Which of the Following Terms Refers to How Family Demands Affect Work Performance?

• Loading metrics

Open up Access

Peer-reviewed

Enquiry Article

The impact of job and family demands on partner's fatigue: A study of Japanese dual-earner parents

• Mayumi Watanabe,
• Akihito Shimazu,
• Arnold B. Bakker,
• Evangelia Demerouti,
• Kyoko Shimada,
• Norito Kawakami

x

• Published: February 24, 2017
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0172291

Figures

Abstract

Objectives

This study of Japanese dual-earner couples examined the impact of family and job demands on one's own and i's partner'southward fatigue likewise equally gender differences in these furnishings.

Methods

A full of 2,502 parents (i,251 couples) were surveyed using a self-administered questionnaire. A crossover model was tested using structural equation modeling.

Results

The results of structural equation modeling analyses showed that both chore and family unit demands independently exacerbated fatigue. There was an indirect issue of job and family demands on partner fatigue through one's ain fatigue merely from husbands to wives. An indirect upshot of job demands on partner fatigue through partner'southward family demands was identified only from wives to husbands. Furthermore, in that location were gender differences in the crossover of fatigue.

Conclusions

This study shows that job and family demands influence family circumstances. When considering means to reduce employees' fatigue, gender differences in the mechanism of fatigue need to be taken into account.

Citation: Watanabe M, Shimazu A, Bakker AB, Demerouti E, Shimada Yard, Kawakami N (2017) The impact of job and family demands on partner's fatigue: A study of Japanese dual-earner parents. PLoS ONE 12(ii): e0172291. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0172291

Editor: Daisuke Nishi, National Eye of Neurology and Psychiatry, Nippon

Received: July 30, 2016; Accepted: Feb two, 2017; Published: February 24, 2017

Copyright: © 2017 Watanabe et al. This is an open admission article distributed nether the terms of the Artistic Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original writer and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper.

Funding: This work was supported by Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Inquiry　(Grant-in-Assistance for Young Scientists) 2007–2009 (No.19700536) from the Ministry of Educational activity, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Nippon. https://kaken.nii.air conditioning.jp/ja/grant/KAKENHI-PROJECT-19700536/. As received the funding. The funders had no role in written report design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or grooming of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors accept declared that no competing interests be.

Introduction

In contempo decades, in that location has been a considerable increment in the participation of women in the workforce, leading to a college prevalence of dual-earner couples. These couples, especially those with children, often take heavy responsibilities in the management of family and work tasks. According to the effort-recovery model[1], the procedure of expending effort causes load reactions, which, under the condition of sufficient recovery during the nonworking period, stabilize at a baseline level within a short fourth dimension. Although downtime from work usually performs this recovery office[2], this is frequently inhibited for dual-earner parents. Insufficient recovery invokes accumulated fatigue, which may lead to health deterioration[3], and impairment in children's well-beingness[4].

The fatigue of dual-earner parents may be influenced past not but their own work and family demands just also by those demands on their partner, which is referred to as "crossover"[v–viii]. Show has accumulated over the past two decades for the existence of crossover of health and well-being between partners in dual-earner couples[9–14]. Similarly, demands on parents may be interdependent. Considering parents usually share common stressors, at that place should be a positive correlation between partners' family demands. Previous findings provide evidence of common stressors such as economical hardship playing a significant role in the machinery of the crossover effect[15,16]. Furthermore, job demands on both parents are probable to prove a positive relationship with each other. Morrison[17] suggests that, as a consequence of the fact that similar individuals are more likely to marry each other, partners are probable to have jobs of like status that place comparable demands on each of them.

We wished to add to previous studies on the crossover of dual-earner parents' wellness and well-being by testing the crossover of fatigue between partners subsequently bookkeeping for the affect of each partner'due south work and family unit demands. To examine this effect in detail, we analyzed dyads instead of individuals separately. This also immune united states of america to investigate how these furnishings differ as a role of gender.

Fig 1 depicts the framework of this written report. Delight note that nosotros chose fatigue as an indicator of health and well-beingness because, equally explained above, dual-earner parents are likely to face serious challenges in the process of recovering from work-related fatigue.

