mindfulness and work-family enrichment
TRANSCRIPT
Mindfulness and Work-Family EnrichmentThe Harvard community has made this
article openly available. Please share howthis access benefits you. Your story matters
Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:37736796
Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASHrepository, and is made available under the terms and conditionsapplicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of-use#LAA
1
Anne Gerrit Strack
A Thesis in the Field of Psychology
for the Degree of Master of Liberal Arts in Extension Studies
Harvard University
September 2017
Mindfulness and Work-Family Enrichment
2
Copyright 2017 [Anne Gerrit Strack]
Abstract
Recent years have seen a drastic increase in so-called dual-career families, in
which both partners pursue ambitious jobs and, at the same time, share childcare and
household duties. Partners sometimes perceive conflict in whether to devote their time
and energy to family or to work issues. On the other hand, it seems plausible that there
are certain situations in which the mind can draw experiences (e.g. skills, positive
emotions) and transfer them from the family context to work, and vice versa – a
phenomenon known as work-family and family-work enrichment. However, only
recently researchers have begun the systematic investigation of which personality traits or
types of mindsets particularly favor work-family enrichment. In this study, we analyze
the role of mindfulness on work-family enrichment: a combination of Eastern and
especially non-meditation-based mindfulness as developed by Dr. Ellen Langer from
Harvard University formed the basis to pose and test the following three hypotheses: (i)
Langerian and Eastern mindfulness are positively related to both job- and life
satisfaction, (ii) Langerian and Eastern mindfulness are positively associated with work-
family and family-work enrichment, and (iii) there is a potential mediating effect between
the variables (e.g. mindfulness strengthens the association between work-family
enrichment and job- and life satisfaction). The empirical analysis was based on 91
participants filling out a questionnaire relating the two mindfulness scales – the Langer
Mindfulness Scale (LMS14) and the Mindful Attention and Awareness Scale (MAAS) –
to work-family and family-work enrichment. The results confirmed especially Langerian
vi
mindfulness as a promising construct in work-family research: it was significantly related
to both job- and life satisfaction, whereas against our predictions, no such relationship
could be found for Eastern mindfulness. In addition, a significant positive association
between Langerian mindfulness and work-family and family-work enrichment was
confirmed, especially with family-work efficiency, work-family capital and family-work
affect. The mediating analysis showed that work-family and family-work enrichment
mediated the positive relationship between Langerian mindfulness and job- and life
satisfaction. Practically, Langerian mindfulness may be an alternative and time-saving
way to increase employees’ mindfulness levels and satisfaction with work and family.
vii
Dedication
I dedicate this thesis to my daughters Louise and Elsa.
viii
Acknowledgments
I want to thank my husband Philipp for his encouragement and enthusiastic
support and my daughters Louise and Elsa for their love and patience. In addition,
without my parents Eva and Helmut, I would not have been able to devote my time and
energy to these studies – here also a big thanks to Lisa and Uwe. Many thanks to my
research advisor Dr. Deborah Phillips from the Langer Mindfulness Institute at Harvard
University who discussed, revised and improved my work patiently, and to Dante Spetter
for her support.
ix
Table of Contents
Dedication ......................................................................................................................... vii!
Acknowledgments ............................................................................................................ viii!
Chapter I. Introduction .........................................................................................................1!
Work-Family Interface .............................................................................................1!
Antecedents of Work-Family Enrichment ...............................................................9!
Mindfulness ...........................................................................................................10!
Mindfulness in Work-Family Research .................................................................18!
Aims & Research Hypotheses ...............................................................................24!
Chapter II. Method .............................................................................................................28!
Participants .............................................................................................................28!
Measures ................................................................................................................29!
Procedures ..............................................................................................................32!
Design ....................................................................................................................35!
Chapter III. Results ............................................................................................................36!
Mindfulness & Job- and Life Satisfaction .............................................................36!
Mindfulness & Work-Family and Family-Work Enrichment ...............................39!
Mediating Effects ...................................................................................................40!
Chapter IV. Discussion ......................................................................................................44!
General Discussion ................................................................................................44!
Limitations & Future Research ..............................................................................48!
References ..........................................................................................................................67!
x
List of Tables
Table 1. Dimensions of work-family and family-work enrichment ................................... 8!
Table 2. Overview of antecedents of work-family and family-work enrichment ............. 11!
Table 3. Positive effects of mindfulness in the workplace ............................................... 20!
Table 4. Demographic analysis ......................................................................................... 37!
Table 5. Multiple regression with LMS14, MAAS predicting job satisfaction ................ 38!
Table 6. Multiple regression with LMS14, MAAS predicting life satisfaction ................ 39!
Table 7. Regression with LMS14 predicting WFCap, WFAff, FWAff, and FWEff ........ 40!
Table 8. Regression with MAAS predicting WFCap, WFAff, FWAff, and FWEff ........ 41!
xi
List of Figures
Figure 1. Langerian/Eastern mindfulness and job- and life satisfaction. ...........................25!
Figure 2. Langerian/Eastern mindfulness and WFE/FWE. ...............................................26!
Figure 3. Proposed mediating effects of Langerian mindfulness. .....................................27!
Figure 4. Proposed mediating effect of work-family and family-work enrichment. .........27!
Figure 5. Mediation analysis with Langerian mindfulness as a mediator between
WFE/FWE and job- and life satisfaction (**p < .001). ......................................43!
Figure 6. Mediation analysis with WFE/FWE as a mediator between Langerian
mindfulness and job- and life satisfaction (**p < .001). ....................................43!
1
Chapter I
Introduction
Today, about 48% of American couples are part of so called dual-career families
– with both partners pursuing ambitious careers that require a high level of commitment
and, at the same time, sharing the childcare and household responsibilities (Gilbert, 2014;
Bureau of Labor Statistics). This makes it imperative to understand how employees
experience these life roles (McNall, Scott, & Nicklin, 2015): why do some people feel
engaged and happy with their job and family lives, while others feel overwhelmed? What
are factors that help employees gain a positive and holistic life experience with roles that
inspire one another? This thesis lays the ground work for further scientific research to
address three specific needs: first, a further integrative perspective on work and family,
second, an exploration of how employees with different mindsets experience this
interface, and third, an application of mindfulness as one potential differentiating factor.
Work-Family Interface
Most research on the work-family interface is based on work-family border theory
(Clark, 2000). According to this theory, work and life realms are so-called separate
domains that are interconnected to a certain degree. The relationship between these
domains is described as a spectrum: at one end, life roles are fully segmented with
employees treating work and family as separate life elements that need to be successfully
managed. At the other end, employees prefer to fully merge work and family roles, thus
enabling a higher level of work-family integration (Kreiner, 2006). The degree of
2
integration depends on how permeable and flexible the boundaries between roles are.
While more flexible roles refer to the stretching of boundaries with respect to location
and time (e.g. flexible work schedules or home office), more permeable boundaries allow
an employee to manage domains holistically (e.g. scheduling private dates while at work,
checking work e-mails at home, etc.) (Clark, 2000). Whether this interference between
work and family is useful hinges, to a certain degree, on employees’ mindsets: beyond
flexible work arrangements, it is often a personal willingness that decides whether an
employee switches between domains (Allen, Cho, & Meier, 2014). This already points to
a mindful interpretation of work and family boundaries – as a duality mainly constructed
by human mind. Before we explore how mindfulness may relate to the work-family
interface, the main concepts of work-family conflict, work-family balance and work-
family enrichment will be briefly introduced in the following section.
Work-family conflict
Traditionally, research focus has been laid on the scarcity hypothesis, assuming
that employees have limited resources (time, energy, attention) that are depleted in the
process of fulfilling an increasing number of roles (Goode, 1960). The resulting
incompatibilities have been named work-family (WFC) and family-work (FWC) conflict.
WFC and FWC are conflicts at home (at work) that result from career (family)
engagement. These conflicts are bidirectional in that work may be in conflict with family
life and vice versa (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). The origins of conflict have been mainly
explored in the direct environment of employees: first, time spent at work is not available
for family life, whereas family activities might limit an employees’ work time. Second,
stressors at work (e.g. challenging tasks, role ambiguities, conflicts with supervisors) can
3
spread out to family life (WFC), while family conflicts (e.g. different career and family
role expectations of partners) can negatively affect work (FWC) (Jones & Butler, 1980;
Kopelmann, Greenhaus, & Connolly, 1983; Pleck, Staines, & Lang, 1980).
