Acta Psychologica Sinica ›› 2021, Vol. 53 ›› Issue (10): 1146-1160.doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2021.01146
• Reports of Empirical Studies • Previous Articles Next Articles
DENG XinCai1, HE Shan1, LYU Ping1, ZHOU Xing2, YE YiJiao3, MENG HongLin4(), KONG Yurou2
Received:
2020-08-06
Published:
2021-10-25
Online:
2021-08-23
Contact:
MENG HongLin
E-mail:menghonglin0820@126.com
Supported by:
DENG XinCai, HE Shan, LYU Ping, ZHOU Xing, YE YiJiao, MENG HongLin, KONG Yurou. (2021). Spillover effects of workplace ostracism on employee family life: The role of need for affiliation and work-home segmentation preference. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 53(10), 1146-1160.
Model | χ2 | df | RMSEA | CFI | TLI |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sample 1 | |||||
Six-factor + CMV model: WOS; NA; WS; WHSP; FU; FS; CMV | 693.11 | 388 | 0.055 | 0.95 | 0.94 |
Six-factor model: WOS; NA; WS; WHSP; FU; FS | 746.42 | 419 | 0.055 | 0.95 | 0.94 |
Four-factor model: WOS + NA + WS; WHSP; FU; FS | 1960.78 | 428 | 0.117 | 0.75 | 0.73 |
Two factor model: WOS + NA + WS; WHSP + FU + FS | 2730.38 | 433 | 0.142 | 0.62 | 0.59 |
Single Factor Model: WOS + NA + WS + WHSP + FU + FS | 3367.90 | 434 | 0.160 | 0.52 | 0.48 |
Sample 2 | |||||
Eight Factor + CMV model: WOS; NA; WS; EE; NE; WHSP; FU; FS; CMV | 1548.71 | 915 | 0.054 | 0.94 | 0.93 |
Eight-factor model: WOS; NA; WS; EE; NE; WHSP; FU; FS | 1711.77 | 961 | 0.057 | 0.93 | 0.92 |
Six-factor model: WOS; NA; WS + EE + NE; WHSP; FU; FS | 2774.49 | 974 | 0.088 | 0.82 | 0.81 |
Five Factor Model: WOS; NA; WS + EE + NE; WHSP; FU + FS | 3309.47 | 979 | 0.100 | 0.77 | 0.76 |
Three-factor model: WOS + NA; WS + EE + NE; WHSP + FU + FS | 4402.18 | 986 | 0.121 | 0.66 | 0.64 |
Single Factor Model: WOS + NA + WS + WHSP + FU + FS | 7564.41 | 989 | 0.167 | 0.35 | 0.32 |
Table 1 Results of confirmatory factor analysis
Model | χ2 | df | RMSEA | CFI | TLI |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sample 1 | |||||
Six-factor + CMV model: WOS; NA; WS; WHSP; FU; FS; CMV | 693.11 | 388 | 0.055 | 0.95 | 0.94 |
Six-factor model: WOS; NA; WS; WHSP; FU; FS | 746.42 | 419 | 0.055 | 0.95 | 0.94 |
Four-factor model: WOS + NA + WS; WHSP; FU; FS | 1960.78 | 428 | 0.117 | 0.75 | 0.73 |
Two factor model: WOS + NA + WS; WHSP + FU + FS | 2730.38 | 433 | 0.142 | 0.62 | 0.59 |
Single Factor Model: WOS + NA + WS + WHSP + FU + FS | 3367.90 | 434 | 0.160 | 0.52 | 0.48 |
Sample 2 | |||||
Eight Factor + CMV model: WOS; NA; WS; EE; NE; WHSP; FU; FS; CMV | 1548.71 | 915 | 0.054 | 0.94 | 0.93 |
Eight-factor model: WOS; NA; WS; EE; NE; WHSP; FU; FS | 1711.77 | 961 | 0.057 | 0.93 | 0.92 |
Six-factor model: WOS; NA; WS + EE + NE; WHSP; FU; FS | 2774.49 | 974 | 0.088 | 0.82 | 0.81 |
Five Factor Model: WOS; NA; WS + EE + NE; WHSP; FU + FS | 3309.47 | 979 | 0.100 | 0.77 | 0.76 |
Three-factor model: WOS + NA; WS + EE + NE; WHSP + FU + FS | 4402.18 | 986 | 0.121 | 0.66 | 0.64 |
Single Factor Model: WOS + NA + WS + WHSP + FU + FS | 7564.41 | 989 | 0.167 | 0.35 | 0.32 |
Variable | M | SD | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sample 1 | ||||||||||
1. Family undermining (T1) | 1.45 | 0.72 | - | |||||||
2. Family satisfaction (T1) | 4.21 | 0.7 | -0.38** | - | ||||||
3. Workplace ostracism | 1.91 | 0.79 | 0.39** | -0.23** | - | |||||
4. Need for affiliation | 3.78 | 0.74 | -0.21** | -0.19** | -0.12* | - | ||||
5. Work stress | 2.45 | 0.81 | 0.14* | -0.10 | 0.35** | 0.09 | - | |||
6. Work-home segmentation preference | 3.35 | 0.79 | -0.02 | 0.07 | -0.02 | 0.10 | 0.05 | - | ||
7. Family undermining (T3) | 1.73 | 0.92 | 0.17** | -0.22** | 0.26** | -0.06 | 0.35** | -0.16* | - | |
8. Family satisfaction (T3) | 4.11 | 0.73 | -0.15* | 0.29** | -0.24** | 0.11 | -0.23** | 0.09 | -0.45** | - |
Sample 2 | ||||||||||
1. Workplace ostracism | 1.97 | 0.90 | - | |||||||
2. Need for affiliation | 3.74 | 0.82 | -0.02 | - | ||||||
3. Work stress | 2.61 | 0.67 | 0.27** | -0.12 | - | |||||
4. Emotional exhaustion | 2.81 | 0.74 | 0.26** | -0.10 | 0.53** | - | ||||
5. Negative emotions | 2.32 | 0.92 | 0.27** | 0.01 | 0.41** | 0.43** | - | |||
6. Work-home segmentation preference | 3.19 | 1.17 | 0.08 | 0.13* | 0.25** | 0.17** | 0.12 | - | ||
7. Family undermining (T3) | 2.27 | 0.87 | 0.24** | -0.06 | 0.38** | 0.32** | 0.31** | -0.20** | - | |
8. Family satisfaction (T3) | 3.62 | 0.98 | -0.22** | -0.18** | -0.38** | -0.35** | -0.29** | 0.16* | -0.30** | - |
Table 2 The mean, standard deviation, and correlation coefficient of the variables
Variable | M | SD | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sample 1 | ||||||||||
1. Family undermining (T1) | 1.45 | 0.72 | - | |||||||
2. Family satisfaction (T1) | 4.21 | 0.7 | -0.38** | - | ||||||
3. Workplace ostracism | 1.91 | 0.79 | 0.39** | -0.23** | - | |||||
4. Need for affiliation | 3.78 | 0.74 | -0.21** | -0.19** | -0.12* | - | ||||
5. Work stress | 2.45 | 0.81 | 0.14* | -0.10 | 0.35** | 0.09 | - | |||
6. Work-home segmentation preference | 3.35 | 0.79 | -0.02 | 0.07 | -0.02 | 0.10 | 0.05 | - | ||
7. Family undermining (T3) | 1.73 | 0.92 | 0.17** | -0.22** | 0.26** | -0.06 | 0.35** | -0.16* | - | |
8. Family satisfaction (T3) | 4.11 | 0.73 | -0.15* | 0.29** | -0.24** | 0.11 | -0.23** | 0.09 | -0.45** | - |
Sample 2 | ||||||||||
1. Workplace ostracism | 1.97 | 0.90 | - | |||||||
2. Need for affiliation | 3.74 | 0.82 | -0.02 | - | ||||||
3. Work stress | 2.61 | 0.67 | 0.27** | -0.12 | - | |||||
4. Emotional exhaustion | 2.81 | 0.74 | 0.26** | -0.10 | 0.53** | - | ||||
5. Negative emotions | 2.32 | 0.92 | 0.27** | 0.01 | 0.41** | 0.43** | - | |||
6. Work-home segmentation preference | 3.19 | 1.17 | 0.08 | 0.13* | 0.25** | 0.17** | 0.12 | - | ||
7. Family undermining (T3) | 2.27 | 0.87 | 0.24** | -0.06 | 0.38** | 0.32** | 0.31** | -0.20** | - | |
8. Family satisfaction (T3) | 3.62 | 0.98 | -0.22** | -0.18** | -0.38** | -0.35** | -0.29** | 0.16* | -0.30** | - |
Variable | Family undermining | Family satisfaction | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
M1 | M2 | M3 | M4 | M5 | M6 | M7 | M8 | |
Age | -0.04 | -0.02 | -0.03 | -0.02 | 0.10 | 0.08 | 0.09 | 0.09 |
Gender | -0.03 | -0.02 | -0.01 | -0.01 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.00 | 0.01 |
Number of children under 18 | 0.12 | 0.11 | 0.10 | 0.09 | -0.09 | -0.08 | -0.07 | -0.07 |
Family undermining C (T1) | 0.14* | 0.06 | 0.10 | 0.06 | -0.02 | 0.04 | 0.01 | 0.04 |
Family satisfaction C (T1) | -0.18** | -0.16* | -0.16* | -0.16* | 0.30** | 0.28** | 0.29** | 0.28** |
Workplace ostracism | 0.22** | 0.12 | -0.17* | -0.11 | ||||
Work stress | 0.32** | 0.29** | -0.20** | -0.17** | ||||
R2 | 0.03 | 0.06 | 0.13 | 0.14 | 0.09 | 0.11 | 0.13 | 0.13 |
ΔR2 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.10 | 0.08 | 0.09 | 0.02 | 0.04 | 0.02 |
Table 3 Mediating effect test (Sample 1)
Variable | Family undermining | Family satisfaction | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
M1 | M2 | M3 | M4 | M5 | M6 | M7 | M8 | |
Age | -0.04 | -0.02 | -0.03 | -0.02 | 0.10 | 0.08 | 0.09 | 0.09 |
Gender | -0.03 | -0.02 | -0.01 | -0.01 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.00 | 0.01 |
Number of children under 18 | 0.12 | 0.11 | 0.10 | 0.09 | -0.09 | -0.08 | -0.07 | -0.07 |
Family undermining C (T1) | 0.14* | 0.06 | 0.10 | 0.06 | -0.02 | 0.04 | 0.01 | 0.04 |
Family satisfaction C (T1) | -0.18** | -0.16* | -0.16* | -0.16* | 0.30** | 0.28** | 0.29** | 0.28** |
