Master Thesis Human Resource Studies
2015/2016
Individual details
Simone Arkesteijn (844350)
Date: August the 31th, 2016
Academic year: 2015-2016
Name supervisor: Dr. G. Van Daalen
Second reader: Dr. M.C. Meyers
Thesis circle: Work-life Balance
Title of thesis: Eustress, life satisfaction and the mediating role of work-life enrichment.
1
Master Thesis Human Resource Studies
2015/2016
Abstract
Due to the increase of women, dual-earner families and single parents in the workforce (SCP,
Emancipatie monitor, 2014) and the increase of individuals who have elderly care responsibilities,
employees are facing challenges of balancing their work and family roles (Peeters, De Jonge & Taris,
2014; Tausig & Fenwick, 2001; Clark, 2000). In the past many studies focused on the negative relation
between work and family roles. This study focuses on the positive relationship between those roles.
The purpose of this study is to identify the relationship between eustress and life satisfaction and the
mediating role of work-life enrichment. To study this relationship a questionnaire was published on
Linked-in, Facebook and people where personally invited by mail to fill in the questionnaire (N=174).
The hypothesis predicted that eustress is positively related to life satisfaction. Work-family enrichment
(WFE) and Family-work enrichment (FWE) are hypothesized to mediate the relation between eustress
and life satisfaction. The quantitative results show that the expected relations between eustress and
WFE, between WFE and life satisfaction and at last, between eustress and life satisfaction with the
mediating role of WFE are significant. However, the hypotheses which included the concept FWE are
not supported.
Keywords: Eustress, Life satisfaction, Work-life enrichment, Work-family enrichment and Familywork enrichment.
2
Master Thesis Human Resource Studies
2015/2016
Preface
This thesis is a closure of a one-year during Master program named Human Resource Studies at Tilburg
University. I have chosen to do a survey research, within the ‘work-life balance’ circle. My preference
has been given to eustress in relation to life satisfaction and the mediating role of work-life enrichment.
This paper would not have been possible without the time, support and dedication of different people.
First of all, I want to thank Geertje van Daalen for her time, feedback and professional advice.
Furthermore, I want to thank Marcel van Assen who judge the statistical part of this study. Third, I
want to thank Christina Meyers, the second reader for her comments. Especially I want to thank Carla
and Manja, my fellow students who also participated in the circle ‘work-life balance’, for all their
feedback, support and advice. Last but not least I want to thank my family and friends also for their
support and their believe in me I could do this.
I hope you will enjoy reading my Master thesis.
August 2016
3
Master Thesis Human Resource Studies
2015/2016
Table of Contents
Abstract .................................................................................................................................................. 2
Preface.................................................................................................................................................... 3
1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 5
2. Theoretical Framework ...................................................................................................................... 8
2.1 Eustress and Life Satisfaction....................................................................................................... 8
2.2 Eustress and Work-life Enrichment .............................................................................................. 9
2.3 Work-life Enrichment and Life Satisfaction .............................................................................. 10
2.4 Mediating role of Work-life Enrichment .................................................................................... 11
3. Methodological framework .............................................................................................................. 13
3.1 Participants and procedure.......................................................................................................... 13
3.2 Measures ..................................................................................................................................... 14
3.3 Statistical analysis....................................................................................................................... 15
4. Results .............................................................................................................................................. 17
4.1 Correlations and reliabilities ....................................................................................................... 17
4.2 Hayes .......................................................................................................................................... 18
5. Discussion ........................................................................................................................................ 22
6. Limitations and Implications for Future Research........................................................................... 25
7. Conclusion and Practical Implications............................................................................................. 27
7.1 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................. 27
7.2 Practical Implications ................................................................................................................. 27
8. References ........................................................................................................................................ 29
9. Appendices ....................................................................................................................................... 34
9.1 Questionnaire .............................................................................................................................. 34
9.2 Statistics ...................................................................................................................................... 38
9.2.1 Reliability analysis .............................................................................................................. 38
9.2.2 Factor Analysis Eustress scale ............................................................................................ 39
9.2.3 Regression Analyses with Control Variables ..................................................................... 40
9.2.4 Correlation Matrix .............................................................................................................. 41
9.2.5 Hayes Process Routine Output............................................................................................ 42
4
Master Thesis Human Resource Studies
2015/2016
1. Introduction
Today’s predominant household model is the dual-earner model, especially in the Netherlands this is
the case. Most Dutch male and female employees combine work and family and share household and
care-taking responsibilities. Both demands from the work and family domain affect one’s work-life
balance (SCP, Emancipatie monitor, 2014). Also flexible working hours, an increase in working single
parents, and the growing number of eldercare responsibilities affect one’s work-life balance (Peeters,
De Jonge & Taris, 2014; Tausig & Fenwick, 2001; Clark, 2000).
Work-life balance can be defined as the extent to which an individual is equally engaged in—
and equally satisfied with—his or her work and family role (Greenhaus, Collins & Shaw, 2003). The
conflict perspective assumes that individuals who participate in multiple roles, such as work and
family, unavoidably experience conflict (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006). On the other hand, the
enrichment perspective assumes that experiences in or family or work roles improve quality in the
other role (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006). In particular, research about the work-family concept has
focused on the negative side of combining multiple roles (work-life conflict). Therefore, in the present
study the focus will be on the positive side of work-life balance and examines work-life enrichment.
Work-life enrichment can be split up into work-family enrichment (WFE) and family-work enrichment
(FWE). These work-family and family-work interactions can be seen as a win-win situation in which
different parties such as spouse, children, parents but also colleagues and managers benefit from
(Halpern & Murphy, 2005). The different roles will no longer be considered as ‘enemies’ but as ‘allies’
(Friedman and Greenhaus, 2000).
Besides the challenges working people face when balancing work and home responsibilities,
they also have to cope with daily stressors due to i.e. globalization, 24-7 economy, need for quick
response and the growing demand for more efficiency (Suchday, 2015; Kaewanuchit, Muntaner,
Labonte & Johnson, 2015; Hirst, Thompson & Bromley, 2015). Stress can be described as perceiving
an event or situation as challenging, threatening or demanding (Hardie, Kashima & Pridmore, 2005).
However, these challenges, threats and demands can result in negative outcomes, but also positive
outcomes are possible, these positive outcomes can be defined as eustress (Quick, Quick, Nelson, &
Hurrell, 1997; Quick, Wright, Adkins, Nelson, & Quick, 2013; Nelson & Simmons, 2011). Unlike
most studies related to stress emphasize the negative side of stress (distress) (Driskell, Johnston &
Salas, 1996; Hargrove, Nelson, & Cooper, 2013; Hargrove et al., 2011), this study will focus on
eustress: the ‘good’ stress. Zohar and colleagues (2003) argued that eustress might help to replenish
5
Master Thesis Human Resource Studies
2015/2016
energy but eustress also improves cognitive processing and increases self-efficacy, which help
rebuilding other recourses (Gross et al., 2011).
A possible outcome for both eustress as well as work-life enrichment can be life satisfaction.
Life satisfaction can be defined as the opportunity to meet one's needs and demands but also the
participation in activities which will lead to self-development and personal growth (van Daalen,
Sanders & Willemsen, 2005). Moreover, previous studies showed life satisfaction to be related to both
job demands, job resources and work-home balance (Van Daalen, Sanders, Willemsen & van
Veldhoven, 2009).
In this study the new ‘stress’ model of Hargrove, Nelson and Cooper (2013) is used to make
the relation between eustress, life satisfaction and WLE clear (See Figure 1) . The new ‘stress’ model
is a combination of the Challenge Hindrance Framework and the Holistic Stress Model (Simmons and
Nelson, 2007). The idea of the Challenge Hindrance Framework is that challenging people can bring
rewards to organizations but also to personal development. The role of cognitive appraisal in the stress
process is very important in the Holistic Stress Model (Hargrove et al., 2013). A part of the new model
shows the relation between eustress (positive effect, hope vigor, meaningfulness, manageability) and
outcomes as health, well-being, citizenship behaviours, commitment and performance. In this study
life satisfaction is added as an outcome variable. Work-life enrichment is studied in relation to life
satisfaction as a mediator.