Beyond these external factors, research has started to acknowledge that the
experience of conflict may hinge on personal differences – e.g. gender and personality
factors. For instance, analyzing data from 748 questionnaires completed by professional
and managerial employees, Duxbury and Higgins (1992) concluded that job and family
expectations were associated with more work-family conflict especially for women, and
suggested these findings were related to the acceptance of men sacrificing family time to
comply with work responsibilities. Another study related the Big Five personality traits –
extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism and openness to experience –
to WFC, because these traits explain how individuals respond to and interpret different
situations (McCrae & John, 1992). The authors collected questionnaires from more than
3,000 employed adults and, conducting hierarchical regression, found a significant
positive correlation between neuroticism and WFE/FWE. This effect was explained by
the fact that neuroticism depletes one’s energy when confronted with challenges – which
then may trigger an exaggerated stress response (Paulson & Leuty, 2015). In addition,
conscientiousness was negatively related to WFC: conscientious employees might be
more efficient and organized at work, making them less preoccupied with work-related
topics at home (Wayne, Musisca, & Fleeson, 2004). Here, it is evident that the mindset
with which employees approach difficult situations and regulate negative emotions
related to these situations may explain perceptions of conflict.
4
Work-family balance
Overall, there is no real consensus on precisely what the term work-family
balance means, i.e., the concept is relatively ambiguous (Greenhaus & Allen, 2010;
Halpern & Murphy, 2005). Overall, four interpretations have emerged: First and most
commonly, balance is interpreted as a state characterized by low degrees or the absence
of conflict between work- and family roles (Duxbury & Higgins, 2001). Second, authors
have defined balance as an equal distribution of involvement and time across roles
(Greenhaus, Collins, & Shaw, 2003; Kirchmeyer, 2000). Third, work-family balance has
been interpreted as a state of satisfaction and happiness with both work and life (Caligiuri
& Lazarova, 2005). A fourth perspective takes into account individuals’ varying
priorities. Greenhaus and Allen (2010) view balance as an overall evaluation of one’s
satisfaction with work and family based on the own values and priorities. For instance, an
individual that places more value on his family will feel balanced if he is satisfied in the
family role, while someone who places equal importance on both career and family will
feel more balanced when satisfaction in both roles is high. Still, to varying degrees, the
concepts of work-family conflict and -balance suggest that work and family are separate
counterparts: investing time in one role takes time from the other, too much commitment
at work may decrease an employee’s commitment at home (Greenhaus & Allen, 2010;
Langer, 2014b). This duality between work and family does not necessarily be perceived
negative: research suggests that the equal distribution of time and energy between roles
may increase stress and make one less effective at work (Kofodimos, 1993). For instance,
Greenhaus et al. (2002) found that individuals who reduced work time in favor of family
5
life were more satisfied and felt less WFC than those who invested an equal amount of
involvement and time in both roles.
The discussion above demonstrates that the separation between work and family
is mainly the result of interpretation. A more mindful perspective, viewing work and
family as part of an integrated and holistic system (Langer, 2014b), is provided by the
concept of work-family enrichment – which will be introduced in the following section.
Work-family enrichment
Sociological theorists have explored the mental and physical benefits of multiple-
role engagement via three potential mechanisms: first, positive experiences at home and
at work can accumulate and thereby produce a level of happiness, well-being and life
satisfaction that cannot be achieved when participating in only one role (Barnett & Hyde,
2001; Sieber, 1974). Second, positive experiences in one role may compensate for
stressors in another role, thereby protecting against negative health consequences
(Voydanoff & Donnelly, 1999). Third, engagement in one role may directly transfer
positive feelings or other favorable outcomes to the respective other role (Marks, 1977).
The synergies derived from participating in work and family have been termed
work-family spillover, work-family facilitation, or work-family enrichment (Greenhaus
& Powell, 2006; Grzywacz & Marks, 2000; Van Steenbergen, Ellemers, & Mooijaart,
2007). These terms are very similar, and they have often been used interchangeably
(Hanson, Hammer, & Colton, 2006). Nevertheless, there are small differences: positive
spillover refers to positive transfers of skills, affect, behaviors and values from one
domain (e.g. work) to the other domain (e.g. family), which positively affects the latter
6
(Edwards & Rothbard, 2000; Hanson et al., 2006). Examples of these benefits might be
excitement (positive affect), multi-tasking abilities (skills), digital skills from using
devices (behavior) or the value of trust – spilling over to family life. The term work-
family facilitation is used when the participation in one role (work versus family) “yields
developmental, affective, capital, or efficiency gains that result in enhanced functioning
in another life domain (e.g. family or work)” (Wayne, Grzywacz, Carlson, & Kacmar,
2004, p. 6). What functioning means is left unclear, but it seems that facilitation
complements the construct of spillover by including monetary benefits (Hanson et al.,
2006).
Finally and according to Greenhaus and Powell (2006), work-family enrichment
(WFE) is the increased quality of life at home based on resources generated at work,
while family-work enrichment (FWE) is the reverse – the improved quality of life at work
based upon resources generated at home. The definition of WFE/FWE may serve as an
umbrella term including spillover and facilitation, because a wider set of resources and
capabilities is included (Hanson et al., 2006). WFE and FWE are bidirectional in that
resources that impact the well-being at work versus at home might be different (McNall
et al., 2015) – which can be exemplified by the six resources the construct is divided into.
They either have a direct effect on the performance in the other role (“instrumental path”)
or an indirect effect via the experience of positive affect (“affective path”) (Carlson,
Kacmar, Wayne, & Grzywacz, 2006):
Work-family and family-work development (WFDev, FWDev). These resources lead to
increased personal and intellectual development in one role that enhance the performance
in the other. For example, an employee might learn how to effectively manage his time at
7
work, which also increases his time management skills when interacting with family
members.
Work-family and family-work affect (WFAff, FWAff). These resources build on the
assumption that employees experience positive moods and emotions in different life
domains – with positive feelings in one role improving the quality of life in the other. An
example might be an employee that leaves his work environment in a happy mood,
thereby also being more affective and patient with his family members – which
ultimately improves the interaction at home.!!
Work-family capital (WFCap). These are psychological resources generated at work (e.g.
self-esteem) that make one a better family member. For instance, an employee might get
positive feedback by a supervisor or monetary incentives, which improves her self-
esteem and, ultimately, her family interactions as well (Zimmermann, 2009).
Family-work efficiency (FWEff). This is an increased productivity at work due to family
requirements (time, resources, etc.). An example could be an employee who performs his
work tasks more focused to be able to pick up his children from school (Carlson et al.,
2006). An overview of the dimensions and their definitions is provided in Table 1.
In this thesis, the concept of work-family enrichment is applied since it has been
validated in numerous studies (e.g. McNall et al., 2015). In addition, it is not only related
to more job satisfaction (McNall, Nicklin, & Masuda, 2010), but has been demonstrated
to increase measures of mental and physical health such as improved sleep quality
(Williams, Franche, Ibrahim, Mustard, & Roussy Layton, 2006).
8
Table 1
Dimensions of work-family and family-work enrichment
Note. This table contains definitions provided by Carlson et al., 2006, pp. 140-141).
In the following section, the antecedents of work-family enrichment will be
reviewed in more detail. This review will lay ground for the assumption that employees’
mindsets decide how they navigate work and family – with mindfulness as a potential
transition-enhancing factor to achieve enrichment.
Resource Description Abbreviation
Work-Family Enrichment (WFE)
Work-family development
“Involvement in work leads to the acquisition or refinement of skills, knowledge, behaviors, or ways of viewing things that help an individual be a better family member”
WFDev
Work-family capital
“Involvement in work promotes levels of psychosocial resources such as a sense of security, confidence, accomplishment, or self-fulfillment that helps the individual to be a better family member”
WFAff
Work-family affect
“Involvement in work results in a positive emotional state or attitude which helps the individual to be a better family member”
WFCap
Family-Work Enrichment (FWE)
Family-work development
“Involvement in family leads to the acquisition or refinement of skills, knowledge, behaviors or ways of viewing things that help an individual to be a better worker”
FWDev
Family-work affect
“Involvement in family results in a positive emotional state or attitude which helps the individual to be a better worker”
FWAff
Family-work efficiency
“Involvement with family provides a sense of focus or urgency which helps the individual to be a better worker”
FWEff
9
Antecedents of Work-Family Enrichment
Research exploring the influencing factors of work-family and family-work
enrichment has mostly focused on external factors within the environment of an
employee (McNall et al., 2015) – with work factors such as supervisor support primarily
explaining WFE, and family-related variables such as family cohesion predicting FWE
(e.g. Cinamon & Rich, 2010; Hammer, Kossek, Yragui, Bodner, & Hanson, 2009; Siu et
al., 2010; Zimmermann, 2009). For instance, Carlson, Grzywacz, and Kacmar (2008)
investigated WFE in relation to schedule flexibility. In a first correlational analysis, the
authors found that being able to flexibly organize work commitments increased WFE. In
a second step, WFE was used as a mediator, concluding that WFE explained the
relationship between schedule flexibility and family performance: schedule flexibility led
to more positive feelings managing work and family roles which then translated into
better performance at home.