The effect of job demands on employees' own fatigue can be explained using the framework of the job demands-resources (JD-R) model. In this model, chore demands are defined as ''concrete, social, or organizational job aspects that require sustained concrete and/or psychological attempt and are associated with certain physiological and/or psychological costs"[18]. Task demands accept been identified every bit the main crusade of burnout, which in turn leads to poor health[19]. Evidence has confirmed this association[18,20,21]. Family demands have besides been identified every bit a detrimental gene to 1's own wellness and well-beingness[22–24]. Consequently, we consider that an employee's chore and family demands will have an undesirable impact on their own fatigue. Hypothesis one is as follows.

1. Hypothesis 1a: An employee'south family demands increase his or her own fatigue. (Pathway A)
2. Hypothesis 1b: An employee'due south task demands increase his or her ain fatigue. (Pathway B)

With regard to the crossover effect of demands on partner'southward fatigue, nosotros suggest that this may take the grade of an indirect upshot through the mutual influence of fatigue—namely, hubby's fatigue influencing married woman'southward fatigue, and wife's fatigue influencing husband's fatigue. This process tin can be explained by the crossover mechanisms proposed by Westman[6]. Crossover may occur through a directly empathic reaction in the other partner. Persons in a close relationship imagine their partners' circumstances and how they would feel in their state of affairs, and in doing then, they experience their partners' feelings. Indeed, a contempo study with Japanese couples on the crossover of work appointment (including vigor), showed that the crossover was more pronounced when both partners showed high levels of perspective taking[25]. Additionally, crossover may occur through behaviors towards partners. Stress may pb ane partner to appoint in negative behavior towards the other partner, thereby increasing distress in the other partner[26]. At that place is evidence for the mutual influence of burnout[8,24,27], work-family conflict[xi,28], distress[29], and positive outcomes[eight,15,xxx]. Consequently, we consider that at that place is common influence of fatigue betwixt dual-earner parents, and, together with Hypothesis i, that an employee'southward job and family demands will increase their partner'due south fatigue indirectly through the effect of 1's ain fatigue. Hypothesis two is as follows.

1. Hypothesis 2a: An employee's family demands indirectly increase his or her partner's fatigue through the result of mutual influence of fatigue betwixt partners. (Pathway A→Pathways C1 and C2)
2. Hypothesis 2b: An employee's task demands indirectly increase his or her partner'due south fatigue through the effect of mutual influence of fatigue betwixt partners. (Pathway B→Pathways C1 and C2)

For these crossover effects, 2 underlying processes are causeless: direct empathic reaction and behaviors toward the partner. Regarding the direct empathic reaction, husbands and wives may differ in their ability to read emotions in their partners. Several studies have confirmed that wives are more than accurate than husbands with respect to emotion recognition[31–33]. Thus, wives may potentially exist more sensitive to directly empathic crossover. On the other hand, with regard to the crossover process through behaviors towards partners, the results are mixed in terms of gender differences. Consequently, we advise that the crossover effect of husbands' fatigue on wives' fatigue volition be stronger than vice versa. Hypothesis three is equally follows.

1. Hypothesis three: The effect of a hubby's fatigue on his married woman's fatigue is stronger than the outcome of a wife's fatigue on her husband'south fatigue. (Pathway C1 > Pathway C2)

In regard to the correlation between an employee's job demands and his or her partner's family unit demands, we anticipate a positive clan. This is because high job demands may inhibit the employee from participating in family tasks, which in turn increases his or her partner's family unit demands in an effort to compensate for the decreased attempt of the spouse. Previous studies[2,34,35] accept confirmed this positive clan. Thus, we consider that one's ain chore demands will be positively related to his or her partner's family unit demands.

1. Hypothesis 4: An employee's job demands are positively related to his or her partner'due south family demands. (Pathway D).
2. Hypothesis 5: An employee's chore demands are positively related to his or her partner's fatigue through the partner's family demands. (Pathway D→Pathways A and B).