Figure 1: The new ‘stress’ model (Hargrove, Nelson and Cooper, 2013)
6
Master Thesis Human Resource Studies
2015/2016
This study aims to contribute to the work-life balance research in three ways. First, this study
will take into account work-family enrichment (WFE) and family-work enrichment (FWE). Second,
both WFE and FWE are also mediating variables in this study which will be affected by eustress.
Third, WFE will be measured in relation to a non-work outcome, namely life-satisfaction.
To sum up, the goal of this study is to investigate the relation between eustress and life
satisfaction with a mediation effect of WFE and FWE. The results may be used as a managerial tool
to increase WFE/FWE and trigger eustress instead of distress to improve the life satisfaction of
employees.
This paper is structured as follows: paragraph two, the theoretical background, provides
definitions of eustress, life satisfaction and work-life enrichment. Also, seven hypotheses are proposed
with the aid of the theory. Further, the third paragraph presents the way of doing the quantitative
research part of the study. Paragraph four shows the findings of the study resulted from the data
analyses described in paragraph three. Then, the discussion is described in paragraph five. In paragraph
six the limitations and practical implications for future research are described. Finally, paragraph seven
presents the overall conclusion of this study and mentions the practical implications.
7
Master Thesis Human Resource Studies
2015/2016
2. Theoretical Framework
To answer the main question to what extend eustress is related to life satisfaction and mediated by
WFE/FWE, existing literature is used to gain further insight in the concepts of the conceptual model.
Eustress, life-satisfaction, WFE and FWE are described and explained in this paragraph. After
discussing the literature some hypotheses are proposed.
2.1 Eustress and Life Satisfaction
A factor that might influence life satisfaction is positive ‘stress’ or eustress. Positive stress is the
psychological state and mindful focus on challenges present in stressful organizational events
(Quick,Quick, Nelson, & Hurrell, 1997; Quick, Wright, Adkins, Nelson, & Quick, 2013; Nelson &
Simmons, 2011). Yerkes and Dodson (1908) first recognized that optimal stress load on performance
varies by individual and task. In other words, some stress is good for some individuals. Selye (1987)
coined the term eustress for this positive conceptualization of stress. In this study, eustress will be
described as being associated with healthy and positive outcomes (Quick et al., 1997) and as the
appraisal of demands as opportunities or challenges that the individual feels confident about
overcoming by effectively mobilizing and deploying coping resources (Nelson & Simmons, 2007).
As described in the introduction part this research is based on a part of the new ‘stress’ model
of Hangrove and colleagues (2013). For describing the relation between eustress and life satisfaction
the Challenge Hindrance Framework (Cavanaugh, Boswell, Roehling & Boudreau, 2000) is used. The
challenge-related stressors can be compared with eustress as both are positive stressors caused by
challenges. This Challenge Hindrance Framework shows that there are two possible outcomes related
to perceived stressors, namely challenge-related and positive stressors and negative and hindrancerelated stressors. LePine, Podsakoff and LePine (2005) defines those terms as follows: challenge
stressors are “demands in the workplace that tend to be appraised as promoting the accomplishment of
job tasks and the personal development of the individual,” and hindrance stressors are “demands in the
workplace that tend to be appraised as barriers or obstacles to the accomplishment of job tasks and
personal development of the individual”. As described in the definition of LePine and colleaugues
(2005) these positive stressors caused by challenges develops an indivual’s job and/or personal skills.
Also, Hargrove, Nelson and Cooper (2013) stated that the positive challenge stressors are positively
related to positive attitudes and organizational outcomes.
Moreover, O’Sullivan’s (2011) study showed the relation between eustress and life satisfaction.
The results of this study indicated that there is a significant association between eustress and life
satisfaction. That is to say, participants who reported a higher level of eustress also reported a higher
8
Master Thesis Human Resource Studies
2015/2016
level of life satisfaction. However, only students were used as respondents. Furthermore, the study of
Hargrove, Becker and Hargrove (2015) stated that there is a positive relation between eustress and
well-being. Also this study differs from the present research because the relation between those two
variables is not explained specifically and wellbeing is used instead of life satisfaction. Hence, the
research will contribute to the relation between eustress and life satisfaction because not only
academics will be used as respondents and also the relation between eustress and life satisfaction
(instead of wellbeing) will be more elaborated. Based on the information above the following
hypothesis is stated:
Hypothesis 1: Eustress is positively related to life satisfaction.
2.2 Eustress and Work-life Enrichment
The next relationship that will be studied examines the relation between eustress and WLE. Until now
there have been a limited amount of studies that examined this relationship.
Greenhaus and Powell (2006) define WLE as the extent to which experiences in one role
improve the quality of life in the other roles. They proposed that enrichment occurs when resource
gains generated for instance in a working role improves an individual’s performance in their family
role. When enrichment occurs after gaining resources in one role and directly improves the
performances in the other role there is an instrumental path. In contrast, there is an affect path when
enrichment indirectly, through their influence on positive affect, improves the performances in the
other role. This study is based on the instrumental path because eustress influences WLE directly. For
instance, when someone has to deal with challenging stressors in his or her work this can directly
influence that person’s mood which results in feeling happier at home. Enrichment can occur
bidirectional which means that work experiences can improve the quality of family life (WFE; Barnett,
Marshall, & Singer, 1992) or experiences improve the quality of work life (FWE; Crouter, 1984).
However, WFE and FWE may provide qualitatively different types of resource gains because these
concepts are not parallel and the activities and function of WFE and FWE are not completely similar
(Frone, 2003; MacDermid, 2003).
The underlying theory that thrives the relationship between eustress and WLE is the role
expansion theory (Marks, 1977). This theory states that energy used for participating in one role not
necessarily takes away the energy available for another role. In fact, one role, for instance work role,
can even create energy for the use in that role or in others (family role). For example, working results
9
Master Thesis Human Resource Studies
2015/2016
in salary which can help individuals better perform in their private life (Barnett and Hyde, 2001;
Friedman and Greenhaus, 2000). However, also resources gained in private roles can lead to
improvements in an individual’s functioning on the job. Therefore, WLE works in both directions,
from work-to-family and from family-to-work situations.
The majority of work–family research has focused on the negative spill-over of work stressors
and possible consequences for the family domain (e.g. work–family conflict; see review by Eby,
Casper, Lockwood, Bordeaux, & Brinley, 2005). However, the focus in this study will be on WLE
which may identify new ways of cultivating human resources.
Because eustress can be seen as positive stressors which leads to positive outcomes and the
expansion theory assumes creating energy in one role can lead to energy in the other role as well, the
following hypothesis is formulated:
Hypothesis 2a: Eustress is positively related to work-family enrichment.
Hypothesis 2b: Eustress is positively related to family-work enrichment.
2.3 Work-life Enrichment and Life Satisfaction
Although there are several studies which found a direct relation between WLE and life satisfaction,
previous theoretical predictions and empirical outcomes are not consistent. Chan, Kalliath, Brough,
Siu, O’Driscoll and Timms (2015) used the social-cognitive theory to explain the relation between
enrichment and job and family satisfaction. They also introduce a mediator: self-efficacy. In the end,
their focus was on this mediator relation and the discussion about the direct relation was very shortly
and not clear. McNall, Nicklin and Masuda (2010) mentioned in their meta-analysis that Greenhaus
and Powell’s model and the social exchange can be used to explain the relation between enrichment
and life satisfaction. However, the relation between FWE and life satisfaction was not significant. Also
this study did not pay much attention and explanation for the relation between enrichment and
satisfaction. Another study which came up with the broaden-and-built theory to explain the relation
between enrichment and satisfaction is the study of Carlson, Hunter, Ferguson and Whitten (2014). In
this research life satisfaction was split up into family and job satisfaction and also different mediators
were measured. Those mediating relations were explained very well. As in the previous studies, also
this study did not pay much attention to the direct relation. The above mentioned studies all agree that
enrichment has a positive effect on satisfaction (family and job satisfaction).