Workplace ostracism | 0.22** | 0.12 | -0.17* | -0.11 | ||||
Work stress | 0.32** | 0.29** | -0.20** | -0.17** | ||||
R2 | 0.03 | 0.06 | 0.13 | 0.14 | 0.09 | 0.11 | 0.13 | 0.13 |
ΔR2 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.10 | 0.08 | 0.09 | 0.02 | 0.04 | 0.02 |
Variable | Family undermining | Family satisfaction | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
M9 | M10 | M11 | M12 | M13 | M14 | M15 | M16 | M17 | M18 | |
Age | 0.08 | 0.05 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.01 | -0.10 | -0.07 | -0.06 | -0.05 | -0.04 |
Gender | -0.02 | -0.04 | -0.03 | -0.01 | -0.02 | 0.02 | 0.04 | 0.03 | 0.01 | 0.02 |
Number of children under 18 | -0.07 | -0.04 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.04 | 0.08 | 0.05 | -0.02 | -0.02 | -0.03 |
Workplace ostracism | 0.25** | 0.15* | 0.12 | -0.23** | -0.13* | -0.10 | ||||
Emotional exhaustion | 0.20** | 0.12 | 0.11 | -0.25** | -0.17* | -0.16* | ||||
Negative emotion | 0.19** | 0.16* | 0.14* | -0.16* | -0.14* | -0.12 | ||||
Work stress | 0.25** | 0.23** | -0.22** | -0.20** | ||||||
R2 | 0.02 | 0.08 | 0.17 | 0.19 | 0.21 | 0. 04 | 0.09 | 0.19 | 0.21 | 0.22 |
ΔR2 | 0.02 | 0.06 | 0.09 | 0.17 | 0.04 | 0. 04 | 0.05 | 0.10 | 0.17 | 0.03 |
Table 4 Mediating effect test (sample 2)
Variable | Family undermining | Family satisfaction | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
M9 | M10 | M11 | M12 | M13 | M14 | M15 | M16 | M17 | M18 | |
Age | 0.08 | 0.05 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.01 | -0.10 | -0.07 | -0.06 | -0.05 | -0.04 |
Gender | -0.02 | -0.04 | -0.03 | -0.01 | -0.02 | 0.02 | 0.04 | 0.03 | 0.01 | 0.02 |
Number of children under 18 | -0.07 | -0.04 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.04 | 0.08 | 0.05 | -0.02 | -0.02 | -0.03 |
Workplace ostracism | 0.25** | 0.15* | 0.12 | -0.23** | -0.13* | -0.10 | ||||
Emotional exhaustion | 0.20** | 0.12 | 0.11 | -0.25** | -0.17* | -0.16* | ||||
Negative emotion | 0.19** | 0.16* | 0.14* | -0.16* | -0.14* | -0.12 | ||||
Work stress | 0.25** | 0.23** | -0.22** | -0.20** | ||||||
R2 | 0.02 | 0.08 | 0.17 | 0.19 | 0.21 | 0. 04 | 0.09 | 0.19 | 0.21 | 0.22 |
ΔR2 | 0.02 | 0.06 | 0.09 | 0.17 | 0.04 | 0. 04 | 0.05 | 0.10 | 0.17 | 0.03 |
Variable | Work stress | Family undermining | Family satisfaction | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
M19 | M20 | M21 | M22 | M23 | M24 | M25 | M26 | M27 | M28 | M29 | M30 | |
Age | -0.02 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.02 | -0.02 | -0.02 | -0.03 | -0.04 | 0.08 | 0.09 | 0.09 | 0.10 |
Gender | -0.07 | -0.06 | -0.06 | -0.07 | -0.02 | -0.01 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
Number of children under 18 | 0.08 | 0.06 | 0.07 | 0.05 | 0.11 | 0.09 | 0.10 | 0.11 | -0.08 | -0.07 | -0.07 | -0.07 |
Family undermining C (T1) | 0.13 | -0.01 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.06 | 0.06 | 0.06 | 0.05 | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.05 |
Family satisfaction C (T1) | -0.06 | -0.02 | -0.04 | -0.04 | -0.16* | -0.16* | -0.14* | -0.13* | 0.28** | 0.28** | 0.27** | 0.26** |
Workplace ostracism | 0.36** | 0.36** | 0.37** | 0.22** | 0.12 | 0.11 | 0.10 | -0.17** | -0.11 | -0.11 | -0.10 | |
Work stress | 0.29** | 0.30** | 0.27** | -0.17** | -0.17** | -0.15* | ||||||
Need for affiliation | 0.14* | 0.14* | ||||||||||
Work-home segmentation preference | -0.16** | -0.17** | 0.06 | 0.07 | ||||||||
Workplace ostracism × need for affiliation | 0.14* | |||||||||||
Work stress × work-home segmentation preference | -0.20** | 0.16** | ||||||||||
R2 | -0.01 | 0.09 | 0.10 | 0.12 | 0.06 | 0.14 | 0.16 | 0.19 | 0.11 | 0.13 | 0.13 | 0.15 |
