Organizational and individual resources as buffers of work-family conflict linkages to affect: An application of the job demands and resources health impairment model

Brandão, Leonor; Matias, Marisa Article Organizational and individual resources as buffers of work-family conflict linkages to affect: An application of the job demands and resources health impairment model Administrative Sciences Provided in Cooperation with: MDPI – Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, Basel Suggested Citation: Brandão, Leonor; Matias, Marisa (2024) : Organizational and individual resources as buffers of work-family conflict linkages to affect: An application of the job demands and resources health impairment model, Administrative Sciences, ISSN 2076-3387, MDPI, Basel, Vol. 14, Iss. 4, pp. 1-19, https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14040068 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/320890 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Citation: Brandão, Leonor, and Marisa Matias. 2024. Organizational and Individual Resources as Buffers of Work–Family Conflict Linkages to Affect: An Application of the Job Demands and Resources Health Impairment Model. Administrative Sciences 14: 68. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/admsci14040068 Received: 30 October 2023 Revised: 24 March 2024 Accepted: 27 March 2024 Published: 2 April 2024 Copyright: © 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/). administrative sciences Article Organizational and Individual Resources as Buffers of Work–Family Conflict Linkages to Affect: An Application of the Job Demands and Resources Health Impairment Model Leonor Brandão and Marisa Matias * Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, University of Porto, 4200-135 Porto, Portugal; [email protected] *Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: Work–family conflict is a phenomenon known to affect an individual’s well-being. However, its affective consequences are yet to be explored. In this study, we focus on understanding work– family conflict affective consequences on positive and negative affect. Our approach aims to refine the Job Demands and Resources model (JD-R model) by incorporating affect as a psychological mechanism in the health-impairment process and by exploring family-supportive organizational perceptions and psychological detachment as moderators. The final sample was composed of 195 couples, with men’s mean age around 46 years old (M= 46.85, SD = 0.34) and women’s age around 44 (M= 44.23, SD = 0.37). Men worked an average of 44.46 h per week (SD = 0.83), while women worked an average of 39.79 h per week (SD = 0.65). The majority of couples had full-time jobs (77.9% of men and 73.8% of women), worked fixed schedules (55.4% of men and 73.8% of women), were employed by others (75% of men and 82.8% of women), and worked for small companies (54.6% of men and 40% of women). Concerning education, most of the men (81.3%) and women (71.4%) attended high school or had less than 12 years of education. To test our moderation models, PROCESS version 4.1st macro for SPSS was used. Additional analyses included correlations and paired mean comparisons. Our findings indicate that work–family conflict correlates positively with negative affect and negatively with positive affect. Psychological detachment moderated the effect of work–family conflict on negative affect for women, but did not moderate the relationship with positive affect for men or women. Family-supportive organizational perceptions also did not moderate any of the proposed relationships. This study highlights how the ability to detach and separate family and professional domains is important and supports the health-impairment process of the Job Demands and Resources model through affective experiences. Keywords: work-family conflict; negative affect; positive affect; family-supportive organizational perception; psychological detachment; JD-R model 1. Introduction Family and work constitute the most significant facets of adult life shaping individual well-being and personal development. In recent decades, as the domains of work and family have been changing, growing challenges in managing the demands of work and family life have arisen (Mauno et al. 2007). The composition of the workforce, the intensification of work demands, and the widespread adoption of advanced communication and technology tools had a significant impact on the overarching context of work (Allen et al. 2015). The accessibility and the flexibility of information technologies, which allow for a constant connection between employees and their work blur the once well-defined boundaries between work and family life (Boswell and Olson-Buchanan 2007;Davis et al. 2016;Kossek et al. 2011a). Another notable transformation relates to the increased presence of women in the workforce and the escalating economic demands for sustaining family livelihood. DualAdm. Sci. 2024,14, 68. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14040068 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/admsci Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 68 2 of 19 earner families, families where both partners work outside their homes, have become the norm (Andrade 2015). Nevertheless, the role of the mother within the family is still marked by traditional gender views (Matias 2019), with women performing the majority of the family chores (Perista et al. 2016). Consequently, achieving a balance between work and family demands has become a challenge (Byron 2005;Kossek et al. 2011a), especially for women, who are the ones expected to make the most effort to reconcile work and family (Matias and Fontaine 2012,2015). In the current literature, the work–family conflict (WFC) is often examined as an outcome stemming from workplace demands impacting the family domain. However, acknowledging the evolving landscape of the current work reality, the present study posits WFC as an undeniable demand in today’s work context. As defined by Greenhaus and Beutell (1985), WFC denotes the overlap of demands arising from both the work and family domains, resulting from simultaneous pressures in fulfilling their respective responsibilities (Andrade 2015;Allen and French 2023;Bakker et al. 2008;Byron 2005; Boswell and Olson-Buchanan 2007;Carlson et al. 2000;Golden 2021;Greenhaus and Beutell 1985;Kossek et al. 2011a). In this study, we focus on dual-earner individuals and leverage the Job Demands and Resources model (Demerouti et al. 2001) to shed light on the health impairment process proposed by the model. Our analysis will delve into how work demands, faced by men and women, specifically work–family conflict, impact their well-being. This investigation will consider positive and negative affect and emphasize the role of individual factors— psychological detachment, organizational resources, and family-supportive organizational perceptions. By unraveling gender-specific pathways in the perception of demands and resources, we aim to deepen the applicability of the JD-R model and thus contribute to the existing body of literature. 