Journal of Applied Psychology 2005, Vol. 90, No.

6, 12731279

Copyright 2005 by the American Psychological Association 0021-9010/05/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1273

The Dynamic Spillover of Satisfaction Between Work and Marriage: The Role of Time and Mood
Daniel Heller
University of Waterloo

David Watson
University of Iowa

Previous research has indicated important linkages between work and family domains and roles. However, the nature of the dynamic spillover between job and marital satisfaction remains poorly understood. The current study tests both the concurrent and lagged associations between job and marital satisfaction at a within-individual level of analysis using a diary study of 76 fully employed, married adults. The authors further examine the mediating role of mood in this spillover process. Consistent with their hypotheses, findings indicate both a concurrent and a lagged (job to marital and marital to job) job satisfactionmarital satisfaction association at the within-subject level of analysis and lend some support for the mediating role of mood (most notably positive affect) in these associations. The authors hope these findings stimulate new research that uses more complex designs and comprehensive theoretical models to investigate workfamily links. Keywords: workfamily, spillover, job satisfaction, marital satisfaction, affect

Organizational scholars recently have been paying increased attention to the connections between work and family roles or domains (Edwards & Rothbard, 2000; Greenhaus & Powell, in press). However, the bulk of this research has used betweenindividual, static, correlational designs. The current studyin which a diary design1 in a community sample of fully employed married adults was used examines the dynamic intraindividual process of satisfaction spillover between work and marriage.

Models of the Interface Between Work and Family

Work and family experiences are logically interconnected: Work experiences spillover to family experiences, and family experiences spillover to work experiences (Zedeck, 1992). However, researchers understanding of this spillover process is still very limited. Several theoretical models have been put forth to explain this spillover process (Edwards & Rothbard, 2000; Zedeck, 1992). The traditional workfamily conflict view, which draws from the resource drain hypothesis, assumes that people have finite psychological and physiological resources (e.g., time, attention, and energy) to allocate between the job and family domains. Thus, competing role demands in the two domains make it difficult (a) to meet these demands and (b) to acquire the intrinsic and extrinsic

Daniel Heller, Department of Psychology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada; David Watson, Department of Psychology, University of Iowa. This article was part of Daniel Hellers dissertation under the supervision of David Watson. This research was supported by National Institute of Mental Health Grant 1-R01-MH61804-01 to Diane Berry. We thank Remus Ilies for his helpful comments on earlier versions of the article. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Daniel Heller, Department of Psychology, University of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3G1, Canada. E-mail: dheller@uwaterloo.ca 1273

rewards associated with these demands (Edwards & Rothbard, 2000). More recently, however, researchers have suggested that participation in one role may enhance or enrich the quality of the experience of another role (for a theoretical model, see Greenhaus & Powell, in press). For example, spouse support may act as a buffer for job-related stress (Grzywacz, 2000). Other benefits of multiple roles may include enhanced self-esteem, skills, mental and physical well-being, role privileges and status, and a sense of purpose in life (Grzywacz, & Marks, 2000; Wayne, Musisca, & Fleeson, 2004). In an attempt to reconcile these contrasting views, Rothbard (2001) argued that the influence of a role depends on its perceived quality. That is, whereas a satisfying role should lead to positive spillover, an unsatisfying role should be depleting. Indeed, Rogers and May (2003), on the basis of a 12-year panel survey, showed evidence for both positive and negative long-term spillover processes between marital satisfaction and discord and job satisfaction; specifically, an increase in marital satisfaction was significantly associated with an increase in job satisfaction, and an increase in marital discord was significantly associated with a decrease in job satisfaction. Finally, another possibility is that the relation between job and family satisfaction is spurious and due to a confounding third variable, such as negative affectivity (a congruence model, see Frone, Russell, & Cooper, 1994). Given that family satisfaction is an important dimension of life satisfaction, additional evidence for a congruence model can be found in a recent study by Heller, Judge, and Watson (2002) of the association between job and life satisfaction. On the basis of both partial correlations and structural equation modeling, these authors established a confounding role
1

Diary designs are defined as . . . self-report instruments used repeatedly to examine ongoing experiences (Bolger, Davis, & Rafaeli, 2003, p. 580). Only closed-ended Likert-type measures were included in our daily questionnaires.

1274

RESEARCH REPORTS

for personality and affectivity in the relationship between job and life satisfaction.

The Current Study

Previous research has found some support for the spillover between affect at work and affect at home and between job satisfaction and affect at home (Judge & Ilies, 2004; Williams & Alliger, 1994). However, it should be kept in mind that these two studies focused on spillover of moods, which are phenomenological states of diffuse feelings (Watson, 2000), rather than on satisfaction per se, which represents a summary evaluation of the quality of ones job or family. Consequently, whereas mood spillover between home and work may seem natural, our focus in the current study on spillover between attitudes toward separate concrete objectsin this case, the job and marriageis far less intuitive and therefore more theoretically interesting. A surprisingly small number of empirical studies have examined the jobmarital satisfaction association, focusing almost exclusively on between-subjects analyses and global assessments of the two variables. For example, Barling and MacEwen (1992) reported a correlation of .09 in a sample of 190 people (see also Chiu, 1998). In a recent meta-analysis (k 32, N 62,481), a weak relationship was obtained between these two domain satisfactions ( .16, corrected for attenuation; Heller, Watson, & Ilies, 2004). Thus, the available data establish a weak, positive jobmarital satisfaction association. This weak association could be due to methodological reasons, namely, the level of analysis used. That is, rather than a betweensubjects analysis that averages satisfaction across multiple situations and time periods, an analysis at the within-subject level may be required to understand this dynamic spillover process as it unfolds naturally over time in the ongoing lives of individuals. Although often confused, within- and between-subjects analyses are statistically and conceptually independent from each other (Bolger & Schilling, 1991). Moreover, a within-subject analysis can facilitate understanding of the dynamics of the spillover process by clarifying its directionality (work to home, home to work, or both) as well as its underlying psychological mechanism (mood). The purpose of the current study is to help clarify the nature of the jobmarital satisfaction spillover process by examining it using a more sophisticated within-individual analysis. Indeed, job satisfaction research is increasingly focusing on within-subject momentary assessments collected via diary designs (e.g., Ilies & Judge, 2002; Judge & Ilies, 2004; Weiss, Nicholas, & Daus, 1999). This line of research indicates that ignoring within-subject variation in job satisfaction may have limited progress in our understanding of job satisfaction in generaland, more importantly for our purpose here, of the spillover process between job satisfaction and marital satisfaction in particular.

Powell, in press; Rothbard, 2001). For instance, Rothbard (2001) found, on the basis of cross-sectional data, that positive and negative emotional responses to one role (i.e., work or family) are an important linking mechanism between engagement in that role and engagement in another, which, in turn, can influence satisfaction in the second role.

Hypotheses
In summary, we hypothesized that both concurrent and lagged within-subject jobmarital satisfaction associations are partly mediated by mood: Hypothesis 1: Job satisfaction will be positively related to marital satisfaction both concurrently (Hypothesis 1a) and prospectively, job satisfaction in the afternoon will predict marital satisfaction at night (Hypothesis 1b), and marital satisfaction at night will predict next day job satisfaction in the afternoon (Hypothesis 1c). Hypothesis 2: PA (Hypothesis 2a) and NA (Hypothesis 2b) will mediate the concurrent association between job and marital satisfaction. Hypothesis 3: PA (Hypothesis 3a) and NA (Hypothesis 3b) will mediate the association between job satisfaction in the afternoon and marital satisfaction at night. Hypothesis 4: PA (Hypothesis 4a) and NA (Hypothesis 4b) will mediate the association between marital satisfaction at night and next day job satisfaction in the afternoon. In testing all of these hypothesized dynamic jobmarital satisfaction associations, we controlled for the main effect of two personality variables: Neuroticism and Extraversion. On the basis of the aforementioned role-congruence model and the demonstrated influence of the Big Five personality variables on both job satisfaction (Judge, Heller, & Mount, 2002) and marital satisfaction (Heller et al., 2004), we wanted to rule out the possibility that these associations are due to the confounding role of personality variables (see also Heller et al., 2002).

Method Participants
We began the study with 82 fully employed, healthy (i.e., not currently undergoing long-term hospitalization or receiving psychiatric treatment), married adults under the age of 65 in the Iowa City area. We recruited participants via a diverse set of methods (e.g., advertisements in newspapers, an e-mail solicitation sent to a random sample of 500 University of Iowa employees, and word of mouth). Participants were paid for their involvement in the study; we also obtained ratings from their spouses, who were not compensated.

The Mediating Role of Mood

Mood is a potential mechanism that may explain spillover. That is, a satisfying or dissatisfying job or marriage is expected to influence positive affect (PA) and negative affect (NA), which, in turn, should influence satisfaction in another role via their influence on role engagement and performance (see also Greenhaus &

Procedure
First, participants were invited to attend a 1-hr session at the University of Iowa to complete an assessment battery that included (a) demographic information (e.g., type of job, length of marriage), (b) measures of personality, and (c) typical assessments of job and marital satisfaction. In addition, each participant received a second sealed short survey to be completed

RESEARCH REPORTS independently by their spouse and returned directly to us. Spouses were instructed to complete the survey on the basis of their perceptions of their spouses typical job and marital satisfaction. Surveys were returned from 74 spouses (90%). Each participant also received a packet of 31 blank scan sheets, to use for recording their experiences starting on Monday of the following week.2 To minimize the effects of idiosyncratic events, we ran the 82 participants in two batches, 43 in the first batch and 39 in the second, separated by approximately a month and a half.

1275

uncharacteristic of myself) to 5 (very characteristic of myself ). In the current study, the scale had a reliability of .88.

Measures in Daily Log

Job and marital satisfaction. Participants again completed the same two measures of satisfaction: BrayfieldRothe (job satisfaction) and QMI (marital satisfaction). However, this time they were instructed to complete these scales on the basis of their current, momentary thoughts and feelings. Consequently, the wording of the items was slightly modified to be more congruent with momentary instructions. Current mood. Participants completed the 20-item Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988), which assesses both PA and NA by asking participants to indicate for 10 positive and 10 negative emotions (e.g., enthusiastic, afraid) to what extent you feel this way right now, that is, at the present moment on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (very slightly or not at all) to 5 (extremely).

Diary Recordings
Participants made diary recordings twice a day for 3 weeks (excluding weekends). Specifically, they completed the diaries (a) during the first hour after eating lunch and (b) during the hour before they went to sleep. They were requested to indicate the session and their location while completing their ratings. To receive full compensation ($40), participants needed to complete at least 80% of recordings (i.e., at least 24 of the 30 diaries); otherwise, compensation was prorated on the basis of the number of recordings they completed. To encourage compliance and to minimize the number of lost diaries, we instructed participants to return the completed diary recordings on the Wednesday and Friday of each week in postage paid envelopes. Participants received daily reminder e-mails. To be included in the analyses based on diary recordings, participants had to provide at least 18 recordings. We chose this cutoff because it represented a substantial number of recordings per person (i.e., 60% of the maximum number of recordings per person) and it was a natural cutoff point in the recording frequencies. Consequently, 6 individuals were eliminated from these analyses. The 76 participants retained in the study completed a total of 2,171 diary recordings (an average of 28.57 recordings per person, SD 2.42), which is equivalent to an overall response rate of approximately 95%. The overall response rate was computed as the ratio of the number of recordings received (2,171) to the maximum number of possible ratings (15 days 2 recordings per day 76 participants 2,280).

Data Analyses
Because our data have a multilevel structure each diary recording (e.g., momentary job satisfaction) is a lower level unit nested under the upper level unit, persons (which includes person level variables, e.g., personality)we used multilevel modeling methods for our analyses. Multilevel modeling can be understood intuitively as a two-stage series of iterative regressions (Hofmann, Griffin, & Gavin, 2000). At the first level of analysis (Level 1), the relationship between the within-person variables (e.g., job and marital satisfaction) is investigated by regressing the criterion (e.g., marital satisfaction) on the predictor (e.g., job satisfaction) for each person in the study. At the second level (Level 2), the parameters estimated at Level 1 (only intercepts in this study) are regressed on Level 2 variables (e.g., Neuroticism). Note that a random error term is introduced in the Level 2 equations; this represents the random effect component of the model that will enable generalizations beyond the sample of this study. We used Proc Mixed (SAS Institute, 1999; see also Singer, 1998) to test the hierarchical models in Hypotheses 1 4. In all models tested, all Level 1 predictors (e.g., jobmarital satisfaction, mood) were centered around the individuals means, and between-subjects variables (i.e., personality) were centered on the grand mean, (i.e., group mean centering; Bryk & Raudenbush, 1992). Group mean centering was used to eliminate betweenindividual variance in the predictors when estimating the pooled or average within-individual parameters.

Measures in the Initial Assessment Battery

Job satisfaction. Overall job satisfaction was measured with the fiveitem BrayfieldRothe (Brayfield & Rothe, 1951) measure. Participants were asked to indicate their agreement with statements such as I feel fairly satisfied with my job. Spouses were instructed to respond on the basis of their perceptions of the characteristics of their partners. The internal consistency reliabilities for self-reports and spouse reports were .86 and .89, respectively. Marital satisfaction. Overall marital satisfaction was assessed with the Quality of Marriage Index (QMI; Norton, 1983). The QMI is composed of five items asking respondents to rate the extent to which they agree with various statements about their marriage (e.g., Our marriage is strong) and an additional item in which respondents rate their overall happiness with their marriage on a 10-point scale. Spouses were told to respond on the basis of their perceptions of the characteristics of their partners. For consistency reasons, we adjusted the original 7- and 10-point response format to a common 5-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The reliabilities for self-reports and spouse reports were .97 and .94, respectively. Neuroticism. Participants completed the Big Five Inventory (BFI), a 44-item self-report inventory designed to assess the Big Five personality factors (John & Srivastava, 1999). Eight items were used to assess Neuroticism. All items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (very uncharacteristic of myself ) to 5 (very characteristic of myself ). In the current study, the scale had a reliability of .82. Extraversion. Eight items from the BFI were used to assess Extraversion. All items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (very

Results Initial Analyses

Of the 82 participants who began the study, 80% were female, 94% identified their race as WhiteCaucasian, 80% identified their religion as Christian, and 91% had at least 13 years of college education. There was considerable variability in length of marriage, ranging from less than 1 year to more than 20 years. For 88% of the sample, this was their first marriage, and 40% indicated they had no children. The current occupations of respondents were as follows: 5% laborers, 27% clerical workers, 2% skilled laborers, 10% managers, and 56% classified themselves as professionals. Eighty-eight percent reported working between 31 and 50 hr on an
2 Two participants misunderstood the instructions to start recording on Monday of the following week and began recording the next day after their initial session (i.e., Thursday and Friday for these 2 participants).

1276

RESEARCH REPORTS

average week; 93% of the sample also reported having an employed spouse. Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations for all variables across individuals are presented in Table 1. Self-reports and spouse reports of satisfaction revealed substantial convergence between the two sources (rs .74 and .63, for job and marital satisfaction, respectively). Consistent with previous research (Judge et al., 2002; Karney & Bradbury, 1995; Watson, 2000), Neuroticism was significantly and negatively related to indices of job satisfaction (except for spouse ratings of job satisfaction), marital satisfaction, and mean ratings of both PA and NA (positively related). In addition, Extraversion was significantly and positively related to job satisfaction but only weakly associated with marital satisfaction. As for the aggregate measuresthat is, those based on means of state ratingsmean level job satisfaction was closely related to both self-reports and spouse reports of job satisfaction (rs .82 and .72, respectively). Similarly, mean level marital satisfaction was strongly correlated with both self-reports and spouse reports of marital satisfaction (rs .83 and .63, respectively). These strong coefficients help to establish the convergent validity of our diary ratings of job and marital satisfaction. Mean ratings of state PA were significantly related to the three job satisfaction indices (correlations ranged from .30 to .50) but were not related to any of the marital satisfaction indices (coefficients ranged from .02 to .18). Mean ratings of state NA, in contrast, were significantly and negatively associated with the three marital satisfaction indices (with correlations ranging from .34 to .48) but were unrelated to job satisfaction (coefficients ranged from .04 to .10). Also, consistent with previous research (Heller et al., 2004), job satisfaction was only weakly related to marital satisfaction at the between-subjects level. Indeed, none of the correlations between job and marital satisfaction reached statistical significance, and all of them were quite small in magnitude (rs ranged from only .12 to .08). However, given our small sample size and associated limited statistical powerand because our focus in this article is on the within-subject analyseswe do not address these analyses any further.

Table 2 Multilevel Regressions for Predicting Concurrent Marital Satisfaction From Job Satisfaction
Predictor Dependent variable Marital satisfaction Marital satisfaction Intercept 4.15** 4.15** N .33** .04 E Job satisfaction .14** .14**

Note. Both models are based on 76 individuals and 2,170 observations. N Neuroticism; E Extraversion. ** p .01.