This study will also use the broaden-and-built theory to explain the relation between WLE
10
Master Thesis Human Resource Studies
2015/2016
and life satisfaction. (Fredrickson, 1998, 2001). This theory was developed for the explanation for
the developmental value of positive emotions (e.g. WFE). It stated that positive emotions
(e.g., joy, interests and contentment) broaden individuals’ way of thinking and way of acting in their
life. Both WFE and FWE can be seen as a positive experiences which contributes to positive
emotions (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006; Grzywacz & Marks, 2000). Gareis, Barnett, Ertel and
Berkman’s (2009) study also reports that both WFE and FWE are related to greater positive effect
and life satisfaction across multiple domains. All in all, WFE and FWE generate positive
emotions which is the basic assumption for the broaden and build theory. Both WFE and FWE can
be related to life satisfaction. Based on the reasoning above the following hypothesis are stated:
Hypothesis 3a: Work-family enrichment is positively related to life satisfaction.
Hypothesis 3b: Family-work enrichment is positively related to life satisfaction.
2.4 Mediating role of Work-life Enrichment
This study examines the mediating role of WLE between eustress and life satisfaction. Although, the
separate constructs have been topic of scientific research regularly, until now the combination has not
been studied. As described above, previous research provided insight on the separate relationships.
Based on the individual relationship between eustress and life satisfaction, eustress and WLE and
between WLE and life satisfaction at least a partly mediated relationship by work-life balance can be
expected. The following logic is used to describe this relationship:
When an individual experiences stress (eustress), life satisfaction of this person will be effected.
Based on the Challenge Hindrance Framework (Cavanaugh, Boswell, Roehling & Boudreau, 2000)
eustress will effect life satisfaction positively because the individual perceive challenge stressors as
positive which improve the organizational outcomes as well as the personal outcomes such as wellbeing and life satisfaction. Eustress will have a positive effect on WLE because receiving energy from
the challenges in work can also be used in other roles (expansion theory). This effect of WLE on the
balance between an individuals’ multiple roles will or will not satisfy the individuals’ needs which
finally results in improving or decreasing life satisfaction (broaden-and-built theory). Based on the
information giving above the following hypotheses can be stated:
Hypothesis 4a: Work-family enrichment will, at least partially mediate the relation between eustress
and life satisfaction.
11
Master Thesis Human Resource Studies
2015/2016
Hypothesis 4b: Family-work enrichment will, at least partially mediate the relation between eustress
and life satisfaction.
The hypotheses are clarified in the conceptual model below (See Figure 2). All possible relation
between eustress, work-life enrichment and life satisfaction are shown.
Work-Family
Enrichment
Family-Work
Enrichment
+
Eustress
Life Satisfaction
Figure 2: Conceptual model
12
Master Thesis Human Resource Studies
2015/2016
3. Methodological framework
3.1 Participants and procedure
This research is a survey research because online questionnaires (quantitative) are used to collect the
data (Straits & Singleton, 2011). The surveys are published with data collection program ‘Qualtrics’
(Qualtrics LLC, 2016). One of the most important advantages of this research method is that web
surveys require much less time and are less expansive to implement than other survey modes (Straits
& Singleton, 2011). The data was collected by the means of convenience sampling which can be seen
as ‘accidental sampling’. Therefore, all working people in the Netherlands had the opportunity to
participate (Straits & Singleton, 2011). Potential respondents were approached via LinkedIn, Facebook
and invitation emails to contacts and related contacts from the researcher. The respondents had two
weeks to fill in the questionnaire and received one reminder about the questionnaire during these two
weeks. The study made use of already existing questionnaires that were translated into Dutch as
needed. This was done according to the standard translation/back translation procedure (Brislin,
Lonner, & Thorndike, 1993). In the introduction part of the questionnaire the respondents were made
sure that the results will only be used for scientific research and are totally anonymous.
Overall, the total number of respondents was 305. However, 26% of these 305 respondents did
only read the info letter and did not start the questionnaire itself. Therefore, these were excluded from
the results. Also students and unpaid workers were deleted from the sample with two control questions
in the beginning of the survey. This resulted in 242 employees who started the questionnaire. In the
end only 174 respondents filled in all questions related to the concepts of this study. Therefore, there
68 missing values.
The heterogeneous group consisted of males/females, part-time/fulltime employees, with
children/without children, living alone/living together etc., which resulted in a reliable research.
The sample consists of 174 respondents of which 71 were male and 103 were female with an age range
from 21 to 63 years old with a mean age of 38.10 years old. 60,3 % of the participants were higher
educated (HBO or WO) and the working hours differ from 9 to 65 hours per week. Further
characteristics are shown in the table below (See Table 1).
13
Master Thesis Human Resource Studies
2015/2016
3.2 Measures
The questionnaires were used to measure the relation between eustress, life satisfaction and the
mediating role of work-life enrichment. Also, introduction questions were used to know the
demographics of the respondents. The questionnaire was designed by adapting scales used in earlier
research. All questions can be found in Appendix 1. The following scales are used:
Eustress was measured by the 15 items scale published by O’Sullivan (2011). The response
categories were 0 = never to 6 = always. High scores are related to eustress in life. Items measuring
eustress are for example: ‘How often do you feel that stress positively contributes to your ability to
handle your problems?’ and ‘In general, how often do you feel motivated by your stress?’ For the
variable ‘eustress’ several items were deleted because these affected the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient
negatively. The items 3, 6, 8, 11 and 14 were filler questions and the items 1, 7, 9 and 10 had a corrected
item-total correlation below 0.3 (Straits & Singleton, 2011). Therefore, these questions were not taken
into account in the analyses. Also a factor analysis was done for the concept ‘eustress’. After deleting
these nine questions the items are related to one component. Before removing the items the items were
related to more than one component. After removing several items enough items remained to measure
eustress. The Cronbach’s Alpha of the eustress scale used in this study was .872, indicating excellent
reliability (Pallant, 2010).
The questionnaire of Carlson, Kacmar, Wayne & Grzywacz (2006) which consisted of 18 items
was used to measure the concept work-life enrichment. 9 Items covers the concept WFE, and consists
14
Master Thesis Human Resource Studies
2015/2016
of three dimensions each covered 3 items: development e.g. ‘Helps me to gain knowledge and this
helps me be a better family member’, affect e.g. ‘Makes me feel happy and this helps me be a better
family member’ and capital e.g. ‘Provides me with a sense of success and this helps me be a better
family member’. Similar to WFE, FWE also covers 9 items and also consists of three dimensions,
each covering 3 items: development e.g. ‘Helps me to gain knowledge and this helps me be a better
worker’, affect e.g. ‘Puts me in a good mood and this helps me be a better worker’ and efficiency e.g.
‘Encourages me to use my work time in a focused manner and this helps me be a better worker’. The
response categories were 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strong agree. WFE and FWE scales demonstrated
excellent reliabilities of .932 and .924 (Pallant, 2010). The different dimensions of WFE and FWE are not
separately studied in relation to life satisfaction because the focus in this study is on WFE and FWE.
Life satisfaction was measured by the Satisfaction with Life Scale that consists of 5-items. The
response categories were 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree. (Diener, Emmons, Larsen &
Griffin, 1985). Some examples of the items referring to life satisfaction are: ‘In most ways my life is
close to my ideal’ and ‘If I could live my life over, I would change almost nothing’. The Cronbach’s
alpha coefficient is .873, which is an excellent reliability (Pallant, 2010).
