Advertisement

Journal of Happiness Studies

, Volume 15, Issue 2, pp 271–283 | Cite as

Engaged at Work and Happy at Home: A Spillover–Crossover Model

  • Alfredo Rodríguez-MuñozEmail author
  • Ana I. Sanz-Vergel
  • Evangelia Demerouti
  • Arnold B. Bakker
Research Paper

Abstract

The current diary study among 50 Spanish dual-earner couples examines whether engagement at work has an impact on own and partners’ well-being. Based on the Spillover–Crossover model, we hypothesized that individuals’ work engagement would spill over to the home domain, increasing their happiness level at the end of the day. Moreover, we predicted a crossover of happiness between the members of the couple. Participants filled in a diary booklet during five consecutive working days (N = 100 participants and N = 500 occasions). The results of multilevel analyses showed that daily work engagement has a direct effect on daily happiness. We also found that employees’ daily work engagement influenced partner’s daily happiness through employees’ daily happiness. Finally, results showed a clear bidirectional crossover of daily happiness between both members of the couple. These findings indicate that the positive effects of work engagement go beyond the work setting and beyond the employee.

Keywords

Work engagement Happiness Spillover–Crossover model Diary research 

References

  1. Abdel-Khalek, A. M. (2006). Measuring happiness with a single-item scale. Social Behavior and Personality, 34, 139–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bakker, A. B. (2005). Flow among music teachers and their students: The crossover of peak experiences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 26–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bakker, A. B. (2009). Building engagement in the workplace. In R. J. Burke & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), The peak performing organization (pp. 50–72). Oxon, UK: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2009). The crossover of work engagement between working couples: A closer look at the role of empathy. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 24, 220–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2013). The Spillover–Crossover model. In J. Grzywacz & E. Demerouti (Eds.), New frontiers in work and family research. Hove: Psychology Press (in press).Google Scholar
  6. Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Burke, R. (2009a). Workaholism and relationship quality: A Spillover–Crossover perspective. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 14, 23–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bakker, A. B., Schaufeli, W. B., Leiter, M. P., & Taris, T. W. (2008). Work engagement: An emerging concept in occupational health psychology. Work and Stress, 22, 187–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bakker, A. B., Westman, M., & Van Emmerik, I. J. H. (2009b). Advancements in crossover theory. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 24, 206–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bakker, A. B., & Xanthopoulou, D. (2009). The crossover of daily work engagement: Test of an actor-partner interdependence model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1562–1571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Breevaart, K., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Hetland, J. (2012). The measurement of state work engagement: A multilevel factor analytic study. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 28, 305–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cook, W., & Kenny, D. A. (2005). The Actor–Partner Interdependence Model: A model of bidirectional effects in developmental studies. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 29, 101–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Culbertson, S. S., Mills, M. J., & Fullagar, C. J. (2012). Work engagement and work-family facilitation: Making homes happier through positive affective spillover. Human Relations, 65, 1155–1177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Demerouti, E. (2012). The spillover and crossover of resources among partners: The role of work-self and family-self facilitation. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 17, 184–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2005). Spillover and crossover of exhaustion and life satisfaction among dual-earner parents. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67, 266–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 542–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Edwards, J. R., & Rothbard, N. (2000). Mechanisms linking work and family: Clarifying the relationship between work and family constructs. Academy of Management Review, 25, 178–200.Google Scholar
  17. Fowler, J. H., & Christakis, N. A. (2009). Dynamic spread of happiness in a large social network: Longitudinal analysis over 20 years in the Framingham Heart Study. British Medical Journal, 7685, 338–347.Google Scholar
  18. Fredrickson, B. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56, 218–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fredrickson, B. L., & Joiner, T. (2002). Positive emotions trigger upward spirals toward emotional well-being. Psychological Science, 13, 172–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. González-Romá, V., Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Lloret, S. (2006). Burnout and work engagement: Independent factors or opposite poles? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 62, 165–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Greenhaus, J., & Powell, G. (2006). When work and family are allies: A theory of work-family enrichment. Academy of Management Review, 31, 72–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Halbesleben, J. R. B., Harvey, J., & Bolino, M. C. (2009). Too engaged? A conservation of resources view of the relationship between work engagement and work interference with family. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1452–1465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Halbesleben, J. R. B., Wheeler, A. R., & Rossi, A. M. (2012). The costs and benefits of working with one’s spouse: A two-sample examination of spousal support, work-family conflict, and emotional exhaustion in work-linked relationships. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 597–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hammer, L. B., Allen, E., & Grigsby, T. D. (1997). Work-family conflict in dual-earner couples: Within individual and crossover effects of work and family. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50, 185–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Rapson, R. L. (1994). Emotional contagion. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Ilies, R., Keeney, J., & Scott, B. A. (2011). Work-family interpersonal capitalization: Sharing positive work events at home. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 114, 115–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kahneman, D. (1999). Objective happiness. In D. Kahneman, E. Diener, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology (pp. 3–25). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  28. Kashdan, T. B., Biswas-Diener, R., & King, L. A. (2008). Reconsidering happiness: the costs of distinguishing between hedonics and eudaimonia. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 3, 219–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kenny, D. A., & Cook, W. (1999). Partner effects in relationship research: Conceptual issues, analytic difficulties, and illustrations. Personal Relationships, 6, 433–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Cook, W. L. (2008). Dyadic data analysis. New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  31. Kimura, M., Daibo, I., & Yogo, M. (2008). The study of emotional contagion from the perspective of interpersonal relationships. Social Behavior and Personality, 36, 27–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kunin, T. (1955). The construction of a new type of attitude measure. Personnel Psychology, 9, 65–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Macey, W. H., & Schneider, B. (2008). The meaning of employee engagement. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1, 3–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mathieu, J. E., & Taylor, S. R. (2006). Clarifying conditions and decision points for meditational type inferences in organizational behaviour. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 1031–1056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ohly, S., Sonnentag, S., Niessen, C., & Zapf, D. (2010). Diary studies in organizational research: An introduction and some practical recommendations. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 9, 79–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rasbash, J., Browne, W., Healy, M., Cameron, B., & Charlton, C. (2000). MLwiN (Version 1.10.006): Interactive software for multilevel analysis. Centre for Multilevel Modelling, Institute of Education, University of London.Google Scholar
  37. Sanz-Vergel, A. I., Rodríguez-Muñoz, A., Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2012). The daily spillover and crossover of emotional labor: Faking emotions at work and at home. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 81, 209–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Scarpello, V., & Campbell, J. P. (1983). Job satisfaction and the fit between individual and organizational rewards. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 56, 315–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 293–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66, 701–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement of burnout and engagement: A confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, 71–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Schaufeli, W. B., Taris, T. W., & Van Rhenen, W. (2008). Workaholism, burnout, and work engagement: Three of a kind or three different kinds of employee well-being? Applied Psychology: An International Review, 57, 173–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Shimazu, A., Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2009). How job demands influence partners’ well-being: A test of the Spillover–Crossover model in Japan. Journal of Occupational Health, 51, 239–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. In S. Leinhardt (Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 290–312). Washington, DC: American Sociological Association.Google Scholar
  45. Sonnentag, S., Dormann, C., & Demerouti, E. (2010). Not all days are created equal: The concept of state work engagement. In M. P. Leiter & A. B. Bakker (Eds.), Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research (pp. 25–38). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  46. Sonnentag, S., Mojza, E. J., Binnewies, C., & Scholl, A. (2008). Being engaged at work and detached at home: A week-level study on work engagement, psychological detachment, and affect. Work and Stress, 22, 257–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. ten Brummelhuis, L., & Bakker, A. B. (2012). Staying engaged during the week: The effect of off-job activities on next day work engagement. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 17, 445–455.Google Scholar
  48. Tims, M., Bakker, A. B., & Xanthopoulou, D. (2011). Do transformational leaders enhance their followers’ daily work engagement? The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 121–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Westman, M. (2001). Stress and strain crossover. Human Relations, 54, 557–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Westman, M., & Etzion, D. (1995). Crossover of stress, strain and resources from one spouse to another. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 169–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Westman, M., & Vinokur, A. (1998). Unraveling the relationship of distress levels within couples: Common stressors, emphatic reactions, or crossover via social interactions? Human Relations, 51, 137–156.Google Scholar
  52. Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2009). Work engagement and financial returns: A diary study on the role of job and personal resources. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82, 183–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alfredo Rodríguez-Muñoz
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ana I. Sanz-Vergel
    • 2
  • Evangelia Demerouti
    • 3
  • Arnold B. Bakker
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Social Psychology, Faculty of PsychologyComplutense University of MadridMadridSpain
  2. 2.Autónoma University of MadridMadridSpain
  3. 3.Eindhoven University of TechnologyEindhovenThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Erasmus University RotterdamRotterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations