Gain or Loss? Examining the double-edged sword effect of challenge demand on work-family enrichment

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2022.01234

Abstract

Key words: challenge demand, work-family enrichment, daily shift directionality, variability, diary study

Cite this article

XU Shan, ZHANG Yucheng, ZHANG Bingran, SHI Junqi, YUAN Mengsha, REN Yingwei. (2022). Gain or Loss? Examining the double-edged sword effect of challenge demand on work-family enrichment. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 54(10), 1234-1247.

share this article

0
/ / Recommend

Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

URL: https://journal.psych.ac.cn/acps/EN/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2022.01234

https://journal.psych.ac.cn/acps/EN/Y2022/V54/I10/1234

Figures/Tables 7

Table 1 Descriptive statistics and correlations at within-person level

Variables	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1. Daily challenge demand	3.26	0.81	1
2. Daily hindrance demand	2.73	0.73	0.46**	1
3. Daily shifts in challenge demand	0.23	0.53	0.62**	0.20**	1
4. Daily shifts in hindrance demand	−0.11	0.52	0.15**	0.58**	0.16**	1
5. Daily work absorption	3.09	0.68	0.32**	0.19**	0.07	−0.02	1
6. Daily relaxation	3.50	0.76	−0.24**	−0.24**	−0.22**	−0.23**	−0.06	1
7. Daily work-family enrichment	3.35	0.81	0.08*	−0.19**	−0.12**	−0.15**	0.10**	0.37**	1

Table 1 Descriptive statistics and correlations at within-person level

Variables	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1. Daily challenge demand	3.26	0.81	1
2. Daily hindrance demand	2.73	0.73	0.46**	1
3. Daily shifts in challenge demand	0.23	0.53	0.62**	0.20**	1
4. Daily shifts in hindrance demand	−0.11	0.52	0.15**	0.58**	0.16**	1
5. Daily work absorption	3.09	0.68	0.32**	0.19**	0.07	−0.02	1
6. Daily relaxation	3.50	0.76	−0.24**	−0.24**	−0.22**	−0.23**	−0.06	1
7. Daily work-family enrichment	3.35	0.81	0.08*	−0.19**	−0.12**	−0.15**	0.10**	0.37**	1

Table 2 Descriptive statistics and correlations at between-person level

Variables	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
1. Gender	-	-	1
2. Marital Status	1.79	0.46	0.07	1
3. Spouse's work status	1.94	0.67	−0.07	0.43**	1
4. Average challenge demand	3.28	0.58	−0.07	−0.24**	−0.05	1
5. Average hindrance demand	2.73	0.52	0.05	−0.27**	−0.11**	0.52**	1
6. Variability in challenge demand	0.53	0.24	−0.02	−0.07	−0.08*	−0.27**	−0.17**	1
7. Variability in hindrance demand	0.49	0.23	0.02	−0.13**	−0.25**	0.04	0.12**	0.56**	1
8. Chronic work absorption	3.10	0.41	−0.07	−0.16**	0.08*	0.41**	0.29**	−0.29**	−0.11**	1
9. Chronic relaxation	3.49	0.51	−0.19**	−0.00	0.04	−0.12**	−0.15**	−0.20**	−0.15**	0.02	1
10. Chronic work-family enrichment	3.35	0.61	−0.09*	0.11**	0.25**	0.18**	−0.19**	−0.37**	−0.22**	0.16**	0.49**	1

Table 2 Descriptive statistics and correlations at between-person level

Variables	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
1. Gender	-	-	1
2. Marital Status	1.79	0.46	0.07	1
3. Spouse's work status	1.94	0.67	−0.07	0.43**	1
4. Average challenge demand	3.28	0.58	−0.07	−0.24**	−0.05	1
5. Average hindrance demand	2.73	0.52	0.05	−0.27**	−0.11**	0.52**	1
6. Variability in challenge demand	0.53	0.24	−0.02	−0.07	−0.08*	−0.27**	−0.17**	1
7. Variability in hindrance demand	0.49	0.23	0.02	−0.13**	−0.25**	0.04	0.12**	0.56**	1
8. Chronic work absorption	3.10	0.41	−0.07	−0.16**	0.08*	0.41**	0.29**	−0.29**	−0.11**	1
9. Chronic relaxation	3.49	0.51	−0.19**	−0.00	0.04	−0.12**	−0.15**	−0.20**	−0.15**	0.02	1
10. Chronic work-family enrichment	3.35	0.61	−0.09*	0.11**	0.25**	0.18**	−0.19**	−0.37**	−0.22**	0.16**	0.49**	1

Table 3 Multilevel path analysis results of challenge demand and work-family enrichment [γ (SE)]

Predictors	Work absorption	Relaxation	Work-family enrichment
Between-person level
Average challenge demand	0.25**(0.08)	−0.16*(0.07)	0.18(0.12)
Variability in challenge demand	−0.35*(0.18)	−0.54*(0.24)	−0.60*(0.28)
Chronic work absorption			0.02(0.14)
Chronic relaxation			0.56***(0.09)
Within-person level
Daily challenge demand	0.38***(0.07)	−0.15*(0.08)	0.30**(0.11)
Daily shifts in challenge demand	−0.27***(0.07)	−0.17*(0.07)	−0.34**(0.10)
Daily work absorption			0.15*(0.06)
Daily relaxation			0.42***(0.05)
pseudo-R²	13.61%	26.22%	14.30%

Table 3 Multilevel path analysis results of challenge demand and work-family enrichment [γ (SE)]

Predictors	Work absorption	Relaxation	Work-family enrichment
Between-person level
Average challenge demand	0.25**(0.08)	−0.16*(0.07)	0.18(0.12)
Variability in challenge demand	−0.35*(0.18)	−0.54*(0.24)	−0.60*(0.28)
Chronic work absorption			0.02(0.14)
Chronic relaxation			0.56***(0.09)
Within-person level
Daily challenge demand	0.38***(0.07)	−0.15*(0.08)	0.30**(0.11)
Daily shifts in challenge demand	−0.27***(0.07)	−0.17*(0.07)	−0.34**(0.10)
Daily work absorption			0.15*(0.06)
Daily relaxation			0.42***(0.05)
pseudo-R²	13.61%	26.22%	14.30%

Figure 1. Effects of key direct paths from the static model.

Figure 1. Effects of key direct paths from the static model.

Table 4 Results of static model indirect effects

Static model indirect effects	Estimate	S.E.	Monte Carlo 95% CI
Static model indirect effects	Estimate	S.E.	Lower	Upper
	Indirect effects
Daily challenge demand → Daily work absorption → Daily work-family enrichment	0.06*	0.03	0.005	0.110
Daily challenge demand → Daily relaxation → Daily work-family enrichment	−0.05*	0.03	−0.100	−0.007
Average challenge demand → Chronic work absorption → Chronic work-family enrichment	0.01	0.01	−0.019	0.031
Average challenge demand→ Chronic relaxation→ Chronic work-family enrichment	−0.09***	0.02	−0.121	−0.061
	Comparison effects
Daily level model: work absorption vs relaxation	0.01	0.04	−0.079	0.066
Average level model: work absorption vs relaxation	0.09***	0.02	0.045	0.125

Table 4 Results of static model indirect effects

Static model indirect effects	Estimate	S.E.	Monte Carlo 95% CI
Static model indirect effects	Estimate	S.E.	Lower	Upper
	Indirect effects
Daily challenge demand → Daily work absorption → Daily work-family enrichment	0.06*	0.03	0.005	0.110
Daily challenge demand → Daily relaxation → Daily work-family enrichment	−0.05*	0.03	−0.100	−0.007
Average challenge demand → Chronic work absorption → Chronic work-family enrichment	0.01	0.01	−0.019	0.031
Average challenge demand→ Chronic relaxation→ Chronic work-family enrichment	−0.09***	0.02	−0.121	−0.061
	Comparison effects
Daily level model: work absorption vs relaxation	0.01	0.04	−0.079	0.066
Average level model: work absorption vs relaxation	0.09***	0.02	0.045	0.125

Figure 2. Effects of key direct paths from the dynamic model.