Furthermore, the control variables were covered by the first questions in the survey in order to
examine the effect of concepts which possibly can affect the hypothesized relationships. Based on the
studies of Geertje van Daalen (2006, 2008) the following control variables were included in this study:
age, gender (1 = male, 2 = female), living together/married (1 = yes, 2 = no), children (1 = yes, 2 = no),
level of education and working hours per week. Age, level of education and working hours per week
were measured as continuous variables and gender, living together and children are categorical
variables.
3.3 Statistical analysis
For testing the conceptual model and the hypothesis of this study, the program Statistical Package for
the Social Sciences (SPSS) was used. The analyzing process started with the collection and entering
of data and detecting and resolving errors (Straits & Singleton, 2011). The software program,
Qualtrics, which were used by the respondents to filling in the questionnaire did also, automatically,
collected the data.
First of all, the descriptive – means, standard deviations, reliabilities and correlations - give a
global overview of the variable and their relation to each other. The reliability was measured by
Cronbach’s alpha to measure the internal consistency of the study. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficients
range from 0.872 to 0.924 which indicates an excellent reliability (Pallant, 2010).
15
Master Thesis Human Resource Studies
2015/2016
Furthermore, by use of the correlations, possible relations between variables were observed.
At last, regression analysis was used to test the hypotheses. Multiple regression analysis were
performed, by using Hayes’s Process routine (Hayes, 2013). By using the process routine test of
Hayes, the direct as well as the indirect effects can be measured at the same time (Hayes, 2012).
Before using the Process routine analysis a regression analysis were done between only the control
variables and life satisfaction to control which control variables are significant. Only ‘living
together’ was significant but because of the importance of gender in regard to combining work a
family responsibilities (Van Daalen, Willemsen & Sanders, 2006, 2008), also gender is included in
the Hayes process routine analysis. In total, two Hayes process routine analyses were done to check
also the influences of the control variables. The first analysis tested the direct relationship between
eustress (X) on life satisfaction (Y), the direct relation between WFE (M1) on life satisfaction, the
direct relation between FWE (M2) on life satisfaction, the direction relation between eustress (X)
and WFE (M1), the direct relation between eustress (X) on FWE (M2) and the indirect relation
between eustress (X) via WFE (M1) or FWE (M2) on life satisfaction (Y). Then the analysis is
started again including the two control variables ‘gender’ and ‘living together’.
16
Master Thesis Human Resource Studies
2015/2016
4. Results
In this part of the report the results generated from the questionnaires are shown. All hypotheses
were tested in SPSS by using these quantitative results. First the means, standard deviations and
correlations are given and in the second part the results from the Hayes’s Process routine analysis are
shown.
4.1 Correlations and reliabilities
Table 2 shows the means, standard deviations and correlations among the studied and control
variables. The correlations are all in the expected direction namely positive. However, not all of them
are significant. Only the correlations between WFE and life satisfaction (r = .244; p < .01), FWE and
life satisfaction (r = .177; p < .05), eustress and WFE (r = .371; p < .01) and FWE and WFE (r =
.480; p < .01) are significant (studied variables). Furthermore, living together and life satisfaction are
negatively correlated (r = -.205; p < .01), and both gender and age are negatively correlated to
eustress (r = -.166; p < .05, r = -.270; p < .01). Education and working hours are both positively
correlated to eustress (r = .174; p < .01, r = .295; p < .01). Further correlations between the control
variables are shown in the table below (table 2).
17
Master Thesis Human Resource Studies
2015/2016
4.2 Hayes
In order to test all hypotheses a Hayes’s Process routine analysis was conducted. Table 3 to 5
displays the different relations between eustress, life satisfaction and the mediating variables WFE
and in the appendices (See Appendix 8.2.5) the Hayes Process Routine analysis can be found. First
of all, a regression analysis showed that ‘living together’ is the only control variable which is
significant in relation to life satisfaction. Therefore, this variable were included in the Hayes
analysis. Living together has a significant positive effect (β = -.626; p > .05), which indicates that
people who are living together and/or married have a higher score on life satisfaction.
In the second step, the dependent variable, independent variable, the mediators and the significant
control variable are added in a Hayes process routine test.
The first hypothesis described the direct relation between eustress and life satisfaction (See
Table 3). A positive relation between those variables was expected. According to the Hayes Process
routine analysis there is no positive relation between eustress and life satisfaction (β = .062; p > .05).
Therefore, there is no direct relation between eustress and life satisfaction. Hypothesis 1 is rejected.
Table 3. Hayes Process Routine analysis – Outcome Variable: Life Satisfaction
Life Satisfaction
95% CI
Variable
Coeff (β)
LL
UL
Eustress
.062
-.155
.279
WFE
.317*
.037
.598
FWE
.120
-.165
.404
-.622**
-1.015
-.230
R
.329
-
-
R²
.108
-
-
F
5.133
-
-
Living together
*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01
Note. CI = confidence interval; LL = lower limit; UL = upper limit.
The second hypothesis tested the relation between eustress and WLE. Hypothesis 2a proposed that
eustress is positively related to WFE (See Table 4a). As showed in table 4a, this relation is supported by the
18
Master Thesis Human Resource Studies
2015/2016
data (β = 0.315; p < .01). Therefore, hypothesis 2a is confirmed. Eustress is positively related to
WFE. The relation between eustress and FWE was described in hypothesis 2b which proposed that
eustress is positively related to FWE (See Table 4b). However, the results show a non-significant
effect between these two variables (β = .089; p > .05).
Table 4a. Hayes Process Routine Analysis – Outcome Variable: WFE
WFE
95% CI
Variable
Coeff (β)
LL
UL
Eustress
.315**
.192
.439
Living Together
.055
-.185
.295
R
.373
-
-
R²
.139
-
-
F
13.784
-
-
*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01
Note. CI = confidence interval; LL = lower limit; UL = upper limit.
Table 4b. Hayes Process Routine Analysis – Outcome Variable: FWE
FWE
95% CI
Variable
Coeff (β)
LL
UL
Eustress
.089
-.033
.211
Living Together
-.086
-.322
.151
R
.145
-
-
R²
.021
-
-
F
2.931
-
-
*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01
Note. CI = confidence interval; LL = lower limit; UL = upper limit.
According to the third hypothesis, both WFE (hypothesis 3a) and FWE (hypothesis 3b) are
positively related to life satisfaction (See Table 3). The positive relation between WFE and life
19
Master Thesis Human Resource Studies
2015/2016
satisfaction is confirmed by the data (β = .317; p < .05). Therefore, hypothesis 3a is accepted. However,
hypothesis 3b which stated that FWE is positively related to life satisfaction is not significant. The
data does not support hypothesis 3b and therefore this hypothesis is rejected.
At last, hypothesis 4 was tested. Hypothesis 4a proposed that WFE will, at least partially
mediate the relation between eustress and life satisfaction. The results in the table below (See Table 5)
show that there is a significant indirect effect between eustress and life satisfaction mediated by WFE
because the values of BootLLCI (.015) and BootULCI (.214) does not include zero. However, the
direct relation (table 8) between eustress and life satisfaction is not significant (β = .062; p > .05) which
means that the relation is fully mediated instead of partially mediated. Therefore, hypothesis 4a is
partly supported. In addition, BootLLCI (-.011) and BootULCI (.070) for FWE do include zero. As a
result, hypothesis 4b which stated that FWE will, at least partially mediate the relation between eustress
and life satisfaction is not significant. Therefore, hypothesis 4b is not supported by the data.
Table 5. Multiple Regression Analysis (Hayes Process Routine) – Outcome Variable: Life
Satisfaction
Life Satisfaction
95% CI
Variable
Effect
BootLL
BootUL
Eustress x WFE
.100
.015
.214
Eustress x FWE
.011
-.011
.070
Living together
-
-
-
Note. CI = confidence interval; LL = lower limit; UL = upper limit
Below an overall model is shown (See Figure 3). In this model all relevant results are structured in a
conceptual model, including the coefficients and significance level.
20
Master Thesis Human Resource Studies
2015/2016
Work-Family
Enrichment
Family-Work
Enrichment
0.062
Eustress
Life Satisfaction
Figure 3: Conceptual model with the results of the survey analysis.
*p < 0.05 ** < 0.01
21
Master Thesis Human Resource Studies
2015/2016
5. Discussion
The aim of this study was to provide a new insight in the relationship between eustress and life
satisfaction and the mediating role of WFE and FWE in this relation. In the theoretical part, several
hypotheses were given. Not all findings support these hypotheses as shown in the results section. This
paragraph describes the hypotheses and the match or mismatch with the theory and findings.
The first hypothesis described the relation between eustress and life satisfaction. In line with
the Challenge Hindrance Framework (Cavanaugh, Boswell, Roehling & Boudreau, 2000) the
hypothesis stated that the relation between those variables will be positive. Therefore, a higher eustress
level will increase someone’s life satisfaction. Although, the results showed a positive effect between
eustress and life satisfaction, this effect was not significant. One explanation for this finding might be
that people associate challenges and stress with bad stress and therefore experience it as negative. In
the questionnaire the questions about eustress using words as stress, irritations and pressures. May be
it would be better to avoid the word ‘stress’ but describe situations by imitating eustress but do not use
related words (i.e. stress, irritations, pressure). It could also be the case that eustress can only be linked
to the general level and not to specific concepts like life satisfaction. In the ‘new’ model of Hargrove,
Nelson and Cooper (2013) the outcome variables were health, well-being, citizenship behaviors,
commitment and performance. All of these outcomes are general and the specific forms of for instance
health like burnout and exhaustion are not included. In addition, in this study a survey research is used
to measure the concepts. Maybe a different measurement tool will lead to other perspectives toward
eustress . For example, in a semi-structured interview more deeper questions can be asked. The
feelings, thoughts and opinions of the respondents will be more clear.
Due to the Role Expansion Theory, participation in one role does not necessarily take away all
energy for other roles (Marks, 1997). This has led to the following two hypotheses: Eustress is
positively related to work-family enrichment and eustress is positively related to family-work
enrichment. The results showed a positive relation between eustress and WFE and FWE. The relation
between eustress and WFE is significant which means that someone who perceives eustress will have
a higher level of WFE. However, the relation between eustress and FWE is insignificant. Therefore,
in this study, eustress will not lead to a higher level of FWE. One possible reason for the different
outcomes between WFE and FWE could be that people relate eustress to work roles. Therefore, the
energy obtained by the experienced eustress in a work role enrich the family role and it might be that
individuals do not experience challenges in their family life which are seen as eustress and therefore
do not enrich their work roles. McCubbin and McCubbin (1989) stated that families develop basic
22
Master Thesis Human Resource Studies
2015/2016
and unique strength which protect them towards stressors in their environment and therefore do not
experience them.
Additionally, there were two hypotheses which described the relationship between WLE and
life satisfaction. The first hypothesis stated that WFE is positively related to life satisfaction. The
second hypothesis concerned the relation between FWE and life satisfaction. These hypotheses were
in line with the Broaden-and-built Theory which stated that “positive emotions have the ability to
broaden the means by which individuals relate to their world through a momentary thought-action
repertoire” (Frederickson, 2001). This allows individuals to find and build personal resources which
can lead to increased satisfaction (Frederickson, Cohn, Coffey, Pek & Finkel, 2008). Therefore, WFE
and FWE can lead to life satisfaction. As expected, the results showed a positive relation between
WFE/FWE and life satisfaction. However, only the relation between WFE and life satisfaction was
significant. As a result, WFE positively influences life satisfaction and FWE does not. Important to
note, the hypothesis which proposed that WFE is positively related to life satisfaction is only
significant when the control variable ´living together´ is added in the analysis. These results indicate
that living together is an important factor in this relation as living together leads to life satisfaction
when facing WFE. It would be interesting to investigate the influence of living together or not living
together on life satisfaction when facing WFE in future research.
An explanation for the insignificant results of the hypotheses which included FWE might be
that the scale (Carlson et al., 2006) used for measuring FWE, despite the high reliability, did not fit
the Dutch working population. For example, in the Netherlands it is common to work 36 hours a week.
Moreover many women in the Netherlands have a part-time job in comparison to women in other
countries (CBS, 2014; 2016). Therefore, there could be a misfit between the scale and the Dutch
working population because the scale is made by American researchers and probably base their
questions on the American working conditions and situations. For instance, they have longer working
days/ weeks and less vacation days a year which results in more working days a year. Furthermore,
Van Steenbergen (2007) stated that female employees are more able to deal with different roles than
man because women choose to combine family and work roles while man need to fulfil the role of
breadwinner. Therefore, the part-time and fulltime situation can be an explanation for this outcome or
gender differences can also affect this relationship.
The Challenge Hindrance Framework (Cavanaugh, Boswell, Roehling & Boudreau, 2000), the
Expansion Theory (Marks, 1977) and the Broaden-and-built Theory (Frederickson, 1998, 2001)
acknowledged that balance between different roles, influenced by eustress, results in satisfaction. As
23
Master Thesis Human Resource Studies
2015/2016
a result, the mediating effect of WFE and FWE on the relation between eustress and life satisfaction
were tested in the last hypotheses. The hypotheses stated that work-family enrichment will, at least
partially mediate the relation between eustress and life satisfaction and that family-work enrichment
will, at least partially mediate the relation between eustress and life satisfaction. The results showed
both a positive effect of WFE and FWE on the relation between eustress and life satisfaction. WFE on
the relation between eustress and life satisfaction showed a significant effect but only when the control
variable ´living together´ is added in the analysis. Therefore, living together determines whether or not
there is a mediating relation. However, the direct relation between eustress and life satisfaction is not
significant which means that there is a mediating effect and not a partially mediating effect. FWE on
the relation between eustress and life satisfaction is not significant. To conclude, WFE does (fully)
mediate the relation between eustress and life satisfaction and FWE does not mediate the relation
between eustress and life satisfaction. People who experience eustress use the positive emotions
obtained by challenges, for example at work, also in their private life which results in WFE and also
in higher life satisfaction. However, the study shows that only work roles affect the family roles
positively and not the other way around. Therefore, experiencing (positive) challenges in family life
do not improve an individual’s work-life enrichment. A reason for this outcome could be that people
did not see the relation between skills used in their family role and using this in their jobs. Several
questions in the questionnaire covered a situation in which people learn from experiences in family
life and use these skills in their job. For example, learning from your mother how to clean the house
will improve the working skills in your management job. Positive emotions or atmosphere at home is
more easy to bring forward to one’s job. For example, as a mother you feel happy when you know
that your daughter or son is doing well at school and feels good about it.
Results found in this study partly confirm previous research with regard to eustress improving
life satisfaction and the mediating role of WFE. However, no mediating role for FWE in the relation
between eustress and life satisfaction was found. It is shown that individuals who experience eustress
are able to enrich their work and family roles leading to higher life satisfaction.
24
Master Thesis Human Resource Studies
2015/2016
6. Limitations and Implications for Future Research
This study has some limitations which might have had an effect on the outcomes. First, in this study
questionnaires were used to collect the data and the respondents for filling in this questionnaire were
approximated by means of convenience sampling. That gave the opportunity to collect a lot of data in
a relative short time frame. However, by using convenience sampling only the people who are related
to your network are filling in the questionnaire. For example, Facebook and LinkedIn were used to
distribute the questionnaires but only ‘friends’ or ‘links’ at Facebook and LinkedIn are able to see the
questionnaire and have the possibility to fill it in. Mostly, people have friends from study, sport or
associations which have common interests, ages and education programs. Despite the convenience
sampling method there was a heterogeneous sample. There was a good distribution of gender, age and
education. For future research it would be interesting to do this study over but use instead of
convenience sampling the random sampling method. It may lead to different outcomes.
