Positive and negative work reflection,engagement and exhaustion in dual-earner couples: Exploring living with children and work-linkage as moderators

Abstract

Many employees think about their work during off-job time. Scholars have suggested that whether work-related thoughts during off-job time have detrimental or beneficial effects on employees’ well-being and performance depends on the nature of these thoughts. In this study with dual-earner couples we examined whether employees’ positive and negative work reflection during off-job time are associated with their own and with their partners’ work engagement and exhaustion. Furthermore, we investigated whether (a) living with children and (b) being work-linked (i.e. working in the same organisation and/or working in the same profession) moderated these relations. Both partners of 130 German heterosexual dual-earner couples responded to online questionnaires. We estimated multilevel analyses using the actor–partner interdependence model to analyse our dyadic data. We found positive associations between employees’ positive work reflection and both their own and their partners’ work engagement. Employees’ positive work reflection was also associated with their decreased exhaustion. Employees’ negative work reflection was negatively associated with their own work engagement and positively associated with their own exhaustion but unrelated to their partners’ outcomes. Moderator analyses revealed that living with children weakened the link between employees’ positive work reflection and their own work engagement and strengthened the link between their negative work reflection and exhaustion. The presence of couples’ work-linkage did not moderate any of these relations. This study builds on previous research by showing that employees’ positive work-related thinking is not only beneficial to themselves but also to their partners. Furthermore, the results suggest that living with children constitutes an additional demand that reduces the motivational effects of positive work reflection and amplifies the detrimental effects of employees’ negative work reflection.

Keywords

exhaustion dual-earner couples living with children work engagement work-linkage work reflection

Many employees continue to think about their work after they have finished working (Eurofound, 2017; Pronova, 2018). Research has shown that mentally disconnecting oneself from work during nonwork time (i.e. psychological detachment) is crucial to lessening job stress (Sonnentag and Fritz, 2007; Wendsche and Lohmann-Haislah, 2016). However, scholars have proposed that work-related thoughts during off-job time can have a detrimental or beneficial effect on employees’ well-being and performance depending on the nature of employees’ thoughts (e.g. Sonnentag and Fritz, 2015). Research suggests that thinking about work in a positive way may have beneficial consequences for employees’ health and work-related behaviours, while reflecting on the negative aspects of one’s job may have harmful effects (Binnewies et al., 2009; Casper et al., 2019; Fritz and Sonnentag, 2006; Meier et al., 2016).

Initial studies indicate that in dual-earner couples, employees’ psychological detachment from work is not only associated with their own well-being but also with their partners’ well-being (Hahn et al., 2014; Hahn and Dormann, 2013). However, there are still significant gaps in the literature. First, it is unclear whether different types of work-related thinking (i.e. positive and negative work reflection) uniformly affect partners’ well-being, given that previous research has only focused on psychological detachment, that is, the absence of work-related thinking. Second, as previous research has focused on well-being outcomes such as affect or life satisfaction (Hahn et al., 2014; Hahn and Dormann, 2013), it is unknown whether work-related thinking is related to work-related outcomes such as work engagement. Third, little is known about the boundary conditions that moderate the effect of employees’ work-related thinking on both their own and their partners’ well-being and work-related behaviours. While there is initial evidence that the presence of children in a household is a moderating factor (Hahn et al., 2014), little is known about further work-related moderators. As many employees are currently in dual-earner relationships, extending the knowledge about the dyadic consequences of employees’ work-related thinking is relevant for a large group of employees. For example, in Germany, in 75% of all couples aged 25 to 49 both partners are working, at least part-time (U.N.E.C.E., 2017).

In this study with dual-earner couples, we address these gaps in the literature by examining how employees’ positive and negative work reflection during off-job time are associated not only with their own but also with their partners’ work engagement and exhaustion. Furthermore, to identify potential boundary conditions of these associations, we examine whether (a) living with children and (b) being work-linked (i.e. working in the same organisation and/or working in the same profession) moderate these relations.

This study makes several contributions to the literature. First, we contribute to recovery literature by disentangling the effects of positive and negative work reflection on important outcomes (Sonnentag and Fritz, 2015). Given that previous research on the relation between psychological detachment and work engagement revealed ambiguous findings (Wendsche and Lohmann-Haislah, 2016), focusing on specific work-related cognitions can help clarify the (work-related) consequences of staying connected or distancing oneself from work during leisure time. Second, our study broadens the scope of recovery research beyond the individual level (Sonnentag et al., 2017). By using a dyadic perspective, we take into account that many employees live in romantic relationships and that both partners’ experiences affect each other (Park and Haun, 2017; Song et al., 2008), thereby contributing to a more comprehensive understanding of work reflection and the beneficial and detrimental consequences for both employees and their partners. Third, our study extends the limited knowledge about interindividual differences in employees’ recovery processes (Sonnentag et al., 2017) by investigating the moderating effects of living with children and work-linkages on the relationships between work reflection and both work engagement and exhaustion. As many employees are living with children, children’s impact on employees’ recovery processes needs to be further examined. Moreover, by using work-linkage as moderator, we contribute to emerging literature on work-linked couples (Ferguson et al., 2016; Fritz et al., 2019; Walter and Haun, 2020). Thus, our research can help to develop more targeted recommendations for employees and to identify who benefits most from potential interventions to increase positive and to decrease negative work reflection.

Employees’ recovery processes: Replenishing depleted resources

Dealing with job demands draws on employees’ resources and leads to strain reactions that can reduce their health and work motivation (Bakker and Demerouti, 2008). Impaired health (e.g. high exhaustion) and work motivation (e.g. low work engagement) are indicators of a lack of individual resources. Leisure time provides an opportunity for employees to regenerate depleted resources (Sonnentag, 2001). According to the conservation of resources (COR) theory, people ‘strive to obtain, retain, foster, and protect those things they centrally value’, namely their resources (Hobfoll et al., 2018: 104). A resource can be anything that is either valued in its own right or helps to reach valued goals (Hobfoll, 2002). Stress occurs when an individual’s resources are threatened or lost or cannot be regained after resource investment. Job demands, for instance, draw constantly on employees’ resources and when people engage too heavily in work-related tasks, their resources are eventually depleted. When resource loss is high, it is particularly important to gain further resources. Resource investment helps people to protect against resource loss and to acquire additional resources. In the same vein, individuals who possess greater resources are less likely to lose resources and are more capable to create new resources, which results in the accumulation of resources, or so-called resource caravans (Hobfoll, 2011). In contrast, an initial resource loss makes further resource loss more likely, resulting in loss spirals.

In this paper, we focus on exhaustion and (lack of) work engagement as indicators of employees’ resource depletion. Exhaustion, as a core dimension of burnout, is defined as ‘a consequence of intensive physical, affective and cognitive strain’ (Demerouti et al., 2010: 210) originating from high job demands (Maslach et al., 2001). Exhaustion is associated with important outcomes such as reduced organisational commitment, job satisfaction and increased turnover intentions (Alarcon, 2011; Demerouti et al., 2000).

Work engagement is ‘a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind’ (Bakker et al., 2005: 664), consisting of vigour, dedication, and absorption. Vigour is characterised by high levels of energy. Dedication describes the state of being inspired, enthusiastic, proud and challenged by work. Absorption refers to being fully concentrated and immersed in work activities (Schaufeli et al., 2006). Resources are assumed to be associated with work engagement, as they either foster employees’ growth and development or drive the achievement of work goals (Bakker and Demerouti, 2008). As work engagement substantially contributes to positive organisational outcomes, such as job performance and financial returns (Christian et al., 2011), it is crucial to understand how it can be enhanced.