Despite studies investigating organizational predictors of WFE and FWE, some
research has explored personal factors or dispositions involved in experiencing
WFE/FWE (Crain & Hammer, 2015; Michel & Clark, 2013; Wayne, Grzywacz, Carlson,
& Kacmar, 2007). For instance, analyzing responses from 220 employees with
hierarchical regression analysis, McNall, Masuda, Shanock, and Nicklin (2011) found
core self-evaluations to be significantly related to WFE. Core self-evaluations reflect the
ability to see oneself as competent and worthy and are composed of self-esteem,
neuroticism, locus of control and self-efficacy. The explanation behind this is that
individuals scoring high on core self-evaluations might interpret situations and challenges
at work in a more positive light what makes them perceive their jobs more favorably
10
(McNall et al., 2015; Michel & Clark, 2013). Wayne et al. (2004) related the Big Five
personality factors to work-family facilitation, and found especially extraversion to be
positively correlated to work-family facilitation. The explanation behind this effect is that
extraverts are drawn towards positive events and react more strongly to them. Another
study confirmed that it might be a small set of individual factors accounting for most of
the variance in work-family enrichment. Michel & Clark (2013) concluded that especially
positive affect – a general tendency to be happy, excited and full of energy (Watson &
Clark, 1992) – and core self-evaluations were positively related to work-family
facilitation (an overview of research investigating antecedents involved in WFE/FWE is
provided in Table 2, the complete overview can be found in Crain & Hammer, 2015).
This overview demonstrates that there is the need for more quantitative research
investigating individual differences beyond the Big Five – especially the mindset relevant
to experiences of work-family and family-work enrichment (McNall et al., 2015; Michel,
Bosch, & Rexroth, 2014; Michel & Clark, 2013). This thesis is an attempt to contribute to
this research, investigating the construct of non-meditation-based mindfulness as
developed by Dr. Ellen Langer from Harvard University in relation to the transfer of
positive experiences between domains.
Mindfulness
The mindfulness literature is dominated by two different schools of thought: the
first is influenced by an Eastern spiritual perspective derived from Buddhism (Brown &
Ryan, 2003), and the second is rooted in the psychological literature introduced by Dr.
Ellen Langer and her colleagues (Langer, 1989).
11
Table 2
Overview of antecedents of work-family and family-work enrichment
Authors Antecedent Outcome Direction
Family-related antecedents
Lu, Siu, Spector, & Shi (2009) Age of child FWE +
Stevens, Minnotte, Mannon, & Kiger (2007)
Family cohesion Relationship satisfaction Satisfaction with housework
FWE FWE FWE
+ + +
Allis and O’Driscoll (2008) Aryee, Srinivas, & Tan (2005)
Family involvement FWE WFE
+ -
Pedersen, Minnote, Kiger, & Mannon (2009)
Family role quality FWE +
Carlson et al. (2006) Family salience Family mutuality
FWE/WFE FWE/WFE
+ +
Kirchmeyer (1992) Parenting involvement Parenting time commitment
FWE FWE
+ -
Carlson et al. (2006) Relationship with family FWE/WFE +
Cinamon and Rich (2010) Spousal support FWE/WFE +
Siu et al. (2010) Family support
FWE +
Organizational antecedents
Proost, De Witte, De Witte, & Schreurs (2010)
Achievement striving WFE +
Carlson et al. (2006) Autonomy FWE/WFE +
Franche et al. (2006) Effort-reward imbalance
ratio
FWE -
Lu et al. (2009) Family-friendly co-workers FWE/WFE +
Hammer et al. (2009) Family-supportive supervisor behavior
FWE/WFE +
Zimmermann (2009) Income adequacy WFE +
12
Butler, Grzywacz, Bass, & Linney (2005)
Job control Job demands
WFE FWE
+ -
Carlson et al. (2006) Job salience FWE/WFE +
Aryee et al. (2005) Job involvement WFE +
McNall et al. (2011) Organizational support WFE +
Carlson et al. (2006) Relationship with supervisor FWE/WFE +
Carlson, Grzywacz, & Kacmar (2010)
Schedule flexibility WFE +
Personal antecedents
Aryee et al. (2005) Neuroticism FWE -
Bhargava and Baral (2009) McNall et al. (2011)
Core self-evaluations FWE WFE
+
Grzywacz and Butler (2005); Rotondo and Kincaid (2008); Wayne et al. (2004)
Extraversion FWE/WFE +
Michel and Clark (2009) Positive affect FWE/WFE +
Powell and Greenhaus (2010) Femininity WFE +
Rotondo and Kincaid (2008)
Positive thinking Direct action coping Advice seeking
FWE/WFE FWE WFE
+ + +
Sumer and Knight (2001) Secure attachment style WFE/FWE +
Wayne et al. (2004) Agreeableness Conscientiousness Neuroticism Openness to Experience
FWE FWE WFE WFE
+ + - +
Note. This overview was adapted from Crain & Hammer (2015).
13
Eastern mindfulness
Within the Eastern tradition, mindfulness can be defined as an increased
awareness of and non-judgmental attention to present moment experiences (Brown &
Ryan, 2003; Kabat-Zinn, 1982). In its earliest form, mindfulness reaches back to
Buddhist, Hindu, and Chinese spiritual philosophies (Hanh, 1976; Ie, Ngnoumen, &
Langer, 2014). In Theravada Buddhism, mindfulness is a mental quality of the Noble
Eightfold Path, a systematic approach to avoid suffering and achieve the final goal of
liberation. The term mindfulness springs from the Pali word “sati” which means
awareness or a state of being awake in the present moment. Practically, mindfulness is
stimulated by meditation techniques that use breathing and other senses to cultivate
nonjudgmental awareness and quietness in every single moment (Hanh, 1976). When in a
mindful state, individuals view present-moment experiences as they arise, and decrease
their attachment to them. The consequence is the broadening of experience and the
knowledge of the “true nature” of things, which ultimately leads to less suffering and
more well-being (Carmody, 2014, p. 49; Ie et al., 2014).
Langerian mindfulness
As part of the Langerian tradition, Langer (1993) defines mindfulness as a
cognitive disposition or a flexible, creative mindset that includes noticing novel stimuli,
being more attentive in the present, and considering different perspectives. This notion of
mindfulness has been derived by contrasting it to mindlessness, a mindset in which
individuals create “premature cognitive commitments” or rigid categories based on
existing knowledge without exploring other potential sources of information and
perspectives (Langer, 2014a, p. 133; Langer & Piper, 1987). For instance, one might
14
imagine a situation in which one eats a snack and does not remember what it was – an
example of ‘mindless eating’, according to Langerian mindless behavior (Bodner, 2000;
Pirson, Langer, Bodner, & Zilcher, 2012). This is close to what is described as automatic
and stereotypic processing, where past events determine our spontaneous reaction to
current situations (Kahnemann, 2011). In terms of health, mindlessness is rooted in a
separation of mind and body, assuming that illnesses have clear diagnostic causes with
either physical or mental roots, without considering the interconnections between both
(Phillips & Pagnini, 2014). This may potentially lead to negative outcomes for
performance, cognitive abilities and satisfaction and can even reduce an individual’s
expectation of life (Langer, 2005; Langer, Beck, Janoff-Bulman, & Timko, 1984).
What Langer now considers mindful is an integrated “mind/body-unity theory”:
for instance, our interpretation of a diagnosis is crucial in how an illness is taking course.