Figure 2. Effects of key direct paths from the dynamic model.

Table 5 Results of dynamic model indirect effects

Dynamic model indirect effects	Estimate	S.E.	Monte Carlo 95% CI
Dynamic model indirect effects	Estimate	S.E.	Lower	Upper
Daily shifts in challenge demand → Daily work absorption → Daily work-family enrichment	0.03	0.02	−0.010	0.077
Daily shifts in challenge demand → Daily relaxation → Daily work-family enrichment	−0.07*	0.03	−0.129	−0.012
Variability in challenge demand → Chronic work absorption → Chronic work-family enrichment	−0.01	0.02	−0.042	0.026
Variability in challenge demand → Chronic relaxation → Chronic work-family enrichment	−0.29***	0.05	−0.396	−0.200

Table 5 Results of dynamic model indirect effects

Dynamic model indirect effects	Estimate	S.E.	Monte Carlo 95% CI
Dynamic model indirect effects	Estimate	S.E.	Lower	Upper
Daily shifts in challenge demand → Daily work absorption → Daily work-family enrichment	0.03	0.02	−0.010	0.077
Daily shifts in challenge demand → Daily relaxation → Daily work-family enrichment	−0.07*	0.03	−0.129	−0.012
Variability in challenge demand → Chronic work absorption → Chronic work-family enrichment	−0.01	0.02	−0.042	0.026
Variability in challenge demand → Chronic relaxation → Chronic work-family enrichment	−0.29***	0.05	−0.396	−0.200

References

Metrics

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Comments

Abstract
Figures/Tables
References
Related Articles
Recommended Articles
Metrics
Comments

TOP

[1]	PENG Wanqing,LUO Wei,ZHOU Renlai. HRV evidence for the improvement of emotion regulation in university students with depression tendency by working memory training [J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2019, 51(6): 648-661.
[2]	ZHAO Ruiying,LOU Hao,OUYANG Mingkun,ZHANG Qingfang. Aging of the tip of the tongue in daily life: A diary study [J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2019, 51(5): 598-611.
[3]	SUN Shasha, LI Xiaobing, LI Baoshan, LIU Chengyi, HUANG Miner. Physiological mechanisms of mindfulness: Preliminary evidence from self-similarity of heart rate variability [J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2018, 50(12): 1413-1427.
[4]	GUO Jianpeng; YANG Lingyan. Learning from Comparison: The Effects of Example Variability and Prior Knowledge [J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2015, 47(8): 1013-1027.
[5]	MA Hongyu;SHEN Chuangang;YANG Jing;TANG Hanying;XIE Julan. Boundary Flexibility and Work-family Conflict and Enrichment: from Person-environment Fit Perspective [J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2014, 46(4): 540-551.
[6]	LI Guangming;ZHANG Minqiang. Using Adjusted Bootstrap to Improve the Estimation of Variance Components and Their Variability for Generalizability Theory [J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2013, 45(1): 114-124.
[7]	LI Guang-Ming,ZHANG Min-Qiang. Estimating the Variability of Estimated Variance Components for Generalizability Theory [J]. , 2009, 41(09): 889-901.
[8]	Zhang Wencai,Yan Kele,Lu Yunqing,zhang Di,Hong Jie,Yuan Lizhuang,Zhang Yuejuan. The Effect of Different Psychological Stressors on Responses of Sympathetic and Parasympathetic Nervous Systems [J]. , 2007, 39(02): 285-291.