Positive and negative work reflection during off-job time

One way to replenish resources that were depleted due to job demands is to mentally distance oneself from one’s work, that is, to psychologically detach from work (Sonnentag and Fritz, 2015). Whereas previous research supports the notion that refraining from work-related thoughts is beneficial for replenishing one’s resources (Wendsche and Lohmann-Haislah, 2016), Sonnentag and Fritz (2015) proposed that the valence of employees’ work-related thoughts determines whether work-related thinking is detrimental or beneficial for employees’ well-being and work behaviours. Past empirical research revealed mixed findings regarding the effects of detachment on employee work engagement. Whereas detachment was positively associated with work engagement in some studies (Brummelhuis and Bakker, 2012; Sonnentag and Kühnel, 2016), other studies found no association or even a negative one (Shimazu et al., 2012; Sonnentag et al., 2010). By fully refraining from work-related thoughts, employees are not able to take advantage of positive work experiences. Hence, examining the nature of work-related thoughts in detail may help resolve these inconsistent results on the role of detachment. Following Sonnentag and Fritz’s (2015) proposition, we argue that the way employees think about their work during off-job time significantly affects their exhaustion and work engagement, and, thus, distinguish between positive and negative work reflection.

Positive work reflection as a resource-providing experience

Positive work reﬂection denotes thinking about the positive aspects of one’s job, such as accomplishing tasks or supportive relationships, and is assumed to be a resource-providing experience that beneﬁts employees’ well-being and performance (Fritz and Sonnentag, 2006; Meier et al., 2016). Applying COR theory, positive work reflection is a resource that people invest in to build up lost resources and gain more resources. First, positive work reflection offers a way of reexperiencing positive events from the workday during leisure time, which also amplifies and prolongs the feelings that were associated with the positive event (Bryant, 2003). Thinking about one’s successfully fulfilled tasks and pleasant work events may generate resources such as a sense of competence or positive affect (Fredrickson, 2001), resulting in increased well-being and performance (Bono et al., 2013). Furthermore, as positive work reﬂection implies a positive reappraisal of work experiences, it may counter the negative consequences of work-related stress (Lazarus, 2006). Exhaustion occurs when employees’ energy and resources are depleted (Maslach et al., 2001). In contrast, the positive emotions people experience when positively reflecting about one’s job can mitigate any load reactions from work efforts, restore energy and help employees recover (Oerlemans et al., 2014). The existing research on work reflection supports the notion that positive work reflection during leisure time is a resource-generating leisure experience that is beneficial to employee well-being and work-related behaviours (Binnewies et al., 2009; Casper et al., 2019; Fritz and Sonnentag, 2006; Meier et al., 2016). Consequently, positive work reflection is hypothesised to be positively associated with work engagement and negatively associated with exhaustion.

H1: Positive work reflection is a) positively associated with employees’ work engagement and b) negatively associated with employees’ exhaustion.

Negative work reflection as a resource-consuming experience

Negative work reflection involves thinking about the negative aspects of one’s job such as failures or conflicts with colleagues and is a resource-consuming experience (Fritz and Sonnentag, 2006; Ott et al., 2019). According to COR theory, the consumption of resources or the threat of resource loss may lead to stress, which in turn hinders recovery and reduces well-being (Hobfoll et al., 2018). Due to resource investment, fewer resources will be available to use for subsequent tasks. Negative work reflection depletes employees’ resources because demands are put on the employee and job stressors remain mentally present during leisure time, resulting in a prolonged activation of negative thoughts and affect (Brosschot et al., 2005). Depletion of resources is associated with reduced motivation, task focus, well-being and health (Hobfoll, 2010). Moreover, repetitive negative thoughts are a negative experience in their own and are related to further resource loss such as reduced feelings of control and self-evaluation as well as increased helplessness (Lyubomirsky et al., 2003). Therefore, negative work reflection is expected to be negatively associated with employees’ work engagement and positively associated with their exhaustion. Empirical evidence confirms that negative work reflection is a resource-consuming leisure experience that is detrimental to employee well-being (Binnewies et al., 2009; Casper et al., 2019; Flaxman et al., 2018; Fritz and Sonnentag, 2006; Meier et al., 2016; Ott et al., 2019).

H2: Negative work reflection is a) negatively associated with employees’ work engagement and b) positively associated with employees’ exhaustion.

Dyadic effects of positive and negative work reflection

As well as the hypothesised effects of employees’ work reflection on their own work engagement and exhaustion, we propose that work-related thinking crosses over to the partner and similarly affects partners’ well-being and work-related behaviours. In dual-earner couples, both partners face the challenge of balancing their job and home demands, and work and home experiences may cross over from one partner to another (Bakker et al., 2005, 2008; Park and Haun, 2017). While previous research has shown that employees’ psychological detachment from work is associated with their partners’ life satisfaction (Hahn and Dormann, 2013), our study examines in detail the nature of work-related thoughts and their consequences for partners’ work engagement and exhaustion, that is to say, the crossover effects. Crossover refers to ‘a dyadic, interindividual transmission of psychological states and experiences’ (Hobfoll et al., 2018: 108) and is not only restricted to negative experiences but also includes positive ones (Westman, 2001). In the context of COR theory, crossover signifies a resource exchange within dyads (Hobfoll et al., 2018). Crossover occurs through several mechanisms. First, direct crossover may occur via empathy. That is, employees in an intimate relationship feel their partners’ strain and resources, and, in turn, their own affective states and their motivation are affected. Second, crossover can occur via an indirect interaction process. One partner’s strain can result in a lack of communication or negative interactions with the other partner, which increases crossover of strain. Similarly, when one partner uses their resources and positive emotions to have positive, supportive interactions with the partner, the affective experiences of the other partner may increase (Hobfoll et al., 2018) and resource gains may be enabled. Therefore, we argue that employees’ positive and negative work-related thinking during leisure time are not only associated with their own work engagement and exhaustion, but also with their partners’.

Employees’ positive work reflection can be a resource-providing experience for their partners. For example, the sharing of successes and accomplishments and the associated self-efficacy and self-esteem may cross over from one partner to another (Neff et al., 2013, 2015). Furthermore, as positive work reflection creates resources in the employee, the employee is more likely to engage in positive behaviours towards the partner, that is, transferring resources to the other. Positive behaviours may not only include pleasant conversations but also joint leisure activities that generate resources (Hahn et al., 2012; Sonnentag, 2001). In turn, the partner is better equipped with resources and may feel enthusiastic about their own work (Bakker et al., 2005). In addition, an employee who is in a positive state may be more willing to take care of responsibilities at home, giving the partner the opportunity to preserve their own resources and to build up additional resources such as new energy and work-related motivation.

H3: Employees’ positive work reflection is a) positively associated with partners’ work engagement and b) negatively associated with partners’ exhaustion.

Conversely, employees’ negative work reflection can be a resource-consuming experience for their partners. An employee who thinks negatively about their work may be less available for pleasant joint activities (e.g. doing sports, going out together) that may help them recover drained resources. Furthermore, they may also be less available to provide instrumental or emotional support to their partners and to help them unwind from job stress, as they are preoccupied with their own work-related thoughts. Employees’ negative states may either directly cross over to the partner via empathy (Germeys and Verbruggen, 2018) or indirectly via less constructive, negatively valenced conversations (Bakker et al., 2008; Danner-Vlaardingerbroek et al., 2013). Empirical research has provided initial evidence for the crossover of negative work reflection among dual-earner couples. Fritz et al. (2019) found that negative work-related thoughts impaired the partner’s sleep, at least in work-linked couples. Furthermore, direct crossover effects of work engagement and burnout were found (Bakker et al., 2005). Based on COR theory and related crossover research, we propose

H4: Employees’ negative work reflection is a) negatively associated with partners’ work engagement and b) positively associated with partners’ exhaustion.