Research confirms that our emotional states have a direct influence on physical reactions
such as fatigue (Holgate, Komaroff, Mangan, & Wessely, 2011) or pain (McBeth,
Macfarlane, & Silman, 2002). In line with this, Langer introduces the “psychology of
possibility” (Langer, 2009): she describes how we can shape our world as a place of
possibilities by, for instance, interpreting aging as a desirable state, and then taking small
steps to make this perspective a reality. With these steps, we come to accept the world as
a place that we shape or construct ourselves instead of assuming an objective reality that
just needs to be explored and understood. This shaping of perspective should not be
exhausting, but create new energy, as mindfulness is related to less negative judgment,
comparisons to others and rumination – all elements of mindless behavior (Langer,
15
2014b). Here, we view mindfulness more as a trait than a state, as Langerian mindfulness
is interpreted as a relatively stable thinking pattern (Pirson et al., 2012).
Langer demonstrated mindful effects in different experiments: for instance, in her
“counterclockwise study” (Langer, 1989), she brought a group of elderly men to a
secluded place in New Hampshire that brought them back to a world 20 years ago
(furnishings, magazines, radio stations etc.). Then, they were asked to both put their mind
to how they lived 20 years ago and live accordingly. After one week, participants were
psychologically and physiologically younger than a control group – demonstrating how
their expectations of age transferred to better mental and physical health (Phillips &
Pagnini, 2016). In another study, Langer investigated the decisions made by two groups
of older persons in a retirement home – one in which participants were able to make their
own decisions versus another in which choices were made by staff. As a result, it was
demonstrated that those that had control over their own decisions were more satisfied and
even lived longer (Langer & Rodin, 1976). In a different experimental setup, Langer and
her colleagues induced mindfulness through the experience of conditionality. Participants
were brought into a state of mindfulness by using conditional language like “could be”
instead of absolutes such as “is”. As a result, mindful individuals were able to solve a
task more creatively, viewing the challenge as an opportunity rather than a stressor.
Eastern versus Langerian mindfulness
The fundamentals of Eastern and Langerian mindfulness are not in opposition, but
may be compared and contrasted. For instance, in both traditions, emphasis is placed on
being open to new stimuli with a complete focus on the present (Phillips & Pagnini,
2014). Nevertheless, the ways in which mindfulness is achieved differ significantly.
16
While in Eastern mindfulness, meditation practices form the basis to achieve
mindfulness, Langerian mindfulness is more a way of being to become mindful, a way to
perceive things in the present moment, to put things constantly into perspective (Phillips
& Pagnini, 2016). As a result, existing knowledge is left behind when confronted with
new situations. Rather, the mind is fully immersed in the moment, the senses are placed
in the present, and multiple perspectives are generated based on context.
Applications of mindfulness
In the last three decades and separate from Buddhist approaches, the scientific
study of mindfulness has been used extensively by clinical and personality psychologists.
In clinical psychology, emphasis has been put on mindfulness-based interventions to treat
mental disorders such as depression, eating disorders or chronic pain. One prominent
example is the Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR), a clinical program for the
treatment of chronic pain developed by molecular biologist Jon Kabat-Zinn (1982), an
emeritus professor from the University of Massachusetts Medical School who received
his Ph.D. at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). In his initial study, 51 chronic
pain patients participated in a MBSR program of mindfulness meditation and, as a result,
reported less pain, a reduction of physical and psychiatric symptoms (Kabat-Zinn, 1982),
and of posttraumatic stress disorder (Banks, Newman, & Saleem, 2015). These effects
have been extensively replicated. For instance, Biegel, Shapiro, Brown, and Schubert
(2009) offered an MBSR program to young adolescent patients of a treatment facility for
mental disorders, then assessed several self-reported indicators of mental health and
found that over the course of the study, participants’ anxiety, stress levels, and depressive
symptoms decreased whereas self-esteem and sleep quality improved.
17
Separate from this line research, mindfulness has been demonstrated to improve
relationship satisfaction. Burpee & Langer (2005) analyzed the correlation between
Langerian mindfulness and marital satisfaction and found that mindfulness alone
significantly accounted for 8% of the variability in marital satisfaction. The effect was
explained by several attributes of mindful partners – i.e. the ability to have an accepting
attitude towards change and the openness to different perspectives. In addition, Langerian
mindfulness is also correlated to other more stable personality variables such as openness
to experience (Pirson et al., 2012), and is closely related to the cognitive processes
involved in creative thinking and experiences of flow (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996).
Up to date, Eastern mindfulness has been acknowledged as a useful concept in
industrial and organizational psychology (Allen & Paddock, 2015), as it relates to
positive organizational outcomes such as job performance (Dane & Brummel, 2013) and
may serve as a resource to balance life domains (Allen & Kiburz, 2012). Here, especially
Langerian mindfulness may be relevant as it is conceptually related to an integrated and
holistic perspective on work and family (Albert, 1990; Langer, 2014b). So far, neither
Eastern nor Langerian mindfulness have been explored as boundary-spanning resources
in relation to work-family enrichment (Allen, 2012), and many questions remain
unanswered: are more mindful employees better able to transfer benefits and resources
from work to home and vice versa? Does Langerian mindfulness play a role in this
relationship? Which specific skills and resources matter most? How can companies create
a culture to strengthen the effects? Answering these questions may determine whether
mindfulness interventions are useful in promoting healthier, more balanced boundaries
between career and family responsibilities. In the following section, first research on
18
especially Eastern mindfulness and the work-family interface will be reviewed, before
formulating the aims of this thesis, relating Eastern and Langerian mindfulness to WFE.
Mindfulness in Work-Family Research
Practically, the Eastern practice of mindfulness has gained tremendous popularity
in organizations. Companies such as Google and Apple have hired Heads of Mindfulness
to increase employees’ level of mindfulness with meditation-based trainings. The hope
behind regular meditation practices is that mindfulness increases, employees stay more
focused on their tasks, are attentive to present moment experiences and successfully
master social challenges (Carter, Hougaard, & Stembridge, 2017).
Scientifically, research has established a link between Eastern mindfulness and
reduced work stress: For instance, in one study, school teachers completed an eight-week
mindfulness training composed of yoga, discussions, lectures and activities, and as a
result showed less symptoms of anxiety, stress and burnout (Roeser et al., 2013). More
recently, it has been acknowledged that mindfulness may provide resources that
positively impact work experiences: analyzing service workers from the restaurant
industry, Dane and Brummel (2013) found significant correlations between self-reported
mindfulness and job performance (r=.23) and turnover intention (r=-.25). Evaluating a
survey and daily work diaries of 219 service employees of Dutch organizations,
Hülsheger, Alberts, Feinholdt, and Lang, (2013) demonstrated that Eastern trait
mindfulness was negatively correlated to emotional exhaustion (r=-.275) and positively
to job satisfaction (r=.157).
19
Eastern mindfulness and work-family balance
There is some early evidence for a link between Eastern mindfulness and work-
family balance, mainly assessed with a combination of mindfulness trainings and self-
reported measures of Eastern mindfulness: In a correlational study with 131 employed
alumni of a southeastern university, using hierarchical multiple regression on responses
collected with an Eastern measure of trait mindfulness (MAAS), Allen and Kiburz (2012)
found mindful working parents perceived more work-family balance, potentially due to
two mediators – more mindful individuals experienced better sleep quality and more
vitality. The authors explained this effect with mindful individuals’ ability to fully engage
in each role, thereby getting more satisfaction out of them. In another study, mindfulness
was interpreted as a segmentation mechanism that enables employees to mentally detach
from work and family when in the respective other role. Participants completed a
mindfulness self-training, a combination of mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT,
Segal, Williams, & Teasdale, 2002) and MBSR. After the intervention, those who took
the training were more detached from work and reported more satisfaction with their
work-life balance (Michel et al., 2014). An overview of studies examining the positive
effects of Eastern mindfulness in the workplace is provided in Table 3.
Research gaps
The current thesis aims at contributing to these first insights and at laying ground
for future studies to fill major gaps within the work-family literature: First, preliminary
data focuses mainly on perceptions of conflict and balance (e.g. Allen & Kiburz, 2012;
Hülsheger et al., 2013). This reduces mindfulness to a mere balancing mechanism,
20
without appreciating its potential to inspire performance and well-being in both domains
simultaneously (Allen & Kiburz, 2012; Michel et al., 2014).