Tests of the Hypotheses

Table 2 reports the results of a concurrent multilevel regression in which marital satisfaction was regressed on job satisfaction at

Level 1, and at Level 2, individuals intercepts were regressed on Neuroticism or Extraversion. In the top row, we present the findings controlling for Neuroticism, and in the bottom row, we present the findings controlling for Extraversion. Examination of Table 2 indicates that consistent with previous research (e.g., Karney & Bradbury, 1995), Neuroticism was negatively and significantly associated with marital satisfaction; however, Extraversion was not significantly associated with marital satisfaction. More important, in support of Hypothesis 1a, momentary job satisfaction was significantly and positively associated with momentary marital satisfaction. More specifically, our results demonstrate that an increase in one unit of job satisfaction is associated with a .14-unit increase in marital satisfaction. Table 3 reports the results of a lagged multilevel regression in which marital satisfaction at night was regressed on afternoon job satisfaction at Level 1, and at Level 2, individuals intercepts were regressed on Neuroticism and Extraversion. Similar to Table 2, in the top row, we present findings controlling for Neuroticism, and in the bottom row, we present our findings controlling for Extraversion. In support of Hypothesis 1b, afternoon job satisfaction was significantly associated with same-day marital satisfaction at night. Table 4 reports the results of a lagged multilevel regression in which job satisfaction (in the afternoon) was regressed on previous nights marital satisfaction at Level 1, and at Level 2, individuals intercepts were regressed on Neuroticism or Extraversion. Once again, in the top row, we present the findings controlling for Neuroticism, and in the bottom row, we present our findings

Table 1 Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations Across Individuals for All Study Variables
Variable 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Extraversion Neuroticism Job satisfaction Job satisfactionsp. Average job satisfaction Marital satisfaction Marital satisfactionsp. Average marital satisfaction Average PA Average NA M 3.38 2.77 3.91 3.41 3.67 4.23 4.12 4.15 2.60 1.31 SD 0.94 0.72 0.80 0.91 0.80 0.89 0.80 0.75 0.73 0.33 1 .23* .28* .13 .25* .10 .06 .04 .16 .01 2 .31** .12 .26* .40** .42** .32** .25* .40** 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

.74** .82** .00 .00 .02 .49** .04

.72** .12 .08 .11 .30* .10

.04 .05 .02 .50** .00

.63** .83** .08 .46**

.63** .02 .34**

.18 .48**

.05

Note. N 82 for study participants, and N 76 for spouse reports (sp). PA positive affect; NA negative affect. * p .05. ** p .01.

RESEARCH REPORTS

1277

controlling for Extraversion. These results support our hypothesis that marital satisfaction at night predicts next day job satisfaction in the afternoon.3 To test whether mood mediates part of the relation between job and marital satisfaction (Hypotheses 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b, 4a, and 4b), we followed the procedures for testing mediation with regression analysis outlined by Sobel (1982) and Baron and Kenny (1986), as well as the recommendations for applying these procedures to testing mediation in multilevel models given by Krull and MacKinnon (1999). We tested for the unique mediating effect via the a b termwhere a represents the direct effect of job satisfaction on mood and b represents the unique effect of mood on marital satisfactionvia the Sobel test.4 These analyses supported the hypothesized concurrent partial mediation for both PA (Sobel test 3.42, p .001) and NA (Sobel test 1.85, p .07). However, the lagged partial mediation effect from job satisfaction in the afternoon to marital satisfaction at night for mood was not supported for both positive mood (Sobel test 1.24, ns) and negative mood (Sobel test 1.07, ns). In addition, the proportion of the total effect mediated jointly by PA and NA was computed as (c c)/c, where c represents the direct effect of job satisfaction on marital satisfaction and c represents the effect of job satisfaction on marital satisfaction after we control for the effect of PA and NA. Taken together, PA and NA mediated a sizable proportion of both the concurrent (49%) and lagged (21%) effect of job satisfaction on marital satisfaction. With the same statistical procedures, we also tested the mediating role of mood in the lagged association between marital satisfaction at night and job satisfaction in the afternoon. These analyses supported the hypothesized lagged partial mediation for PA (Hypothesis 4a; Sobel test 2.66, p .01) but not for NA (Hypothesis 4b; Sobel test 0.45, ns). We could not estimate the joint mediation effect of NA and PA because the full modelwith PA, NA, and marital satisfaction at night as predictors did not converge.5