Exploring potential moderators

We hypothesise that positive work reflection is beneficial and negative reflection is harmful to employees’ well-being and work engagement (Fritz and Sonnentag, 2006; Meier et al., 2016; Ott et al., 2019). However, not all people might be affected equally by work-related thinking. As Sonnentag et al. (2017) suggested, boundary conditions might influence the occurrence and magnitude of the effects of work reflection on work engagement and exhaustion. This study focuses on the boundary conditions of living with children and work-linkage as couple-level moderators.

Living with children

In Germany, 27.5% (11.4 million) of households are families living with at least one child (Federal Statistical Office, 2018). Living with children strongly impacts employees’ nonwork experiences and couple dynamics (Elliott, 2003; Kurdek, 1999). We thus explore living with children as moderator of the relations between employees’ work-related thinking on their own exhaustion and engagement and on their partners’ exhaustion and engagement.

On the one hand, children may distract employees from their work-related thoughts, thus dampening both the beneficial and harmful effects. For example, employees may forget about both their positive and negative work-related thoughts when they become absorbed in joint activities with their children such as playing or doing sports together (cf. Hahn et al., 2012). As a result, these thoughts become less impactful. On the other hand, living with children may pose additional demands on an employee, depleting their resources (Hahn et al., 2012). For instance, children may need support with their homework or need to be taken to sports clubs or their friends’ houses. Therefore, employees with children may be more vulnerable in the face of resource loss due to negative work-related thinking and may benefit less from positive work-related thinking.

Similarly, living with children may moderate the effects of employees’ positive and negative work reflection on their partners’ outcomes. On the one hand, crossover effects may be diminished for the following reasons: First, living with children implies having multiple roles and responsibilities (Wierda-Boer et al., 2009); therefore, partners pay less attention to each other as they are more distracted by their children (Hahn et al., 2014). Second, employees with children spend less leisure time together with their partners and are more likely to be engaged in different domestic tasks (Barnet-Verzat et al., 2011). Third, employees may try to avoid discussing negative topics such as work-related issues when children are present to prevent the children from feeling distress in the family and related anxiety and aggression (Cummings et al., 2004; Erath and Bierman, 2006). Therefore, in couples with children, an employee has fewer opportunities to notice their partner’s work-related thoughts due to distractions, spending less time together and avoiding negative moods. In turn, they may be affected less by their partner’s positive or negative work-related thoughts, resulting in less crossover of the employee’s positive and negative experiences. Previous research showed that living with children weakens the effects of employees’ psychological detachment on their partners’ well-being (Hahn et al., 2014) and that a weaker crossover of negative affect takes place when children are present (Song et al., 2008). On the other hand, living with children might exacerbate the effects of employees’ work-related thinking on their partners. As childcare drains employees’ resources (Brummelhuis et al., 2010), employees may be less able to control their negative feelings when interacting with their partners, leading to increased exhaustion and reduced work engagement in the partner.

Given these contradictory predictions, we do not formulate specific hypotheses, but investigate the potential moderating role of living with children on the relationships between employees’ work-related thinking and both their own and their partners’ outcomes as open research questions.

Research Question 1: Does living with children moderate the associations between employees’ positive and negative work reflection and their (a) work engagement and (b) exhaustion?

Research Question 2: Does living with children moderate the associations between employees’ positive and negative work reflection and partners’ (a) work engagement and (b) exhaustion?

Work-linkage

With the growing number of two-income households, couples may be increasingly likely to work in the same company (e.g. work in the same hospital but have different roles), have the same profession (e.g. teachers at different schools) or both (e.g. work as teachers in the same school). In the USA, 11% to 13% of dual-earner couples work for the same employer (Hyatt, 2019), and German data show that 29% of dual-earner academic couples are employed in the same occupational sector (Rusconi and Solga, 2007). This work-linkage implies a greater integration of work and home domains (Halbesleben et al., 2010), hence off-job experiences in the home domain should be associated more strongly with work experiences.

We propose that couples’ work-linkage strengthens the relationship between employees’ positive and negative work reflection and their partners’ work engagement and exhaustion. Due to the higher work-family integration of a work-linked couple, partners can more easily identify and empathise with each other’s work-related thinking. Thus, work-linked partners may be better at utilising or reinvesting resources for each other across the work and family domains (Halbesleben et al., 2010, 2012). For instance, an employee with positive work-related thoughts may be more likely to have positive conversations about work with their partner (Hicks and Diamond, 2008), transferring their enthusiasm to the partner. Additionally, an employee in a positive mood will be more willing to engage in joint leisure activities, thereby supporting the creation of resources and facilitating the partner’s recovery from work (Hahn et al., 2012). Research by Park and Haun (2017) showed that employees’ feelings of recovery were associated with their partners’ work engagement in work-linked couples but not in couples without work-linkage. Moreover, work-linked couples have a greater understanding of partners’ work-related issues and spend more time together (Janning, 2006), thereby increasing the chances of crossover.

In contrast, a work-linked couple’s greater work-home integration may also imply that negative states cross over more easily to the partner, threatening their resources. An employee thinking negatively about work may express their negative mood in more negatively valenced communication and interactional behaviours with the partner (Rimé, 2009), so that the partner’s resources are threatened by loss instead of being enhanced and their motivation for work is likely to be reduced. Fritz et al. (2019) showed that for couples with work-linkage, experienced workplace incivility of one employee was positively associated with the partner’s insomnia symptoms through the employee’s work rumination at home, underlining the detrimental effect of employees’ negative thinking on the partner. Therefore, we propose the following:

H5: Couples’ work-link moderates the associations between employees’ positive work reflection and their partners’ (a) work engagement and (b) exhaustion, such that the associations are stronger for work-linked couples compared to non-work-linked couples.

H6: Couples’ work-link moderates the associations between employees’ negative work reflection and their partners’ (a) work engagement and (b) exhaustion, such that the associations are stronger for work-linked couples compared to non-work-linked couples.

Method

Sample and procedure

This study is part of a larger research project on work-related stress, recovery and well-being among dual-earner couples in Germany (Walter and Haun, 2020). German-speaking heterosexual dual-earner couples working at least 10 hours per week were chosen for the study. For recruitment, social media community groups were used (e.g. groups for dual-earner couples, (trainee) teachers, research associates and working mothers) and information leaflets about the study were distributed in local facilities (e.g. in cafés, shops, dancing schools and childcare facilities). Detailed information about the study was given before registration and the participants provided informed consent. As incentive for participation, participants received a summary of study results and recommendations for managing work stress as a couple. In addition, all participants could take part in a lottery drawing of online gift cards. In total, 465 individuals filled in an online questionnaire and were requested to invite their partners to fill in the same questionnaire. Invitations were also sent to participants’ partners with the request to participate in the study. Each couple created a distinct code consisting of both partners’ birth dates so that individual surveys could be matched. Of the 465 individuals, we could not consider the data of 205 persons, as their partners did not fill in the web-based surveys. Therefore, our final sample consisted of 260 individuals, matched into 130 heterosexual dual-earner couples. To control for selection effects, we tested whether there are differences between the final sample of couples and the individuals whose partners did not participate. There were no significant differences across these groups regarding the study variables and demographic characteristics (e.g. children, age) except of exhaustion: Individuals whose partners did not participate scored significantly higher (M = 2.42, SD = 0.59) on exhaustion than the final sample of couples (M = 2.28, SD = 0.52). The average relationship length was 8.01 years (SD = 7.51). Among the couples, 27% lived with children in their households: 12.3% of the couples with one child, 12.3% with two children and 0.8% lived with three children. Most of the couples (83.3%) lived together. On average, men were 34.64 years old (SD = 8.55) and worked 40.43 (SD = 10.40) hours per week. Among men, 9 (6.9%) worked less than 20 hours per week, 8 (6.2%) worked between 20 and 34 hours per week, and 112 (86.2%) worked more than 34 hours per week. Women were 31.98 years old (SD = 8.13) and worked 36.46 (SD = 12.80) hours per week. Among women, 14 (10.8%) worked less than 20 hours per week, 31 (23.8%) worked between 20 and 34 hours per week, and 85 (65.4%) worked more than 34 hours per week. In our sample, 54 participants (20.8%) had a leadership role. Among our participants, a large variety of occupations and industrial sectors were represented, such as education, scientific and public sector, social sector, IT, engineering, health sector, retail, army, and sales. Most of our participants graduated from high school/secondary school (77.7%) and held an academic degree (69.9%).

Measures

Positive and negative work reflection

We used the work reflection scales developed by Fritz and Sonnentag (2006) to measure positive and negative work reflection with three items for each (e.g. ‘During leisure time, I think about the positive points of my job’; ‘During leisure time, I realize what I do not like about my job’; 1 = I do not agree at all to 5 = I fully agree). For positive work reflection, Cronbach’s alpha was .91 for men and for women. For negative work reflection, Cronbach’s alpha was .90 for men and for women.

Exhaustion

Exhaustion was assessed using eight items of the Oldenburg Burnout Inventory (Demerouti et al., 2010). Participants rated on a 4-point Likert scale (1 = I do not agree at all to 4 = I fully agree) to what extent they agree with the following example: ‘During my work, I often feel emotionally drained’. Cronbach’s alpha was .84 for men and .85 for women.

Work engagement

Work engagement was measured with the short form of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (Schaufeli et al., 2006) that consists of the subscales of vigour (three items; ‘At my work, I feel bursting with energy’), dedication (three items; ‘I am enthusiastic about my job’), and absorption (three items; ‘I am immersed in my work’; 1 = never to 7 = always). Cronbach’s alpha was .95 among men and women.

Living with children

We assessed living with children with the following question: ‘How many children are living in your household?’. This was coded with 1 if there was at least one child and with 0 if there was no child in the household.

Work-linkage

Participants answered the following two statements: ‘Your partner works in the same occupation as you’ and ‘Your partner works in the same company as you’ (0 = no, 1 = yes). In the sample, 10% (n = 13) worked only in the same occupation, 11.5% (n = 15) worked only in the same company and 16.2% (n = 21) worked both in the same occupation and in the same company. In line with previous research (Ferguson et al., 2016; Halbesleben et al., 2012; Walter and Haun, 2020), a dummy variable was created in which value 0 denoted when both statements were answered with ‘no’ and 1 denoted when at least one statement was answered with ‘yes’. In total, 37.7% of the couples in our sample (n = 49) were work-linked.

Data analysis

As people in intimate relationships influence each other due to shared experiences, responses from members of a couple are not independent (Kenny et al., 2006). We used the actor-partner interdependence model (APIM) to consider the nonindependence and mutual influence between partners (Kenny et al., 2006). In the APIM, actor and partner effects are estimated simultaneously. More specifically, an actor effect describes an effect of an employee’s predictors on an employee’s outcomes. A partner effect refers to the effect of an employee’s predictors on their partner’s outcomes. As we focus on dual-earner couples in this study, each person takes both the role of an employee and a partner. Beside the actor and partner effects, there are two correlations in the APIM: the correlation between the two partners’ predictors and the correlation between the two partners’ error terms of the dependent variables.

In dyadic data, the person-level (Level 1) is nested within the dyad-level (Level 2). We used hierarchical linear modeling in the program HLM (Campbell and Kashy, 2002; Raudenbush et al., 2019) for our analyses. For a detailed description on data set structure in HLM, we refer the reader to Campbell and Kashy (2002). Work reflection, work engagement and exhaustion are person-level variables (i.e. partners’ scores within dyads are different), whereas living with children and work-linkage are dyad-level (i.e. the partners’ scores within a dyad are the same) data moderators. Following the recommendations of Kenny et al. (2006), the predictor variables positive and negative work reflection were centred at the grand mean to make zero a meaningful value for the predictor variables.

Results

Table 1 presents the mean scores, standard deviations and correlations of the individual- and dyad-level of the study variables.

Table 1.

Correlations between study variables (N = 130 dyads, 260 individuals).

Variable	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
Dyad-level
1. Living with children^a	0.27	0.44		−0.01	.03	−0.22**	0.12	−0.13*
2. Work-linkage^a	0.38	0.49	−0.01		−0.03	0.04	−0.03	0.02
Actor
3. PWR	2.38	0.84	0.02	−0.02		0.12	0.50***	−0.17**
4. NWR	2.40	0.89	−0.17**	0.03	0.09		−0.31***	0.36***
5. Work engagement	4.25	1.25	0.09	−0.02	0.39**	−0.32***		−0.49***
6. Exhaustion	2.29	0.53	−0.10	0.02	−0.15**	0.37**	−0.42***
Partner
7. PWR	2.38	0.84	0.02	−0.02	0.15*	0.04	0.21**	−0.05
8. NWR	2.40	0.89	−0.17**	0.03	0.04	0.14*	−0.05	0.05	0.09
9. Work engagement	4.25	1.25	0.09	−0.02	0.21**	−0.05	0.26***	0.20**	0.39***	−0.33***
10. Exhaustion	2.29	0.53	−0.10	0.02	−0.05	0.05	−0.20**	0.24***	−0.15*	0.37***	−0.42***

Dyad-level correlations are displayed above the diagonal (N = 130). Individual-level correlations are displayed below the diagonal (N = 260).

PWR: positive work reflection; NWR: negative work reflection.

0 = no, 1 = yes.

p < 0.05. **p < 0.01. ***p < 0.001.

Preliminary analysis

First, we examined whether work engagement and exhaustion differed between dyads by partitioning the total variance into within- and between-dyad variance. Of the total variance, 26.1% and 25.0% were at the between-level for work engagement and exhaustion, respectively.

Second, although men and women differ on a conceptual level, it is recommended to test whether they are empirically distinguishable (Kenny et al., 2006). Empirical distinguishability exists when means, variances and covariances of the study variables differ between dyad members. We used structural equation modelling in Mplus (Muthén and Muthén, 1998–2017) for model fit comparisons. We performed omnibus tests of distinguishability: we compared the fit of a model in which means, variances, and covariances of the study variables were constrained to be equal across men and women, against another model in which they were free to vary (Ackerman et al., 2011). We performed two omnibus tests: one including work engagement and positive and negative work reflection and another one including exhaustion and positive and negative work reflection. In both tests, women and men did not differ (χ²(12) = 10.32, p = 0.59; χ²(12) = 15.03, p = 0.24, respectively), signifying that gender does not make a meaningful difference for these variables (Kenny et al., 2006). Therefore, dyad members were treated as indistinguishable in the analyses by constraining means, variances, covariances, actor and partner effects to be equal across men and women.

In other words, the effects of an employee’s predictors on their partner’s outcomes (e.g. a husband’s negative work reflection on his wife’s exhaustion) are the same as the effects of the partner’s predictors on the employee’s outcomes (e.g. a wife’s negative work reflection on her husband’s exhaustion).

Hypothesis testing

For testing our hypotheses, we ran two series of nested models, one for work engagement and one for exhaustion as outcome: Model 0 was an unconstrained null model including only the intercept; in Model 1, the actor and partner effects of work reflection on the outcomes and the dyad-level predictors living with children and work-linkage were added; Model 2 additionally included the cross-level interactions between work reflection and living with children; and Model 3 included the cross-level interactions between work reflection and couples’ work-linkage. As model fit indices, the deviance statistic that can be used to compare model fit of two subsequent models was analysed.