Materials and methods

Participants and procedure

The present written report is a part of the Tokyo Work-Family Interface (TWIN) study, a two-wave cohort study with a one-yr time interval. The TWIN study aims to examine the intra-private and inter-private processes of well-beingness in all dual-earner couples with preschool children in the Setagaya Ward in Tokyo, Japan. In the nowadays study, we analyzed the first wave of data collected in 2008. Working partners were approached through the nursery schools. With the help of the Kid-raising Aid Department of Setagaya ward in Tokyo, nosotros sent letters explaining the aims, process, and ethical considerations of the written report to all directors of nursery schools in this ward. Out of a full of 82 schools, 81 agreed to participate. We distributed ii identical questionnaires, one for each partner, through the nursery schools. Respondents returned their questionnaires in closed, pre-stamped envelopes to a researcher at the University of Tokyo. Of the 8,964 questionnaires distributed, 2,992 were returned, resulting in a response rate of 33.4%. The participants in the nowadays study were ii,502 parents (i.e., 1,251 couples) who met the post-obit five criteria: (a) had at to the lowest degree i child six years of age or younger, (b) had a partner (neither widowed nor divorced), (c) lived in a dual-earner household, (d) was employed at least 20 hours per week according to the criteria of Frone [36], and (east) answered all the items in the questionnaire.

The whole procedure followed in the report was reviewed and approved by the Ideals Commission of the Graduate School of Medicine, Academy of Tokyo.

Measures

Chore demands were operationalized by the quantitative demands of work (work overload). This was measured with 4 items adult by Furda [37] that refer to quantitative, demanding aspects of the job. These items were validated in a previous study[38]. Sample items are "Do you work nether time force per unit area?" and "How frequently do you accept to work extra hard to finish something?" Items are scored on a five-point scale ranging from "never" to "always."

Family unit demands were evaluated by asking employees about the amount (quantitative) family demands they experienced. This was measured past v items adult past Peeters [22] referring to quantitative burdens at abode. Sample items are "Practise you lot oftentimes have to do things in a hurry at home?" and "Are you busy at dwelling?" Items are scored on a five-point scale ranging from "never" to "ever."

Fatigue was measured with a subscale of the Brief Task Stress Questionnaire (BSJQ) [39]. The scale includes three items that refer to fatigue experienced inside the last ane month (this catamenia was used simply for measuring fatigue). Sample items are "I have felt extremely tired" and "I have felt exhausted." Items were scored on a 4-point calibration ranging from "never" to "always."

Summated scores of the items of each scale were used to create manifest variables for the analysis.

Data analyses

Data were examined following the recommendations provided past Kenny et al.[twoscore] for evaluating a non-recursive dyadic issue model using structural equation modeling (SEM). In this model, there is covariance between the errors of the hubby'southward and the married woman's fatigue. The importance of setting this covariance is emphasized in several studies[41,42]. Mplus software (version 7.11)[43] was utilized in the nowadays study. Firstly, we conducted SEM analysis to test the model as displayed in Fig 1. Following the recommendations of Hu and Bentler [44], a good model fit was indicated past scores of .ninety or higher on the CFI and scores nether .05 for the RMSEA and SRMR parameters. This was followed by an additional analysis to show how much the furnishings were influenced by possible confounders. We included work-related factors such as working times, shift work (working at night), shorter working time, and commuting time to workplace in the proposed model and allowed to correlate with all other model variables. Secondly, nosotros calculated the magnitude of indirect effects and tested their significance. For this process we utilized the "MODEL INDIRECT" command of Mplus software, which estimates and tests specific indirect effects[45]. Thirdly, to test whether the crossover path from husband to wife is stronger than the effect from married woman to married man, nosotros compared the incremental fit of a constrained model in which the crossover parameters were specified to be equivalent to that of the hypothesized model in which the parameters were freely estimated.

Results

Tabular array 1 shows the demographic characteristics of the study sample for both genders. Husbands were slightly older than wives. In terms of occupational sector, over two thirds of the husbands (70.5%) and more than half of the wives (58.6%) worked for private (vs. public) organizations. More wives (11.2%) worked as civil servants than husbands (viii.4%) did, whereas more husbands (12.8%) than wives (x.4%) were self-employed. Regarding job contracts, the vast bulk of the husbands (95.6%) and less than three quarters of the wives (lxx.v%) worked as full-time workers. Regarding piece of work and commuting hours, husbands had significantly longer working hours (nine.9 and 7.v, respectively), and slightly longer commuting hours than wives did (1.5 and 1.iv, respectively). As for the shorter working hours system, most husbands (97.five%) did not employ this system, whereas nigh one quarter of the wives (25.3%) did (see Table 1).

Tabular array 2 shows the means, standard deviations, internal consistencies (Cronbach's alpha), and correlations between the study variables. As can be seen, all variables accept acceptable reliabilities with Cronbach's alpha coefficients of .70 or college. Fatigue of husband and married woman were significantly correlated (r = 0.fourteen, p < .01).

Fig ii shows the standardized solution of the hypothesized model. The fit indices for the SEM model indicated a good model fit (χ²(2) = three.011, p = 0.22; RMSEA = 0.02; CFI = 0.998; TLI = 0.987; SRMR = 0.008). Delight annotation that this good fit is mostly due to the model including only observed variables. As for the adjustment of possible confounders, subsequently controlling for misreckoning variables, the path coefficients remained virtually the same as those in the proposed original model. This indicates that the impact of the control variables on the model variables was weak. Chiefly, most control variables did non impact the structural paths in the model significantly (i.e., 53 out of 76 paths were non statistically significant). Therefore, the control variables were removed from the concluding model in Fig 2.

Fig 2. A crossover model of associations between job and family demands and fatigue.

Estimates represent standardized coefficients. Significant paths (p <0.05) are shown with solid lines. Non-pregnant paths are shown with dotted lines.

https://doi.org/ten.1371/journal.pone.0172291.g002

Husbands'/wives' job demands and family demands had a positive relationship with their ain fatigue. These results provide support to both Hypothesis 1a and 1b.

As for the mutual influence between the husband's and wife'southward fatigue, husband's fatigue had a positive effect on wife'due south fatigue whereas wife's fatigue did not have a significant result on husband's fatigue. Table iii shows the estimates and p-values of the indirect crossover effect. Both indirect effects of (a) husband'due south family demands and (b) hubby's job demands on wife's fatigue through husband's fatigue were meaning (although the magnitude of the event was small), whereas both indirect effects of wife'south family and job demands on husband's fatigue through wife'south fatigue were non-significant. Thus, Hypothesis 2a and 2b were partially supported.

Tabular array 4 shows the model comparison to further test whether the effect of husband's fatigue on wife'southward fatigue is stronger than the event of wife'due south fatigue on husband's fatigue. We compared the hypothesized model with the model that constrained the parameters of both paths to be equal. The constrained model showed a significantly worse fit compared to the hypothesized model (Delta →²(2) = 6.267, p< .05), indicating that the furnishings were different for husbands and wives. The effect of husband's fatigue on married woman'southward fatigue was constitute to be stronger than the issue of married woman'southward fatigue on married man's fatigue. Thus, Hypothesis 3 was supported.

Regarding the association between i'southward own job demands and one's partner'southward family unit demands, the effect of married woman's job demands on husband's family demands was identified as significant, whereas the effect of husband's job demands on wife's family unit demands was not significant (equally shown in Fig 2). Consequently, Hypothesis 4 was partially supported.

The indirect effects shown in Tabular array 3 signal that the effect of wife'southward job demands through husband'due south family demands on husband's fatigue was identified as significant (although the magnitude of the effect is small). On the other hand, the indirect issue of husband'south task demands through wife'southward family demands on wife'south fatigue was not pregnant. Appropriately, Hypothesis 5 was partially supported.

Discussion

The present study investigated the crossover influence of fatigue between parents with a structural equation modeling approach, using the dyad simultaneously. In what follows, we will discuss our findings in item.

As to our hypothesized positive association of employee's family unit and job demands with their own fatigue (Pathway A and B, respectively), our results were supportive. This is in line with our predictions and previous studies[11,xviii,20–23]. This finding is also consistent with the health-impairment or strain process proposed past the JD-R theory[18,19,46,47]. Our written report also showed that the JD-R model can be extended to the expanse of the home for both partners. This suggests that both demands may independently exacerbate fatigue.

Farther results partially supported our hypotheses in which nosotros predicted that an employee's job/family demands indirectly increase his or her partner's fatigue through the mutual influence of fatigue betwixt partners (Pathway A → Pathways C1 and C2 and Pathway B → Pathways C1 and C2, respectively): the common influence of fatigue between parents did exist equally hypothesized, merely only for the effect from husband to wife, indicating that the influence was unidirectional. It was shown that if husbands are tired, this volition affect wives, but no such phenomenon occurs in the contrary direction. This gender difference was confirmed through further assay of an incremental Χⁱⁱ test. Therefore, the hypothesis that the crossover effect of fatigue is stronger from husbands to wives than vice versa (Pathway C1 > Pathway C2) was supported. This is consistent with the theory that women are more accurate in their ability to read emotions than are men[31–33]. When comparing this event with those of previous crossover studies, it is in line with studies indicating unidirectional crossover only from husband to wife[8,15,29], though opposite to the results of studies of exhaustion[8] and distress[29] that indicated unidirectional crossover from wife to husband and bidirectional crossover of burnout[27]. Our effect may be the result of the context in which the participants lived. Gender inequality is greater in Japan than in many other advanced nations. Regarding the Global Gender Gap Index[48], Japan is ranked 111th out of 144 countries. In improver, gender role differences are likely to exist big in Japan. According to the survey of Women'southward Activeness Promotion[49], up to 46.5% men and 43.2% women in Nihon concord with the view that husbands should piece of work outside the home and wives should devote themselves to the household. Social norms with gender roles are internalized by both husbands and wives in Japan. Consequently, wives in Japan may exist more affected by family circumstances when compared to wives in Western countries. Japanese wives' happiness was establish to be related to their husbands' income rather than their own, whereas U.South. wives' happiness was related to their own income and non their spouses'[50]. As such, in Japan, wives' fatigue may increase according to their husbands' fatigue, whereas husbands' fatigue will not be afflicted by their wives' fatigue.

Finally, regarding our hypothesis that there is a positive association between ane's ain job demands and one'south partner'south family demands, leading to an indirect effect on partner's fatigue, just the association betwixt wife's job demands and husband's family demands was confirmed to exist. This consequence opposes that of Bolger's and Pittman's study[34,35], which demonstrated the influence of simply hubby's job demands on his wife'due south circumstances and not vice versa. This gender-specific event is besides contrary to the gender-neutral results of Bakker and his colleagues[2], where in that location were no gender differences regarding the process of job demands affecting dwelling demands. Again, these inconsistent results may be due to differences in the cultural context. As mentioned in a higher place, gender inequality is greater in Nihon. Therefore, wives bear much of the responsibility for household chores and childcare in Japan[14]. According to the Survey on Time Use and Leisure Activities[51], husbands in Japanese dual-earner parents spent only 39 minutes per day on housework, whereas wives spent every bit much as 293 minutes per day. Consequently, if wives are unable to handle family unit tasks for reasons such as work overtime, this will seriously affect the family state of affairs, as family unit members commonly act on the supposition that wives will do most of the tasks. On the contrary, since the usual dedication of husbands to housework is low, family members are not influenced and so strongly by husbands' availability. However, the magnitude of the support that husbands provide to wives may affect the association betwixt wife'due south job demands and husband's family demands. We conducted further analysis adding husbands' back up (measured by wives) equally an adjusting variable. The results showed that there was not much divergence when compared to the original model, fifty-fifty later adjusting for husbands' social back up.

The findings in this written report aggrandize previous research in three ways. Firstly, there is an indirect effect of job and family demands on partner fatigue through ane's own fatigue. Secondly, there is an indirect consequence of job demands on partner fatigue through partner family demands. Thirdly, there is a gender divergence in these indirect effects. By including both parents' job and family demands in the analysis, we were able to show the precise mechanism of how dual-earner parents' task demands affect family circumstances. These findings can be understood as a work-to-family unit disharmonize event. Although we did non directly ask for the effect, we showed piece of work-to-family unit conflict by highlighting the indirect effect of husbands' job demands on wives' fatigue through wives' family demands.

This study has several limitations. Firstly, it is based on survey information with self-study measures. In addition to self-report bias, mutual method variance may besides have played a function. Therefore, the truthful associations between variables might be weaker than the relationships observed in this study, although some research indicates that this is not as problematic every bit in one case thought[52]. Secondly, we used a cross-exclusive research pattern. The determination of causal relationships requires further testing through longitudinal studies. Thirdly, the response charge per unit of the survey was relatively low. It is possible that the couples who invested long hours in work and family tasks such as kid rearing could non afford enough time to reply to the questionnaire. Additionally, persons who are less interested in work-family unit issues may not have participated in this survey. Thus, the true associations between variables might be weaker than the relationships observed in this study. Future research should aim to increase the involvement in work and family bug amongst potential participants to reduce this selection bias. Fourthly, levels of fatigue at work could depend on the timing of completing the survey. Since nosotros did non indicate this in the questionnaire, it might vary between participants. Yet, we asked near chronic fatigue in the preceding month, which may not exist so strongly influenced past the timing of answering the survey. Finally, this written report focused on couples with preschool children, which limits the generalizability of the current findings not merely effectually the world but also in Nihon. Thus, further research is needed to determine whether we tin generalize these findings to other areas and other (Western) countries.

Implications for hereafter practise

This study has several implications. Our findings show that job and family demands of husbands have a positive influence on wives' fatigue. This upshot suggests that protecting men's well-being is beneficial not but for men themselves but also for family unit functioning. Employers could consider measures such as reduction of long working hours as boosted piece of work-family policies. Furthermore, when considering means to reduce employees' fatigue, gender differences in the mechanism of fatigue demand to be taken into account. Women employees are more affected by partners' states than are men; thus, assessing family circumstances may exist especially effective for women employees. Additionally, interventions such as preventing excessive job demands amid husbands or encouraging them to support their wives at home, particularly if these wives also have paid jobs, might also be effective.

Decision

To conclude, this study of Japanese dual-earner parents used a SEM model to demonstrate that job/family demands increment partners' fatigue through the process of fatigue crossover between partners. Additionally, task demands increase partners' fatigue through their ain family demands. This written report also demonstrated that this crossover process is different for both genders.

Acknowledgments

The authors greatly appreciate Kazuhiro Watanabe for help with statistical analysis, which profoundly improved the manuscript.

Author Contributions

1. Conceptualization: MW As.
2. Information curation: AS KS NK.
3. Formal analysis: MW AS.
4. Funding acquisition: Every bit.
5. Investigation: MW AS.
6. Methodology: MW.
7. Project administration: AS.
8. Resources: Equally KS NK.
9. Software: MW.
10. Supervision: Equally AB ED.
11. Validation: MW Equally.
12. Writing – original typhoon: MW.
13. Writing – review & editing: MW AS AB ED KS NK.

