Cited by 506Work-Family Balance ChallengesTechnostress in Professional SettingsChild Development and Digital Technology

Blurring boundaries? Linking technology use, spillover, individual distress and family satisfaction

Chesley, Noelle·2005·Journal of Marriage and Family

Abstract

Information technology is entrenched in everyday life; yet, scholars have not firmly established whether this use blesses or vexes individuals and their families. This study analyzes longitudinal data (N =1,367) from the Cornell Couples and Careers Study to assess whether increases in spillover explain changes in distress and family satisfaction associated with technology use. Structural equation models indicate that cell phone use over time (but not computer use) is associated with increases in negative forms of spillover (positive spillover is not significant) and is linked to increased distress and lower family satisfaction. Overall, the evidence suggests that technology use may be blurring work/family boundaries with negative consequences for working people.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2005.00213.x

Cites

47 of 47 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • Anxiety created by OEEM should have significant damaging implications for the health and relationship satisfaction of both partners rather than simply the focal employee.

    “Therefore, we propose that anxiety created by OEEM should have significant damaging implications for the health and relationship satisfaction of both partners rather than simply the focal employee (Chesley, 2005).”
  • Problematic cell-phone use includes harm, repeated physical, mental, social, work, or familial interruptions, preferring the cell phone to personal contact, frequent and constant consultations in brief periods, and insomnia and sleep disturbances.

    “Harm, repeated physical, mental, social, work, or familial interruptions, preferring the cell phone to personal contact (52–54); frequent and constant consultations in brief periods (3) with insomnia and sleep disturbances (55, 56).”

    From Cell-phone addiction: a review (2016) · cites this paper as [52]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chesley, N.
Affiliations
University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee (US)
Corresponding author
Chesley, Noelle
Venue
Journal of Marriage and Family
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2005-11-21
Volume
67
Issue
5
Pages
1237-1248
ISSN
  • 0022-2445 (ISSN-L)
  • 1741-3737
OpenAlex
W1993275348
Cited by
506
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 34 · 2021: 37 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 42 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 45 · 2016: 28 · 2015: 34 · 2014: 38 · 2013: 33 · 2012: 29
FWCI
29.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Marriage and the Family (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Work-Family Balance Challenges
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Technostress in Professional Settings
  • Social Sciences › Education › Child Development and Digital Technology
Keywords
information technology use, work-family spillover, mobile phone use, computer use, family satisfaction, working couples, longitudinal change

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