As suggested by Hypothesis 1a, we found positive associations between employees’ positive work reflection and their own work engagement. Employees’ positive work reflection was also associated with employees’ decreased exhaustion (Hypothesis 1b). Therefore, Hypotheses 1a and 1b were supported. The multilevel estimates predicting work engagement are displayed in Table 2. Employees’ negative work reflection was negatively associated with their own work engagement and positively associated with their own exhaustion, supporting Hypotheses 2a and 2b. Table 3 presents the model estimates for exhaustion as outcome. Regarding partner effects, Hypotheses 3a and 3b stated that positive work reflection is associated with partners’ outcomes. Please note that in our analyses, we estimated the effects of partners’ positive work reflection on employees’ outcomes which are conceptually and empirically the same as the effects of employees’ positive work reflection on partners’ outcomes in our sample of dual-earner couples. We found positive associations between employees’ positive work reflection and their partners’ work engagement, but positive work reflection was unrelated to partners’ exhaustion. Thus, Hypothesis 3a was supported whereas Hypothesis 3b was not supported. Hypotheses 4a and 4b suggested that negative work reflection is associated with partners’ outcomes. Employees’ negative work reflection was not significantly associated with both work engagement and exhaustion, so that Hypotheses 4a and 4b were not supported.¹

Table 2.

Multilevel estimates for models predicting work engagement.

	Model 0			Model 1			Model 2			Model 3
	Estimate	SE	t	Estimate	SE	t	Estimate	SE	t	Estimate	SE	t
Intercept	4.24***	0.09	48.69	4.23***	0.10	43.90	4.23***	0.10	44.67	4.23***	0.10	44.18
Dyad-level predictors
Living with children^a				0.04	0.15	0.28	0.06	0.16	0.39	0.04	0.16	0.23
Work-linkage (WL)^a				0.00	0.14	0.04	−0.00	0.14	−0.04	0.00	0.14	0.02
Person-level predictors
PWR_Actor				0.60***	0.08	7.73	0.72***	0.09	7.85	0.51***	0.11	4.73
PWR_Partner				0.24**	0.08	3.15	0.32**	0.09	3.51	0.24*	0.11	2.26
NWR_Actor				−0.51***	0.07	−6.91	−0.50***	0.08	−6.01	−0.58***	0.10	−5.97
NWR_Partner				−0.04	0.07	−0.57	−0.03	0.08	−0.40	−0.02	0.10	−0.23
Cross-level interaction
PWR_Actor × Children							−0.38*	0.17	−2.26
PWR_Partner × Children							−0.22	0.17	−1.34
NWR_Actor × Children							0.02	0.18	0.11
NWR_Partner × Children							−0.00	0.18	−0.02
PWR_Actor × WL										0.20	0.15	1.29
PWR_Partner × WL										0.02	0.15	0.10
NWR_Actor × WL										0.19	0.15	1.25
NWR_Partner × WL										−0.01	0.15	−0.05
−2 × log (lh)	845.52			755.87			748.36			752.36
Diff −2 × log (lh)				89.66***			7.50			3.50
Df				6			4			4
Within-dyad variance	1.16	0.14		0.94	0.12		0.94	0.12		0.93	0.12
Between-dyad variance	0.41	0.14		0.13	0.10		0.10	0.09		0.13	0.09

PWR: positive work reflection; NWR: negative work reflection.

0 = no, 1 = yes.

p < 0.05. ^**p < 0.01. ^***p < 0.001.

Table 3.

Multilevel estimates for models predicting exhaustion.

	Model 0			Model 1			Model 2			Model 3
	Estimate	SE	t	Estimate	SE	t	Estimate	SE	t	Estimate	SE	t
Intercept	2.28***	0.04	62.88	2.29***	0.05	49.21	2.30***	0.05	49.12	2.30***	0.05	49.28
Dyad-level predictors
Living with children^a				−0.04	0.07	−0.52	−0.01	0.08	−0.11	−0.04	0.07	−0.52
Work-linkage (WL)^a				0.00	0.07	0.04	−0.01	0.07	−0.18	0.00	0.07	0.04
Person-level predictors
PWR_Actor				−0.11**	0.04	−3.16	−0.12**	0.04	−2.81	−0.07	0.05	−1.38
PWR_Partner				−0.02	0.04	−0.71	−0.01	0.04	−0.15	−0.04	0.05	−0.73
NWR_Actor				0.23***	0.03	6.67	0.19***	0.04	4.97	0.23***	0.04	5.38
NWR_Partner				0.00	0.03	0.12	0.02	0.04	0.43	−0.00	0.04	−0.05
Cross-level interaction
PWR_Actor × Children							0.00	0.08	0.02
PWR_Partner × Children							−0.06	0.08	−0.84
NWR_Actor × Children							0.17*	0.08	2.05
NWR_Partner × Children							−0.01	0.08	−0.17
PWR_Actor × WL										−0.09	0.07	−1.33
PWR_Partner × WL										0.02	0.07	0.30
NWR_Actor × WL										−0.04	0.07	−0.53
NWR_Partner × WL										0.00	0.07	0.03
−2 × log (lh)	395.77			346.23			340.56			343.83
Diff −2 × log (lh)				49.55***			5.66			2.40
Df				6			4			4
Within-dyad variance	0.21	0.03		0.17	0.02		0.17	0.02		0.17	0.02
Between-dyad variance	0.07	0.02		0.05	0.02		0.06	0.02		0.05	0.02

PWR: positive work reflection; NWR: negative work reflection.

0 = no, 1 = yes.

p < 0.05. ^**p < 0.01. ^***p < 0.001.

To test the moderator variables – living with children and work-linkage – models with cross-level interactions between work reflection and the dichotomous moderators were examined. Model 2 included the moderator of living with children (0 = not living with children; 1 = living with children), and Model 3 included the moderator of work-linkage (0 = no work-linkage; 1 = work-linkage). Regarding Research Question 1 – the potential moderator effect of living with children on the relationship between employees’ work reflection and their own (a) work engagement and (b) exhaustion we found that living with children weakened the link between employees’ positive work reflection and their work engagement (see Figure 1) but did not affect the association between positive work reflection and employees’ exhaustion.

Figure 1.

Interaction effect between living with children and employees’ positive work reflection (PWR) predicting employees’ work engagement.

To gain insight into the pattern of the interaction, we conducted simple slopes analyses using the online tool provided by Preacher et al. (2006). Our simple slopes analysis showed that for both couples with and without children, positive work reflection was significantly associated with work engagement. However, the association was weaker for couples with children (b = 0.34, t = 2.42, p = 0.02) compared to couples without children (b = 0.72, t = 7.85, p < 0.001). Furthermore, living with children was not a significant moderator for the relationship between employees’ negative work reflection and work engagement but strengthened the positive link between employees’ negative work reflection and their exhaustion (see Figure 2). Simple slopes analysis revealed that for couples without children, negative work reflection was significantly associated with exhaustion, b = 0.19, t = 4.97, p < 0.001. For couples without children, the positive association was stronger, b = 0.36, t = 4.76, p < 0.001. Regarding Research Question 2 – the potential moderating effect of living with children on the associations between the employee’s work reflection and their partner’s (a) work engagement and (b) exhaustion, no significant cross-level interactions were found. Regarding the moderating effect of work-linkage on the associations between employees’ work reflection and partners’ (a) work engagement and (b) exhaustion, there was no significant moderation effect. Thus, Hypotheses 5a, 5b, 6a and 6b were not supported.

Figure 2.

Interaction effect between living with children and employees’ negative work reflection (NWR) predicting employees’ exhaustion.

Discussion

The aim of this multi-source study of dual-earner couples was to investigate whether employees’ positive and negative work reflection during off-job time are associated with their own and with their partners’ work engagement and exhaustion. Furthermore, the moderating effects of living with children and work-links of the couple were also examined. We found positive associations between employees’ positive work reflection and both their own and their partners’ work engagement. Employees’ positive work reflection was also associated with their decreased exhaustion. Employees’ negative work reflection was negatively associated with their own work engagement and positively associated with their own exhaustion, but unrelated to their partners’ outcomes. Moderator analyses revealed that living with children weakened the link between employees’ positive work reflection and their own work engagement and strengthened the link between employees’ negative work reflection and their exhaustion. The couple’s work-linkage did not moderate any of these relations.