References

1. i. Meijman TF, Mulder Yard. Psychological Aspects of Workload. In: Drenth PJD, Thierry H, Wolff CJ, editors. Handbook of work and organizational psychology. 2nd ed. Hove, East Sussex: Psychology Press; 1998.
2. 2. Bakker AB, Demerouti E, Dollard MF. How job demands affect partners' experience of burnout: integrating work-family conflict and crossover theory. J Appl Psychol. 2008;93(4):901–xi. pmid:18642992
   • View Article
   • PubMed/NCBI
   • Google Scholar
3. iii. Sluiter JK, de Croon EM, Meijman TF, Frings-Dresen MHW. Demand for recovery from work related fatigue and its role in the development and prediction of subjective wellness complaints. Occup Environ Med. 2003;60:62–70.
   • View Article
   • Google Scholar
4. 4. Murdock KW, Lovejoy MC, Oddi KB. An Actor-Partner interdependence assay of associations between affect and parenting beliefs amid couples. Fam Process. 2014;53(1):120–30. pmid:24438316
   • View Article
   • PubMed/NCBI
   • Google Scholar
5. 5. Bakker AB, Westman M, Hetty van Emmerik IJ. Advancements in crossover theory. J Manag Psychol. 2009;24(3):206–19.
   • View Article
   • Google Scholar
6. 6. Westman K. Stress and strain crossover. Hum Relations. 2001;54(6):717–51.
   • View Article
   • Google Scholar
7. 7. Parasuraman S, Greenhaus JH, Granrose CS. Role stressors, social support, and well-being amidst 2-career couples. J Organ Behav. 1992;13(iv):339–56.
   • View Article
   • Google Scholar
8. eight. Demerouti E, Bakker AB, Schaufeli WB. Spillover and crossover of burnout and life satisfaction among dual-earner parents. J Vocat Behav. 2005;67(2):266–89.
   • View Commodity
   • Google Scholar
9. 9. Jackson SE, Maslach C. Later-effects of task-related stress: Families as victims. J Organ Behav. 1982;iii(1):63–77.
   • View Article
   • Google Scholar
10. 10. Jones F. An empirical study of occupational stress transmission in working couples. Hum Relations. 1993;46(7):881–903.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
11. 11. Hammer Fifty, Allen Eastward, Grigsby T. Work–family conflict in dual-earner couples: Inside-individual and crossover furnishings of work and family unit. J Vocat Behav. 1997;203(50):185–203.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
12. 12. Gorgievski-Duijvesteijin MJ, Giesen CWM, Bakker AB. Financial bug and wellness complaints among farm couples: Results of a 10-yr follow-upward study. J Occup Health Psychol. 2000;5(three):359–73. pmid:10912499
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
13. 13. Shimazu A, Bakker AB, Demerouti E. How job demands affect an intimate partner: A exam of the spillover-crossover model in Japan. J Occup Health. 2009;51(3):239–48. pmid:19390160
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
14. 14. Shimazu A, Demerouti E, Bakker AB, Shimada K, Kawakami N. Workaholism and well-being among Japanese dual-earner couples: A spillover-crossover perspective. Soc Sci Med. 2011;73(3):399–409. pmid:21733607
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
15. 15. Westman K, Vinokur AD, Hamilton VL, Roziner I. Crossover of marital dissatisfaction during military downsizing among Russian army officers and their spouses. J Appl Psychol. 2004;89(five):769–79. pmid:15506859
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
16. 16. Westman Yard, Vinokur AD. Unraveling the human relationship of distress levels within couples: Mutual stressors, empathic reactions, or crossover via social interaction? Hum Relations. 1998;51(2):137–56.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
17. 17. Morrison DL, Clements R. The result of one partner's job characteristics on the other partner's distress: A serendipitous, just naturalistic, experiment. J Occup Organ Psychol. 1997;lxx(four):307–24.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
18. 18. Demerouti E, Bakker AB, Nachreiner F, Schaufeli WB. The job demands-resources model of burnout. J Appl Psychol. 2001;86(3):499–512. pmid:11419809
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
19. nineteen. Bakker AB, Demerouti E, Sanz-Vergel AI. Burnout and work engagement: The JD–R Approach. Annu Rev Organ Psychol Organ Behav. 2014;ane:389–411.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
20. 20. Maslach C, Schaufeli WB, Leiter MP. Chore burnout. Annu Rev Psychol. 2001;52:397–422. pmid:11148311
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
21. 21. Bekker MHJ, Croon MA, Bressers B. Childcare interest, job characteristics, gender and work attitudes equally predictors of emotional exhaustion and sickness absence. Piece of work Stress. 2005;19(3):221–37.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
22. 22. Peeters MCW, Montgomery AJ, Bakker AB, Schaufeli WB. Balancing piece of work and abode: How chore and dwelling demands are related to burnout. Int J Stress Manag. 2005;12(1):43–61.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
23. 23. x Brummelhuis LL, van der Lippe T, Kluwer ES, Flap H. Positive and negative effects of family unit involvement on work-related burnout. J Vocat Behav. 2008;73(three):387–96.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
24. 24. Bakker AB. The crossover of exhaustion and work engagement among working couples. Hum Relations. 2005;58(5):661–89.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
25. 25. Bakker AB, Shimazu A, Demerouti Eastward, Shimada K, Kawakami N. Crossover of piece of work engagement among Japanese couples: Perspective taking by both partners. J Occup Health Psychol. 2011;sixteen(1):112–25. pmid:21280948