Second, except the convenience sampling method also using only questionnaires instead of
combing it with interviews was done because of the limited time. Collecting data approached by
interviews gave possibly more insight in the relations between the constructs. In particular for the
relative new concept eustress. By using interviews additional or more in-depth questions could be
asked which is not possible with questionnaires. The common goal of an interview is to find out
motivations and thought about the concepts. When using questionnaires finding out motivations and
thoughts is not possible because respondents are only able to tick the most fitting answer on the
question. Also, a longitudinal research might be more suitable in a study of work-life enrichment
because individuals may alternate their emphases on work and family activities in the short run to
achieve balance in the long run. However, a longitudinal research was also not possible because of the
limited time and resources. Therefore, for future research a longer period of time is needed to do
interviews and may also collect data with questionnaires again to combine the results of the data
collection methods.
Third, the scale used for measuring eustress was originally used by a study for academic
students. It is possible that this affected the outcomes of this study because the questions were related
to activities or experiences in academic life and not in working life. Also several items were deleted
because it affected the Cronbach’s alpha negatively. However, this was a relatively new questionnaire
which measures eustress itself and not concepts related to eustress, For future research it would be
interesting to take a closer look at the questionnaire and adapt it to working conditions instead of study
25
Master Thesis Human Resource Studies
2015/2016
related situations or even make a new questionnaire based on the new literature which is published
after O’Sullivan’s (2011) questionnaire.
At last, in this study data was gathered among Dutch men and women with a paid job to
measure the conceptual model of this study. In the future, research could be done in one organization
or in one sector, for instance in the healthcare or technical sector. The technical sector is dominated by
men and the healthcare sector by women (SCP, Emancipatie monitor, 2014). It could be interesting to
study one of these two sectors because directed recommendations for one specific sector can be done.
Also, difference can be made in jobs for higher educated people (sales people) or jobs done by lower
educated people (assembly-line workers). Those two groups probably will have different opinions or
different attitude to eustress, WFE, FWE and life satisfaction, as higher educated people generally
have jobs with more responsibilities and autonomy which could increase the pressure and challenges
on those employees (Cummings and Worley, 2014) .
26
Master Thesis Human Resource Studies
2015/2016
7. Conclusion and Practical Implications
In this paragraph, the main question to what extend eustress is related to life satisfaction and mediated
by WFE/FWE
is answered by using the findings of the survey research. Also, the practical
implications of this study are described.
7.1 Conclusion
The overall conclusion is that eustress has no direct effect on life satisfaction when controlling for
WFE and FWE. A mediating effect of WFE is found on the relation between eustress and life
satisfaction. However, it is not justified to conclude that FWE mediates the relation between eustress
and life satisfaction. Despite these findings the necessity of assessing work-life enrichment was
highlighted once again, this study differs from others by taking into account only the positive side of
work-life balance. Moreover it takes a closer look at WFE and FWE in relation to life satisfaction.
This study also highlighted the importance of eustress because this could affect WLE positively which
results in higher life satisfaction. It can be concluded that employees still see stress ‘eustress’ as a
negative thing and do not contributes to a better life satisfaction.
7.2 Practical Implications
Since the globalization and other worldwide related changes, for instance the improvements in
information technology and the need for quick response and demand for efficiency, the pressure on
people’s shoulder’s has increased (Suchday, 2015; Kaewanuchit, Muntaner, Labonte & Johnson,
2015; Hirst, Thompson & Bromley, 2015). Those pressures are often experienced as negative but can
also be seen as challenges or eustress. Next to this change, also the increasing dual-earning households
affect the WLB of people and their life satisfaction (Peeters, De Jonge & Taris, 2014; Tausig &
Fenwick, 2001; Clark, 2000).
The results of this study showed the positive significant relation between eustress and WFE
and WFE and life satisfaction. This means that organizations can affect WFE of her employees by
stimulating eustress. By putting some awareness to the aspects that create eustress organizations can
improve an individual’s WLE.
Eustress can be stimulated by introducing challenges and
responsibilities for employees (Nelson & Simmons, 1997). In practice, managers can empower their
employees through more interdependent tasks in the organization or more autonomy (Cummings &
Worley, 2014). Those changes will affect eustress positively.
27
Master Thesis Human Resource Studies
2015/2016
Lazar, Osoian and Ratiu (2010) argued that “Everyone benefits from good practice in worklife balance. For instance: business, through easier recruitment, improved retention, and easier
service delivery; the economy, as the labor market grows more skilled and experienced people are
available to work; parents and careers, who can spend quality time at home as well as providing
financial support through work; people with disabilities, through improved access to work; and the
workforce generally where they are better able to balance their work with other aspects of their
life”. Do a longitudinal research because that is more useful for concepts related to work-life
balance”. Therefore, creating a good work-life balance which means improving the enrichment part
will not only benefit the employees, but also the organization.
Furthermore, as stated above, more parties - besides the employees itself – benefit from an
individual’s work-life balance. For managers it would be fruitful to pay attention to the work-life
balance of their employees. In this study, attention has been paid to WLE. Practices which i.e.
improve WLE are family supportive programs, workplace flexibility or health facilities (Poelmans,
Kalliath & Brough, 2008). Those practices can be used by managers to improve WFE. To improve
FWE family is an important factor. If partner, children or the parents of the employee support the
working role, FWE will be positively affected. Therefore, besides workplace factors the role of the
home front is important in obtaining Work Life Enrichment and should receive attention as well.
28
Master Thesis Human Resource Studies
2015/2016
8. References
Barnett, R. C., & Hyde, J. S. (2001). Women, men, work, and family. American
psychologist, 56(10), 781.
Barnett, R.C., Marshall, N.L., & Singer, J.D. (1992). Job experiences over time, multiple roles, and
women’s mental health: A longitudinal study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
62, 634-644.
Brislin, R. W., Lonner, W. J., & Thorndike, E. M., (1993). Cross-cultural research methods.
New York, NY: Wiley.
Carlson, D. S., Hunter, E. M., Ferguson, M., & Whitten, D. (2014). Work–family enrichment and
satisfaction mediating processes and relative impact of originating and receiving domains.
Journal of Management, 40(3), 845-865.
Carlson, D. S., Kacmar, K. M., Wayne, J. H., & Grzywacz, J. G. (2006). Measuring the positive side
of the work–family interface: Development and validation of a work–family enrichment
scale. Journal of Vocational Behavior,68(1), 131-164.)
Central Bureau for Statistics (2014) Deeltijdwerk in Europa neemt toe, Nederland blijft koploper.
Retrieved February 23, 2016 from http://www.cbs.nl/nl-NL/menu/themas/arbeid-socialezekerheid/publicaties/artikelen/archief/2014/2014-eu-meetlat-deeltijd-art.htm
Central Bureau for Statistics (2016) Werkzame beroepsbevolking: deeltijd. Retrieved February
23, 2016 from http://www.cbs.nl/nl-NL/menu/themas/arbeid-socialezekerheid/publicaties/barometer-beroepsbevolking/werkzame-beroepsbevolking-deeltijd.htm
Chan, X. W., Kalliath, T., Brough, P., Siu, O. L., O’Driscoll, M. P., & Timms, C. (2015). Work–
family enrichment and satisfaction: the mediating role of self-efficacy and work–life balance.
The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 1-22.
Clark, S. C. (2000). Work/family border theory: A new theory of work/family balance.
Human relations, 53 (6), 747-770.
Crouter, A. (1984). Participative work as an influence of human development. Journal of Applied
Developmental Psychology, 5,87-90.
Cummings, T. G., & Worley, C. G. (2014). Organization development and change. Cengage
learning.
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The Satisfaction with Life Scale.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71-75.