Table 3
Positive effects of mindfulness in the workplace
Authors Mindfulness Construct
Outcome Variables Direction
Allen & Kiburz (2012) MAAS Work-family balance +
Dane & Brummel (2013) MAAS Performance Turnover intention
+
Hülsheger et al. (2014) MAAS Psychological detachment Sleep quality
+
Hülsheger, Alberts, Feinholdt, & Lang (2013)
MAAS Emotional exhaustion Job satisfaction
-
+
Leroy, Anseel, Diitrova, & Sels (2013)
MAAS Work engagement +
Marzuq & Drach-Zahavy (2012)
MAAS Employee recovery +
Michel et al. (2014) CAMS-R Work-life balance +
Reb, Narayaran, & Chaturvedi (2014)
MAAS Leadership effectiveness +
Roeser et al. (2013) Mindfulness training
Anxiety, stress, burnout -
21
Second, current research is mostly based on an Eastern, meditation-based notion
of mindfulness (Allen & Kiburz, 2012; Hülsheger et al., 2013; Littman-Ovadia, Zilcha-
Mano & Langer, 2014; Michel et al., 2014). It is especially the combination of Eastern
and Langerian mindfulness that may provide valuable information on WFE/FWE for
several reasons: first, in both traditions, mindfulness is a form of cognitive reappraisal or
reframing that enables individuals to understand multiple perspectives dependent on
context and be less judgmental. This may reduce stress, depression and burnout and
increase work-related well-being (Garland, Farb, Goldin, & Fredrickson, 2015; McNall et
al., 2015; Pagnini & Langer, 2015). Second, mindfulness as defined by Langer (1989)
helps employees respond more flexibly to unexpected circumstances and changes that
occur in organizations on a regular basis (Levinthal & Rerup, 2006; Pirson, 2014; Weick
& Sutcliffe, 2006). One explanation is that mindful employees do not tend to categorize
their life into different facets, but rather interpret challenges as opportunities – for
instance, by viewing time spent at work as a way to earn more money and spend a
vacation with the family. Recently, on Elsevier, one of the world leaders in the provision
of scientific research, authors have called for the submission of papers relating Langerian
mindfulness to the work context (Reb, Allen, & Vogus, 2017).
Finally, the positive effects of Eastern mindfulness have been mostly conducted
based on clinical and student samples. This reduces the external validity of the data and
does not provide any insights on the benefits of mindfulness in the workplace (Glomb,
Duffy, Bono, & Yang, 2011; Hülsheger et al., 2013).
22
Eastern and Langerian mindfulness and work-family enrichment
In this thesis, we use first indirect evidence between different facets of
mindfulness – novelty seeking, flexible attention, and emotion regulation – and factors
related to WFE and FWE to explain the proposed association between mindfulness and
different elements of WFE/FWE, especially WFAff/FWAff , WFCap, and FWEff:
Novelty-seeking. In both Langerian and Eastern traditions, mindful individuals are
able to generate new information, to consider multiple perspectives and be sensitive to
context (Brown & Ryan, 2003; Langer, 2014b). According to Langer, these individuals
are also more adaptable to change, because they rely less on a single-minded reliance on
certainty. This may widen their experiences and lead to more innovative ideas on the job
– also potentially making one a more open and adaptive family member. There is indirect
evidence for this relationship: in their meta-analysis, Michel, Clark and Jaramillo (2011),
for instance, related enrichment to the Big Five personality traits and, among others,
found WFE and FWE to be positively related to openness to experience. This variable is
closely linked to the novelty-seeking construct of mindfulness, because both openness to
experience and mindfulness share the responsiveness to new ideas, perspectives, and
experiences (Pirson et al., 2012). !
Flexible attention. In both Eastern and Langerian frameworks, mindful
individuals are attentive to and engaged with their environment in the present moment
(Brown & Ryan, 2003). Especially Langerian mindfulness leads individuals to constantly
and flexibly consider new information – an “enriched distinction making” that reduces
distractions, and leads to more control over the own thoughts (Weick & Sutcliff, 2006, p.
515). Research demonstrates that individuals scoring high on Langerian mindfulness
23
show greater multi-tasking abilities (Langer, 2014a). This may lead to more efficient time
at home, thus generating efficiency resources to spill over to work (FWEff) (ie, Haller,
Langer, & Courvoisier, 2012; Langer, 2014a). Other empirical evidence stems from
research investigating work engagement. Being measured by the three components of
vigor, dedication and absorption, work engagement has been positively correlated with
Eastern mindfulness. This has been explained by the ability of mindful individuals to be
more immersed in and attentive to tasks – which are also perceived as novel and more
interesting (Leroy et al., 2013). Engagement has not only been related to Eastern
mindfulness, but also directly to work-family enrichment. Analyzing self-report data
from 554 Israeli employees from different industries, Eldor, Harpaz, and Westman (2016)
concluded that being engaged at work spilled over to other life domains, increasing life
satisfaction (r=.44) and community involvement (r=.18). This effect was explained by
positive feelings generated when fully absorbed by and dedicated to one’s work.
Emotion regulation.!In both traditions,!mindful individuals can regulate their
emotions more effectively, ruminate less about problems, and view challenging situations
as opportunities (Desrosiers, Vine, Klemanski, & Nolen-Hoeksema, 2013; McNall et al.,
2015; Pagnini & Langer, 2015; Pirson et al., 2012). In addition, by actively engaging
with their environment, mindful individuals act authentically and do not tend to compare
themselves to others – which ultimately leads to more self-acceptance (Carson & Langer,
2006). This suggests that mindful individuals might be able to build up psychological
resources at work such as self-esteem (WFCap) or positive feelings (WFAff, FWAff),
which may help them master difficult situations at home as well. To support this
indirectly, it has been demonstrated that there is a direct link between work-family
24
enrichment and emotion regulation. For instance, Carlson, Kacmar, Zivnuska, Ferguson,
and Whitten (2011) collected self-report data from 240 full-time employees and, applying
structural equation modeling, found that the link between work-family enrichment and
self-reported general job performance was mediated by positive mood. As a potential
explanation, they suggested that the positive transfer of work experiences to family life
leads to a lasting accumulation of positive mood in relation to one’s work.
Aims & Research Hypotheses
In this thesis, we pursue three aims to lay ground for future research in work-
family research:
Aim 1
This study seeks to contribute to the existing research relating mindfulness to the
work-family interface. First, it will be assessed whether mindfulness is positively related
to job- and/or life satisfaction (see Figure 1). Although, first evidence confirms this
assumption (e.g. Hülsheger et al., 2013), these studies solely rely on Eastern measures of
mindfulness. Especially in the field of industrial psychology, applying Langer’s self-
report measure on mindfulness seems to be a valid approach to capture manager’s ability
to respond effectively to unexpected situations. The current study seeks to close this gap
by using a combination of Eastern and Langerian mindfulness measures to assess the
proposed relationships. The results will provide further justification for the use of the
Langer Mindfulness Scale (LMS14) to measure mindfulness in organizations. Thus, first,
it is hypothesized that Eastern and Langerian mindfulness are positively related to both
25
measures of job- (H1a) and life (H1b) satisfaction.
Figure 1. Langerian/Eastern mindfulness and job- and life satisfaction.
Aim 2
There is increased consensus that mindfulness is related to positive outcomes at
the workplace. Less clear is the role of mindfulness in relation to the transfer of positive
affect, skills or other resources between work and life domains. Indirect evidence justifies
the assumption of a potential association between different elements of Langerian and
Eastern mindfulness and WFE/FWE, for instance novelty seeking, flexible attention, and
emotion regulation. For instance, mindful individuals are able to frame difficult situations
more positively, thus generating positive feelings (Desrosiers et al., 2013; McNall et al.,
2015; Pagnini & Langer, 2015; Pirson et al., 2012). This may increase WFAff and
FWAff – the transfer of positive emotions between roles. In addition, mindfulness may
be a mechanism that helps transfer self-esteem (WFCap) or improved time management
skills (FWEff) between roles (see Figure 2). Thus, it is hypothesized that Langerian and
Eastern mindfulness are positively related to WFE/FWE in general (H2), and specifically
to WFAff (H2a), FWAff (H2b), WFCap (H2c), and FWEff (H2d). !!
Langerian mindfulness
Job satisfaction
Life satisfaction Eastern mindfulness +
+
+
+
26
Figure 2. Langerian/Eastern mindfulness and WFE/FWE.