ΔR2 | -0.01 | 0.10 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.06 | 0.08 | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.11 | 0.02 | 0.00 | 0.02 |
Table 5 Moderating effect test (sample 1)
Variable | Work stress | Family undermining | Family satisfaction | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
M19 | M20 | M21 | M22 | M23 | M24 | M25 | M26 | M27 | M28 | M29 | M30 | |
Age | -0.02 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.02 | -0.02 | -0.02 | -0.03 | -0.04 | 0.08 | 0.09 | 0.09 | 0.10 |
Gender | -0.07 | -0.06 | -0.06 | -0.07 | -0.02 | -0.01 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
Number of children under 18 | 0.08 | 0.06 | 0.07 | 0.05 | 0.11 | 0.09 | 0.10 | 0.11 | -0.08 | -0.07 | -0.07 | -0.07 |
Family undermining C (T1) | 0.13 | -0.01 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.06 | 0.06 | 0.06 | 0.05 | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.05 |
Family satisfaction C (T1) | -0.06 | -0.02 | -0.04 | -0.04 | -0.16* | -0.16* | -0.14* | -0.13* | 0.28** | 0.28** | 0.27** | 0.26** |
Workplace ostracism | 0.36** | 0.36** | 0.37** | 0.22** | 0.12 | 0.11 | 0.10 | -0.17** | -0.11 | -0.11 | -0.10 | |
Work stress | 0.29** | 0.30** | 0.27** | -0.17** | -0.17** | -0.15* | ||||||
Need for affiliation | 0.14* | 0.14* | ||||||||||
Work-home segmentation preference | -0.16** | -0.17** | 0.06 | 0.07 | ||||||||
Workplace ostracism × need for affiliation | 0.14* | |||||||||||
Work stress × work-home segmentation preference | -0.20** | 0.16** | ||||||||||
R2 | -0.01 | 0.09 | 0.10 | 0.12 | 0.06 | 0.14 | 0.16 | 0.19 | 0.11 | 0.13 | 0.13 | 0.15 |
ΔR2 | -0.01 | 0.10 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.06 | 0.08 | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.11 | 0.02 | 0.00 | 0.02 |
Variable | Work stress | Family undermining | Family satisfaction | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
M31 | M32 | M33 | M34 | M35 | M36 | M37 | M38 | M39 | M40 | M41 | M42 | |
Age | 0.13 | 0.10 | 0.11 | 0.10 | 0.03 | 0.01 | -0.01 | -0.03 | -0.06 | -0.04 | -0.02 | 0.00 |
Gender | -0.05 | -0.07 | -0.09 | -0.11 | -0.03 | -0.02 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
Number of children under 18 | -0.17* | -0.13 | -0.14 | -0.11 | 0.03 | 0.04 | 0.05 | 0.08 | -0.02 | -0.03 | -0.03 | -0.07 |
Workplace ostracism | 0.28** | 0.28** | 0.24** | 0.15* | 0.12 | 0.12* | 0.10 | -0.13* | 0.10 | -0.11 | -0.08 | |
Negative emotion | 0.20** | 0.11 | 0.13 | 0.12 | -0.25** | -0.16* | -0.18* | -0.17* | ||||
Emotional exhaustion | 0.19** | 0.14* | 0.14* | 0.13* | -0.16* | -0.12 | -0.12 | -0.11 | ||||
Work stress | 0.23** | 0.31** | 0.32** | -0.20** | -0.27** | -0.28** | ||||||
Need for affiliation | -0.12 | -0.12 | ||||||||||
Work-home segmentation preference | -0.33** | -0.32** | 0.28** | 0.28** | ||||||||
Workplace ostracism × need for affiliation | 0.20** | |||||||||||
Work stress × work-home segmentation preference | -0.19** | 0.23** | ||||||||||
R2 | 0.04 | 0.11 | 0.13 | 0.16 | 0.17 | 0.21 | 0.30 | 0.34 | 0.19 | 0.22 | 0.29 | 0.34 |
ΔR2 | 0.04 | 0.07 | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.17 | 0.04 | 0.09 | 0.04 | 0.19 | 0.03 | 0.07 | 0.05 |
Table 6 Moderating effect test (sample 2)
Variable | Work stress | Family undermining | Family satisfaction | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
M31 | M32 | M33 | M34 | M35 | M36 | M37 | M38 | M39 | M40 | M41 | M42 | |
Age | 0.13 | 0.10 | 0.11 | 0.10 | 0.03 | 0.01 | -0.01 | -0.03 | -0.06 | -0.04 | -0.02 | 0.00 |
Gender | -0.05 | -0.07 | -0.09 | -0.11 | -0.03 | -0.02 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
Number of children under 18 | -0.17* | -0.13 | -0.14 | -0.11 | 0.03 | 0.04 | 0.05 | 0.08 | -0.02 | -0.03 | -0.03 | -0.07 |