Theoretical contributions

In line with COR theory and previous research (Casper et al., 2019; Fritz and Sonnentag, 2006; Jiang and Johnson, 2018; Meier et al., 2016; Ott et al., 2019), positive work reflection as resource-providing and negative work reflection as resource-depleting non-work experiences were related to employees’ exhaustion and work engagement. Our finding that both positive and negative work reflection contribute to employees’ work engagement highlights the need to consider the valence of employees’ work-related thoughts rather than the mere absence of any work-related thinking (i.e. psychological detachment). Previous research that focused on the relation between psychological detachment and work engagement showed mixed results (Shimazu et al., 2012; Sonnentag et al., 2010; Sonnentag and Kühnel, 2016). Our findings suggest that considering the nature of work-related thoughts may help to resolve these inconsistent findings. By fully refraining from all work-related thoughts, employees are not taking advantage of positive work experiences. More precisely, thinking about the positive sides of one’s job can be even more beneficial than forgetting about work (Meier et al., 2016) and might increase the motivation to continue work with dedication and absorption, thereby showing high work engagement.

By extending previous research on the individual consequences of employees’ work reflection and contributing to crossover research (Casper et al., 2019; Flaxman et al., 2018), we showed that in our sample, employees’ positive work reflection was not only associated with their own work engagement, but also with their partners’ work engagement. In line with the assumption of direct (empathy) and indirect (positive interactions) crossover processes, our results suggest that the effects of employees’ positive work reflection as a resource-providing experience were transferred to the partner and enabled resource investments resulting in partners’ increased work engagement. Hence, our findings indicate that employees’ positive work-related thinking seems to be not only beneficial for themselves, but also for their partners. We did not find the hypothesised effect of employees’ positive work reflection on partners’ exhaustion. Our results point to the notion that employees’ positive experiences do not transmit as easily to partners’ well-being as they are transferred to work engagement as a motivational component.

In contrast to our expectations, negative work reflection was not associated with partners’ outcomes. Similar to the findings of Ott et al. (2019), it might be that the effect of negative work reflection depends on further moderating variables. More precisely, it is possible that employees are less likely to share negative work-related thoughts with their partners so that the effects of negative work reflection do not cross over to the partner. Another explanation might be that partners react differently to positive versus negative work-related thinking, paying more attention to positive thoughts (Gable et al., 2004) than to negative thoughts.

Our moderator analyses revealed that living with children detracts from the positive effects of positive work reflection and strengthens the detrimental effects of negative work reflection. Hence, our results suggest that living with children constitutes an additional demand that reduces the motivational effects of positive work reflection and amplifies the negative effects of negative work reflection on the employee. In contrast to the findings of Hahn et al. (2014), living with children did not moderate the effect of work reflection on partners’ work engagement or exhaustion. Based on previous empirical findings and theoretical considerations (Barnet-Verzat et al., 2011; Hahn et al., 2014; Hahn and Dormann, 2013; Song et al., 2008), we argued that living with children implies having less time together as a couple, avoiding negative moods in the presence of children and being more distracted, which results in having fewer opportunities to notice partners’ work-related thoughts and lessens crossover effects. However, as underlying mechanisms were not measured, it remains unclear whether the non-significant moderation effect could be explained by further variables.

In contrast to our expectations and recent empirical findings (Fritz et al., 2019), work-linked and non-work-linked couples did not differ in the effects of work-related thinking. For both couples with and without work-linkage, employees’ positive and negative work reflection were equally beneficial or harmful, respectively. Our findings suggest that the higher work-home integration of a work-linked couple neither increases the transfer of resources nor the transfer of strain to the partner. As Fritz et al. (2019) found that employees’ rumination is positively associated with their partners’ insomnia in work-linked couples only, further moderating mechanisms should be taken into account. For instance, the moderating effect of a couple’s work-linkage may depend on whether and to what extent employees share work-related thinking and experiences with their partners (Hicks and Diamond, 2008). Furthermore, differences in the composition of the samples in our study and in the study of Fritz et al. (2019) might also hint to potential moderators. Participants in the study of Fritz et al. (2019), were on average older than participants in our study which is possibly associated with different living situations (e.g. having older children who demand fewer childcare, stronger focus on other life domains such as work) that might affect the relations. Moreover, as the study of Fritz et al. (2019) was conducted in the USA while our study was conducted in Germany, cultural differences might play a role.

Limitations and future research

Our study is not without limitations. Even though the influence of the individual’s predictors was separated from their partner’s predictors by analysing our dyadic data with the APIM, the cross-sectional design of our study does not allow to draw causal inferences. While we hypothesised that work reflection predicts employees’ and partners’ work engagement and exhaustion, it is also possible that highly engaged people tend to have more positive and less negative work-related thoughts (Daniel and Sonnentag, 2014). Similarly, exhausted employees may tend to think more negatively about work (Sonnentag et al., 2014); that is, reverse effects may exist. Therefore, longitudinal or intervention research is needed to clarify the causal relations between work reflection and exhaustion and work engagement.

Another limitation may concern the sample of participants. Individuals whose partners did not participate in our study and thus were not included scored higher on exhaustion than the couples in the final sample. Hence, the sample might be biased towards couples with lower exhaustion values, which might lead to an underestimation of the effects of work reflection on well-being and work behaviour. Furthermore, our sample was quite well-educated implying that our findings might be most applicable to academics. In our study, the participants were also relatively young with an average age of 33.32 years. As a couple’s young age might imply that their children are relatively young needing more attention and care than older children, the moderating role of living with children might be stronger in younger couples with children. Furthermore, in couples with higher ages, care of elderly parents might become an issue that affects the hypothesised relations. Future research should include couples with a great age range to be able to investigate participants’ age and associated living conditions (e.g. living with small children, caring of elderly parents) as additional boundary conditions that might influence the effects of work reflection on work engagement and exhaustion.

Based on previous research and crossover effects (Bakker and Demerouti, 2009; Fritz et al., 2019; Hahn et al., 2012), we argued that employees’ work reflection should affect their partners’ exhaustion and work engagement through mediating interaction processes (e.g. work-related conversations), but did not explicitly test these interactions processes. Future research should explore the underlying mechanisms of the associations between work reflection and partners’ exhaustion and engagement. More specifically, sharing positive and negative work-related thoughts with the partner may initiate crossover processes. When sharing positive thoughts (e.g. about successes), the partner might benefit from an employee’s success by basking in their glory and being infected by their positive mood leading to greater work engagement and reduced feelings of exhaustion. Similarly, sharing of negative thoughts (e.g. about problems or failures) might discourage the partner by feelings of empathy and compassion, resulting in increased exhaustion and diminished work engagement.

In a recent study using latent profile analysis, Casper et al. (2019) showed that positive and negative work reflection occur in different configurations within employees. These different configurations or profiles relate differently to well-being. Future research may extend the notion of work reflection profiles to couples and investigate how the interplay of matching (e.g. two positive reflectors) or conflicting profiles (e.g. high reflector vs non-reflector) affects both partners’ well-being and work outcomes.

Our study focused on the presence or absence of children in a household as a boundary condition for the effects of work reflection on well-being and work behaviour. However, the mediating mechanisms – that is, in what way the presence of children in a joint household affects an employee’s nonwork experiences – remain unclear. The moderating effect of the presence of children might depend on the children’s ages and on the specific activities and experiences with the children. For instance, spending time together with children in absorbing pleasant activities might serve as a distraction from work and might help employees forget about work. Future research should focus on employees’ interactions and experiences with their children to shed more light on the influence of children.