2. Underpinning Literature and Hypotheses Development 2.1. Job Demands and Resources Model Over the past few decades, numerous conceptual models have emerged to elucidate the impact of work characteristics on the health and well-being of workers (Cooper 1998). One of the recent approaches in this regard is the Job Demands and Resources model (JDR model) developed by Demerouti and collaborators (Demerouti et al. 2001), drawing on various models and theories, including Hobfoll’s (1989) Resource Conservation Theory (Bakker and Demerouti 2017). This model emphasizes the importance of situational specificity and promotes the use of general constructs to enhance adaptability across diverse occupational contexts (van Veldhoven et al. 2005). The JDR model, originally formulated to explain burnout, has evolved over the years and now encompasses the examination of various factors influencing worker well-being (Bakker and Demerouti 2007,2017). The core premise of this model posits that all professional activities entail distinct job characteristics, which can be categorized into two general types: job demands and job resources (Bakker and Demerouti 2007,2017). Job demands encompass “those physical, psychological, social or organizational aspects of the job that require sustained physical and/or psychological (cognitive and emotional) effort or skills and are therefore associated with certain physiological and/or psychological costs” (Bakker and Demerouti 2007, p. 312). In contrast, job resources refer to “those physical, psychological, social or organizational aspects of the job that are either/or functional in achieving work goals, reduce job demands and the associated physiological and psychological costs and stimulate personal growth, learning and development” (Bakker and Demerouti 2007, p. 312). The second premise of the JDR model revolves around the idea that job demands and resources trigger two distinct processes: a health-impairment process and a motivational process (Bakker and Demerouti 2017). This study focuses on the health-impairment process, where tension arises when job demands are high and resources are limited, resulting in a disproportionate balance between the demands faced by workers and the available resources. Several studies suggest that job demands, including work–family conflict, are associated with Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 68 3 of 19 physical and psychological strain and various health issues (Bakker and Demerouti 2017; Demerouti et al. 2001). 2.2. Work–Family Conflict and Affective Well-Being The substantial transformations within the domains of work and family, as noted by Kossek et al. (2011a), limit the available time and energy for employees to dedicate to their family lives, inevitably originating role conflict. Thus, this inter-role conflict manifests itself in two directions: the work role encroaching on the family sphere (WFC) or the family role intruding upon the work domain (FWC); however, this study primarily focuses on the intrusion of the work sphere into the family domain. According to Amstad et al. (2011), a strong association exists between WFC and outcomes that manifest within the family context and between FWC and outcomes that manifest within the work domain. However, the relationship is also found to be robust with non-specific outcomes, such as overall well-being. Indeed, numerous empirical studies have substantiated the adverse impact of work– family conflict on individuals’ well-being (Andrade 2015;Boswell and Olson-Buchanan 2007; Kossek et al. 2011a;Obrenovic et al. 2020). These effects manifest across a spectrum of negative emotional and psychological outcomes, encompassing psychological distress, depressive symptoms, clinical diagnosis of mood disorders, and emotional exhaustion (Ahmad et al. 2021; Allen et al. 2000;Amstad et al. 2011;Dettmers et al. 2016;Frone et al. 1996;Greenhaus et al. 2006;Kinnunen et al. 2004;Netemeyer et al. 1996). Affect, as an indicator of psychological health, encompasses the emotions we experience and express, with an impact on various aspects of our lives, including goal attainment, interpersonal interactions, behavior orientation, and life satisfaction (Davis et al. 2016;Verzeletti et al. 2016). According to Eby et al.’s (2010) review of empirical research on the role of affect in work–family interaction, three perspectives can be highlighted: one where trait-based affect, i.e., certain traits, are seen as predisposing individuals to experience more intense emotional reactions to work–family interactions; a second perspective, which examines state-based moods and emotions in relation to work and family life, finding that as the demands of work and family life increase, individuals tend to experience more negative affective states and fewer positive affective states; and a third perspective that considers state-based global affective reactions, typically as consequences of work–family experiences (e.g., job satisfaction, family satisfaction). Affective well-being is understood to encompass both positive (e.g., enthusiasm and alertness) and negative (e.g., overall perceived distress and anger; Watson et al. 1988) affect. Affect refers therefore to a mental state involving evaluative feelings. It encompasses a wide range of dispositions, moods, emotions, and generalized affective reactions to events and experiences (Eby et al. 2010). Watson and Tellegen’s (1985) two-factor model of affect encompasses positive affect (PA) and negative affect (NA) as primary dimensions describing affective experiences. PA reflects excitement, activity, and alertness, while NA represents subjective distress and unpleasant involvement. Both dimensions have high relevance, capturing essential qualities of affective experiences (Gisler et al. 2018). Studies have demonstrated that NA is associated with stress (Clark and Watson 1986), health-related complaints (Tessler and Mechanic 1978), and exposure to unpleasant situations (Warr et al. 1983). Conversely, PA appears to be linked with the frequency of pleasant situations and overall satisfaction (Clark and Watson 1986,1988;Watson 1988). Indeed, affect is influential to adaptive behavior as it influences motivational behavior: positive affect may signal approach motivation, while negative affect represents withdrawal motivation (Watson et al. 1999). The feeling states associated with positive affect mobilizes goal-directed behavior and the feeling states associated with negative affect leads to apprehensiveness and cautiousness. It is therefore relevant to understand how work–family conflict may be impacting the experience of affect and what moderators can be relevant to increase positive experiences and decrease negative ones. Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 68 4 of 19 Studies have shown a relationship between WFC and positive affect, indicating that when work and family demands clash, it can impact individuals’ positive affective experiences (Davis et al. 2016;Kafetsios 2007). Similarly, there is evidence indicating a connection between WFC and negative affect (NA), suggesting that this conflict can also influence negative affective experiences (Judge et al. 2006). However, these correlations do not consistently hold true across all studies (e.g., Davis et al. 2016;Kafetsios 2007). This lack of consistent linkages between WFC and affective outcomes underscores the need for a more comprehensive analysis. In this work, we bring together the JDR model and PA and NA constructs to delve into the psychological mechanisms inherent to the health-impairment process of the JD-R model and thus understand how individuals navigate and manage their emotional experiences amidst work–family conflict. See conceptual model depicted in Figure 1. Adm. Sci. 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 19 mobilizes goal-directed behavior and the feeling states associated with negative affect leads to apprehensiveness and cautiousness. It is therefore relevant to understand how work–family conflict may be impacting the experience of affect and what moderators can be relevant to increase positive experiences and decrease negative ones. Studies have shown a relationship between WFC and positive affect (PA), indicating that when work and family demands clash, it can impact individuals’ positive affective experiences (Davis et al. 2016; Kafetsios 2007). Similarly, there is evidence indicating a connection between WFC and negative affect (NA), suggesting that this conflict can also influence negative affective experiences (Judge et al. 2006). However, these correlations do not consistently hold true across all studies (e.g., Davis et al. 2016; Kafetsios 2007). This lack of consistent linkages between WFC and affective outcomes underscores the need for a more comprehensive analysis. In this work, we bring together the JDR model and PA and NA constructs to delve into the psychological mechanisms inherent to the health-impairment process of the JD-R model and thus understand how individuals navigate and manage their emotional experiences amidst work–family conflict. See conceptual model depicted in Figure 1. Figure 1. Conceptual Model. Thus, the following hypotheses are proposed: H1: High WFC is associated with an increase in negative affect. H2: High WFC is associated with a decrease in positive affect. Furthermore, as WFC involves engaging with various stakeholders across work and family domains, each governed by distinct rules for emotional expression (Speights et al. 2020), individuals need to exert control over the emotions they experience, including determining which emotions arise, when they occur, and how they are expressed (Aldao et al. 2010; Kraft et al. 2024). Thus, by regulating their emotions (Gross 1998), individuals may modify emotional triggers or cognitive processes before emotions are elicited or manage the emotional response after it has been triggered. This way, by comprehending the affective ramifications of experiences involving work–family conflict and exploring the Figure 1. Conceptual Model. Thus, the following hypotheses are proposed: H1. High WFC is associated with an increase in negative affect. H2. High WFC is associated with a decrease in positive affect. Furthermore, as WFC involves engaging with various stakeholders across work and family domains, each governed by distinct rules for emotional expression (Speights et al. 2020), individuals need to exert control over the emotions they experience, including determining which emotions arise, when they occur, and how they are expressed (Aldao et al. 2010;Kraft et al. 2024). Thus, by regulating their emotions (Gross 1998), individuals may modify emotional triggers or cognitive processes before emotions are elicited or manage the emotional response after it has been triggered. This way, by comprehending the affective ramifications of experiences involving work–family conflict and exploring the underlying mechanisms shaping this relationship, we gain deeper insights into the resultant emotional responses. These insights, drawing upon frameworks such as Gross’s (1998) work, shed light on the path of how individuals adaptively respond to the emotional challenges arising from conflicting work and family demands. Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 68 5 of 19 2.3. The Moderating Effect of Family-Supportive Organizational Perception and Psychological Detachment The Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model illuminates how work and personal resources act as protective shields against the detrimental effects of job demands on employee well-being. This underscores the importance of considering situational and individual characteristics as potential moderators in the relationship between WFC and affective well-being (Bakker and Demerouti 2007,2017). Among the various job resources discussed in the literature, social support stands out, and multiple studies have demonstrated its moderating effect on the association between job demands and stress (Andrade 2015;Bakker et al. 2007;Bakker and Demerouti 2007, 2017;Eng et al. 2010). The organizational support theory introduces the concept of perception of organizational support, which reflects employees’ overall belief in how their employers value and prioritize their well-being and needs, providing the necessary support and resources to help them manage job demands. Another specific form of support is family-supportive organizational perception (FSOP), which pertains to how employees perceive their organization’s support and sensitivity regarding family-related matters, as well as the organization’s efforts to balance and facilitate work–family commitments and responsibilities (Allen 2001). This support includes policies that promote work–life balance, such as flexible work arrangements, maternity leave, and assistance with dependent care, among others (Chambel and Santos 2009;Kossek et al. 2011b). It is important to note that the mere existence of measures aimed at reconciling work and personal life is insufficient. Employees must also perceive these measures as useful, relevant, and well-adjusted to address their specific job demands. Feeling supported by their employers gives employees the confidence that they will receive assistance when needed. Fredrickson and Levenson (1998) have highlighted the precedence of social support in fostering positive emotions and its potential to mitigate the affective consequences of job demands faced by employees. Over recent decades, a wealth of evidence has accumulated regarding the significance of social support in the workplace (Ilies et al. 2011), and its role as a moderator in mitigating various negative effects, including negative affect (George et al. 1993;Peeters et al. 1995). The literature emphasizes how resources gained from professional pursuits, such as social resources like FSOP, not only bolster positive affect but also amplify performance in familial roles (Aryee et al. 2005;Chambel and Santos 2009;Greenhaus and Powell 2006; Voydanoff 2004). As individuals dedicate considerable effort to managing work demands, countering their adverse effects and halting resource depletion becomes imperative. Recovery experiences are means for restoring and replenishing consumed resources (Demerouti et al. 2001;Demsky et al. 2014). Among these experiences, psychological detachment, integral to the recovery process (Sonnentag and Fritz 2007), emerges as a key factor in moderating the relationship between work demands and stress, as noted by Safstrom and Hartig (2013). Detaching from work has been found to predict positive outcomes, such as reduced tension and heightened well-being (Sonnentag 2012;Sonnentag et al. 2008;Sonnentag and Bayer 2005;Zijlstra and Sonnentag 2006). Psychological detachment allows individuals to distance themselves from the constant stimulation of work demands, facilitating a return to a balanced state. This enables workers to feel rejuvenated and regain the capacity to fulfill their remaining social roles (Sanz-Vergel et al. 2011;Gu et al. 2020). High levels of psychological detachment from work are expected to be associated with increased positive affect, while reduced detachment is linked to heightened negative affect. Therefore, when psychological detachment is lacking, the tension generated by work demands and situations persists, leading to the accumulation of stress and potential health issues (Sonnentag et al. 2008). Conversely, high psychological detachment enables effective recovery, as workers can fully focus on replenishing their resources and engaging in family experiences (Amstad and Semmer 2009;Sonnentag et al. 2008). It serves as a recovery Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 68 6 of 19 strategy that can be perceived as a restoration strategy aiding the management of demands and facilitating well-being (Dettmers et al. 2016;Gu et al. 2020). Considering the third and the fifth premise of the JD-R model, personal resources and work resources can play a similar role. Thus, this study regards FSOP as a work resource and PD as a personal resource. Consequently, we expect the following: H3. The perception of family support by the organization (FSOP) will reduce the effect of WFC on PA and NA. H4. Psychological Detachment will reduce the links from WFC to NA and PA. 3. Materials and Methods 3.1. Participants and Procedures This study used data collected from a larger research project dedicated to the analyses of work–family boundary management in families with children aged between 13 and 18 years of age. As such, participants had to have a working partner with whom they cohabitate and have at least a child in the defined age range. The larger research project obtained a positive review from the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Psychology and Education Sciences of the University of Porto (Reference number 5-9/2015) and from the National Data Protection Commission (Deliberation n º 681/2016). Recruitment sites were a public school and a sports club. Recruitment via the researchers’ contact network was also conducted. Participants were approached either directly or through their adolescent children. In both cases, the interaction started by clarifying the study’s objectives and the processes taken to ensure confidentiality and anonymity. If participants (parents) agreed to participate, they were instructed to return their filled-in questionnaires in a sealed envelope directly to the investigator or to the teacher/trainer, who later handed them over to the research team. A response rate of 80.6% was obtained. The final sample includes the same number of men and women (n = 390 in total), with men’s ages varying from 34 to 62 years (M= 46.85, SD = 0.34) and women’s ages varying from 31 to 57 years (M= 44.23, SD = 0.83). Most men (81.3%) and women (71.4%) had a secondary level of education or less (i.e., less than 12 years of education). Men worked an average of 44.46 h per week (SD = 0.83) and women an average of 39.79 h per week (SD = 0.65). Participants were mostly working full-time (men—79.9%; women—73.8%), on fixed schedules (men—55.4%; women—56.9%), were employed by others (75% of men and 82.8% of women) and worked for small companies (54.6% of men and 40% of women). 3.2. Measures 3.2.1. Work–Family Conflict (WFC) The Portuguese version of the Work–Family Conflict Scale was used, addressing both directions of conflict, from work to family and from family to work (Vieira et al. 2014). The scale was composed of 7 items assessed on a 5-point Likert-type Scale (1 = totally disagree, 5 = totally agree). The reliability coefficients were very good (men’s Cronbach’s α = 0.89; women’s α= 0.87). 3.2.2. Family-Supportive Organizational Perception (FSOP) This variable was approached by using the Family-Supportive Organization Perception Scale (Allen 2001), translated to Portuguese by Chambel and Santos (2009). This measure is composed of 14 items assessed on a 5-point Likert type Scale (1 = totally disagree, 5 = totally agree). Eleven items were recoded so that higher scores correspond to a more positive perception of the organization’s support for family. Item 13 (“Providing employees with flexibility in carrying out their work is seen as a strategic action in doing business.”) was excluded to help achieve an acceptable reliability coefficient for both men’s and women’s reports: men’s Cronbach’s α= 0.69; women’s Cronbach’s α= 0.69. Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 68 7 of 19 3.2.3. Positive and Negative Affect The Positive Affect and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS-X) was used (Watson and Clark 1994) in accordance with the reduced version proposed by Schoebi and collaborators (Schoebi et al. 2012). Thus, 8 items tapping both negative and positive feelings and emotions were used, and participants were asked to rate their typically affective state after work on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = very slightly or not at all, 5 = extremely). A principal component analysis with varimax rotation was performed for men and for women to ensure that the items were organized into factors (KMO = 0.76, X 2 (28) = 522.76, p< 0.001; KMO = 0.83, X 2 (28) = 684.77, p< 0.001). All items had communalities higher than 0.50 and factor loadings higher than 0.40 on their respective factor. One dimension aggregated 5 items tapping negative affect (scared/shaky, nervous, angry, irritable, sad/downhearted, from the basic negative emotion scale), with a total explained variance of 35% for men and 42% for women. The second dimension combined 3 items (happy, joyful, and confident from the basic positive emotion scale) into a positive affect factor, explaining 27% and 29% of men and women shared variance, respectively. Reliability coefficients were high for both valences and for both genders: PA α = 0.79 (men) and 0.83 (women); NA α = 0.82 (men) and 0.88 (women). 3.2.4. Psychological Detachment We used the subscale of psychological detachment from work from the multidimensional Recovery Experience Questionnaire by Sonnentag and Fritz (2007), translated into Portuguese by Gonçalves (2015). The subscale is composed of four items answered on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = totally disagree, 5 = totally agree) and captures the individual’s ability to mentally disconnect from work during their free time and to abstain from workrelated activities. High reliability coefficients were found for both men ( α = 0.85) and women (α= 0.82). 3.3. Data Analysis IBM SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Sciences) version 28.1 was used to input missing values and to perform Pearson’s Correlations and paired samples t-Test for comparing means across men’s and women’s variables. The number of missing values ranged from 1 to 16, and thus, fewer than 5% of missing values were found. Little’s test (Little 1988) is a valuable tool for evaluating the nature of missing data within a dataset, distinguishing between missing completely at random (MCAR) and missing not at random (MNAR) patterns. In this study, Little’s test was employed to ascertain the underlying structure of missing values. The results of Little’s test (Little 1988) indicated that the missing values exhibited a pattern consistent with missing at random (MAR) conditions, with a significance level exceeding 0.05, granting more confidence to the use of data imputation. Because the scale used to address positive and negative affect was not previously validated with Portuguese participants, we performed an exploratory factor analysis with varimax rotation to establish the existence of two latent affect factors. In line with Costello and Osborne’s (2005) suggestions, items were expected to have communalities higher than 0.400 and saturation in the intended factor superior to 0.400. Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) test was used to determine if the data were suited for factor analysis. Furthermore, as Multiple Linear Regressions are sensitive to the existence of outliers, an inspection rendered 8 severe outliers who were excluded. Predictor variables (WFC, FSOP, and PD) were centered before the interaction term was calculated to avoid multicollinearity, and the independence of errors was verified by the Durbin–Watson test. The variable hours per week (HW) was included as a covariate in all models. A normal distribution of the residuals was ensured by using the bootstrap procedure. The assumption of homoscedasticity was ensured by asking for the estimation using the HC4 estimator as available in PROCESS, 4.1st macro version model 2 (Hayes 2013). The bootstrapped resampling procedure by randomly drawing 5000 samples and calculating the 95% bias-corrected bootstrapped confidence intervals allowed us to obtain more robust estimates (Hayes 2013). Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 68 8 of 19 Since all study variables were tested using self-reports, we performed a factor analysis to test for the threat of common method bias with Harman’s single-factor test (Podsakoff et al. 2003). The results indicate that more than one factor had an eigenvalue greater than 1, and therefore, the threat of common method bias is unlikely. Preventive actions of common method bias were also considered and included clear instructions and a pilot of the survey to prevent misinterpretations of scale items, use of varying scale response options and guaranteed anonymity to participants. 4. Results 4.1. Descriptive Results As shown in Tables 1and 2, a similar pattern of correlations across study variables was found for men and women. Regarding both genders, WFC reports are negatively correlated to FSOP and PA and positively correlated to NA. Both genders’ FSOP reports are negatively correlated to NA. Regarding PA, the pattern is different; men’s FSOP does not correlate with PA, but women’s FSOP has a positive correlation. Women’s PD is negatively linked to NA, but men’s PD is not associated with any other variable of the study. Reports on NA and PA are negatively correlated for both genders. Regarding covariates, HW was found to have a negative correlation with PA and a positive correlation with WFC but only in the case of men. Table 1. Mean and standard deviation by variable according to gender. Men Women Variable M SD M SD WFC 3.06 0.90 3.01 0.84 FSOP 3.07 0.44 3.23 0.46 PD 2.81 0.90 2.90 0.88 NA 1.61 0.62 1.75 0.70 PA 3.42 0.64 3.28 0.67 Note: WFC = work–family conflict; FSOP = family-supportive organizational perception; PD = psychological detachment; NA = negative affect; PA = positive affect. Table 2. Correlations for study variables disaggregated by gender. Variable HW WFC FSOP PD NA PA HW - 0.004 −0.041 −0.053 0.066 0.003 WFC 0.183 * - −0.301 ** −0.035 0.476 ** −0.309 ** FSOP −0.019 −248 ** - 0.064 −0.177 * 0.148 * PD −0.061 −0.107 −0.098 - −0.212 ** 0.017 NA −0.002 0.460 ** −0.146 * −0.114 - −0.291 ** PA −0.175 * −294 ** 0.051 −0.018 −313 ** - Note: The results for the female sample are shown above the diagonal. The results for the male sample are shown below the diagonal. WFC = work–family conflict; FSOP = family-supportive organizational perception; PD = psychological detachment; NA = negative affect; PA = positive affect. HW = hours per week. ** p< 0.01. *p< 0.05. The variables were also compared between genders, and we found significant differences in FSOP (t(202) = − 3.85, p< 0.001, d= − 0.27), PA (t(202) = 2.64, p= 0.01, d= 0.19), and NA (t(202) = − 2.77, p= 0.001, d= − 0.19). No gender differences were found for WFC (t(202) = 0.29, p= 0.77, d= 0.02) or PD (t(202) = − 0.95, p= 0.34, d= − 0.07). In particular, women perceive more organizational family support (women: M= 3.23, SD = 0.46; men: M= 3.07; SD = 0.44), more NA (women: M= 1.78, SD = 0.76; men: M= 1.62, SD = 0.65) and less PA (women: M= 3.23, SD = 0.72; men: M= 3.40, SD = 0.67). Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 68 15 of 19 Author Contributions: Conceptualization, M.M. and L.B.; methodology, M.M. and L.B.; data analyses, L.B.; validation, M.M.; data curation, M.M.; writing—original draft preparation, L.B.; writing— review and editing, M.M. and L.B.; supervision and project administration, M.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: Marisa Matias participation in this work is funded by the Center for Psychology at the University of Porto, Foundation for Science and Technology Portugal (FCT UIDB/00050/2020). Institutional Review Board Statement: All subjects gave their informed consent for inclusion before they participated in the study. The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and the protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of Psychology and Education Sciences of the University of Porto (Reference number 5-9/2015) and by the National Data Protection Commission (Deliberation nº681/2016). Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study. Data Availability Statement: Data supporting this paper can be requested from the contact author. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest. References Ahmad, Aftab, Amjad Hussain, Asif Mahmood, Ayyaz Ahmad, Amir Ikram, and Shaguffa Yasmin. 2021. Quantifying the consequences of perceived stress in the textile and clothing sector through structural equation modelling. Mathematical Problems in Engineering 2021: 5597111. [CrossRef] Aldao, Amelia, and Susan Nolen-Hoeksema. 2010. Specificity of cognitive emotion regulation strategies: A transdiagnostic examination. Behaviour Research and Therapy 48: 974–83. [CrossRef] Aldao, Amelia, Susan Nolen-Hoeksema, and Susanne Schweizer. 2010. Emotion-regulation strategies across psychopathology: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review 30: 217–37. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Allen, Tammy. 2001. Family-Supportive Work Environments: The role of organizational perceptions. Journal of Vocational Behavior 58: 414–35. [CrossRef] Allen, Tammy, and Kimberly French. 2023. Work-family research: A review and next steps. Personnel Psychology 76: 437–71. [CrossRef] Allen, Tammy, David Herst, Carly Bruck, and Martha Sutton. 2000. Consequences associated with work-to-family conflict: A review and agenda for future research. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 5: 278–308. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Allen, Tammy, Timothy Golden, and Kristen Shockley. 2015. How effective is telecommuting? assessing the status of our scientific findings. Psychological Science in the Public Interest 16: 40–68. [CrossRef] Amstad, Fabienne, and Norbert Semmer. 2009. Recovery and the work–family interface. In Research in Occupational Stress and Well-Being. Edited by Sabine Sonnentag, Pamela Perrewéand Daniel Ganster. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 7, pp. 125–66. [CrossRef] Amstad, Fabienne, Laurenz Meier, Ursula Fasel, Achim Elfering, and Norbert Semmer. 2011. A meta-analysis of work–family conflict and various outcomes with a special emphasis on cross-domain versus matching-domain relations. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 16: 151–69. [CrossRef] Ando, Agata, Luciano Giromini, Francesca Ales, and Alessandro Zennaro. 2020. A multimethod assessment to study the relationship between rumination and gender differences. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 61: 740–50. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Andrade, Cláudia. 2015. Trabalho e vida pessoal: Exigências, recursos e formas de conciliação. DEDiCA Revista de Educação e Humanidades (Dreh) 8: 117–30. [CrossRef] Aryee, Samuel, Esakki Srinivas, and Hwee Hoon Tan. 2005. Rhythms of life: Antecedents and outcomes of work-family balance in employed parents. Journal of Applied Psychology 90: 132. [CrossRef] Ashforth, Blake, Glen Kreiner, and Mel Fugate. 2000. All in a day’s work: Boundaries and micro role transitions. Academy of Management Review 25: 472–91. [CrossRef] Bakker, Arnold, and Evangelia Demerouti. 2007. The job demands-resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology 22: 309–28. [CrossRef] Bakker, Arnold, and Evangelia Demerouti. 2017. Job demands–resources theory: Taking stock and looking forward. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 22: 273–85. [CrossRef] Bakker, Arnold, Evangelia Demerouti, and Maureen Dollard. 2008. How job demands affect partners’ experience of exhaustion: Integrating work-family conflict and crossover theory. Journal of Applied Psychology 93: 901–11. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Bakker, Arnold, Jari Hakanen, Evangelia Demerouti, and Despoina Xanthopoulou. 2007. Job resources boost work engagement, particularly when job demands are high. Journal of Educational Psychology 99: 274–84. [CrossRef] Boswell, Wendy, and Julie Olson-Buchanan. 2007. The use of communication technologies after hours: The role of work attitudes and work-life conflict. Journal of Management 33: 592–610. [CrossRef] Buunk, Bram, and Vera Hoorens. 1992. Social support and stress: The role of social comparison and social exchange processes. British Journal of Clinical Psychology 31: 445–57. [CrossRef] Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 68 16 of 19 Byron, Kristin. 2005. A meta-analytic review of work–family conflict and its antecedents. Journal of Vocational Behavior 67: 169–98. [CrossRef] Calderwood, Charles, Andrew Bennett, Allison Gabriel, John Trougakos, and Jason Dahling. 2018. Too anxious to help? Off-job affective rumination as a linking mechanism between work anxiety and helping. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 91: 681–87. [CrossRef] Carlson, Dawn, Michele Kacmar, and Larry Williams. 2000. Construction and initial validation of a multidimensional measure of work–family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior 56: 249–76. [CrossRef] Cetin, Mehmet, Bayram Dede, Özgür Kökalan, and Ezgi Dede. 2021. A multilevel investigation of the effects of daily work–family interaction on daily affect during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Family Issues 43: 3299–320. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Chambel, Maria, and Marina Santos. 2009. Práticas de conciliação e satisfação no trabalho: Mediação da facilitação do trabalho na família. Estudos de Psicologia (Campinas) 26: 275–86. [CrossRef] Clark, Lee, and David Watson. 1986. Diurnal variation in mood: Interaction with daily events and personality. Paper presented at the Meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, USA. Clark, Lee, and David Watson. 1988. Mood and the mundane: Relations between daily life events and self-reported mood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 54: 296–308. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Clark, Sue. 2000. Work/family border theory: A new theory of work/family balance. Human Relations 53: 747–70. [CrossRef] Cooper, Car. 1998. Theories of Organizational Stress. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Costello, Anna, and Jason Osborne. 2005. Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment Research & Evaluation 10: 7. [CrossRef] Coyne, James, and Anita DeLongis. 1986. Going beyond social support: The role of social relationships in adaptation. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 54: 454–60. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Davis, Kelly, Judith Gere, and Martin Sliwinski. 2016. Investigating the work-family conflict and health link: Repetitive thought as a mechanism: Work-family conflict and repetitive thought. Stress and Health 33: 330–38. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Demerouti, Evangelia, Arnold Bakker, Friedhelm Nachreiner, and Wilmar Schaufeli. 2001. The job demands-resource model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology 86: 499–512. [CrossRef] Demsky, Caitlin, Allison Ellis, and Charlotte Fritz. 2014. Shrugging it off: Does psychological detachment from work mediate the relationship between workplace aggression and work-family conflict? Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 19: 195–205. [CrossRef] Demsky, Caitlin, Charlotte Fritz, Leslie Hammer, and Anne Black. 2019. Workplace incivility and employee sleep: The role of rumination and recovery experiences. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 24: 228–40. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Dettmers, Jan, Tim Vahle-Hinz, Eva Bamberg, Niklas Friedrich, and Monika Keller. 2016. Extended Work Availability and Its Relation with Start-of-Day Mood and Cortisol. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 21: 105–18. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Eby, Lillian, Charlene Maher, and Marcus Butts. 2010. The intersection of work and family life: The role of affect. Annual Review of Psychology 61: 599–622. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Eng, Wylie, Sarah Moore, Leon Grunberg, Edward Greenberg, and Pat Sikora. 2010. What influences work-family conflict? the function of work support and working from home. Current Psychology 29: 104–20. [CrossRef] Fisher, Jeffrey, Arie Nadler, and Sheryle Whitcher-Alagna. 1982. Recipient reactions to aid. Psychological Bulletin 91: 27–54. [CrossRef] Frazier, Patricia, Andrew Tix, and Kenneth Barron. 2004. Testing moderator and mediator effects in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology 51: 115. [CrossRef] Fredrickson, Barbara, and Robert Levenson. 1998. Positive emotions speed recovery from the cardiovascular sequelae of negative emotions. Cognition and Emotion 12: 191–220. [CrossRef] [PubMed] French, Kimberly, and Tammy Allen. 2020. Episodic work-family conflict and strain: A dynamic perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology 105: 863–88. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Fritz, Charlotte, Sabine Sonnentag, Paul Spector, and Jennifer McInroe. 2010. The weekend matters: Relationships between stress recovery and affective experiences. Journal of Organizational Behavior 31: 1137–62. [CrossRef] Frone, Michael, Marcia Russell, and Grace Barnes. 1996. Work-family conflict, gender, and health-related outcomes: A study of employed parents in two community samples. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 1: 57–69. [CrossRef] Galinha, Iolanda, Cícero Pereira, and Francisco Esteves. 2014. Versão reduzida da escala portuguesa de afeto positivo e negativoPANAS-VRP: Análise fatorial confirmatória e invariância temporal. Psicologia 28: 53–65. [CrossRef] George, Jennifer, Thomas Reed, Karen Ballard, Jessica Colin, and Jane Fielding. 1993. Contact with AIDS patients as a source of work-related distress: Effects of organizational and social support. Academy of Management Journal 36: 157–71. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Ghislieri, Chiara, Federica Emanuel, Monica Molino, Claudio Giovanni Cortese, and Lara Colombo. 2017. New technologies smart, or harm work-family boundaries management? Gender differences in conflict and enrichment using the JD-R theory. Frontiers in Psychology 8: 1070. [CrossRef] Gisler, Stefanie, Rachel Omansky, Paige Alenick, Alexandra Tumminia, Erin Eatough, and Ryan Johnson. 2018. Work-life conflict and employee health: A review. Journal of Applied Biobehavioral Research 23: e12157. [CrossRef] Golden, Timothy. 2021. Telework and the navigation of work-home boundaries. Organizational Dynamics 50: 100822. [CrossRef] Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 68 17 of 19 Gonçalves, Sandra. 2015. Tradução da Escala Recovey Experience Questionnaire. Unpublished work. Greenhaus, Jeffrey, and Gary Powell. 2006. When work and family are allies: A theory of work-family enrichment. Academy of Management Review 31: 72–92. [CrossRef] Greenhaus, Jeffrey, and Nicholas Beutell. 1985. Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Academy of Management Review 10: 76–88. [CrossRef] Greenhaus, Jeffrey, Tammy Allen, and Paul Spector. 2006. Health consequences of work-family conflict: The dark side of the work-family interface. In Employee Health, Coping and Methodologies. Bentley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Gross, James. 1998. The Emerging Field of Emotion Regulation: An Integrative Review. Review of General Psychology 2: 271–99. [CrossRef] Gryzwacz, Joseph, David Almeida, Shevaun Neupert, and Susan Ettner. 2004. Socioeconomic status and health: A micro-level analysis of exposure and vulnerability to daily stressors. Journal of Health and Social Behavior 45: 1–16. [CrossRef] Gu, Yuando, Ruimei Wang, and Xuqun You. 2020. Recovery experiences moderate the impact of work stressors on well-being: A two-wave study of preschool teachers. Early Childhood Education Journal 48: 189–202. [CrossRef] Hayes, Andrew. 2013. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis. New York: The Guilford Press. Hayes, Andrew. 2018. Partial, conditional, and moderated mediation: Quantification, inference, and interpretation. Communication Monographs 85: 4–40. [CrossRef] Hayton, James, Gianluca Carnabuci, and Robert Eisenberger. 2012. With a little help from my colleagues: A social embeddedness approach to perceived organizational support. Journal of Organizational Behavior 33: 235–49. [CrossRef] Hobfoll, Stevan. 1989. Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist 44: 513–24. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Hutchison, Steven, and Mary Garstka. 1996. Sources of perceived organizational support: Goal setting and feedback. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 26: 1351–66. [CrossRef] Ilies, Remus, Michael Johnson, Timothy Judge, and Jessica Keeney. 2011. A within-individual study of interpersonal conflict as a work stressor: Dispositional and situational moderators: Interpersonal conflict at work. Journal of Organizational Behavior 32: 44–64. [CrossRef] Judge, Timothy, Remus Ilies, and Bruce Scott. 2006. Work–family conflict and emotions: Effects at work and at home. Personnel Psychology 59: 779–814. [CrossRef] Kafetsios, Konstantinos. 2007. Work-Family Conflict and Its Relationship with Job Satisfaction and Psychological Distress: The Role of Affect at Work and Gender. Hellenic Journal of Psychology 4: 15–35. Kinnunen, Ulla, Sabine Geurts, and Saija Mauno. 2004. Work-to-family conflict and its relationship with satisfaction and well-being: A one-year longitudinal study on gender differences. Work & Stress 18: 1–22. Kossek, Ellen, Boris Baltes, and Russell Matthews. 2011a. How work–family research can finally have an impact in organizations. Industrial and Organizational Psychology 4: 352–69. [CrossRef] Kossek, Ellen, Raymond Noe, and Beverly DeMarr. 1999. Work-family role synthesis: Individual and organizational determinants. International Journal of Conflict Management 10: 102–29. [CrossRef] Kossek, Ellen, Shaun Pichler, Todd Bodner, and Leslie Hammer. 2011b. Workplace social support and work-family conflict: A metaanalysis clarifying the influence of general and work-family-specific supervisor and organizational support. Personnel Psychology 64: 289–313. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Kraft, Lorenz, Sebastian Brand, and Katajun Lindenberg. 2024. Hierarchical Taxonomy of Emotion Regulation (HiTOE), Tactic Flexibility, and the Need for Meta-Emotion-Regulation. Mainz: Institute for Psychology, Johannes Gutenberg University. [CrossRef] Little, Roderick. 1988. A test of missing completely at random for multivariate data with missing values. Journal of the American Statistical Association 83: 1198–202. [CrossRef] Matias, Marisa. 2019. Género e papéis de género no fenómeno da conciliação trabalho-família: Revisões concetuais e estudos empíricos. In Olhares Sobre a Psicologia Diferencial. Edited by Claudia Andrade, Susana Coimbra, Marisa Matias, Luisa Faria, Jorge Gato and Cristina Antunes. Porto: Mais Leituras, pp. 141–62. Matias, Marisa, and Anne-Marie Fontaine. 2012. Can we have it all? The work–family coping profiles of dual-earners. Family Science 3: 255–65. [CrossRef] Matias, Marisa, and Anne-Marie Fontaine. 2015. Coping with work and family: How do dual-earners interact? Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 56: 212–22. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Mauno, Saija, Ulla Kinnunen, and Mervi Ruokolainen. 2007. Exploring workand organization-based resources as moderators between work–family conflict, well-being, and job attitudes. Work & Stress 20: 210–33. [CrossRef] Moreno-Jiménez, Bernardo, Margarita Mayo, Ana Sanz-Vergel, Sabine Geurts, Alfredo Rodríguez-Muñoz, and Eva Garrosa. 