Aim 3
In addition to the direct hypothesized associations, there might be mediating
effects between mindfulness, WFE/FWE and job- and life satisfaction – also because
both enrichment as well as mindfulness have been linked to job and family satisfaction
(Hülsheger et al., 2013; McNall et al., 2010). On the one hand, mindfulness might
strengthen the effect between WFE/FWE and job- and life satisfaction in that
mindfulness leads to feelings of WFE and FWE – which then increase job- and life
satisfaction. On the other hand, it might also be that mindful individuals demonstrate
higher levels of job- and life satisfaction if they have positive experiences at the work-
family interface (see Figure 3). Research already confirmed the mediating effects of WFE
on the relationship between different antecedents (e.g. flexible schedules) and outcomes
(e.g. job satisfaction). These authors have also called for more research exploring the
mediating processes behind these effects (Carlson et al., 2008). Thus, it is hypothesized
Langerian mindfulness
WFAff
Eastern mindfulness
+ FWAff
WFCap
FWEff
27
that there is a mediation effect in that either (i) mindfulness mediates the relationship
between WFE/FWE and job- and life satisfaction (H3a), or (ii) WFE/FWE mediates the
relationship between mindfulness and job- and life satisfaction (H3b).
Figure 3. Proposed mediating effects of Langerian mindfulness.
Figure 4. Proposed mediating effect of work-family and family-work enrichment.
WFE/FWE
Job satisfaction/ life satisfaction +
+
Langerian/Eastern mindfulness
+
WFE/FWE Job satisfaction/ life satisfaction +
+
Langerian/Eastern mindfulness
+
28
Chapter II
Method
In this study, a sample of 91 participants was used to answer questions related to
Eastern and Langerian mindfulness, work-family enrichment and job- and life satisfac-
tion. Participants were recruited through an invitation flyer as well as the snowballing
technique. To those who fulfilled the inclusion criteria, questions were provided in a sur-
vey format and administered via Qualtrics (see IRB approval of the study in Appendix 1).
Then, several statistical and correlational analyses were performed using SPSS.
Participants
For the purpose of this study, participants had to meet the following eligibility
criteria: age of 18 years or older, employment or self-employment for at least 20 hours
per week, the ability to read English at least at 9th grade level, and at least one child
living at home. For the scope of this study and to address the shortcomings of prior
research, it was important to measure mindfulness in employee samples to increase the
external validity of the data (Glomb et al., 2011; Hülsheger et al., 2013). As part of an
eligibility screening (see Appendix 2), participants were excluded if they did not meet the
requirements above or if they did not provide informed consent. The researcher also
screened all responses given by participants and excluded those who failed to complete
all survey questions. Of the overall sample of 127 subjects, 33 participants were screened
out of the study due to the following reasons: 12% did not work or worked less than 20
hours, 18% did not meet basic English skill requirements, and the remaining 70% failed
29
to complete all relevant items. In the end of the survey, subjects had the option to enter
their email addresses in order to participate in a raffle – an option that 57 chose to follow.
The final survey was completed by a total of 91 participants – composed of 67% males
and 33% females with a mean age of 40.47 (SD = 8.14) (see demographic survey
Appendix 3). The mean age of those screened out was relatively equal to the mean age of
the final sample (40.23, SD = 8.539).
Measures
The study used different self-report measures to assess the relationships between
mindfulness, WFE/FWE and job- and life satisfaction.
Langerian mindfulness
Participants’ mindfulness level was assessed using the Langer Mindfulness Scale
14 (LMS14; Bodner, 2000; Pirson et al., 2012). The LMS14 is a reduced version of the
original 21-item Langer scale and consists of 14 items which assess three components of
socio-cognitive mindfulness – novelty seeking, novelty producing, and engagement (see
Appendix 4). The items are measured on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disa-
gree) to 7 (strongly agree). While the scale covers the increased attention produced by
mindfulness, many of its items are related to the cognitive elements related to creativity
(Pirson et al., 2012). This instrument was chosen for two reasons: first, it is a valid tool to
measure mindfulness within social contexts (Levinthal & Rerup, 2006; Pirson et al.,
2012; Weick & Sutcliffe, 2006) and, second, it has been demonstrated to be reliable and
valid: internal consistencies are high, with Cronbach’s alphas ranging between .80 and
.90 (Pirson et al., 2012).
30
Eastern mindfulness
The 15-item Mindful Attention and Awareness Scale (MAAS; Brown & Ryan,
2003) was used to specifically assess trait mindfulness based on an Eastern
understanding. Out of the many instruments measuring Eastern mindfulness (Freiburg
Mindfulness Inventory, FMI, Buchheld, Grossman, & Walach, 2001; Kentucky Inventory
of Mindfulness Skills, KIMS, Baer, Smith, & Allen, 2004; Cognitive and Affective
Mindfulness Scale, CAMS, Feldman, Hayes, Kumar, Greeson, & Laurenceau, 2007;
Five-Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire, FFMQ, Baer, Smith, Hopkins, Krietemeyer, &
Toney, 2006; etc.), we chose the MAAS because it specifically captures the focused-
attention-element in mindfulness and provides a single score of mindfulness. In addition,
this measure has been specifically developed to measure mindfulness in the general
population, without any preceding mindfulness training or meditation practice (Hülsheger
et al., 2013). Psychometric properties are good with internal consistencies ranging
between .80 and .90, and a high test-retest reliability (Brown & Ryan, 2003; Carlson &
Brown, 2005). The questions were measured on a 6-point Likert scale with a sample item
being “I find it difficult to stay focused on what’s happening in the present” (see
Appendix 5).
Work-family and family-work enrichment
WFE and FWE were measured using the Work-Family Enrichment Scale
developed by Carlson et al. (2006) (see Appendix 6). This measure captures both
directions – posi-tive spillover from work to family (WFE) and family to work (FWE).
An example of the 9 items related to work-family enrichment is “my involvement in my
31
work helps me to understand different viewpoints, and this helps me be a better family
member”. An ex-ample of the 9 items related to family-work enrichment is “my
involvement in my family encourages me to use my work time in a focused manner and
this helps me be a better worker”. Participants need to indicate their agreement with both
parts of each statement on 5 items ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly
agree). This scale is psycho-metrically strong and popular in work-family research
(Nicklin & McNall, 2014).
Job satisfaction
Job satisfaction was measured using five items of the Job Satisfaction Scale by
Brayfield and Rothe (1951). These five items were “I feel fairly satisfied with my present
job”, “most days I am enthusiastic about my work”, “each day of work seems like it will
never end”, “I find real enjoyment in my work”, and “I consider my job rather unpleas-
ant” (see also Appendix 7). This reduced version of the scale has been first validated by
Judge, Locke, Durham, and Kluger (1998) and was, since then, adopted by numerous
studies as a useful tool to measure global job satisfaction (e.g. Hülsheger et al., 2013;
Judge, Bono, & Locke, 2000). For instance, Judge et al. (2000) confirmed a high reliabil-
ity on a university employee sample (.88). Replicating the same analysis with the partners
of this sample, who were supposed to rate their spouses’ job satisfaction resulted in a
high average correlation between self- and third-party report of r = .68.
Life satisfaction
Life satisfaction was measured using the Satisfaction with Life Scale by Diener,
Emmons, Larsen, and Griffin (1985). This scale (see Appendix 8) measures general life
32
satisfaction with five items and has demonstrated good internal reliability, test- retest
reliability and validity (Diener et al., 1985; Smeets, Neff, Alberts, & Peters, 2014). As an
example, the item “in most ways my life is close to my ideal” is measured on a Likert
scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
Control variables
Four control variables that have been given importance in the work-family litera-
ture were included into the analysis: (1) gender, (2) age, (3) number of children, and (4)
relationship status (McNall et al., 2015). Especially gender has been found to impact
work-life experiences, with women generally experiencing higher levels of WFE and
FWE (e.g. van Steenbergen et al., 2007).
Procedures
In this study, all variables involved were assessed using self-report. Past research
has demonstrated that mindfulness as a trait-like disposition varies in participants without
any meditation experience. In these untrained populations, trait mindfulness can be relia-
bly measured with different self-report measures (Brown & Ryan, 2003; Hülsheger et al.,
2013). In a similar fashion, work-family enrichment and its antecedents have traditionally
been measured with fixed item self-report scales – a method that has delivered consistent-
ly reliable results (Carlson et al., 2006; Greenhaus & Powell, 2006).