Workplace ostracism | 0.28** | 0.28** | 0.24** | 0.15* | 0.12 | 0.12* | 0.10 | -0.13* | 0.10 | -0.11 | -0.08 | |
Negative emotion | 0.20** | 0.11 | 0.13 | 0.12 | -0.25** | -0.16* | -0.18* | -0.17* | ||||
Emotional exhaustion | 0.19** | 0.14* | 0.14* | 0.13* | -0.16* | -0.12 | -0.12 | -0.11 | ||||
Work stress | 0.23** | 0.31** | 0.32** | -0.20** | -0.27** | -0.28** | ||||||
Need for affiliation | -0.12 | -0.12 | ||||||||||
Work-home segmentation preference | -0.33** | -0.32** | 0.28** | 0.28** | ||||||||
Workplace ostracism × need for affiliation | 0.20** | |||||||||||
Work stress × work-home segmentation preference | -0.19** | 0.23** | ||||||||||
R2 | 0.04 | 0.11 | 0.13 | 0.16 | 0.17 | 0.21 | 0.30 | 0.34 | 0.19 | 0.22 | 0.29 | 0.34 |
ΔR2 | 0.04 | 0.07 | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.17 | 0.04 | 0.09 | 0.04 | 0.19 | 0.03 | 0.07 | 0.05 |
Sample 1 | Sample 2 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Moderators | Direct effect | Indirect effect | Total effect | Direct effect | Indirect effect | Total effect |
Workplace ostracism (x)→ work stress (m)→ family undermining (y) | ||||||
Low need for affiliation | 0.08* | 0.08** | 0.15 | 0.07 | 0.01 | 0.08 |
High need for affiliation | 0.21* | 0.17** | 0.38* | 0.21* | 0.11** | 0.32** |
Difference | 0.13 | 0.09* | 0.23 | 0.14 | 0.10** | 0.24 |
Workplace ostracism (x)→ work stress (m)→ family satisfaction (y) | ||||||
Low need for affiliation | -0.05 | -0.04** | -0.09 | -0.09 | -0.02 | -0.11 |
High need for affiliation | -0.15 | -0.08** | -0.24** | -0.21** | -0.14** | -0.35** |
Difference | -0.10 | -0.04* | -0.15 | -0.12 | -0.12** | -0.24** |
Workplace ostracism (x)→ work stress (m)→ family undermining (y) | ||||||
Low work-home segmentation preference | 0.17* | 0.22** | 0.40** | 0.17* | 0.28** | 0.33** |
High work-home segmentation preference | 0.05 | 0.02 | 0.07 | 0.05 | 0.03 | 0.20** |
Difference | -0.12 | -0.20** | -0.33** | -0.12 | -0.24** | -0.13 |
Workplace ostracism (x)→ work stress (m)→ family satisfaction (y) | ||||||
Low work-home segmentation preference | -0.18 | -0.11** | -0.29** | -0.04 | -0.32** | -0.36** |
High work-home segmentation preference | 0.02 | -0.00 | 0.01 | -0.18** | -0.02 | -0.21** |
Difference | 0.20 | 0.11** | 0.30** | -0.14 | 0.30** | 0.16 |
Table 7 Moderated mediating effect test
Sample 1 | Sample 2 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Moderators | Direct effect | Indirect effect | Total effect | Direct effect | Indirect effect | Total effect |
Workplace ostracism (x)→ work stress (m)→ family undermining (y) | ||||||
Low need for affiliation | 0.08* | 0.08** | 0.15 | 0.07 | 0.01 | 0.08 |
High need for affiliation | 0.21* | 0.17** | 0.38* | 0.21* | 0.11** | 0.32** |
Difference | 0.13 | 0.09* | 0.23 | 0.14 | 0.10** | 0.24 |
Workplace ostracism (x)→ work stress (m)→ family satisfaction (y) | ||||||
Low need for affiliation | -0.05 | -0.04** | -0.09 | -0.09 | -0.02 | -0.11 |
High need for affiliation | -0.15 | -0.08** | -0.24** | -0.21** | -0.14** | -0.35** |
Difference | -0.10 | -0.04* | -0.15 | -0.12 | -0.12** | -0.24** |
Workplace ostracism (x)→ work stress (m)→ family undermining (y) | ||||||
Low work-home segmentation preference | 0.17* | 0.22** | 0.40** | 0.17* | 0.28** | 0.33** |
High work-home segmentation preference | 0.05 | 0.02 | 0.07 | 0.05 | 0.03 | 0.20** |
Difference | -0.12 | -0.20** | -0.33** | -0.12 | -0.24** | -0.13 |
Workplace ostracism (x)→ work stress (m)→ family satisfaction (y) | ||||||
Low work-home segmentation preference | -0.18 | -0.11** | -0.29** | -0.04 | -0.32** | -0.36** |
High work-home segmentation preference | 0.02 | -0.00 | 0.01 | -0.18** | -0.02 | -0.21** |
Difference | 0.20 | 0.11** | 0.30** | -0.14 | 0.30** | 0.16 |