29
Master Thesis Human Resource Studies
2015/2016
Fredrickson, B. L. 1998. What good are positive emotions? Review of General Psychology, 2: 300319.
Fredrickson, B. L. 2001. The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-andbuild theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56: 218-226.
Fredrickson, B. L., Cohn, M. A., Coffey, K. A., Pek, J., & Finkel, S. M. 2008. Open hearts build
lives: Positive emotions, induced through loving-kindness meditation, build consequential
personal resources. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95: 1045-1062.
Friedman, S. D., & Greenhaus, J. H. (2000). Work and family--allies or enemies?: what
happens when business professionals confront life choices. Oxford University Press.
Frone, M.R. (2003). Work-family balance. In J.C. Quick & L.E. Tetrick (Eds.). Handbook of
Occupational Health Psychology. Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association.
Gareis, K. C., Barnett, R. C., Ertel, K. A., & Berkman, L. F. 2009. Work–family enrichment and
conflict: Additive effects, buffering or balance? Journal of Marriage and Family, 71: 696707.
Greenhaus, J. H., Collins, K. M., & Shaw, J. D. (2003). The relation between work–family balance
and
quality
of
life.
Journal
of
vocational
behavior,
63(3),
510-531.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Powell, G. N. (2006). When work and family are allies: A theory of work-family
enrichment.
Academy
of
management
review,
31(1),
72-92.
Grzywacz, J. G., & Marks, N. F. (2000). Reconceptualizing the work–family interface: An ecological
perspective on the correlates of positive and negative spillover between work and
family. Journal of occupational health psychology, 5(1), 111.
Halpern, B.S., & Warner, R.R. (2002). Marine reserves have rapid and lasting effects. Ecology
Letters, 5, 361 – 366.
Halpern, D. F., & Murphy, S. E. (2005). From balance to interaction: Why the metaphor is important.
From work-family balance to work-family interaction: Changing the metaphor, 3-9.
Hardie, E., Kashima, E., & Pridmore, P. (2005). The influence of relational, individual and collective
self-aspects on stress, uplifts and health. Self and Identity, 4(1), 1-24.
Hargrove, M. B., Becker, W. S., & Hargrove, D. F. (2015). The HRD Eustress Model Generating
Positive Stress With Challenging Work. Human Resource Development Review, 14(3), 279298.
Hargrove, M. B., Nelson, D. L., & Cooper, C. L. (2013). Generating eustress by challenging
employees. Organizational Dynamics, 42(1), 61-69.
30
Master Thesis Human Resource Studies
2015/2016
Hargrove, M. B., Quick, J. C., Nelson, D. L., & Quick, J. D. (2011). The theory of preventive stress
management: a 33‐year review and evaluation. Stress and Health, 27(3), 182-193.
Hirst, P., Thompson, G., & Bromley, S. (2015). Globalization in question. John Wiley & Sons.
Kaewanuchit, C., Muntaner, C., Labonte, R., & Johnson, D. A. (2015). Stress among Thai farm
workers under globalization. Pertanika Journal of Social Science and Humanities, 23(1),
169-182.
Lazar, I., Osoian, C., & Ratiu, P. (2010). The role of work-life balance practices in order to improve
organizational
performance.
European
Research
Studies,
13(1),
201.
LePine, J. A., Podsakoff, N. P., & LePine, M. A. (2005). A meta-analytic test of the challenge
stressor–hindrance stressor framework: An explanation for inconsistent relationships among
stressors and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 48(5), 764-775.
Marks, S. R. (1977). Multiple roles and role strain: Some notes on human energy, time and
commitment. American Sociological Review, 921-936.
MacDermid, S. M. (2003). Discussant comments. In J.G. Grzywacz (Chair), Putting the family into
work-family enrichment symposium. 65th Annual Conference of the National Council of
Family Relations (Novemeber). Vancouver, BC.
McCubbin, M. A., & McCubbin, H. I. (1989). Theoretical orientations to family stress and
coping. Treating stress in families, 3-43.
McNall, L. A., Nicklin, J. M., & Masuda, A. D. (2010). A meta-analytic review of the
consequences associated with work–family enrichment. Journal of Business and
Psychology, 25(3), 381-396.
O’Sullivan, G. (2011). The relationship between hope, eustress, self-efficacy, and life satisfaction
among undergraduates. Social Indicators Research, 101, 155–172. doi:10.1007/ s11205-0109662-z
Pallant, J. (2010). SPSS Survival Manual 4th edition-A step by step guide to data analysis using the
SPSS program. Österrike: Allen & Unwin Book Publisher.
Peeters, M. C. W., De Jonge, J., & Taris, T. W. (2014). An introduction to Contemporary Work
Psychology. UK: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Poelmans, S. A., Kalliath, T., & Brough, P. (2008). Achieving work–life balance: Current theoretical
and practice issues. Journal of Management & Organization, 14(03), 227-238.
31
Master Thesis Human Resource Studies
2015/2016
Qualtrics LLC. (2016). Retrieved from: http://www.qualtrics.com/.
Quick, J. C., Quick, J. D., Nelson, D. L., & Hurrell Jr, J. J. (1997). Preventive Stress Management for
Healthy Organizations. Preventive Health Management in Organizations, 277-299.
Quick, J. C., Wright, T. A., Adkins, J. A., Nelson, D. L., & Quick, J. D. (2013). Individual
differences in the stress response.
Seligman, M. E., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2014). Positive psychology: An introduction (pp. 279298). Springer Netherlands.
Selye, H. (1936). A syndrome produced by diverse nocuous agents. Nature, 138(3479), 32.
Selye, H. (1964). From Dream to Discovery-On Being a Scientist. Academic Medicine, 39(10), 978.
Simmons, B.L. & Nelson, D.L. (2007). Eustress at work: extending the holistic stress model. In
Simmons, B.L. & Nelson, D.L. (Eds). Positive Organizational Behaviour. Londen, UK: Sage.
Steenbergen, E. (2007) Work-Family Facilitation: A Positive Psychological Perspective on
Role Combination. Proefschrift
Straits, B.C., & Singleton, R.A. (2011). Social research: Approaches and Fundamentals. Oxford
University Press, Fifth edition.
Suchday, S. (2015). Anger and globalization among young people in India. New directions for child
and adolescent development, 2015(147), 77-84.
Tausig, M., & Fenwick, R. (2001). Unbinding time: Alternate work schedules and work-life balance.
Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 22(2), 101-119.
Thoits, P. A. (2003). Personal agency in the accumulation of multiple role-identities. In Advances in
identity theory and research (pp. 179-194). Springer Us.
United Nations Statistics Division (2006). Statistics and indicators on women and men. Demographic
and social. Http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/products. Accessed: 4 April 2007.
Van Daalen, G. (2008). Social support, does it make a difference? Examining the relationship
between social support work-family conflict and well-being. BOX Press.
Van Daalen, G., Sanders, K., & Willemsen, T. M. (2005). Sources of social support as predictors of
health, psychological well-being and life satisfaction among Dutch male and female dualearners. Women & health, 41(2), 43-62. DOI: 10.1300/J013v41n0204
van Daalen, G., Sanders, K., & Willemsen, T. M. (2005). Sources of social support as predictors of
health, psychological well-being and life satisfaction among Dutch male and female dualearners. Women & health, 41(2), 43-62.
32
Master Thesis Human Resource Studies
2015/2016
Van Daalen, G., Willemsen, T. M., & Sanders, K. (2006). Reducing work–family conflict through
different sources of social support. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69(3), 462-476.
Van Daalen, G., Willemsen, T. M., Sanders, K., & van Veldhoven, M. J. (2009). Emotional
exhaustion and mental health problems among employees doing “people work”: The impact
of job demands, job resources and family-to-work conflict. International archives of
occupational and environmental health, 82(3), 291-303.
Van Steenbergen, E. F., Ellemers, N., & Mooijaart, A. (2007). How work and family can facilitate
each other: distinct types of work-family facilitation and outcomes for women and men.
