, T. L. 2005.
affectivity, mood at work, job beliefs, and general Managing multiple roles: Work-family policies and
job satisfaction. European Journal of Work and individuals' desires for segmentation. Organiza-
Organizational Psychology, 13: 367-389. tional Science, 16: 243-258.

This content downloaded from 202.161.43.77 on Mon, 11 Jun 2018 05:53:39 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 102 Academy of Management Journal February

Saari, L. M., & Judge, T. A. 2004. Employee attitudes and

job satisfaction. Human Resource Management, 43:
395-407.
Rem
Sonnentag, S. 2003. Recovery, work engagement, and low
proactive behavior: A new look at the interface be- Bro
tween non-work and work. Journal of Applied Psy- Univ
chology, 88: 518-528. of F
Watson, D. 2000. Mood and temperament New York: fere
Guilford Press. emo

Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. 1994. The PANAS-X: Man- Kel

ual for the positive and negative affect sched- Ph.D
ule - expanded form. Iowa City: University of Eli B
Iowa.
sity
Watson, D., & Tellegen, A. 2002. Aggregation, acquies- hon
cence, and the assessment of trait affectivity. Journal psyc
of Research in Personality, 36: 589-597. focu
and
Williams, K. J., & Alliger, G. M. 1994. Role Stressors,
mood spillover, and perceptions of work-family con- Dav
flict in employed parents. Academy of Manage- cand
ment Journal, 37: 837-868. men
Williams, K. J., Suis, J., Alliger, G. M., Learner, S. M., & acco
Wan, C. K. 1991. Multiple role juggling and daily rese
mood states in working mothers: An experience sam- as t
pling study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76: org
664-674. and
Zedeck, S. (Ed.). 1992. Work, families, and organiza-
tions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

This content downloaded from 202.161.43.77 on Mon, 11 Jun 2018 05:53:39 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms