Content uploaded by Lieke L ten Brummelhuis
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Lieke L ten Brummelhuis
Content may be subject to copyright.
American Psychologist
!"#$%&'()$"*$(%+$),-.$"&/",0$"1&(234&5$"6/,$(78)$9":0$
1&(2;4&5$"#$%&'()$%"<&=$>
!"#$#%!&%'#(%)*+,,#-.+"/%0(1%2*(3-1%)&%)0$$#*
4(-"(#%5"*/'%6+7-"80'"3(9%2:*"-%;<9%=>;=&%13"?%;>&;>@AB0>>=ACAD
EFG2GF4H
'#(%)*+,,#-.+"/9%!&%!&9%I%)0$$#*9%2&%)&%J=>;=9%2:*"-%;<K&%2%L#/3+*8#%6#*/:#8'"M#%3(%'.#
N3*$OP3,#%F('#*Q08#?%G.#%N3*$RP3,#%L#/3+*8#/%S31#-&%!"#$%&'()*+,&-./.0%+1&%21M0(8#
3(-"(#%:+7-"80'"3(&%13"?%;>&;>@AB0>>=ACAD
A Resource Perspective on the Work–Home Interface
The Work–Home Resources Model
Lieke L. ten Brummelhuis Erasmus University Rotterdam, University of
Pennsylvania, and Drexel University
Arnold B. Bakker Erasmus University Rotterdam
The objective of this article is to provide a theoretical
framework explaining positive and negative work– home
processes integrally. Using insights from conservation of
resources theory, we explain how personal resources (e.g.,
time, energy, and mood) link demanding and resourceful
aspects of one domain to outcomes in the other domain.
The resulting work– home resources (W-HR) model de-
scribes work– home conflict as a process whereby demands
in one domain deplete personal resources and impede
accomplishments in the other domain. Enrichment is de-
scribed as a process of resource accumulation: Work and
home resources increase personal resources. Those per-
sonal resources, in turn, can be utilized to improve home
and work outcomes. Moreover, our resource approach to
the work– home interface allows us to address two other
issues that have thus far lacked a solid theoretical
foundation. The W-HR model also explains how condi-
tional factors such as personality and culture may in-
fluence the occurrence of work– home conflict and en-
richment. Furthermore, the model allows us to examine
how work– home conflict and enrichment develop over
time. Finally, the model provides useful insights for
other psychology subdisciplines, such as gender studies
and developmental psychology.
Keywords: conservation of resources theory, personal re-
sources, work–family conflict, work–family enrichment,
work–family spillover
As the majority of today’s workforce combines
work and family responsibilities, the interest in
the impact that work–family issues have on em-
ployees, family members, organizations, and society is ever
increasing (Barnett & Hyde, 2001; Spector et al., 2004).
More knowledge about the effects of work on the home
domain (and vice versa) seems to be vital for families who
are in search of work–life balance, as well as organizations
struggling with the 24-hour economy and the lack of flex-
ible, employable employees. The adverse consequences of
combining dual roles have been widely demonstrated. Such
consequences include time pressure, role conflict, burnout,
and impaired health (for an overview, see Eby, Casper,
Lockwood, Bordeaux, & Brinley, 2005). More recently,
however, attention to the possible advantages of participat-
ing in both the family and work domains has been growing
(Wayne, Grzywacz, Carlson, & Kacmar, 2007). Research-
ers have identified several benefits of occupying dual roles,
including an increase in skill and fulfillment levels that
facilitate performance in both roles (Graves, Ohlott, & Rud-
erman, 2007; Ruderman, Ohlott, Panzer, & King, 2002).
The focus in the work–family literature has therefore
shifted from perceiving the combination of work and fam-
ily roles as problematic and as resulting in conflict (Green-
haus & Beutell, 1985) to perceiving work and family roles
as, possibly, mutually enriching (Greenhaus & Powell,
2006). Although both perspectives add to the understand-
ing of the possible pros and cons of combining these roles,
a strong conceptual framework capable of explaining the
depleting and enriching relationships between work and
family integrally is, thus far, lacking (Greenhaus, 2008;
Weer, Greenhaus, & Linnehan, 2010). In particular, work–
family research has been unable to address three compel-
ling questions (Greenhaus, 2008; Ilies et al., 2007; Weer et
al., 2010).
First, a major challenge in the work–family research
field is to identify clearly the causal process at work in the
relationship between work and family. Most research ad-
dresses concepts such as work–family conflict (Greenhaus
& Beutell, 1985), spillover (Grzywacz & Marks, 2000),
interference (Graves et al., 2007), facilitation (Wayne et al.,
2007), enhancement (Graves et al., 2007), and enrichment
(Carlson, Kacmar, Wayne, & Grzywacz, 2006). These con-
cepts generally suggest that work and family interfere with
each other but leave unanswered the question of which
factors cause what outcomes.
Second, because empirical studies report both work–
family conflict (Eby et al., 2005) and work–family enrich-
ment (e.g., Graves et al., 2007), the following question
arises: When is enrichment and when is conflict most likely
to occur? Some have suggested that personality plays an
Lieke L. ten Brummelhuis, Department of Work & Organizational Psy-
chology, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands;
Wharton School of Business, University of Pennsylvania; and LeBow
College of Business, Drexel University; Arnold B. Bakker, Department of
Work & Organizational Psychology, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rot-
terdam, The Netherlands.
We thank Jeffrey Greenhaus and Mina Westman for their construc-
tive comments on an earlier version of this article.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Lieke
L. ten Brummelhuis, The Wharton School, 3620 Locust Walk, Suite 2000
SHDH, Philadelphia, PA 19104. E-mail: lieke@wharton.upenn.edu
12012 ●American Psychologist
© 2012 American Psychological Association 0003-066X/12/$12.00
Vol. ●●, No. ●, 000– 000 DOI: 10.1037/a0027974
important role in explaining why some persons seem to
experience more work– home enrichment than others
(Greenhaus & Powell, 2006; Grzywacz & Marks, 2000).
Others have underscored that macro factors, such as
cultural values and a country’s economic prosperity,
may influence when conflict and enrichment are most
likely to occur (Lambert, 1999; Spector et al., 2004).
Nevertheless, conceptual work–family models that take
into account these conditional factors are, thus far,
scarce (Spector et al., 2004).
Third, the temporal aspect has been largely ignored in
previous work–family research (Demerouti, Bakker, &
Bulters, 2004). Because most research has been based on
cross-sectional data, we still do not know how the pro-
cesses of enrichment and conflict develop over time. It is
conceivable that we can distinguish between short- and
long-term processes. For instance, mood spillover presum-
ably reflects daily interference in the relationship between
work and family (Edwards & Rothbard, 2000; Ilies et al.,
2007), whereas applying communication skills at work that
were learned at home possibly reflects a longer term pro-
cess (ten Brummelhuis, van der Lippe, & Kluwer, 2010).
The often-voiced call in the literature for longitudinal
work–family studies has, however, rarely been answered
(Ilies et al., 2007; Greenhaus, 2008).
The gaps in the work–family literature may be summa-
rized by the following questions: (a) What are the causal
processes behind work–family conflict and enrichment?
(b) Is work–family enrichment or conflict more likely
under certain macro conditions and among employees
with certain personality traits? and (c) How do work–
home processes develop over time?
Our aim is to build a theoretical framework that pro-
vides more insight into what happens when work and home
roles conflict with, or enrich, each other. We adopt a
process approach that distinguishes among causes, linking
mechanisms, and consequences. Before unfolding our
model, we provide a short overview of previous theoretical
approaches to the work– home interface. This overview
shows which adjustments could further the theoretical
thinking in the work–family research field. We refer to the
“home domain” instead of the “family” because the former
label embraces the various life roles that employees might
possess beyond their work roles (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006).
The term work–home is used for bidirectional processes be-
tween work and home, whereas the terms work-to-home and
home-to-work denote unidirectional processes.
Theories on the Work–Home Interface
Previous Work–Family Models
For years, the work–family literature has been dominated
by models based on role theory (Pleck, 1977). The basic
notion of these models is that employees have limited
resources, such as time and energy, for fulfilling roles.
Demands or stressors in one domain then make it difficult
to meet the demands in the other domain, creating work–
family conflict and strain (Frone, Russell, & Cooper, 1992;
Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). Critics have questioned the
idea that work and family always are competitors and have
instead underscored the possible benefits of occupying dual
roles (e.g., Barnett & Hyde, 2001). Apart from this criti-
cism, the conflict approach does not clearly identify the
causal processes that link the work and home domains
(Grandey & Cropanzano, 1999). Measures of work–family
conflict indicate that dual roles are incompatible in some
respects, but they do not reveal which factors in one do-
main make family (or work) functioning more difficult.
Enrichment models (e.g., Barnett & Hyde, 2001;
Greenhaus & Powell, 2006) provide more insight into the
beneficial linkage between the work and family domains.
Gains in resources, such as skills, social support, and
self-esteem, are used to explain why experiences in one
role may improve the quality of life in the other role
(Greenhaus & Powell, 2006; Wayne et al., 2007). How-
ever, these resource models are limited to the concept of
enrichment and do not answer why sometimes one domain
negatively interferes with the other domain. Moreover,
both the conflict and the enrichment perspectives neglect
systems beyond the work and family domains, such as
ecology, culture, and personality, that are likely to affect
work– home processes (Parasuraman & Greenhaus, 2002).
A third group of researchers (Hill, 2005; Voydanoff,
2002) conceptualized the work–family interface as a me-
sosystem, using Bronfenbrenner’s (1994) ecological sys-
tems theory. Ecological systems theory aims to explain
human development by mapping the interaction between
the individual and the several systems surrounding the
individual. Microsystems are used to describe interpersonal
relationships and social roles that enable individuals to
interact with the social context. Mesosystems are conglom-
erates of two microsystems, including the linkage between
those two domains. Other systems described by Bronfen-
Lieke L. ten
Brummelhuis
Photo by Joseph Andris
22012 ●American Psychologist
brenner are exosystems (a domain that is indirectly linked
to the individual), macrosystems (cultural values, climate,
economic prosperity), and chronosystems (development
over time, life stage, history). If one uses a system ap-
proach, the work–family interface can be seen as a meso-
system consisting of the work and home microsystems,
which are interrelated. Ecological systems theory sheds a
realistic light on the work– home interface by taking into
account macro factors and developments over time. How-
ever, this perspective is less clear in its descriptions of
system linkages, thereby leaving unanswered how two mi-
crosystems affect each other.
In sum, each of the theoretical work– home perspec-
tives discussed has its advantages, but none of them draws
an integral and detailed picture of the work– home inter-
face. Therefore, we propose a model that combines these
insights. The proposed work– home resources (W-HR)
model integrates conflicting and enriching work– home
processes and unravels the linking mechanisms while tak-
ing into account conditional factors and developments over
time. As explained below, conservation of resources theory
(COR; Hobfoll, 1989, 2002) offers a useful theoretical
foundation for building our W-HR model.
COR Theory
COR theory (Hobfoll, 1989, 2002) is, arguably, one of the
most influential theories explaining human stress and well-
being. COR theory describes how people react to the stres-
sors they encounter in their environment and how those
encounters influence their well-being. The first assumption
of COR theory is that people attempt to obtain, retain, and
protect resources and that stress occurs when they risk
losing, or actually lose, such resources (Hobfoll, 2002).
Resources are defined as those objects (e.g., a house),
personal characteristics (e.g., optimism), conditions (e.g.,
marriage), or energies (e.g., time, money, or physical en-
ergy) that are valued by the individual or serve as a means
for the attainment of these objects, personal characteristics,
conditions, or energies. The first assumption presupposes a
process in which people expend resources to address the
presence of a stressor. If coping is unsuccessful, or if many
resources must be invested, stress will develop (Hobfoll,
2002). For illustrative purposes, imagine an employee who
is asked to finish a very important but difficult task. This
particular work demand becomes a stressor if the employee
knows that she or he will be fired in case of failure. Thus,
the resource of employment is threatened. To avoid being
fired, the employee expends effort to deal successfully with
the task. Several other resources are now also used, includ-
ing time, cognitive energy, and physical energy. Stress may
result when those energy resources are depleted. Moreover,
if this effort does not lead to the successful task accom-
plishment and, consequently, the employee loses his or her
job, severe stress is likely to result.
The second central assumption of COR theory is
that resources can generate new resources. Hobfoll
(2002) described this phenomenon as “resource cara-
vans,” meaning that resources come in bundles. In the
absence of stressors, people strive to obtain more re-
sources. This activity creates buffers for more difficult
times and increases well-being because additional re-
sources per se are valued. Also, people may utilize the
resources they already possess to gain more resources
(Hobfoll, 2002). For instance, an entrepreneur who has a
well-developed social network may be more likely to
acquire lucrative assignments. Once obtained, resources
appear to create a gain spiral, in which resources accu-
mulate. This concept of a gain spiral is clarified by three
other assumptions of COR theory. Individuals who pos-
sess more resources are more likely to avoid problematic
situations, allowing them to invest in gaining more re-
sources instead of being forced to invest to prevent the
loss of resources (Assumption 3). In addition, if people
who possess resources do encounter stressful situations,
then they are better equipped to deal with stressors
(Assumption 4). Finally, people with more resources are
less negatively affected when they face resource drains
because they possess substitute resources (Assumption
5). The gain spiral of resources is also reflected in the
sixth and seventh assumptions of COR theory, namely,
that the influence of resources tends to hold across time
and different circumstances (Assumption 6), and that
resources are valued in their own right and those who
possess resources are viewed more favorably by both
others and themselves (Assumption 7). The creation of
new resources from existing resources constitutes an
ongoing cycle.
To recapitulate, the seven assumptions of COR theory
reflect two main processes: The first is a loss spiral, in
which stress develops and resources further deplete, and
the other is a gain spiral, in which resources accumulate
(Hobfoll, 1989, 2002).
Arnold B.
Bakker
32012 ●American Psychologist
Types of Resources
Because resources play a central role in COR theory, it is
useful to examine more closely, and distinguish among, the
different types of resources. The first dimension along
which resources can be categorized is the source, or origin,
of the resource. Hobfoll (2002) distinguished between con-
textual resources and personal resources. Contextual re-
sources are located outside the self and can be found in the
social contexts of the individual. Examples are a home,
marriage, or the social support offered by a supervisor at
work. Personal resources are proximate to the self and
include personal traits and energies (Hobfoll, 2002). This
distinction helps us understand how employees can utilize
resources in their environment to achieve other purposes.
For example, job autonomy (a contextual resource) can be
used to schedule work in an efficient manner, thus saving
time (a personal resource). Additional time can, in turn, be
invested in other activities, such as leisure, work, or family.
As a result, other contextual resources can be gained (e.g.,
a good marriage).
The second dimension that categorizes types of re-
sources is the extent to which resources are transient. On
one end of this spectrum are volatile resources. Those
resources are either fleeting in that, once they are used, they
cannot be used for other purposes (e.g., time or physical
energy) or they are temporal, such as mood or attention
(which reflect psychological states that come and go).
Structural resources compose the other end of the spec-
trum. Structural resources are more durable assets because
they can be used more than once and last for a longer
period of time. Examples are a house or a social network
that is stable and continues over time. The conceptualiza-
tion of resources along a spectrum of more structural to
more volatile helps us understand the gain spiral of re-
sources. Because structural resources are more stable and
last over time, they can be used more than once to deal with
stressful circumstances.
Third, we mention key resources as a specific subtype
that has been identified in resource theory (Hobfoll, 2002).
Key resources refer to management resources that facilitate
the selection, alteration, and implementation of other re-
sources (Thoits, 1994). They represent several personality
traits that enable a more active and efficient coping style
(Hobfoll, 2002). Examples are optimism (Scheier &
Carver, 1992) and intensity of goal pursuit (Brandtsta¨dter
& Renner, 1990). Social power and status fall under key
resources as well, as they facilitate the mobilization of
other resources, and they make the use of other resources
more effective (Mann, 1986). For instance, participation in
decision making is more likely to lead to the preferred
outcomes for those who occupy a high-status position. The
concept of key resources helps us understand how people
deal with stressors and how other resources are utilized.
For instance, individuals with a more optimistic personality
and high self-esteem (key resources) are more likely to
begin a difficult task and are more likely actively to seek
support for completing their tasks (Hardre´, 2003).
Finally, on the basis of Bronfenbrenner’s (1994) eco-
logical systems theory, we add another category: macro
resources. Macro resources refer to characteristics of the
larger economic, social, and cultural system in which a
person is embedded. Macro resources determine the extent
to which individuals need to call upon resources that are
more directly in their reach and the extent to which other
resources can be used effectively. For example, the pres-
ence of public child care enables both spouses to participate
in the labor market and makes it unnecessary to search for
private day care.
A typology of resources, created by combining the
two dimensions, key resources and macro resources, is
summarized in Figure 1. This categorization encloses the
four types of resources that Hobfoll (1989, 2002) included
in his definition of resources. Objects and conditions are
positioned in the upper left quadrant because they are durable
resources found in social contexts. Energies are placed in
the lower right quadrant, reflecting the fact that they are
highly volatile resources inherent in a person. The lower
left quadrant is represented by volatile resources that are
offered by others. This category is labeled “social support”
because it refers to the instrumental, informational, emo-
tional, and appraisal support provided by significant others
(House, 1981). Such resources are found in the social
context but are more transient than conditions (e.g., mar-
riage) and objects. Structural personal resources can be
found in the upper right quadrant. We labeled those “con-
structive resources,” such as skills, health, knowledge, per-
spectives, and experiences.
Key resources are positioned on a higher level, above
other personal resources, because they are stable personal-
ity traits. Key resources are thus different from other per-
sonal traits, such as skills and knowledge, because the latter
are less stable and less inherent to a person than are key
resources—for example, knowledge can be transferred
more easily than can optimism. In a similar vein, macro
resources are positioned slightly above the “objects/condi-
tions” box, because macro resources are more stable than
other contextual resources and not under the employee’s
direct control.
As we argue below, the source axis (contextual–per-
sonal) is useful for explaining how resources present in one
domain can have an effect on another domain (Question 1),
while the transience axis (structural–volatile) helps us un-
derstand how those processes develop over time (Question
3). Key and macro resources shed more light on the ques-
tion of the conditions under which work– home conflict and
work– home enrichment are most likely (Question 2).
The Work–Home Resources Model
Work–Home Conflict and Enrichment as
Processes
The general loss and gain processes described by COR
theory can be applied to more specific domains, such as the
work– home interface. Stressors help explain how conflict
starts between two domains. When related to a specific
social context (e.g., work or home), stressors can also be
42012 ●American Psychologist
defined more specifically as contextual demands, refer-
ring to physical, emotional, social, or organizational
aspects of the social context that require sustained phys-
ical and/or mental effort (Demerouti, Bakker, Nach-
reiner, & Schaufeli, 2001; Peeters, Montgomery, Bak-
ker, & Schaufeli, 2005). Work– home conflict then
reflects a process whereby demands in one domain de-
plete personal resources, resulting in diminished out-
comes in the other domain.
Contextual resources, in contrast, seem to be the start-
ing point for enriching work– home processes. In line with
the idea of a gain spiral, resources can produce other
resources. Work– home enrichment may be understood as
the process whereby contextual resources from the home
and work domains lead to the development of personal
resources. The personal resources developed in each do-
main subsequently facilitate performance in the other do-
main. For example, emotional support from the spouse (a
contextual resource) may lead to a positive mood and
enhanced self-esteem. Those personal resources may, in
turn, be used at work, leading to a vigorous and resilient
work attitude or even improved work performance (Green-
haus & Powell, 2006; Rothbard, 2001; Ruderman, Ohlott,
Panzer, & King, 2002). Thus, whereas contextual demands
and resources are the causes of, respectively, conflict and
enrichment, personal resources are the linking pins be-
tween the work and home domains. We are now able to
propose an answer to our first question: What occurs when
the work and home domains conflict with, versus enrich,
each other?
Proposition 1. Contextual work demands di-
minish home outcomes through a loss in personal resources
(work-to-home conflict).
Proposition 2. Contextual work resources im-
prove home outcomes through a gain in personal resources
(work-to-home enrichment).
Proposition 3. Contextual home demands di-
minish work outcomes through a loss in personal resources
(home-to-work conflict).
Proposition 4. Contextual home resources im-
prove work outcomes through a gain in personal resources
(home-to-work enrichment).
Figure 2 depicts the work– home resources model that
results from an application of COR theory to the work–
home interface. Here we clarify each component in more
detail. Contextual demands, either from the work or the
home domain, are commonly categorized into quantitative
demands (overload), emotional demands, physical demands,
and cognitive demands (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007;
Peeters et al., 2005). Overload occurs when one needs to
Figure 1
Categorization of Resources
CONTEXTUAL PERSONAL
STRUCTURAL VOLATILE
SOURCE
TRANSIENCE
OBJECTS/
CONDITIONS
•Marriage
•Employment
•Home
•Social network
SOCIAL SUPPORT
•Affect, Love
•Advice
•Respect
•Instrumental help from
signi!icant others
CONSTRUCTIVE
RESOURCES
•Skills
•Knowledge
•Experience
•Mental resilience
•Health
ENGERGIES
•Mood
•Physical energy
•Cognitive energy
•Attention
•Time
KEY RESOURCES
•Self-ef!icacy
•Self-esteem
•Optimism
•Social power
MACRO RESOURCES
•Culture
•Social equality
•Wealth
•Public policies
52012 ●American Psychologist
perform many tasks at a high pace. At work, this may entail
meeting a deadline, whereas an example from the home
domain is household tasks that need to be completed in a
hurry. Emotional demands are issues that touch the indi-
vidual personally and are emotionally draining (spousal
conflicts, sexual harassment at work). Physical demands
refer to tasks that require physical effort, whereas cognitive
demands are tasks that require a lot of concentration, such
as multitasking at work or coordinating household tasks
(Demerouti et al., 2001; Peeters et al., 2005).
Several contextual resources have been identified in
previous research, particularly in the work domain (Bakker
& Demerouti, 2007; Demerouti et al., 2001). However,
contextual resources can be found in the home domain as
well (Peeters et al., 2005). Social support refers to either
practical or emotional aid from significant others (e.g.,
co-workers, family members). Autonomy means that the
individual can decide how and when tasks are performed.
Other common contextual resources are opportunities for
development and performance feedback (Demerouti et al.,
2001; van Daalen, Willemsen, & Sanders, 2006).
Various personal resources have been mentioned in
the work–family literature (e.g., Carlson et al., 2006; Ed-
wards & Rothbard, 2000; Graves et al, 2007; Greenhaus &
Beutell, 1985; Greenhaus & Powell, 2006; Grzywacz &
Marks, 2000; Rothbard, 2001; Ruderman et al., 2002),
including physical, psychological, intellectual, affective,
and capital resources. Physical resources include physical
energy and health. Intellectual resources refer to knowl-
edge, skills, and experiences that help employees discharge
their tasks. Affective resources include positive emotions,
such as an optimistic mood and feelings of fulfillment.
Capital resources are instrumental resources that facilitate
role performance, such as money and time. Psychological
resources are tools that help people deal actively and effi-
ciently with tasks, such as focus and attention.
Outcomes can be distinguished as production, behav-
ioral, and attitudinal outcomes (Cohen & Bailey, 1997).
Production outcomes at work refer to the efficient and
effective creation of products and services. Examples of
work production outcomes are efficiency, product quality,
and meeting targets. In the home domain, examples of
production outcomes are efficient performance of house-
hold chores, high quality of care for family members, and
realizing leisure targets (e.g., running a marathon). Behav-
ioral work outcomes describe the individual’s behavior that
indirectly influences more tangible work outcomes, such as
levels of absenteeism, employee turnover, and safety. At
home, examples of behavioral outcomes are availability for
family members, accountability, and the provision of a
secure home environment. Attitudinal work outcomes refer
to beliefs and feelings that are valued by the employee and
the employer, such as job satisfaction, organizational com-
mitment, trust in management, and work-related well-being
(e.g., work engagement or low feelings of burnout). In the
home domain, attitudinal outcomes include, for example,
family satisfaction, good relationships with family mem-
bers and friends, family commitment, home-related happi-
ness, and home- related well-being (e.g., low feelings of
stress).
Table 1 provides an overview of the model’s compo-
nents and specific examples of them.
The Role of Key and Macro Resources in
Conflict and Enrichment
Our second question concerns which conditions make
work– home conflict and enrichment more, or instead less,
likely. We distinguish between conditional factors that are
characteristics of the person (key resources) and the context
in which he or she is living (macro resources). Key re-
sources provide an explanation for why some people are
better than others in coping with stressful circumstances
and in collecting new resources. People who possess more
of those resources (e.g., optimism, self-efficacy, social
power) are better at problem solving and at coping with
stress. For instance, ten Brummelhuis, ter Hoeven, Bakker,
Figure 2
The Work–Home Resources Model
+
+
+
−
+
−
WORK DEMANDS
WORK RESOURCES
WORK OUTCOMES
PERSONAL
RESOURCES
HOME RESOURCES
HOME DEMANDS
HOME OUTCOMES
WORK DOMAIN INDIVIDUAL HOME DOMAIN
HOME -TO -WORK PROCESS
WORK -TO -HOME PROCESS
62012 ●American Psychologist
and Peper (2011) found that intrinsically motivated em-
ployees had a more active coping style when confronted
with work stress, which led them to collect more job
resources to deal with stressors. Likewise, persons high in
social power may prevent harmful effects of contextual
demands, for example, when a senior consultant has the
power to postpone an important deadline. Furthermore,
people with key resources are more likely to optimally
utilize their contextual resources. For example, persons
high in conscientiousness are generally well-organized,
goal oriented, and hardworking (McCrae & Costa, 1986).
Those persons may then use job autonomy to plan activities
more efficiently, thereby saving time that they can use for
other (nonwork) purposes.
Macro resources depict macro level facilitators that
surround the work–family interface, such as general wealth
conditions, public policies, presence of labor unions, cul-
tural values, and social equality (e.g., absence of racism).
Subsidized public child care may enable dual earner cou-
ples to combine work and family life in the first place.
Also, in wealthy countries, the economic necessity for both
partners to work is lower, and a larger number of workers
have high-status jobs. In those countries, employees may
derive more resources (e.g., fulfillment) from their jobs,
while they have sufficient buffers to cope with work stress
(Lambert, 1999). Cultural values have also been shown to
moderate work–family processes (Spector et al., 2004). For
instance, in collectivist countries, employees perceive long
work hours less as a stressor because it is considered as a
worthwhile means to the valued goal of maintaining the
family (Spector et al., 2004). As another example, unlike
societies in which racism is common, societies that treat
social groups equally enable all individuals to actually use
several contextual resources (e.g., participation in decision
making at work).
In short, key and macro resources seem to be conditional
factors that prevent and attenuate work–home conflict while
simultaneously fostering work–home enrichment.
Proposition 5. Work–home conflict is less likely
among persons with key and macro resources because key and
macro resources attenuate the negative relationship between
contextual demands and personal resources.
Proposition 6. Work–home enrichment is more
likely among persons with key and macro resources because
key and macro resources strengthen the positive relationship
between contextual resources and personal resources.
Figure 3 depicts the moderating effects of key and
macro resources in the work– home resources model.
Short-Term and Long-Term Processes
Hobfoll (2002) mentioned that stressors and the resulting
strain may be temporal or may instead have a more chronic
character. If stressors are chronic, one risks ending up in a
downward loss spiral. The loss spiral reflects a process
whereby a first loss in personal resources that is due to
contextual demands induces further loss because there are
fewer personal resources available to deal effectively with
the chronic demands or to collect contextual resources.
Likewise, stable contextual resources may lead to a gain
spiral in which resources accumulate. Structural contextual
resources enable one to avoid or solve contextual demands
and to collect new resources. Empirical studies have pro-
vided preliminary evidence for gain and loss spirals of
work-related burnout and engagement (Schaufeli, Bakker,
& Van Rhenen, 2009; ten Brummelhuis et al., 2011).
Table 1
Overview of the Components of the Work–Home Resources Model
Construct Subtype Examples
Contextual demands Overload Working overtime, many household chores, urgent care tasks
Physical Lifting weights, care for the elderly, care for young children
Emotional Dealing with an angry customer, conflicts at home, disappointments
Cognitive Writing a report, coordination of household and care tasks, multitasking
Contextual resources Social support Advice from co-workers, understanding, love, respect from a friend
Autonomy Control over work design, planning leisure time, allocating home tasks
Opportunities for
development
New tasks at work, attending courses, participating in sports, hobbies
Feedback Supervisor evaluation, open communication at home, reflection with friends
Personal resources Physical Health, physical energy, vigor, sleep
Psychological Optimism, self-efficacy, focus, mental resilience
Affective Mood, fulfillment, empathy, gratefulness
Intellectual Skills, perspectives, knowledge, experience
Capital Time, money
Outcomes Production Meeting deadlines, service quality, completing tasks, quality of care tasks
Behavioral Absenteeism, turnover, availability at home, providing a secure home
Attitudinal Satisfaction, commitment, well-being, relationship quality
72012 ●American Psychologist
We suggest that long-term processes can also be found
in the work–family interface. More chronic or structural
demands in one domain require a continuous investment of
personal resources. This depletion process eventually con-
sumes more structural personal resources (e.g., health), and
deteriorates long-term outcomes in the other domain. For
example, ongoing family overload has been shown to in-
crease physical stress, which accumulates in health com-
plaints, and eventually results in more absence from work
in the consecutive year (ten Brummelhuis, ter Hoeven, De
Jong, & Peper, 2012). Likewise, structural contextual re-
sources in one domain are likely to facilitate employees to
accomplish long-term goals in the other domain via more
stable personal resources. For example, employees who
have an extensive social network are more likely to find a
better job, because they have more knowledge about the
labor market (Bernasco, de Graaf, & Ultee, 1998). In
contrast to those long-term processes, there are also short-
term work– home processes that occur on a daily basis
(Ilies et al., 2007). In a daily diary study, Ilies et al. (2007)
showed that daily job demands enhanced daily experienced
work-to-home conflict and reduced employees’ engage-
ment in social activities with family members.
The transience axis, on which personal resources can
be positioned as being more volatile or more structural,
may help us to understand when short-term work– home
processes occur and when long-term work– home processes
occur instead. We suggest that temporal demands and
volatile resources in one domain consume and produce
volatile personal resources (i.e., energies). The conse-
quences for the other domain are then also more immedi-
ate, such as spousal conflicts on days on which the em-
ployee has no time or energy to participate in family life
due to unforeseen overwork. As clarified above, chronic
demands and structural resources in one domain will bring
about longer term effects in the other domain via a loss or
gain in more structural personal resources (i.e., construc-
tive resources). Adding to our third question, regarding
how work– home processes develop over time, we suggest
that the work– home interface consists of both short-term
and long-term processes (see Figure 4).
Proposition 7. Short-term work–home conflict
and enrichment reflect daily processes between the work
and home domains, whereby volatile contextual de-
mands and resources from one domain affect daily out-
comes in the other domain through a change in volatile
personal resources.
Proposition 8. Long-term work–home conflict
and enrichment reflect durable processes between the work
and home domains, whereby structural contextual de-
mands and resources from one domain affect long-term
outcomes in the other domain through a change in struc-
tural personal resources.
Discussion
Previous studies have suggested that work– home enrich-
ment and work– home conflict are two distinct processes,
each having specific antecedents (Boyar & Mosley, 2007).
Figure 3
Conditions Attenuating and Strengthening Work–Home Conflict and Enrichment
DOMAIN
1 I
NDIVIDUAL
DOMAIN
2
+
+
−
−
OUTCOMES
KEY
RESOURCES
CONTEXTUAL
DEMANDS
CONTEXTUAL
RESOURCES
P
ERSONAL
RESOURCES
+−
M
ACRO
RESOURCES
+
82012 ●American Psychologist
However, an integrated theoretical model that helps ac-
count for both conflict and enriching relationships between
the work and home domains has, thus far, been lacking. In
the work–family research field, there is an urgent need for
answers to such questions as What happens when work and
home roles conflict with, versus enrich, each other? Who is
more likely to experience conflict or, instead, enrichment?
and How do work– home processes develop over time?
(Greenhaus, 2008; Grzywacz & Marks, 2000; Ilies et al.,
2007). We sought to develop a theoretical framework that
could be used as a starting point for the empirical investi-
gation of these questions. We used COR theory (Hobfoll,
1989, 2002) as a starting point for our own theoretical
assumptions. This approach led us to view work– home
conflict and enrichment as processes comprising anteced-
ents, mechanisms, and outcomes. The resulting W-HR
model advances the work–family literature in several ways.
To begin with, the W-HR model provides a more
informative view of what occurs when the work and home
domains conflict with or enrich each other. Work– home
conflict can be defined as a process whereby contextual
demands in one domain drain personal resources, leaving
insufficient personal resources to function optimally in the
other domain. In contrast, work– home enrichment reflects
the process whereby resources in one domain replenish, or
add to, one’s personal resource supply. Subsequently, per-
formance in the other domain improves. This process view
extends previous work–family studies that employed con-
cepts referencing the relationship between work and family
itself, such as work–family conflict, interference, and spill-
over (Demerouti et al., 2004; Grandey & Cropanzano,
1999; Grzywacz & Marks, 2000) as well as research that
focused on participation in, or commitment to, work and
nonwork roles (e.g., Graves et al., 2007; Ruderman et al.,
2002; Weer et al., 2010). Although concepts that assume
interference help depict possible problems that employees
face when they combine dual roles, they do not depict
clearly which home and work factors are beneficial or
harmful to the other domain, nor do they identify the exact
consequences attending the presence of these factors. The
W-HR model overcomes this problem by relating tangible
antecedents in the home and work domains (contextual
demands and resources) to concrete work and home out-
comes (production, behavioral, and affective outcomes).
In addition, the W-HR model eliminates the theoretical
black box between work and home by providing an overview
of the mechanisms that link work and home. Changes in
personal resources, either more volatile ones (e.g., time, phys-
ical energy, positive mood) or more structural ones (e.g.,
skills, perspectives), are identified as linking mechanisms be-
tween the two domains (Carlson et al., 2006; Wayne et al.,
2007). Thus, the W-HR model does not include measures of
work–home interference but unravels the underlying mecha-
nisms that link both domains. This theoretical understanding
allows us to circumvent any possible bias introduced by
work–home interference measures that presuppose the causal
direction of work–home relationships.
Our model also provides an answer to the question of the
role personality plays in the development of work–home
conflict and enrichment. The key resources that are included
in the W-HR model help us understand which individuals are
more or less prone to experience work–home conflict or
enrichment. Because key resources (e.g., self-efficacy, opti-
mism, and self-esteem) facilitate efficient and effective coping
with contextual demands while optimizing the use of contex-
tual resources, persons who have more key resources are more
Figure 4
Long-Term and Short-Term Work–Home Processes
DOMAIN 1INDIVIDUAL DOMAIN 2
SHORT TERM
LONG TERM
TEMPORAL DEMANDS
CHRONIC DEMANDS
DAILY OUTCOMES
−
+
−
+
+
+
LONG-TERM
OUTCOMES
VOLATILE CONTEXTUAL
RESOURCES
STRUCTURAL
CONTEXTUAL RESOURCES
CONSTRUCTIVE
RESOURCES
ENERGIES
92012 ●American Psychologist
likely to experience work–home enrichment and less likely to
experience work–home conflict.
In addition, the W-HR model is applicable to a variety
of employees with different jobs and family situations and
from various countries and cultures. The resources perspec-
tive enables us to model the demands and resources an
employee has in each domain, making the model suitable
for diverse jobs (e.g., low-wage work and management
positions) and family situations (e.g., single parents and
dual earner couples). More structural differences between
countries, economies, and cultures are accounted for by
modeling macro resources. Our model thus responds to the
call in the literature to provide more universal work–family
models that take into account the diversity of today’s
workforce and workplaces (Lambert, 1999; Spector et al.,
2004; Swanberg, 2005).
Furthermore, the W-HR model enables researchers to
distinguish between long-term and short-term work– home
processes. More transient personal resources, such as time,
mood, and energy, are likely to explain daily work– home
processes. For example, sleep deficit due to care for a new-
born is likely to impair concentration or mood at work during
the next work day. By contrast, chronic family overload may
lead to a loss of more structural personal resources (e.g.,
impaired health), which hinders long-term work outcomes.
Similarly, more structural personal resources, such as skills,
are likely to explain work–home processes that take more
time to develop, such as becoming a more understanding and
patient manager because of interpersonal skills learned while
raising children (Ruderman et al., 2002).
Finally, our model gives direction for the question of
when conflict, or instead enrichment, is most likely to
occur. First of all, whether home and work conflict with or
enrich each other depends on the specific combination of
contextual demands and resources (Bakker, ten Brummel-
huis, Prins, & van der Heijden, 2011). Low resources and
high demands in one domain are likely to worsen outcomes
in the other domain (work– home conflict), whereas low
contextual demands and plenty of contextual resources
facilitate outcomes in the other domain (work– home en-
richment). Second, having a lot of macro and key resources
will enhance the chance of enrichment while making con-
flict between the two domains less likely.
Relevance for Other Psychology
Subdisciplines
The W-HR model was designed to add to our understand-
ing of the interrelatedness of work and family. On the one
hand, the model clarifies how family outcomes, such as
marital quality and task performance at home, may be
affected by work characteristics. On the other hand, indus-
trial/organizational psychology may benefit from the in-
sights provided into how an employee’s home domain may
influence work outcomes and for which employees (e.g.,
those having high family demands and low key resources)
additional work–life support may be useful. On top of that,
the model can be extrapolated to other research fields. Our
model resembles a mesosystem as described in Bronfen-
brenner’s (1994) ecological systems theory (Voydanoff,
2002). The W-HR model depicts in detail how two micro-
systems (work and home) influence each other. This ap-
proach can be applied to other domains as well. For exam-
ple, one could study how the home domain affects school
performance. Also, one could map the W-HR mesosystems
of multiple related persons, such as the work domains and
the family domains of both partners in a relationship. This
mapping may contribute to social psychology, allowing
investigation of how the contextual work demands and
resources of both partners influence, for example, parent–
child interaction or interaction between spouses.
The basic assumptions of our model may also be
relevant for developmental psychology in examining how a
person develops over time. Development then would reflect
the process by which demands and resources from various
microsystems that surround a person deplete or enrich his
or her personal resource arsenal over time. These insights
may also be of value for counseling psychology and med-
ical psychology. Answers to questions such as why certain
persons develop mental disorders (e.g., depression, anxi-
ety) in response to stressors can be sought in the person’s
available resources. For instance, when losing a job, a
person with mental resilience and a supportive social net-
work is less likely to end up in a depression than a person
who lacks such personal and contextual resources.
The model also opens avenues for modeling cultural
differences in the work– home interface, contributing to
multicultural psychology (Spector et al., 2004). One could,
for instance, examine how work and family affect each
other in countries differing in collectivism/individualism
and in low/high power distance. Also, the model may be
used to explore whether ethnic minorities may have addi-
tional difficulties in combining work and family, as they
may be confronted by racism and have lower social power.
Likewise, possible differences between genders, and
other social identities, could be modeled. Men and women
may be influenced differently by cultural norms on gender
roles, and they may differ in social power and role salience
(Barnett & Hyde, 2001). A contribution for gender studies,
therefore, could be to examine whether the processes of the
W-HR model are similar for men and women (and other
social identities) and whether groups differ in the contex-
tual and personal resources that are available to them.
Implications for Research
A comprehensive research program could be developed to
test the validity of the model proposed in this article. To
facilitate this research, validated measures of home de-
mands and home resources must first be constructed. Mea-
sures for several job demands and job resources that have
already been developed and validated (Demerouti et al.,
2001) are also applicable to the home domain. Examples
are overload at home, emotional home demands, and social
support from family members and friends (Peeters et al.,
2005; van Daalen et al., 2006). Work–home research would
also benefit from validated measurement instruments relevant
to the linking mechanisms, such as context-free time manage-
ment and communication skills.
10 2012 ●American Psychologist
Furthermore, we encourage researchers to use re-
search methodologies that permit the examination of the
causal direction of these relationships. Diary methods
(Bolger, Davis, & Rafaeli, 2003) are possibly of great help.
Diary studies enable researchers to relate work (or home)
antecedents measured at Time 1 to home (or work) out-
comes at Time 2. For example, the workload during the day
and the real-time energy level reported immediately after
work ends can be used as predictors of home outcomes
reported at the end of the evening (Ilies et al., 2007).
Moreover, it would be interesting to test the time frames in
which work– home processes develop. Diary studies enable
the researcher to model daily fluctuations in contextual
demands and resources, personal resources, and outcomes.
In this way, one could test the hypothesis that particular
changes in energy resources are responsible for daily interfer-
ence between work and home. Longitudinal studies using a
longer time frame would be useful to test the hypothesis that
loss and gain in more structural personal resources influence
work and home outcomes in the long run.
In addition, research on possible moderators of work–
home processes would be a valuable contribution to the
work–family research domain. As suggested by the W-HR
model, personality (key resources) presumably plays an
important role in spillover effects between work and home
(Boyar & Mosley, 2007; Grzywacz & Marks, 2000). The
wider macro context could also act as a moderator on
work– home processes. For example, cultural norms that
advocate both men’s and women’s participation in paid
work and childcare may facilitate work– home enrichment.
Likewise, possible differences between men and women
could be examined. As argued before, role salience, cul-
tural beliefs about role division, privileges, and social
power should all be taken into account when studying such
differences (Voydanoff, 2002). Similarly, it is plausible
that work– home conflict and enrichment differ between
groups varying in race, immigrant status, and sexual ori-
entation. Future studies should address whether any differ-
ences may be due to the differences in social power,
privilege, role salience, and cultural/social expectations.
Another suggestion for future research is to investi-
gate the relative importance of enriching versus depleting
processes. Although it is evident that both processes can
coincide, it is still unknown whether one of the two pro-
cesses occurs more frequently or whether one process
outweighs the other. For instance, home life may be de-
manding, entailing, for example, emotionally and physi-
cally draining care for children. However, support from the
spouse, or quality time spent with family members, may
counterbalance this drain in energy and may even lead to
additional skills and perspectives in the long run (Ruder-
man et al., 2002; ten Brummelhuis et al., 2010). It would be
interesting to examine how conflicting and enriching pro-
cesses alternate with each other, or whether either of the
processes is more dominant, by investigating, for example,
how frequently work– home conflict versus work– home
enrichment occurs on a daily level.
A further extension of the W-HR model would be to
examine combined effects of contextual demands and re-
sources. From the organizational literature, we know that
employees can deal with a certain amount of job demands
provided that there are enough job resources available
(Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). Also, unlike hindering de-
mands, challenging job demands are assumed to be bene-
ficial because they motivate employees and provide an
opportunity to learn new skills (Crawford, LePine, & Rich,
2010). It would be interesting to examine the interaction
effects of contextual demands and resources on a person’s
resource supply. Distinguishing between challenging and
hindering contextual demands may also be a worthwhile
refinement of the W-HR model.
Finally, including feedback loops may widen our un-
derstanding of how work– home processes develop over
time. Low or high role accomplishment can be seen as a
loss or gain in contextual resources (Hobfoll, 2002), start-
ing a new work– home process. For instance, success at
work may result in vigor, which the employee may invest
in quality time with the partner. On the next day, satisfac-
tion with one’s relationship may put the employee in a
good mood, leading him or her to help colleagues at work.
Such spiral-like effects are also congruent with Bronfen-
brenner’s (1994) chronosystem of human development.
Concluding Note
The W-HR model provides a new theoretical perspective
for the work–family research field by viewing the work–
home interface as a set of processes. Each process runs
from demands and resources in the work (or home) do-
main, via changes in personal resources, to outcomes in the
home (or work) domain. We believe that the W-HR model
offers a useful framework for future work– home research,
allowing an investigation of what actually occurs when
work and home interfere with each other. We encourage
researchers to use the model as a starting point for testing
the numerous research questions in the work– home re-
search field that are yet to be answered.
REFERENCES
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands–resources
model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22, 309 –
328. doi:10.1108/02683940710733115
Bakker, A. B., ten Brummelhuis, L. L., Prins, J. T., & van der Heijden,
F. M. M. A. (2011). Applying the job demands-resources model to the
work– home interface. A study among medical residents and their
partners. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79, 170 –180. doi:10.1016/
j.jvb.2010.12.004
Barnett, R. C., & Hyde, J. S. (2001). Women, men, work, and family.
American Psychologist, 56, 781–796. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.56.10
.781
Bernasco, W., de Graaf, P. M., & Ultee, W. C. (1998). Coupled careers:
Effects of spouse’s resources on occupational attainment in the Neth-
erlands. European Sociological Review, 14, 15–31.
Bolger, N., Davis, A., & Rafaeli, E. (2003). Diary methods: Capturing life
as it is lived. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 579 – 616. doi:10.1146/
annurev.psych.54.101601.145030
Boyar, S. L., & Mosley, D. C. (2007). The relationship between core
self-evaluations and work and family satisfaction: The mediating role
of work–family conflict and facilitation. Journal of Vocational Behav-
ior, 71, 265–281. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2007.06.001
Brandtsta¨dter, J., & Renner, G. (1990). Tenacious goal pursuit and flexible
goal adjustment: Explication and age-related analysis of assimilative
112012 ●American Psychologist
and accommodative strategies of coping. Psychology and Aging, 5,
58 – 67. doi:10.1037/0882-7974.5.1.58
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1994). Ecological models of human development. In
International encyclopedia of education (2nd ed., Vol. 3, pp. 1643–
1647). Oxford, England: Elsevier.
Carlson, D. S., Kacmar, M., Wayne, J., & Grzywacz, J. G. (2006).
Measuring the positive side of the work–family interface: Development
and validation of a work–family enrichment scale. Journal of Voca-
tional Behavior, 68, 131–164.
Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. (1997). What makes teams work: Group
effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite.Journal of
Management, 23, 239–290. doi:10.1177/014920639702300303
Crawford, E. R., LePine, J. A., & Rich, B. L. (2010). Linking job demands
and resources to employee engagement and burnout: A theoretical
extension and meta-analytic test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95,
834 – 848. doi:10.1037/a0019364
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., & Bulters, A. J. (2004). The loss spiral of
work pressure, work– home interference and exhaustion: Reciprocal
relations in a three-wave study. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64,
131–149. doi:10.1016/S0001-8791(03)00030-7
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001).
The job demands–resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 86, 499 –512. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.499
Eby, L. T., Casper, W. J., Lockwood, A., Bordeaux, C., & Brinley, A.
(2005). Work and family research in IO/OB: Content analysis and
review of the literature (1980 –2002). Journal of Vocational Behavior,
66, 124 –197. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2003.11.003
Edwards, J., & Rothbard, N. (2000). Mechanisms linking work and
family: Clarifying the relation between work and family constructs.
Academy of Management Review, 25, 178 –199.
Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M. L. (1992). Antecedents and
outcomes of work–family conflict: Testing a model of the work–family
interface. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 65–78. doi:10.1037/0021-
9010.77.1.65
Grandey, A., & Cropanzano, R. (1999). The conservation of resources
model applied to work–family conflict and strain. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 54, 350 –370. doi:10.1006/jvbe.1998.1666
Graves, L. M., Ohlott, P. J., & Ruderman, M. N. (2007). Commitment to
family roles: Effects on managers’ attitudes and performance. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 92, 44 –56. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.44
Greenhaus, J. H. (2008). Innovations in the study of the work–family
interface: Introduction to the Special Section. Journal of Occupa-
tional and Organizational Psychology, 81, 343–348. doi:10.1348/
096317908X332135
Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conflict between
work and family roles. Academy of Management Review, 10, 76 – 88.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Powell, G. N. (2006). When work and family are
allies: A theory of work–family enrichment. Academy of Management
Review, 31, 72–92. doi:10.5465/AMR.2006.19379625
Grzywacz, J. G., & Marks, N. F. (2000). Reconceptualizing the work–
family interface: An ecological perspective on the correlates of positive
and negative spillover between work and family. Journal of Occupa-
tional Health Psychology, 5, 111–126. doi:10.1037/1076-8998.5.1.111
Hardre´, P. L. (2003). Beyond two decades of motivation: A review of the
research and practice in instructional design and human performance
technology. Human Resource Development Review, 2, 54 – 81. doi:
10.1177/1534484303251661
Hill, J. F. (2005). Work–family facilitation and conflict, work fathers and
mothers, work–family stressors and support. Journal of Family Issues,
26, 793– 819. doi:10.1177/0192513X05277542
Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at
conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44, 513–524. doi:
10.1037/0003-066X.44.3.513
Hobfoll, S. E. (2002). Social and psychological resources and adaptation.
Review of General Psychology, 6, 307–324. doi:10.1037/1089-2680
.6.4.307
House, J. S. (1981). Work stress and social support. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Ilies, R., Schwind, K. M., Wagner, D. T., Johnson, M. D., DeRue, D. S.,
& Ilgen, D. R. (2007). When can employees have a family life? The
effects of daily workload and affect on work–family conflict and social
behaviors at home. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1368 –1379.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1368
Lambert, S. J. (1999). Lower-wage workers and the new realities of work
and family. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social
Science, 562, 174 –190. doi:10.1177/0002716299562001012
Mann, M. (1986). The sources of social power. Cambridge, England: Cam-
bridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511570896
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1986). Personality, coping, and coping
effectiveness in an adult sample. Journal of Personality, 54, 385– 405.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1986.tb00401.x
Parasuraman, S., & Greenhaus, J. H. (2002). Toward reducing some
critical gaps in work–family research. Human Resource Management
Review, 12, 299 –312. doi:10.1016/S1053-4822(02)00062-1
Peeters, M., Montgomery, A., Bakker, A., & Schaufeli, W. (2005). Bal-
ancing work and home: How job demands and home demands are
related to burnout. International Journal of Stress Management, 12,
43– 61. doi:10.1037/1072-5245.12.1.43
Pleck, J. H. (1977). The work–family role system. Social Problems, 24,
417– 427. doi:10.1525/sp.1977.24.4.03a00040
Rothbard, N. (2001). Enriching or depleting? The dynamics of engage-
ment in work and family roles. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46,
655– 684. doi:10.2307/3094827
Ruderman, M. N., Ohlott, P. J., Panzer, K., & King, S. N. (2002). Benefits
of multiple roles for managerial women. Academy of Management
Journal, 45, 369 –386. doi:10.2307/3069352
Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Van Rhenen, W. (2009). How changes
in job demands and resources predict burnout, work engagement and
sickness absenteeism. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 893–
917. doi:10.1002/job.595
Spector, P. E., Cooper, C. L., Poelmans, S., Allen, T. D., O’Driscoll, M.,
Sanchez, J. I., . . . Lu, L. (2004). A cross-national comparative study of
work–family stressors, working hours, and well-being: China and Latin
America versus the Anglo world. Personnel Psychology, 57, 119 –142.
doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2004.tb02486.x
Swanberg, J. E. (2005). Job–family role strain among low-wage workers.
Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 26, 143–158. doi:10.1007/
s10834-004-1416-0
ten Brummelhuis, L. L., ter Hoeven, C. L., Bakker, A. B., & Peper. B.
(2011). Breaking through the loss cycle of burnout: The role of moti-
vation. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 84,
268 –287. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8325.2011.02019.x
ten Brummelhuis, L. L., ter Hoeven, C. L., De Jong, M. D. T., & Peper
(2012). Exploring the linkage between the home domain and absence
from work: Health, motivation, or both? Journal of Organizational
Behavior. Advance online publication. doi:10.1002/job.1789
ten Brummelhuis, L. L., van der Lippe, T., & Kluwer, E. S. (2010). Family
involvement and helping behavior in teams. Journal of Management,
36, 1406 –1431. doi:10.1177/0149206309350778
Thoits, P. A. (1994). Stressors and problem-solving: The individual and
psychological activist. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 35,
143–160. doi:10.2307/2137362
van Daalen, G., Willemsen, T. M., & Sanders, K. (2006). Reducing
work–family conflict through different sources of social support. Jour-
nal of Vocational Behavior, 69, 462– 476. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2006
.07.005
Voydanoff, P. (2002). Linkages between the work family interface and
work. Journal of Family Issues, 23, 138 –164. doi:10.1177/
0192513X02023001007
Wayne, J. H., Grzywacz, J. G., Carlson, D. S., & Kacmar, K. M. (2007).
Work–family facilitation: A theoretical explanation and model of pri-
mary antecedents and consequences. Human Resource Management
Review, 17, 63–76. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2007.01.002
Weer, C. H., Greenhaus, J. H., & Linnehan, F. (2010). Commitment to
nonwork roles and job performance: Enrichment and conflict perspec-
tives. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76, 306 –316. doi:10.1016/
j.jvb.2009.07.003
12 2012 ●American Psychologist
A preview of this full-text is provided by American Psychological Association.
Content available from American Psychologist
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