[1] |
Ashforth B. E., Kreiner G. E., & Fugate M. (2000). All in a day’s work: Boundaries and micro role transitions. Academy of Management Review, 25(3), 472-491.
doi: 10.5465/amr.2000.3363315 URL |
[2] |
Au K., & Kwan H. K. (2009). Start-up capital and Chinese entrepreneurs: The role of family. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(4), 889-908.
doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6520.2009.00331.x URL |
[3] |
Baron R. M., & Kenny D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182.
pmid: 3806354 |
[4] |
Baumeister R. F., & Leary M. R. (1995). The need for affiliation: desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497-529.
pmid: 7777651 |
[5] |
Baumeister R. F., Vohs K. D., & Tice D. M. (2007). The strength model of self-control. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(6), 351-355.
doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00534.x URL |
[6] |
Carlson D. S., Grzywacz J. G., & Kacmar K. M. (2010). The relationship of schedule flexibility and outcomes via the work-family interface. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 25(4), 330-355.
doi: 10.1108/02683941011035278 URL |
[7] |
Chen C., Yang F., & Li Y. (2017). Workplace ostracism: A review on mechanisms and localization development. Advances in Psychological Science, 25(8), 1387-1400.
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2017.01387 URL |
[8] |
Chen Z., Powell G. N., & Greenhaus J. H. (2009). Work-to-family conflict, positive spillover, and boundary management: A person- environment fit approach. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74(1), 82-93.
doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2008.10.009 URL |
[9] | Cheng B., Zhou X., & Guo G. (2019). Research on antecedents and mechanisms of service sabotage from the perspective of workplace ostracism: An empirical study of hotel frontline service employees. Tourism Tribune, 34(8), 65-77. |
[10] |
Chi N. W., Yang J., & Lin C. Y. (2018). Service employees’ chain reactions to daily customer mistreatment: Behavioral linkages, mechanisms, and boundary conditions. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 23(1), 58-70.
doi: 10.1037/ocp0000050 URL |
[11] | Cohen J., Cohen P., West S. G., & Aiken L. S. (2013). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Routledge. |
[12] |
Edwards J. R., & Lambert L. S. (2007). Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: a general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods, 12(1), 1-22.
doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.12.1.1 URL |
[13] |
Edwards J. R., & Rothbard N. P. (2000). Mechanisms linking work and family: Clarifying the relationship between work and family constructs. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 178-199.
doi: 10.5465/amr.2000.2791609 URL |
[14] |
Ferris D. L., Brown D. J., Berry J. W., & Lian H. (2008). The development and validation of the workplace ostracism scale. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(6), 1348-1366.
doi: 10.1037/a0012743 pmid: 19025252 |
[15] |
Forgas J. P., & George J. M. (2001). Affective influences on judgments and behavior in organizations: An information processing perspective. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86(1), 3-34.
doi: 10.1006/obhd.2001.2971 URL |
[16] |
Greenhaus J. H., & Powell G. N. (2006). When work and family are allies: A theory of work-family enrichment. Academy of Management Review, 31(1), 72-92.
doi: 10.5465/amr.2006.19379625 URL |
[17] |
Hagger M. S., Wood C., Stiff C., & Chatzisarantis N. L. D. (2010). Ego depletion and the strength model of self-control: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136(4), 495-525.
doi: 10.1037/a0019486 URL |
[18] |
Halbesleben J. R. B. (2006). Sources of social support and burnout: A meta-analytic test of the conservation of resources model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(5), 1134-1145.
pmid: 16953774 |
[19] |
Halbesleben J. R. B., & Buckley M. R. (2004). Burnout in organizational life. Journal of Management, 30(6), 859-879.
doi: 10.1016/j.jm.2004.06.004 URL |
[20] |
Halbesleben J. R. B., Neveu J. P., Paustian-Underdahl S. C., & Westman M. (2014). Getting to the “COR”: Understanding the role of resources in conservation of resources theory. Journal of Management, 40(5), 1334-1364.
doi: 10.1177/0149206314527130 URL |
[21] |
Hobfoll S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44(3), 513-524.
pmid: 2648906 |
[22] |
Hobfoll S. E. (2001). Conservation of resources: A rejoinder to the commentaries. Applied Psychology, 50(3), 419-421.
doi: 10.1111/apps.2001.50.issue-3 URL |
[23] |
Hobfoll S. E. (2002). Social and psychological resources and adaptation. Review of General Psychology, 6(4), 307-324.
doi: 10.1037/1089-2680.6.4.307 URL |
[24] |
Hobfoll S. E., Halbesleben J., Neveu J. -P., & Westman M. (2018). Conservation of resources in the organizational context: The reality of resources and their consequences. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 5, 103-128.
doi: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032117-104640 URL |
[25] |
Hoobler J. M., & Brass D. J. (2006). Abusive supervision and family undermining as displaced aggression. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(5), 1125-1133.
pmid: 16953773 |
[26] |
House R. J., & Rizzo J. R. (1972). Role conflict and ambiguity as critical variables in a model of organizational behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 7(3), 467-505.
doi: 10.1016/0030-5073(72)90030-X URL |
[27] |
Howard M. C., Cogswell J. E., & Smith M. B. (2020). The antecedents and outcomes of workplace ostracism: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 105(6), 577-596.
doi: 10.1037/apl0000453 pmid: 31556627 |
[28] |
Ito J. K., & Brotheridge C. M. (2003). Resources, coping strategies, and emotional exhaustion: A conservation of resources perspective. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63(3), 490-509.
doi: 10.1016/S0001-8791(02)00033-7 URL |
[29] | Jia X. Z., & Su Y. (2020). Impact of work-family boundary flexibility on work-family conflict and enrichment-based on person-environment fit theory. Human Resources Development of China, 37(6), 56-71. |
[30] |
Jiang H., Jiang X., Sun P., & Li X. (2020). Coping with workplace ostracism: the roles of emotional exhaustion and resilience in deviant behavior. Management Decision, 59(2), 358-371.
doi: 10.1108/MD-06-2019-0848 URL |
[31] |
Jiang P., & Zhang L. H. (2021). Does conformity lead to gains? The effect of workplace ostracism on performance evaluation from a self-presentational view. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 53(4), 400-412.
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2021.00400 URL |
[32] |
Kang Y. J., & Peng J. (2018). Benefits and costs of servant leadership behavior: A work-home resource model perspective. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 51(2), 227-237.
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2019.00227 URL |
[33] |
Kreiner G. E. (2006). Consequences of work‐home segmentation or integration: A person‐environment fit perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(4), 485-507.
doi: 10.1002/(ISSN)1099-1379 URL |
[34] |
Lee K., Kim E., Bhave D. P., & Duffy M. K. (2016). Why victims of undermining at work become perpetrators of undermining: An integrative model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(6), 915-924.
doi: 10.1037/apl0000092 URL |
[35] |
Li A. M., Wang X. T., Xiong G. X., Li B., & Ling W. Q. (2015). A dual-pathway model of work influencing on happiness: A perspective of job demands-resources model. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 47(5), 624-636.
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2015.00624 URL |
[36] |
Liao Y., Liu X. Y., Kwan H. K., & Li J. (2015). Work-family effects of ethical leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 128(3), 535-545.
doi: 10.1007/s10551-014-2119-6 URL |
[37] |
Liao Y., Yang Z., Wang M., & Kwan H. K. (2016). Work-family effects of LMX: The moderating role of work-home segmentation preferences. The Leadership Quarterly, 27(4), 671-683.
doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.03.003 URL |
[38] |
Lim S., Cortina L. M., & Magley V. J. (2008). Personal and workgroup incivility: impact on work and health outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 95-107.
doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.95 URL |
[39] |
Liu J., Kwan H. K., Lee C., & Hui C. (2013). Work-to-family spillover effects of workplace ostracism: The role of work-home segmentation preferences. Human Resource Management, 52(1), 75-93.
doi: 10.1002/hrm.v52.1 URL |
[40] |
Liu Y., Wang M., Chang C. H., Shi J., Zhou L., & Shao R. (2015). Work-family conflict, emotional exhaustion, and displaced aggression toward others: The moderating roles of workplace interpersonal conflict and perceived managerial family support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(3), 793-808.