2009. Effects of work–family conflict on employees’ well-being: The moderating role of recovery strategies. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 14: 427–40. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Netemeyer, Richard, James Boles, and Robert McMurrian. 1996. Development and validation of work-family conflict and family-work conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology 81: 400–10. [CrossRef] Nsair, Viva, and Matthew Piszczek. 2021. Gender matters: The effects of gender and segmentation preferences on work-to-family conflict in family sacrifice climates. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 94: 509–30. [CrossRef] Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 68 18 of 19 Obrenovic, Bojan, Du Jianguo, Akmal Khudaykulov, and Muhammad Aamir Shafique Khan. 2020. Work-family conflict impact on psychological safety and psychological well-being: A job performance model. Frontiers in Psychology 11: 475. [CrossRef] Ortiz-Isabeles, Cristian, and César García-Avitia. 2022. Organizational support perceived in mexican workers in the service sector. Interdisciplinaria 39: 285–97. [CrossRef] Peeters, Maria, Bram Buunk, and Wilmar Shaufeli. 1995. Social interactions, stressful events and negative affect at work: A microanalytic approach. European Journal of Social Psychology 25: 391–401. [CrossRef] Perista, Heloísa, Ana Cardoso, Ana Brázia, Manuel Abrantes, and Pedro Perista. 2016. Os Usos do Tempo de Homens e de Mulheres em Portugal [Time Usage by Men and Women in Portugal]. São Domingos de Rana: Centro de Estudos para a Intervenção Social. Pico, Aaron, Joaquim Taverner, Emilio Vivancos, Vicente Botti, and Ana García-Fornes. 2024. Towards an Affective Intelligent Agent Model for Extrinsic Emotion Regulation. Systems 12: 77. [CrossRef] Podsakoff, Philip, Scott MacKenzie, Jeong-Yeon Lee, and Nathan Podsakoff. 2003. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical view of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology 88: 879–903. [CrossRef] Rothbard, Nancy. 2001. Enriching or depleting? The dynamics of engagement in work and family roles. Administrative Science Quarterly 46: 655–84. [CrossRef] Safstrom, My, and Terry Hartig. 2013. Psychological detachment in the relationship between job stressors and strain. Behavioral Sciences 3: 418–33. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Salanova, Marisa, Arnold Bakker, and Susana Llorens. 2006. Flow at work: Evidence for an upward spiral of personal and organizational resources. Journal of Happiness Studies 7: 1–22. [CrossRef] Sandrin, Emilie, Alexandre Morin, Claude Morin, and Nicolas Gillet. 2020. A longitudinal person-centered perspective on positive and negative affect at work. The Journal of Psychology 154: 499–532. [CrossRef] Sanz-Vergel, Ana, Evangelia Demerouti, Arnold Bakker, and Bernardo Moreno-Jiménez. 2011. Daily detachment from work and home: The moderating effect of role salience. Human Relations 64: 775–99. [CrossRef] Schoebi, Dominik, Baldwin Way, Benjamin Karney, and Thomas Bradbury. 2012. Genetic moderation of sensitivity to positive and negative affect in marriage. Emotion 12: 208–12. [CrossRef] Sonnentag, Sabine. 2012. Psychological detachment from work during leisure time: The benefits of mentally disengaging from work. Current Directions in Psychological Science 21: 114–18. [CrossRef] Sonnentag, Sabine, and Charlotte Fritz. 2007. The recovery experience questionnaire: Development and validation of a measure for assessing recuperation and unwinding from work. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 12: 204–21. [CrossRef] Sonnentag, Sabine, and Ute-Vera Bayer. 2005. Switching off mentally: Predictors and consequences of psychological detachment from work during off-job time. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 10: 393–414. [CrossRef] Sonnentag, Sabine, Eva Mojza, Carmen Binnewies, and Annika Scholl. 2008. Being engaged at work and detached at home: A week-level study on work engagement, psychological detachment, and affect. Work & Stress 22: 257–76. [CrossRef] Speights, Sabrina, Reneel Cowan, and Jaime Bochantin. 2020. Feeling, expressing, and managing emotions in work-family conflict. Journal of Business and Psychology 35: 363–80. [CrossRef] Stewart, Miriam. 1989. Social support: Diverse theoretical perspectives. Social Science & Medicine 28: 1275–82. [CrossRef] Tessler, Richard, and David Mechanic. 1978. Psychological distress and perceived health status. Journal of Health and Social Behavior 19: 254–62. [CrossRef] [PubMed] van Veldhoven, Marc, Toon Taris, Jan de Jonge, and Sjaak Broersen. 2005. The relationship between work characteristics and employee health and well-being: How much complexity do we really need? International Journal of Stress Management 12: 3–28. [CrossRef] Verzeletti, Chiara, Vanda Zammuner, Crisitna Galli, and Sergio Agnoli. 2016. Emotion regulation strategies and psychosocial well-being in adolescence. Cogent Psychology 3: 1199294. [CrossRef] Vieira, Joana, Frederick Lopez, and Paula Matos. 2014. Further validation of work–family conflict and work–family enrichment scales among portuguese working parents. Journal of Career Assessment 22: 329–44. [CrossRef] Voydanoff, Patricia. 2004. Implications of work and community demands and resources for work-to-family conflict and facilitation. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 9: 275. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Walsh, Sue, and Maggie Cormack. 1994. ‘Do as we say but not as we do’: Organizational, professional and personal barriers to the receipt of support at work. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy 1: 101–10. [CrossRef] Warr, Peter, Joanna Barter, and Gary Brownbridge. 1983. On the independence of positive and negative affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 44: 644–51. [CrossRef] Watson, David. 1988. Intraindividual and interindividual analyses of positive and negative affect: Their relation to health complaints, perceived stress, and daily activities. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 54: 1020–30. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Watson, David, and Auke Tellegen. 1985. Toward a consensual structure of mood. Psychological Bulletin 98: 219–35. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Watson, David, and Lee Clark. 1994. The PANAS-X: Manual for the positive and negative affect schedule-expanded form. Psychology Publications. [CrossRef] Watson, David, David Wiese, Jatin Vaidya, and Auke Tellegen. 1999. The two general activation systems of affect: Structural findings, evolutionary considerations, and psychobiological evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 76: 820–38. [CrossRef] Watson, David, Lee Clark, and Auke Tellegen. 1988. Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 54: 1063–70. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 68 19 of 19 Weiss, Howard, and Russell Cropanzano. 1996. Affective events theory. Research in Organizational Behavior 18: 1–74. Zijlstra, Fred, and Sabine Sonnentag. 2006. After work is done: Psychological perspectives on recovery from work. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 15: 129–38. [CrossRef] Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.