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
26. 26. Bakker AB, Demerouti E. The Spillover–Crossover Model. In: Grzywacz J, Demerouti E, editors. New frontiers in work and family. Hove, East Sussex: Psychology Printing; 2013.
27. 27. Westman M, Etzion D. Crossover of stress, strain and resources from one spouse to another. J Organ Behav. 1995;16(2):169–81.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
28. 28. Westman M, Da Lia E. The crossover of work-family unit disharmonize from 1 spouse to the other. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2005;35(ix):1936–57.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
29. 29. ten Brummelhuis LL, Haar JM, van der Lippe T. Crossover of distress due to work and family demands in dual-earner couples: A dyadic analysis. Work Stress. 2010;24(4):324–41.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
30. 30. Bakker AB, Demerouti Eastward. The crossover of work date betwixt working couples. J Manag Psychol. 2009;24(3):220–36.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
31. 31. Hall JA, Matsumoto D. Gender differences in judgments of multiple emotions from facial expressions. Emotion. 2004;four(2):201–half-dozen. pmid:15222856
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
32. 32. Lambrecht L, Kreifelts B, Wildgruber D. Gender differences in emotion recognition: Impact of sensory modality and emotional category. Cogn Emot. 2014;28(3):452–69. pmid:24151963
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
33. 33. McClure EB. A meta-analytic review of sexual practice differences in facial expression processing and their development in infants, children, and adolescents. Psychol Balderdash. 2000;126(iii):424–53. pmid:10825784
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
34. 34. Bolger N, DeLongis A, Kessler RC, Wethington East. The contagion of stress beyond multiple roles. J Marriage Fam. 1989;51(one):175–83.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
35. 35. Pittman JF, Solheim CA, Blanchard D. Stress as a driver of the allocation of housework. J Union Fam. 1996;58(2):456–68.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
36. 36. Frone MR. Work-family conflict and employee psychiatric disorders: The National Comorbidity Survey. J Appl Psychol. 2000;85(half dozen):888–95. pmid:11155895
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
37. 37. Furda JW. Persoon en welzijn: een toets van het JD-C model [Work, personality, and well-being: A test of the JD-C model]. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Utrecht University (The Netherlands); 1995.
38. 38. Shimada K, Shimazu A, Bakker AB, Demerouti East, Kawakami N. Work-family unit spillover among Japanese dual-earner couples: A big community-based report. J Occup Wellness. 2010;52(vi):335–43. pmid:20924151
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
39. 39. Shimomitsu T, Yokoyama K, Ono Y, Maruta T, Tanigawa T. Evolution of a novel brief task stress questionnaire. In: Kato Due south, editor. Report of the enquiry grant for the prevention of work-related diseases from the Ministry of Labor. Japanese Grand. Tokyo; 1998. p. 107–115 (in Japanese).
40. xl. Kenny DA, Kashy DA, Melt WL. Dyadic information analysis. New York: Guilford Press; 2006.
41. 41. Schaubroeck J. Investigating reciprocal causation in organizational beliefs research. J Organ Behav. 1990;xi(1):17–28.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
42. 42. Wong C-S, Constabulary KS. Testing reciprocal relationships by nonrecursive structural equation models using cross-sectional information. Organ Res methods. 1999;2(1):69–87.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
43. 43. Muthén LK, Muthén BO. (1998–2012). Mplus User's Guide. 7th ed. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthen.
44. 44. Hu Fifty, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model. 1999;six(1):i–55.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
45. 45. MacKinnon DP. Introduction to statistical mediation analysis. Abingdon, Oxfordshire: Routledge; 2008.
46. 46. Schaufeli WB, Bakker AB. Job demands, chore resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. J Organ Behav. 2004;25(3):293–315.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
47. 47. Demerouti E, Bakker AB. The Chore Demands–Resources model: Challenges for future research. SA J Ind Psychol. 2011;37(2):ix
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
48. 48. World economic forum (2015). The Global Gender Gap Alphabetize Results in 2015. Retrieved 2016 Nov fourteen from: http://reports.weforum.org/global-gender-gap-written report-2015/the-global-gender-gap-alphabetize-results-in-2015/
49. 49. Chiffonier office (2014). Survey of Women's Activeness Promotion. Retrieved 2016 Nov 2 from: http://survey.gov-online.go.jp/h26/h26-joseikatsuyaku/gairyaku.pdf (in Japanese)
50. 50. Lee KS, Ono H. Specialization and happiness in union: A U.S.-Japan comparison. Soc Sci Res. 2008;37(iv):1216–34. pmid:19227699
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
51. 51. Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications (2011). Survey on Time Use and Leisure Activities. Retrieved 2016 Nov 2 from: http://www.eastward-stat.go.jp/SG1/estat/List.do?bid=000001041121&cycode=0 (in Japanese)
52. 52. Spector PE. Method variance in organizational enquiry: Truth or urban legend? Organ Res Methods. 2006;9(two):221–32.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar

burganneper1956.blogspot.com

Source: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0172291

Share this post