Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 211

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 13 of the 13 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Enrichment processes and gain spirals at work and at home: A 3‐year cross‐lagged panel study

Hakanen, Jari J., Peeters, Maria C. W., Perhoniemi, Riku·2011·Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology

Abstract

In this study, we combined the Job Demands‐Resources model and Conservation of Resources theory with work‐family enrichment (WFE) literature, using the Resource–Gain–Development perspective in particular, in order to (1) investigate the motivating and wellness‐promoting role of job and home resources in predicting enrichment in work and family leading to further positive outcomes, and (2) examine positive gain spirals between the study variables over time. More specifically, we investigated whether job resources predict work engagement through WFE, and similarly, whether home resources predict marital satisfaction through FWE. We also investigated the reciprocal effects between job and home resources, enrichment in both directions, and well‐being in both domains. The study was based on a two‐wave, 3‐year, full panel design among Finnish dentists ( N = 1,632). Results showed that job resources at T1 predicted WFE at T2, and WFE and engagement reciprocally influenced each other over time. Home resources at T1, on the other hand, did not predict family‐work enrichment (FEW) at T2; instead, FWE at T1 influenced both home resources and marital satisfaction at T2. Moreover, we found reciprocal impacts (‘gain spirals’) between domain‐specific resources (job/home resources) and domain‐specific well‐being (engagement/marital satisfaction) and between WFE and engagement, thus supporting the Conservation of Resources theory. The same results were found for both genders, suggesting that similar enrichment processes may take place among both women and men. Theoretically, this study suggests that adding the idea of positive feedback loops might benefit the models theorizing WFE.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.2044-8325.2010.02014.x

Cites

13 of 13 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 13 references

Cited by

See all 211

Metadata

Authors
Hakanen, J. J., Peeters, M. C. W., & Perhoniemi, R.
Venue
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2011-01-24
Volume
84
Issue
1
Pages
8-30
ISSN
  • 0963-1798 (ISSN-L)
  • 2044-8325
OpenAlex
W2158004030
Cited by
211
References
13
FWCI
52.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Enrichment processes and gain spirals at work and at home: A 3‐year cross‐lagged panel study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.2044-8325.2010.02014.x
The paper
Hakanen, J. J., Peeters, M. C. W., & Perhoniemi, R. (2011). Enrichment processes and gain spirals at work and at home: A 3‐year cross‐lagged panel study. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.2010.02014.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.