Table 4 Multilevel Regressions for Predicting Next Days Job Satisfaction in the Afternoon From Previous Nights Marital Satisfaction
Predictor Marital satisfaction at night .11* .19 .12*

Dependent variable Job satisfaction in the afternoon Job satisfaction in the afternoon

Intercept 3.67** 3.67**

N .30*

Note. Both models are based on 75 individuals and 795 observations. N Neuroticism; E Extraversion. * p .05. ** p .01.

and job satisfaction the following afternoon. The latter finding is interesting given the large time interval between the two ratings (which included, among other things, a sleep period). These findings illuminate the dynamic spillover process between marital and job satisfaction that is missed when researchers focus exclusively at the between-subjects level. In addition, our analyses provided some support for the mediating role of NA and even more so of PA in the concurrent jobmarital satisfaction association (see also Greenhaus & Powell, in press). Regarding the prospective association between job satisfaction in the afternoon and marital satisfaction at night, although the separate tests of mediation paths for PA and NA were not
3 We also tested the six multilevel regression models using the AR(1) option in Proc Mixed (SAS Institute, 1999). This option specifies a firstorder autoregressive within-person variance covariance error structure that takes into account time dependencies. With this approach, similar yet weaker spillover effects were obtained. Specifically, both concurrent spillover models were statistically significant; however, in the lagged same day and next day models the spillover coefficients were only in the expected direction and were not statistically significant (b .04, p .08 and b .08, p .13, respectively). 4 More specifically, three methods to test the significance of the product a b have been developed (Krull & MacKinnon, 1999). These methods are based on (a) the first-order Taylor series expansion of the multivariate delta method (Sobel, 1982), (b) the second-order Taylor series expansion or exact variance under condition of independence (Goodman, 1960), or (c) the estimate of unbiased variance (Goodman, 1960). We chose only to report the results based on the first method, as the findings from the three methods were almost identical. 5 Following previous suggestions and findings (Ilies & Judge, 2002; Judge et al., 2002; Weiss et al., 1999) and to further establish the nomological network of the main variables in our study, we examined the mediating role of mood at work in the association between personality and job satisfaction. The mediating role of NA at work in the association between Neuroticism and job satisfaction was not supported in our data (Sobel test 0.43, ns). The mediating role of PA at work in the association between Extraversion and job satisfaction also was not supported in our data (Sobel test 1.52, ns). Given that our small sample size does not enable us to capture these between-subjects effectsand because our primary focus in this article is on the spillover processwe did not pursue these analyses any further.

Discussion
This study was conducted to improve the current understanding of the workfamily interface by examining the nature of the dynamic spillover between job and marital satisfaction. Our within-subjects analyses indicated significant concurrent and prospective associations between (a) job satisfaction in the afternoon and marital satisfaction at night and (b) marital satisfaction at night Table 3 Multilevel Regressions for Predicting Marital Satisfaction at Night From Job Satisfaction in the Afternoon
Predictor Job satisfaction in the afternoon .07* .07*

Dependent variable Marital satisfaction at night Marital satisfaction at night

Intercept 4.14** 4.14**

N .33**

E .04

Note. Both models are based on 75 individuals and 1,015 observations. N Neuroticism; E Extraversion. * p .05. ** p .01.

1278

RESEARCH REPORTS

significant, PA and NA jointly mediated a sizable proportion (21%) of the lagged effect. Finally, positive mood but not negative moodmediated the association between marital satisfaction at night and next day job satisfaction in the afternoon. Although multilevel modeling provides more statistical power than traditional between-subjects techniques (Judge & Ilies, 2004), it should be noted that some of these nonsignificant findings for lagged effects may be due to the reduced statistical power in the lagged analyses, which are based on less than half of the observations used in the concurrent analyses. In any case, we believe these mediation effects are important as they provide an underlying psychological mechanism through which the satisfaction spillover black box process operates. Our study contributes theoretically in two ways. First, it helps further delineate the dynamic reciprocal causal chain connecting mood (both at work and not at work), job attitudes, and marital attitudes, providing us with a better understanding of the nomological network of job satisfaction (see also affective events theory; Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). In this regard, it is important that future research examines comprehensive models that include events both at work and not at work, mood, and attitudes, using dynamic, diary designs. Second, this study contributes to the workfamily literature by further clarifying the conditions that determine the enriching or depleting nature of the spillover process. By documenting the temporal short-term spillover process between occupational and relationship satisfaction, our study shows that whereas a satisfying role can enrich a second role, an unsatisfying role can be depleting for a second role (Rothbard, 2001). Moreover, our study provides additional support regarding the mediating role of mood in determining whether multiple roles are enriching or depleting, allies or enemies, respectively (see also Greenhaus & Powell, in press; Rothbard, 2001).

