CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 702Job Satisfaction and Organizational BehaviorWork-Family Balance ChallengesWorkaholism, burnout, and well-being

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 90 of the 91 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Too engaged? a conservation of resources view of the relationship between work engagement and work interference with family

Halbesleben, Jonathon R. B., Harvey, Jaron, Bolino, Mark C.·2009·Journal of Applied Psychology
DOI 10.1037/a0017595
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

In a number of studies, researchers interested in positive organizational behavior have sought to better understand the favorable aspects of work engagement-a pervasive state of emotional attachment and motivation toward work. In this study, however, we investigate a potentially negative outcome of engagement. Drawing upon conservation of resources theory, we hypothesize that engagement will be associated with higher work interference with family due to the resources engaged employees may expend when they engage in extrarole work behavior such as organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs). We further propose that conscientiousness, as a personal resource, serves to buffer the relationship between OCB and work interference with family. Examining multisource data, collected at multiple points in time, from 3 diverse samples (total N = 844), we find that state engagement is associated with higher levels of work interference with family and that this relationship is mediated by the performance of OCBs. The findings also indicate that engaged employees who are highly conscientious experience lower levels of work interference with family than engaged employees who are less conscientious. The implications of our study and directions for future research are also discussed.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0017595

Cites

90 of 90 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 91 references

1 of the 91 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Halbesleben, J. R. B., Harvey, J., & Bolino, M. C.
Affiliations
  • University of Wisconsin–Eau Claire (US)
  • University of Oklahoma (US)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Applied Psychology
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2009
Volume
94
Issue
6
Pages
1452-1465
ISSN
  • 0021-9010 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1854
DOI
10.1037/a0017595
OpenAlex
W2053844297
Cited by
701
References
91
Citations by year
2026: 29 · 2025: 43 · 2024: 41 · 2023: 61 · 2022: 63 · 2021: 48 · 2020: 69 · 2019: 49 · 2018: 42 · 2017: 38 · 2016: 35 · 2015: 29 · 2014: 50 · 2013: 35 · 2012: 31
FWCI
41.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Applied Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Job Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Work-Family Balance Challenges
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Workaholism, burnout, and well-being
Keywords
work engagement, work interference with family, conservation of resources theory, organizational citizenship behavior, conscientiousness, state engagement, work-family conflict, buffering effect
MeSH terms
Adult, Consciousness, Employment, Family, Female, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Job Satisfaction, Male, Regression Analysis, Role, Time Factors, Organizational Culture, Workload, Workplace

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review