Practical implications and conclusion

As our results show that work reflection is associated with employees’ well-being, interventions to increase positive work reflection and decrease negative work-related thinking (Bono et al., 2013; Querstret et al., 2016) might be useful to foster employees’ and their partners’ work engagement and reduce exhaustion, particularly for employees without children. For instance, the ‘three good things’ method, an intervention that encourages participants to write about three good things that happened during the day, resulted in better psychological well-being (Bono et al., 2013). In contrast, it might not be helpful to instruct people not to think about their negative experiences. Therefore, interventions regarding negative work reflection should rather target coping strategies that help dealing with negative thoughts, not only by positive reappraisal (Lazarus, 2006) but also by a solution-focused approach that drives problem resolution (Weigelt and Syrek, 2017) and fosters well-being in the long run. Casper et al. (2019), for instance, found that additional positive work reflection can, to some extent, lessen the detrimental effect of negative work reflection on well-being. Thus, employees who mostly tend to think negatively about their jobs should be encouraged to think about the positive sides of their jobs as well.

Furthermore, organisations can also contribute to employees’ well-being by implementing a work design that allows employees to forget about work during leisure time and help them to recover (e.g. company policies that support a strict separation of work and home; health programmes and fitness-related benefits) or that provides resources that buffer the impact of negative work reflection. For example, Ott et al. (2019) found that negative work reflection was directly associated with reduced self-efficacy and indirectly associated with work engagement only when the participants perceived low organisational support.

As living with children constitutes an additional demand that reduces the motivational effects of positive work reflection and amplifies the negative effects of employees’ negative work reflection, especially dual-earner couples with children should take care of their well-being and increase efforts to recover from work-related stress. By using the partner as a resource, dual-earner couples can benefit from partners’ social support or recovery-related support to facilitate recovery (Haun et al., 2017; Park and Haun, 2017).

Taken together, our findings support our proposition that it is crucial to investigate different types of work-related thinking as thinking about the positive sides of one’s job is not only beneficial to employees’ own work engagement and exhaustion but also to their partners’ work engagement. Our study sheds light on the role of partners and children in employees’ recovery processes, underlining that it is important to consider employees’ social environment to fully understand in what way work reflection affects both employees’ and partners’ well-being and work-related behaviour.

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Johanna Walter

Verena C Haun

Notes

References

Ackerman

Donnellan

Kashy

(2011) Working with dyadic data in studies of emerging adulthood: Specific recommendations, general advice, and practical tips. In: Fincham

Cui

(eds) Advances in Personal Relationships. Romantic Relationships in Emerging Adulthood: Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 67–97.

Alarcon

(2011) A meta-analysis of burnout with job demands, resources, and attitudes. Journal of Vocational Behavior 79(2): 549–562.

Bakker

Demerouti

(2008) Towards a model of work engagement. Career Development International 13(3): 209–223.

Bakker

Demerouti

(2009) The crossover of work engagement between working couples. Journal of Managerial Psychology 24(3): 220–236.

Bakker

Demerouti

Dollard

(2008) How job demands affect partners’ experience of exhaustion: integrating work-family conflict and crossover theory. The Journal of Applied Psychology 93(4): 901–911.

Bakker

Demerouti

Schaufeli

(2005) The crossover of burnout and work engagement among working couples. Human Relations 58(5): 661–689.

Barnet-Verzat

Pailhé

Solaz

(2011) Spending time together: The impact of children on couples’ leisure synchronization. Review of Economics of the Household 9(4): 465–486.

Binnewies

Sonnentag

Mojza

(2009) Feeling recovered and thinking about the good sides of one’s work. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 14(3): 243–256.

Bono

Glomb

Shen

, et al. (2013) Building positive resources: Effects of positive events and positive reflection on work stress and health. Academy of Management Journal 56(6): 1601–1627.

10.

Brosschot

Pieper

Thayer

(2005) Expanding stress theory: Prolonged activation and perseverative cognition. Psychoneuroendocrinology 30(10): 1043–1049.

11.

Brummelhuis

LL ten

Bakker

(2012) Staying engaged during the week: the effect of off-job activities on next day work engagement. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 17(4): 445–455.

12.

Brummelhuis

LL ten

Haar

van der Lippe

(2010) Crossover of distress due to work and family demands in dual-earner couples: A dyadic analysis. Work & Stress 24(4): 324–341.

13.

Bryant

(2003) Savoring beliefs inventory (SBI): A scale for measuring beliefs about savouring. Journal of Mental Health 12(2): 175–196.

14.

Campbell

Kashy

(2002) Estimating actor, partner, and interaction effects for dyadic data using PROC mixed and HLM: A user-friendly guide. Personal Relationships 9(3): 327–342.

15.

Casper

Tremmel

Sonnentag

(2019) Patterns of positive and negative work reflection during leisure time: A latent profile analysis. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 24(5): 527–542.

16.

Christian

Garza

Slaughter

(2011) Work engagement: A quantitative review and test of its relations with task and contextual performance. Personnel Psychology 64(1): 89–136.

17.

Cummings

Goeke-Morey

Papp

(2004) Everyday marital conflict and child aggression. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 32(2): 191–202.

18.

Daniel

Sonnentag

(2014) Work to non-work enrichment: The mediating roles of positive affect and positive work reflection. Work & Stress 28(1): 49–66.

19.

Danner-Vlaardingerbroek

Kluwer

van Steenberger

, et al. (2013) Knock, knock, anybody home? Psychological availability as link between work and relationship. Personal Relationships 20(1): 52–68.

20.

Demerouti

Bakker

Nachreiner

, et al. (2000) A model of burnout and life satisfaction amongst nurses. Journal of Advanced Nursing 32(2): 454–464.

21.

Demerouti

Mostert

Bakker

(2010) Burnout and work engagement: A thorough investigation of the independency of both constructs. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 15(3): 209–222.

22.

Elliott

(2003) Work and family role strain among university employees. Journal of Family and Economic Issues 24(2): 157–181.

23.

Erath

Bierman

(2006) Aggressive marital conflict, maternal harsh punishment, and child aggressive-disruptive behavior: Evidence for direct and mediated relations. Journal of Family Psychology JFP Journal of the Division of Family Psychology of the American Psychological Association (Division 43) 20(2): 217–226.

24.

Eurofound (2017) Sixth European working conditions survey–Overview report (2017 update). Available at: https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/sites/default/files/ef_publication/field_ef_document/ef1634en.pdf (accessed 20 October 2020).

25.

Federal Statistical Office (2018) Population: Households and families. Available at: https://www.destatis.de/EN/Themes/Society-Environment/Population/Households-Families/_node.html (accessed 11 April 2020).

26.

Ferguson

Carlson

Kacmar

, et al. (2016) The supportive spouse at work: Does being work-linked help? Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 21(1): 37–50.

27.

Flaxman

Stride

Söderberg

, et al. (2018) Relationships between two dimensions of employee perfectionism, postwork cognitive processing, and work day functioning. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 27(1): 56–69.

28.

Fredrickson

(2001) The role of positive emotions in positive psychology. The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. The American Psychologist 56(3): 218–226.

29.

Fritz

Park

Shepherd

(2019) Workplace incivility ruins my sleep and yours: The costs of being in a work-linked relationship. Occupational Health Science 3(1): 1–21.

30.

Fritz

Sonnentag

(2006) Recovery, well-being, and performance-related outcomes: The role of workload and vacation experiences. The Journal of Applied Psychology 91(4): 936–945.

31.

Gable

Reis

Impett

, et al. (2004) What do you do when things go right? The intrapersonal and interpersonal benefits of sharing positive events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 87(2): 228–245.

32.

Germeys

Verbruggen

(2018) Daily affect and detachment as pathways to positive and negative work-family spillover and crossover. Academy of Management Proceedings 2018(1): 13436.

33.

Hahn

Binnewies

Dormann

(2014) The role of partners and children for employees’ daily recovery. Journal of Vocational Behavior 85(1): 39–48.

34.

Hahn

Binnewies

Haun

(2012) The role of partners for employees’ recovery during the weekend. Journal of Vocational Behavior 80(2): 288–298.

35.

Hahn

Dormann

(2013) The role of partners and children for employees’ psychological detachment from work and well-being. The Journal of Applied Psychology 98(1): 26–36.

36.

Halbesleben

JRB

Zellars

Carlson

, et al. (2010) The moderating effect of work-linked couple relationships and work-family integration on the spouse instrumental support-emotional exhaustion relationship. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 15(4): 371–387.

37.

Halbesleben

JRB

Wheeler

Rossi

(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(5): 597–615.

38.

Haun

Himmel

(2017) Benefits and drawbacks of partner social support in dual earner couples’ psychological detachment from work. Wirtschaftspsychologie 19(3): 51–63.

39.

Hicks

Diamond

(2008) How was your day? Couples’ affect when telling and hearing daily events. Personal Relationships 15(2): 205–228.

40.

Hobfoll

(2002) Social and psychological resources and adaptation. Review of General Psychology 6(4): 307–324.

41.

Hobfoll

(2010) Conservation of resources theory: Its implications for stress, health, and resilience. In: Folkman

(ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Stress, Health, and Coping: Oxford: University Press, pp. 127–147.

42.

Hobfoll

(2011) Conservation of resource caravans and engaged settings. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 84(1): 116–122.

43.

Hobfoll

Halbesleben

Neveu

J-P

, et al. (2018) Conservation of resources in the organizational context: The reality of resources and their consequences. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior 5(1): 103–128.

44.

Hyatt

(2019) Coworking couples and the similar jobs of dual-earner households. Available at: https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2019/article/coworking-couples-and-the-similar-jobs-of-dual-earner-households.htm (accessed 20 October 2020).

45.

Janning

(2006) Put yourself in my work shoes. Journal of Family Issues 27(1): 85–109.

46.

Jiang

Johnson

(2018) Meaningful work and affective commitment: A moderated mediation model of positive work reflection and work centrality. Journal of Business and Psychology 33(4): 545–558.

47.

Kenny

Kashy

Cook

(2006) Dyadic Data Analysis. New York: Guilford Press.

48.

Kurdek

(1999) The nature and predictors of the trajectory of change in marital quality for husbands and wives over the first 10 years of marriage. Developmental Psychology 35(5): 1283–1296.

49.

Lazarus

(2006) Stress and Emotion: A New Synthesis. New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company.

50.

Lyubomirsky

Kasri

Zehm

(2003) Dysphoric rumination impairs concentration on academic tasks. Cognitive Therapy and Research 27(3): 309–330.

51.

Maslach

Schaufeli

Leiter

(2001) Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology 52: 397–422.

52.

Meier

Cho

Dumani

(2016) The effect of positive work reflection during leisure time on affective well-being: Results from three diary studies. Journal of Organizational Behavior 37(2): 255–278.

53.

Muthén

(1998–2017) Mplus User’s Guide. Eighth Edition. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

54.

Neff

Niessen

Sonnentag

, et al. (2013) Expanding crossover research: The crossover of job-related self-efficacy within couples. Human Relations 66(6): 803–827.

55.

Neff

Sonnentag

Niessen

, et al. (2015) The crossover of self-esteem: A longitudinal perspective. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 24(2): 197–210.

56.

Oerlemans

WGM

Bakker

Demerouti

(2014) How feeling happy during off-job activities helps successful recovery from work: A day reconstruction study. Work & Stress 35: 1–19.

57.

Ott

Haun

Binnewies

(2019) Negative work reflection, personal resources, and work engagement: the moderating role of perceived organizational support. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 28(1): 110–123.

58.

Park

Haun

(2017) Dual-earner couples’ weekend recovery support, state of recovery, and work engagement: Work-linked relationship as a moderator. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 22(4): 455–466.

59.

Preacher

Curran

Bauer

(2006) Computational tools for probing interactions in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics 31(4): 437–448.

60.

Pronova

BKK

(2018) Betriebliches Gesundheitsmanagement 2018: Ergebnisse der Arbeitnehmerbefragung. Available at: https://www.pronovabkk.de/media/downloads/presse_studien/studie_bgm_2018/pronovaBKK_BGM_Studie2018.pdf (accessed 20 October 2020).

61.

Querstret

Cropley

Kruger

, et al. (2016) Assessing the effect of a Cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT)-based workshop on work-related rumination, fatigue, and sleep. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 25(1): 50–67.

62.

Raudenbush

Bryk

Cheong

, et al. (2019) HLM 8 for Windows. Skokie, IL: Scientific Software International, Inc.

63.

Rimé

(2009) Emotion elicits the social sharing of emotion: Theory and empirical review. Emotion Review 1(1): 60–85.

64.

Rusconi

Solga

(2007) Determinants of and obstacles to dual careers in Germany. Zeitschrift für Familienforschung 19(3): 311–336.

65.

Schaufeli

Bakker

Salanova

(2006) The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire. Educational and Psychological Measurement 66(4): 701–716.

66.

Shimazu

Sonnentag

Kubota

, et al. (2012) Validation of the Japanese version of the recovery experience questionnaire. Journal of Occupational Health 54(3): 196–205.

67.

Song

Foo

M-D

(2008) Mood spillover and crossover among dual-earner couples: a cell phone event sampling study. The Journal of Applied Psychology 93(2): 443–452.

68.

Sonnentag

(2001) Work, recovery activities, and individual well-being: a diary study. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 6(3): 196–210.

69.

Sonnentag

Arbeus

Mahn

, et al. (2014) Exhaustion and lack of psychological detachment from work during off-job time: Moderator effects of time pressure and leisure experiences. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 19(2): 206–216.

70.

Sonnentag

Binnewies

Mojza

(2010) Staying well and engaged when demands are high: The role of psychological detachment. The Journal of Applied Psychology 95(5): 965–976.

71.

Sonnentag

Fritz

(2007) The recovery experience questionnaire: Development and validation of a measure for assessing recuperation and unwinding from work. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 12(3): 204–221.

72.

Sonnentag

Fritz

(2015) Recovery from job stress: The stressor-detachment model as an integrative framework. Journal of Organizational Behavior 36: 72-103.

73.

Sonnentag

Kühnel

(2016) Coming back to work in the morning: Psychological detachment and reattachment as predictors of work engagement. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 21(4): 379–390.

74.

Sonnentag

Venz

Casper

(2017) Advances in recovery research: What have we learned? What should be done next? Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 22(3): 365–380.

75.

U.N.E.C.E. (2017) Gender statistics: Work–life balance—couples by working pattern. Available at: https://w3.unece.org/PXWeb2015/pxweb/en/STAT/STAT__30-GE__98-GE_LifeBalance/00104_en_GELB_Working_Couples_r.px/ (accessed 24 April 2020).

76.

Walter

Haun

(2020) Work-related spousal support and recovery experiences among dual-earner couples - work-linkage as moderator. Occupational Health Science 4(3): 333–355.

77.

Weigelt

Syrek

(2017) Ovsiankina’s great relief: How supplemental work during the weekend may contribute to recovery in the face of unfinished tasks. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 14(12): 1606.

78.

Wendsche

Lohmann-Haislah

(2016) A meta-analysis on antecedents and outcomes of detachment from work. Frontiers in Psychology 7: 2072.

79.

Westman

(2001) Stress and strain crossover. Human Relations 54(6): 717–751.

80.

Wierda-Boer

Gerris

JRM

Vermulst

(2009) Managing multiple roles. Journal of Individual Differences 30(1): 6–19.