Journal of occupational health psychology, 12(3), 279.
Yerkes, R. M., & Dodson, J. D. (1908). The relation of strength of stimulus to rapidity of habitformation. Journal of Comparative Neurology and Psychology, 18, 459-482.
33
Master Thesis Human Resource Studies
2015/2016
9. Appendices
9.1 Questionnaire
Beste deelnemer,
Op de dag van vandaag zijn er steeds meer tweeverdieners, alleenstaande ouders en mantelzorgers.
Mede hierdoor is er de afgelopen jaren in de werksituatie veel veranderd, zoals het invoeren van
thuiswerken en flexuren. Als gevolg van deze veranderingen zijn voor de meeste mensen hun
grenzen tussen het privé- en werkleven erg vervaagd.
Wij zijn drie studenten van de Master Human Resource Studies aan Tilburg University en doen een
afstudeeronderzoek over hoe mensen de balans tussen hun privé- en werkleven ervaren en hoe
werkgevers hierop kunnen inspelen. De vragen in dit onderzoek hebben betrekking op je huidige
leefsituatie en je ervaring met werk-privé balans en gerelateerde onderwerpen. Wij adviseren je om
rustig de tijd te nemen om de stellingen/vragen goed te lezen. Om de kwaliteit van ons onderzoek te
garanderen, is het van belang om zo eerlijk mogelijk te antwoorden. Uiteraard is deelname anoniem
en zullen je gegevens onder strikte vertrouwelijkheid worden behandeld. Het invullen van de
34
Master Thesis Human Resource Studies
2015/2016
vragenlijst zal ongeveer 10 tot 15 minuten van je tijd in beslag nemen. We willen je er graag op
attent maken dat slechts volledig ingevulde vragenlijsten bruikbaar zijn.
Bij vragen kun je ons altijd bereiken via het e-mailadres: [email protected]. Je kan
aan het onderzoek beginnen door op de pijlknop rechts onderaan deze pagina te klikken.
Alvast
bedankt dat je ons helpt afstuderen!
Groeten,
Masterstudenten Human Resource Studies
Simone Arkesteijn
Carla van Nistelrooij
Manja Verhoeven
Demographic variables
1. Ben je een voltijd student?
2. Beschik je over een betaalde baan?
3. Wat is je geslacht?
4. Wat is je leeftijd? (in jaren)
5. Wat is je hoogst genoten opleiding?
6. Hoeveel uur werk je gemiddeld per week?
7. Ben je samenwonend/getrouwd?
8. Heb je kinderen?
WFE
9. Mijn betrokkenheid bij mijn werk helpt me om verschillende standpunten te begrijpen en dit helpt
me een beter familielid te zijn.
10. Mijn betrokkenheid bij mijn werk helpt me om kennis te verkrijgen en dit helpt me een beter
familielid te zijn.
11. Mijn betrokkenheid bij mijn werk helpt me vaardigheden te verkrijgen en dit helpt me een beter
familielid te zijn.
35
Master Thesis Human Resource Studies
2015/2016
12. Mijn betrokkenheid bij mijn werk brengt me in een goede stemming en dit helpt me een beter
familielid te zijn.
13. Mijn betrokkenheid bij mijn werk geeft me een gelukkig gevoel en dit helpt me een beter
familielid te zijn.
14. Mijn betrokkenheid bij mijn werk maakt me vrolijk en dit helpt me een beter familielid te zijn.
15. Mijn betrokkenheid bij mijn werk geeft me persoonlijke voldoening en dit helpt me een beter
familielid te zijn.
16. Mijn betrokkenheid bij mijn werk geeft me een gevoel van vervulling en dit helpt me een beter
familielid te zijn.
17. Mijn betrokkenheid bij mijn werk geeft me een succesvol gevoel en dit helpt me een beter
familielid te zijn.
FWE
18. Mijn betrokkenheid bij mijn familie helpt me om kennis te verkrijgen en dit helpt me een beter
werknemer te zijn.
19. Mijn betrokkenheid bij mijn familie helpt me vaardigheden te verkrijgen en dit helpt me een
beter werknemer te zijn.
20. Mijn betrokkenheid bij mijn familie helpt me mijn kennis over nieuwe dingen uit te breiden en
dit helpt me een beter werknemer te zijn.
21. Mijn betrokkenheid bij mijn familie brengt me in een goede stemming en dit helpt me een beter
werknemer te zijn.
22. Mijn betrokkenheid bij mijn familie geeft me een gelukkig gevoel en dit helpt me een beter
werknemer te zijn.
23. Mijn betrokkenheid bij mijn familie maakt me vrolijk en dit helpt me een beter werknemer te
zijn.
24. Mijn betrokkenheid bij mijn familie vraagt me om het verspillen van tijd op het werk te
voorkomen en dit helpt me een beter werknemer te zijn.
25. Mijn betrokkenheid bij mijn familie moedigt me aan om mijn werktijd te gebruiken op een
gerichte manier en dit helpt me een beter werknemer te zijn.
26. Mijn betrokkenheid bij mijn familie laat me meer gericht op het werk te zijn en dit helpt me een
beter werknemer te zijn.
36
Master Thesis Human Resource Studies
2015/2016
Eustress
27. Hoe vaak ga je effectief om met stressvolle veranderingen in je leven?
28. Hoe vaak kun je succesvol omgaan met irritaties?
29. Lees je voor je plezier boeken?
30. Hoe vaak heb je het gevoel dat stress positief bijdraagt aan het vermogen om je problemen aan te
pakken?
31. In het algemeen, hoe vaak voel je je gemotiveerd door stress?
32. Ga je doordeweeks uit met vrienden?
33. In het algemeen, hoe vaak ben je in staat je irritaties onder controle te houden?
34. In het algemeen, hoe vaak spreek je met je familie?
35. In het algemeen, hoe vaak faal je onder druk?
36. In het algemeen, hoe vaak ben je niet in staat om je tijd te controleren?
37. Hoe vaak voel je je comfortabel in je omgeving?
38. Wanneer je te maken hebt met stress, hoe vaak heb je dan het idee dat de druk je productiever
maakt?
39. Hoe vaak heb je het gevoel dat je beter presteert onder druk?
40. Hoe vaak beoefen je meditatie?
41. Hoe vaak heb je het gevoel dat stress een positief effect heeft op je leven?
Life Satisfaction
42. In de meeste opzichten is mijn leven dichtbij mijn ideaal.
43. De omstandigheden van mijn leven zijn uitstekend.
44. Ik ben tevreden met mijn leven.
45. Tot dusver heb ik de belangrijkste dingen die ik wil in mijn leven.
46. Als ik mijn leven opnieuw zou kunnen leven zou ik bijna niets veranderen.
37
Master Thesis Human Resource Studies
2015/2016
9.2 Statistics
9.2.1 Reliability analysis
Reliability Analysis Eustress
Reliability Analysis Life Satisfaction
Reliability Analysis WFE
Reliability Analysis FWE
38
Master Thesis Human Resource Studies
2015/2016
9.2.2 Factor Analysis Eustress scale
39
Master Thesis Human Resource Studies
2015/2016
9.2.3 Regression Analyses with Control Variables
40
Master Thesis Human Resource Studies
2015/2016
9.2.4 Correlation Matrix
41
Master Thesis Human Resource Studies
2015/2016
9.2.5 Hayes Process Routine Output
Hayes Process Routine Output: Eustress – WFE – FWE – Life Satisfaction
42
Master Thesis Human Resource Studies
2015/2016
43
Master Thesis Human Resource Studies
2015/2016
44
Master Thesis Human Resource Studies
2015/2016
Hayes Process Routine Output: Eustress – WFE – FWE – Life Satisfaction – Control Variables
45
Master Thesis Human Resource Studies
2015/2016
46
Master Thesis Human Resource Studies
2015/2016
47