Limitations
Our study is potentially limited by its small sample size (N 76) and lack of an experimental design that limits causal inferences. However, it should be kept in mind that we used a rigorous design, involving 30 recordings per person, and that we focused on within-subject associations. Moreover, our sample size is substantial for a diary study of a nonstudent, community sample.

hypothesis (Gray, 1981, 1994), we expect people high on Neuroticism to react affectively more strongly to problems in their marriage or job compared with their more emotionally stable peers; extraverts, in turn, should react affectively more strongly to positive occurrences in their marriage or job compared with introverts; indeed, support was found for the moderating role of Neuroticism in the job dissatisfactionnegative mood association both concurrently (Ilies & Judge, 2002) and prospectively (i.e., mood when not at work; Judge & Ilies, 2004). In addition, the role segmentationintegration continuum proposed by Ashforth and his colleagues (Ashforth, 2001; Ashforth, Kreiner, & Fugate, 2000) could be another important moderator of the spillover process. That is, we predict that segmented roles those characterized by inflexible and impermeable boundaries could be less susceptible to spillover processes than are more integrated roles (i.e., roles with flexible and permeable boundaries). Additional future directions include (a) the examination of the dynamic crossover of role satisfaction between spouses (for longitudinal findings, see Westman, Vinokur, Hamilton, & Roziner, 2004); (b) the examination of diary recordings of behavioral manifestations of Neuroticism or Extraversion and their association with mood and job satisfaction and marital satisfaction ratings; and (c) the examination of additional mediatorsabove and beyond affect of the spillover process, such as the level of engagement in a role.6 Our findings regarding workmarriage satisfaction spillover have important practical implications. They stress the importance of increasing (state) levels of both job and marital satisfaction given the dynamic and reciprocal influences of these variables. Moreover, they suggest managers can view positive spillover as a potential resource that can be enhanced through organizational policies such as family friendly policies. Finally, our findings illustrate the importance of employees being more aware of the sources of their satisfaction. Despite these limitations and the obvious need for additional research, we feel this study has helped improve our understanding of the workfamily interface as it unfolds in a natural context. Our findings support the emerging consensus in this literature that work and family can be both enemies and allies and that these links are more complex than was initially perceived. We hope these findings stimulate new research that uses more complex research designs and theoretical models to investigate workfamily links.

Future Research
This line of research can be extended in many ways, most notably in regard to the examination of potential moderators of the spillover process, using large samples that afford appropriate statistical power. For example, future research should examine potential demographic moderators of the jobmarital satisfaction association such as job tenure, number of hours worked, length of marriage, gender, and number of children. Moreover, it would be interesting to examine the moderating role of individualdifferences variablesfor example, Neuroticism and Extraversionin the dynamic spillover process. To date, only a handful of studies in the workfamily literature have incorporated dispositional variables, and most of these studies focused on workfamily role conflict and used cross-sectional designs (e.g., Carlson, 1999; Wayne et al., 2004). Drawing from the differential reactivity
6 We are grateful to two anonymous reviewers for these helpful suggestions.

References
Ashforth, B. E. (2001). Role transitions in organizational life: An identitybased perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Ashforth, B. E., Kreiner, G., & Fugate, M. (2000). All in a days work: Boundaries and micro role transitions. Academy of Management Review, 35, 472 491. Barling, J., & MacEwen, K. E. (1992). Linking work experiences to facets of marital functioning. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 573 583. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderatormediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and