doi: 10.1037/a0038387 URL |
[41] | Maslach C., Jackson S. E., Leiter M. P., Schaufeli W. B., & Schwab R. L. (1986). Maslach burnout inventory (Vol. 21, pp. 3463-0464). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting psychologists press. |
[42] | Nippert-Eng C. E. (2008). Home and work: Negotiating boundaries through everyday life. University of Chicago Press. |
[43] |
Nohe C., Meier L. L., Sonntag K., & Michel A. (2015). The chicken or the egg? A meta-analysis of panel studies of the relationship between work-family conflict and strain. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(2), 522-536.
doi: 10.1037/a0038012 URL |
[44] |
O’Fallon M. J., & Butterfield K. D. (2011). Moral differentiation: Exploring boundaries of the “monkey see, monkey do” perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 102(3), 379-399.
doi: 10.1007/s10551-011-0820-2 URL |
[45] |
Pickett C. L., Gardner W. L., & Knowles M. (2004). Getting a cue: The need for affiliation and enhanced sensitivity to social cues. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(9), 1095-1107.
doi: 10.1177/0146167203262085 URL |
[46] |
Podsakoff P. M., MacKenzie S. B., Lee J. Y., & Podsakoff N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903.
pmid: 14516251 |
[47] |
Restubog S. L. D., Scott K. L., & Zagenczyk T. J. (2011). When distress hits home: The role of contextual factors and psychological distress in predicting employees' responses to abusive supervision. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(4), 713-729.
doi: 10.1037/a0021593 pmid: 21280933 |
[48] |
Swimberghe K., Jones R. P., & Darrat M. (2014). Deviant behavior in retail, when sales associates “Go Bad”! Examining the relationship between the work-family interface, work stress, and salesperson deviance. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 21(4), 424-431.
doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2014.03.001 URL |
[49] |
Ten Brummelhuis L. L., & Bakker A. B. (2012). A resource perspective on the work-home interface: The work-home resources model. American Psychologist, 67(7), 545-556.
doi: 10.1037/a0027974 pmid: 22506688 |
[50] | Wang T. L., Long L. R., Zhang J. W., & Zhang Y. (2019). The impact of family-like employee-organization relationship on work-family conflict. Management Review, 31(2), 180-189. |
[51] |
Watson D., Clark L. A., & Tellegen A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The panas scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063-1070.
pmid: 3397865 |
[52] | Wen Z. L., Huang B. B., & Tang D. D. (2018). Preliminary work for modeling questionnaire data. Journal of Psychological Science, 41(1), 204-210. |
[53] | Wu L. Z., Liu J., & Xu J. (2010). Workplace ostracism and organizational citizenship behavior: The roles of organizational identification and collectivism. Nankai Business Review, 13(3), 36-44. |
[54] |
Wu L. Z., Yim F. H. K., Kwan H. K., & Zhang X. M. (2012). Coping with workplace ostracism: The roles of ingratiation and political skill in employee psychological distress. Journal of Management Studies, 49(1), 178-199.
doi: 10.1111/joms.2012.49.issue-1 URL |
[55] |
Xin J., Chen S., Kwan H. K., Chiu R. K., & Yim F. H. K. (2018). Work-family spillover and crossover effects of genderual harassment: The moderating role of work-home segmentation preference. Journal of Business Ethics, 147(3), 619-629.
doi: 10.1007/s10551-015-2966-9 URL |
[56] |
Yan Y., & Wang Y. M. (2016). The spillover and crossover effect of workplace incivility: The negative role beyond work boundary. Advances in Psychological Science, 24(12), 1934-1945.
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2016.01934 URL |
[57] | Yang Z. W., Wu X. F., & Kwan H. K. (2014). Effects of leader-member exchange on family undermining: A moderated-mediation model. Journal of Psychological Science, 37(6), 1450-1454. |
[58] |
Zhao H., Peng Z., & Sheard G. (2013). Workplace ostracism and hospitality employees’ counterproductive work behaviors: The joint moderating effects of proactive personality and political skill. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 33, 219-227.
doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2012.08.006 URL |
[59] |
Zhou A., Yang Z., Kwan H. K., & Chiu R. K. (2019). Work-family spillover and crossover effects of authentic leadership in China. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 57(3), 299-321.
doi: 10.1111/aphr.2019.57.issue-3 URL |
[60] | Zhou H., & Long L. R. (2004). Statistical remedies for common method biases. Advances in Psychological Science, 12(6), 942-950. |
[61] |
Zhu H., Lyu Y., Deng X., & Ye Y. (2017). Workplace ostracism and proactive customer service performance: A conservation of resources perspective. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 64, 62-72.
doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2017.04.004 URL |
Viewed | ||||||
Full text |
|
|||||
Abstract |
|
|||||