RESEARCH REPORTS statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 11731182. Bolger, N., Davis, A., & Rafaeli, E. (2003). Diary methods: Capturing life as it is lived. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 579 616. Bolger, N., & Schilling, E. A. (1991). Personality and the problems of everyday life: The role of neuroticism in exposure and reactivity to daily stressors. Journal of Personality, 59, 355386. Brayfield, A. H., & Rothe, H. F. (1951). An index of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 35, 307311. Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Carlson, D. S. (1999). Personality and role variables as predictors of three forms of work-family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 55, 236 253. Chiu, R. K. (1998). Relationships among role conflicts, role satisfactions and life satisfaction: Evidence from Hong-Kong. Social Behavior and Personality, 26, 409 414. Edwards, J. R., & Rothbard, N. P. (2000). Mechanisms linking work and family: Specifying the relationships between work and family constructs. Academy of Management Review, 25, 178 199. Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M. L. (1994). Relationship between job and family satisfaction: Causal or noncausal covariation? Journal of Management, 20, 565580. Goodman, L. A. (1960). On the exact variance of products. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 55, 708 713. Gray, J. A. (1981). A critique of Eysencks theory of personality. In H. J. Eysenck (Ed.), A model for personality (pp. 246 276). New York: Springer-Verlag. Gray, J. A. (1994). Personality dimensions and emotion systems. In P. Ekman & R. J. Davidson (Eds.), The nature of emotion: Fundamental questions (pp. 329 331). New York: Oxford University Press. Greenhaus, J. H., & Powell, G. N. (in press). When work and family are allies: A theory of work-family enrichment. Academy of Management Review. Grzywacz, J. G. (2000). Work-family spillover and health during mid-life: Is managing conflict everything? American Journal of Health Promotion, 14, 236 243. Grzywacz, J. G., & Marks, N. F. (2000). Reconceptualizing the workfamily interface: An ecological perspective on the correlates of positive and negative spillover between work and family. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 111126. Heller, D., Judge, T. A., & Watson, D. (2002). The confounding role of personality and trait affectivity in the relationship between job and life satisfaction. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 815 835. Heller., D., Watson, D., & Ilies, R. (2004). The role of person versus situation in life satisfaction: A critical examination. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 574 600. Hofmann, D. A., Griffin, M. A., & Gavin, M. B. (2000). The application of hierarchical linear modeling to organizational research. In K. Klein & S. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multi-level theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions and new directions (pp. 467511). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Ilies, R., & Judge, T. A. (2002). Understanding the dynamic relationships among personality, mood, and job satisfaction: A field experiencesampling study. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89, 1119 1139. John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & P. J. Oliver

1279

(Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 102138). New York: Guilford Press. Judge, T. A., Heller, D., & Mount, M. K. (2002). Five-factor model of personality and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 530 541. Judge, T. A., & Ilies, R. (2004). Affect and job satisfaction: A study of their relationships at work and at home. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 661 673. Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (1995). The longitudinal course of marital quality and stability: A review of theory, method, and research. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 334. Krull, J. L., & MacKinnon, D. P. (1999). Multilevel mediation modeling in group-based intervention studies. Evaluation Review, 23, 418 444. Norton, R. (1983). Measuring marital quality: A critical look at the dependent variable. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 45, 141151. Rogers, S. J., & May, D. C. (2003). Spillover between marital quality and job satisfaction: Long-term patterns and gender differences. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 65, 482 495. Rothbard, N. P. (2001). Enriching or depleting? The dynamics of engagement in work and family roles. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 655 684. SAS Institute. (1999). SAS/STAT users guide (Version 7). Cary, NC: Author. Singer, J. D. (1998). Using PROC MIXED to fit multilevel models, hierarchical models, and individual growth models. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 24, 323355. 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. Watson, D. (2000). Mood and temperament. New York: Guilford Press. Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 10631070. Wayne, J. H., Musisca, N., & Fleeson, W. (2004). Considering the role of personality in the work-family experience: Relationships of the Big Five to work-family conflict and facilitation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64, 108 130. Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of the structure, causes, and consequences of affective experiences at work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 18, 174. Weiss, H. M., Nicholas, J. P., & Daus, C. S. (1999). An examination of the joint effects of affective experiences and job satisfaction and variations in affective experiences over time. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 78, 124. Westman, M., Vinokur, A. D., Hamilton, L. V., & Roziner, I. (2004). Crossover of marital dissatisfaction during downsizing: A study of Russian army officers and their spouses. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 769 779. Williams, K. J., & Alliger, G. M. (1994). Role stressors, mood spillover, and perceptions of work-family conflict in employed parents. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 837 868. Zedeck, S. (Ed.). (1992). Work, families and organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Received December 11, 2003 Revision received August 6, 2004 Accepted August 11, 2004