All self-report measures were assessed using a survey format. The survey was
created in Qualtrics. Qualtrics is an online survey platform that provides research solu-
tions to business and academia, such as market research, customer feedback or product
and concept testing (Qualtrics.com). Since its founding in 2002, Qualtrics software has
33
gained increased popularity. In academia it enables researchers to develop questionnaires,
publish them online and collect and analyze the data conveniently. Participants can be
reached fast, they can provide personal data anonymously and without any additional
cost. In addition, filling out surveys on a computer or smartphone does not require any
special computer hard- or software.
Study participants were recruited through different channels. First, copies of an
invitation flyer (see Appendix 9) were distributed on pin walls at the Harvard Internation-
al Office, Science Center, Harvard Center for Continuing Education, Harvard COOP, and
Widener Library. Second, the researcher sent out emails to personal contacts who then
passed on the invitation to their extended networks via the snowballing technique. When
applying snowball sampling, the researcher contacts a certain number of persons in a spe-
cific target population who then invite a number of individuals of their own network to
participate in the research. These individuals may then again contact individuals within
their network and so on (Goodman, 1961). Snowball sampling has been demonstrated to
be a useful tool in reaching broad populations, especially when personal and sensitive
topics are involved (Biernacki & Waldorf, 1981). Third, the president of the German-
American Business Council of Boston, Inc. (GABC) promoted the study in the organiza-
tion’s monthly newsletter. The GABC is a non-profit organization of companies and
business professionals dedicated at strengthening German-American business. The organ-
ization has a large network of members composed of manufacturers, financiers, govern-
ment officials, scientists, researchers, attorneys, educators, retailers, and entrepreneurs.
Finally, the study invitation was sent to the president of the Harvard Students’ Spouses
34
and Partners Assocation (HSSPA) who forwarded the flyer to their approximately 300
active and 500 inactive members.
Interested persons were able to either directly click on a link to open the survey,
to access it by scanning a QR code with their smartphones or to contact the researcher via
email to receive a link to the study administered via Qualtrics. They first clicked on a
button to provide their consent. The online consent form (see Appendix 10) included in-
formation on the purpose of the research, the duration of participation, compensation,
privacy protection, and any foreseeable risks and discomforts. Then, participants entered
the eligibility screening where they answered questions related to the following eligibility
criteria: age, employment status, number of children living at home, work hours per
week, and English reading skills. Those participants who were eligible to participate were
then directed to the main study, the others received a thank you message. In the main
study, participants, first, answered a couple of demographic questions related to age,
gender, ethnicity, employment status, work sector, and relationship status. Then they
answered the LMS14, the MAAS, the WFE/FWE Scale, the Job Satisfaction Scale and
the Satisfaction with Life Scale, all in fixed response format. After finishing these
assessments, participants were asked whether they are interested in participating in a raf-
fle to have the chance to win a $100 coupon on amazon.com. Those participants that
were interested in this were directed to a new survey, including one question: ”Please
provide your email address.” The raffle was part of a different survey to be able to de-
associate the email addresses of participants with their survey answers. This ensured the
complete anonymity of the data. Finally, participants clicked on a debriefing form (see
35
Appendix 11) to get more detailed information about the hypotheses and relevance of the
study.
Design
To assess the various relationships between mindfulness, the control variables and
WFE/FWE, as well as job- and life satisfaction, all data was analyzed using SPSS. To test
direct effects between the variables, a multiple linear regression analysis was conducted.
Mediating effects between mindfulness, WFE/FWE and job- and life satisfaction were
assessed by calculating the size of the indirect effects between the variables, together
with bootstrapped confidence intervals. This was performed in SPSS using the process
macro by Professor Andrews Hayes (Hayes, 2013).
36
Chapter III
Results
In this paper, we investigated the relationships between mindfulness, WFE/FWE,
and job- and life satisfaction. Overall, 127 subjects participated in this research – of
whom 91 counted towards the final sample of this study. The mean age of this sample
was 40.47 with males being slightly overrepresented (67%). 54.95% of the sample were
full-time employed, 24.18% worked part-time, 14.29% were full-time self-employed and
6.59% part-time self-employed. The average of 38.9 work hours per week included a few
outliers with a comparably high number of work hours. Half of the sample (50.55%)
worked in the private sector and most of the others in academia (28.57) and the public
sector (14.29%). Other sectors such as government were not represented. The sample was
almost exclusively white (96.7%), with a small number of Latinos. A complete overview
of the demographic characteristics of the sample is provided in Table 4.
Mindfulness & Job- and Life Satisfaction
In the first part of the study and in support of Aim 1, we analyzed whether
Langerian and Eastern mindfulness are related to job- and life satisfaction. To investigate
this correlation, a stepwise multiple linear regression was preformed: in a first step, the
LMS14 (Langerian mindfulness) and MAAS (Eastern mindfulness) scores were included
into the analysis, followed by the control variables age, gender, number of children and
relationship status. The results of this analysis are depicted in Table 5.
37
Table 4
Demographic analysis
Variables Total Sample size 91 Age: Mean (SD) 40.47 (8.14) Gender Female (%) 30 (32.97%) Male (%) 61 (67.03%) Employment status Employed, full-time 50 (54.95%) Employed, part-time 22 (24.18%) Self-employed, full-time 13 (14.29%) Self-employed, part-time 6 (6.59%)
No. of work hours: Mean (SD) 38.90 (10.30) No. of children living at home: Mean (SD) 1.66 (.62) Work sector Private sector 46 (50.55%) Public sector 13 (14.29%) AAcademia 26 (28.57%) Government 2 (2.20%) Other 4 (4.40%) Ethnicity White 88 (96.70%) Hispanic or Latino 3 (3.30%) Relationship status Married 71 (78.02%) Engaged 2 (2.20%) In a committed relationship 13 (14.29%) Single 1 (1.10%) Separated/divorced 4 (4.40%)
Note. This table provides demographic information on the final sample.
38
Table 5
Multiple regression with LMS14, MAAS predicting job satisfaction
Variable Unstandardized B t p
LMS 14 .196 3.851 .000**
MAAS .007 .065 .948
Age .163 1.628 .171
Relationship stat. .010 .094 .925
Gender .009 .086 .931
No. of children -.021 -.211 .833
Note. N = 91; *p < .05. **p < .001; controlled for age, relationship status, gender, number
of children.
Overall, we found a significant regression equation (F(1, 89)= 14.834 p = .000)
with an R2 of .143. Nevertheless, as can be seen in Table 5, only the relationship between
the LMS14 and job satisfaction was stable and significant (B = .196, p = .000). 19.6% of
the variability in job satisfaction was explained by Langerian mindfulness (LMS14). If
we take into account the many variables that may pay into job satisfaction, this effect
seems to be quite significant. In contrast, a relationship between the Eastern measure of
mindfulness (MAAS) and job satisfaction was not found (B = .007, p = .948). Thus, H1a
was partially confirmed, as we will discuss later.
The analysis was repeated including life satisfaction as a dependent variable –
which yielded a similar result. The only significant relationship was found between the
LMS14 and life satisfaction (B=.176, p = .003). No significant relationship with the
MAAS was found, thus H1b could be partially confirmed (see Table 6).
39
Table 6
Multiple regression with LMS14, MAAS predicting life satisfaction
Variable Unstandardized B t p
LMS 14 .176 3.010 .003*
MAAS .169 1.599 .113
Age .059 .570 .570
Relationship stat. -.090 -.867 .388
Gender .016 .152 .879
No. of children -.044 -.431 .668
Note. N = 91; *p < .05. **p < .001; controlled for age, relationship status, gender, number
of children.
Mindfulness & Work-Family and Family-Work Enrichment
This part of the analysis was performed to support Aim 2: it was tested whether
Langerian and Eastern mindfulness are related to WFE/FWE (H2) in general, with
strongest relationships to WFAff (H2a), FWAff (H2b), WFCap (H2c), and FWEff (H2d).
First, we confirmed a stable and significant relationship between the LMS14 and
WFE/FWE overall by conducting a linear regression analysis (B = .525, p = .000). Then,
a multivariate regression was conducted with Langerian mindfulness as the predictor and
all dimensions of WFE/FWE (WFCap, WFAff, FWAff, FWEff, WFDev, FWDev) as
separate outcome variables to see which relationships are stronger than others. As can be
seen in Table 7, Langerian mindfulness was, at a significance level of p < .05,
significantly related to WFCap (F = 2.545, p = .001), FWAff (F = 2.023, p = .009), and
FWEff (F = 1.684, p = .041). Against our prediction, no significant relationship was
found with WFAff (p = .072).
40
Table 7
Regression with LMS14 predicting WFCap, WFAff, FWAff, and FWEff
Variable Mean Square F p
WFAff 12.169 1.546 .072
WFDev 10.356 1.244 .231
WFCap 12.130 2.545 .001**
FWAff 10.783 2.023 .009*
FWDev 11.757 1.474 .097
FWEff 14.906 1.684 .041*
Note. N = 91; *p < .05. **p < .001.
The same analysis was repeated using the MAAS as a measure for Eastern
mindfulness. First a linear regression was conducted, including Eastern mindfulness as
the predictor and WFE/FWE as the outcome variable. The result was not significant
(B=.105, p=.355) – there is no significant correlation between Eastern mindfulness and
WFE/FWE in general. Second, the analysis was repeated with the separate dimensions of
WFE/FWE as the outcome variables. The results (see Table 8) show that there is only one
significant correlation with FWAff (F=1.689, p=.04) . Thus, the effect of Langerian
mindfulness is significant and overall stronger – and H2 is partially confirmed.
Mediating Effects
Here and in support of Aim 3, it was analyzed whether (i) mindfulness mediates
the relationship between WFE/FWE and job- and life satisfaction (H3a), or (ii)
41
WFE/FWE mediates the relationship between mindfulness and job- and life satisfaction
(H3b).
Table 8
Regression with MAAS predicting WFCap, WFAff, FWAff, and FWEff
Variable Mean Square F p
WFAff 10.563 1.206 .263
WFDev 8.524 .891 .643
WFCap 7.406 .949 .563
FWAff 9.690 1.689 .040*
FWDev 10.975 1.326 .171
FWEff 10.680 .920 .603
Note. N = 91; *p < .05. **p < .001.
To tackle this question, we investigated the size of the indirect effect between all
variables. This test was performed using the SPSS process macro by Professor Andrew
Hayes (Hayes, 2013) – which provides various forms of the indirect effect (e.g. the Sobel
test), together with a bootstrapped confidence interval (Preacher & Hayes, 2004; Sobel,
1982). This macro is based upon accepted mediation principles (e.g. Baron & Kenny,
1986), has great statistical power, and is therefore often applied in the social sciences
(Preacher & Hayes, 2004). Since there were no direct relationships between Eastern
mindfulness (MAAS), WFE/FWE, and job- and life satisfaction, we reduced the analysis
to Langerian mindfulness (LMS14). First, the effect size of the indirect effect of
WFE/FWE on job satisfaction through the mediator Langerian mindfulness was
computed. Here, we found a significant and strong direct relationship between
42
WFE/FWE and job satisfaction (.2265, p=.000). The strength of this relationship
decreased, but stayed significant when entering the LMS14 as a mediator (.1955,
p=.000). Nevertheless, the mediating effect was not significant as the bootstrapped
confidence interval included zero (CI (-.0099, .0757)). Repeating the same analysis with
life satisfaction as an outcome variable yielded a similar result – there was no significant
indirect effect of WFE/FWE on life satisfaction through the LMS14 (CI (-.0122, .0695).
Thus, H3a could not be confirmed (see also Figure 5). This indicates that other variables
might be better explanatory variables.
Second, we analyzed whether WFE/FWE acts as a mediator between Langerian
mindfulness and job- and life satisfaction performing the same analysis. Without
WFE/FWE, Langerian mindfulness was significantly correlated with job satisfaction
(.1956,p=.000). This relationship became weaker when entering WFE/FWE as a mediator
(.0930, p=.0651) – which implies mediation. The mediating effect of WFE/FWE was
significant (CI (.0378, .2097), indicating that there was an indirect effect of Langerian
mindfulness on job satisfaction through WFE/FWE (see Figure 6). The mediator could
account for about half of the total effect, PM=.52. Repeating this analysis with life
satisfaction as an outcome variable yielded a similar result (CI (.0467, .2471). This
confirms H3b: Langerian mindfulness seems to predict WFE/FWE – which in turn pre-
dicts job- and life satisfaction.
43
Figure 5. Mediation analysis with Langerian mindfulness as a mediator between
WFE/FWE and job- and life satisfaction (**p < .001).
Figure 6. Mediation analysis with WFE/FWE as a mediator between Langerian
mindfulness and job- and life satisfaction (**p < .001).
WFE/FWE Job Satisfaction
.2265** (without LMS14)
.1955** (with LMS14)
Langerian Mindfulness
.0310 CI (-.0099, .0757)
.525** .196**
WFE/FWE Life Satisfaction
Langerian Mindfulness
.2387** (without LMS14)
.2183** (with LMS14)
.0204 CI (-.0122, .0695)
.525** .176**
Langerian Mindfulness
Job Satisfaction
WFE/FWE
.525** .226**
Life Satisfaction .1757** (without WFE/FWE) .0611 (with WFE/FWE)
.1146 CI (.0467, .2471)
.525** .239**
Langerian Mindfulness
WFE/FWE
.1956** (without WFE/FWE)
.0930 (with WFE/FWE)
.1026** CI (.0378, .2097)
44
Chapter IV
Discussion
The intention of this study was to deepen our understanding of the experiences
involved at the interface of employees’ work and family lives. Confirming mindfulness
as an important subject of investigation in work-family research, we proposed and
assessed several relationships between mindfulness, work-family and family-work
enrichment and job- and life satisfaction. Exploring these relationships is not only
relevant for employee happiness, but also for organizations: manager mindfulness may
foster creativity and has important implications for the capacity for innovation of
companies as well as the field of education and learning (Langer & Piper, 1987).
General Discussion
To close the circle of the research questions proposed in the beginning, we now
present the most salient results and hypotheses obtained in the course of this work
associated with each of these questions starting with:
H1: Eastern and Langerian mindfulness are positively related to both measures of job-
and life satisfaction.
The first aim of this study was to confirm a positive relationship of Langerian and
Eastern mindfulness with both job- and life satisfaction. We were specifically interested
in integrating measures of Langerian mindfulness into the analysis to further justify the
use of Langerian mindfulness in Organizational- and Industrial Psychology.
45
A stepwise multiple regression analysis with the predictors of Langerian and
Eastern mindfulness including the control variables of age, relationship status, number of
children and gender partially confirmed H1: Langerian mindfulness was significantly
positively related to both job- and life satisfaction. This result is in line with our
assumption that especially a higher score in Langerian mindfulness is crucial in achieving
job satisfaction, as it reflects a manager’s ability to respond effectively to unexpected
situations by viewing challenges as well as organizational change as an opportunity. This
is demonstrated in statements such as “I find it easy to create new and effective ideas”.
In contrast, we could not find any relationship between Eastern mindfulness and
job- and life satisfaction. Although this result is surprising, it suggests that it might be the
novelty-seeking and flexibility inherent in the Langerian mindfulness concept – which
are less important for Eastern mindfulness – that help an employee flexibly manage
difficult situations. For employees, the advantage over traditional, often long meditation-
based trainings is that Langerian mindfulness can be achieved with instructions that make
employees experience the conditionality of life (e.g. using conditional language). This
may lead them to experience more novelty in their environment, to reduce stress, and
finally create more innovative ideas that also impact a company’s success (Langer,
2014b; Phillips & Pagnini, 2016).
H2:!Mindfulness is positively related to WFE/FWE in general, and specifically to WFAff,
FWAff, WFCap, and FWEff. !
The second aim of this study was to analyze whether mindfulness helps
employees transfer positive experiences from work to family and vice versa – thus
improving the quality of life in the respective other role. This assumption was explained
46
by different relationships that have been established by past research between factors
relevant to both WFE/FWE and three key elements of mindfulness – novelty seeking,
flexible attention, and emotion regulation. To see whether Eastern and Langerian
mindfulness are related to WFE/FWE overall versus to single elements, we correlated the
LMS14 and MAAS both with WFE/FWE overall and separately with its different
dimensions. The assumption behind this was that mindfulness could be more related to
FWAff, WFAff, WFCap and FWEff than to WFDev and FWDev. For instance, mindful
employees frame difficult situations more positively, which may put them in a more
positive mood, directly affecting WFAff. They might also build better relationships by
considering multiple perspectives at home, thereby improving their quality of life at work
(FWAff). In addition, resources such as an increased self-esteem from better relationships
at work may transfer to family life (WFCap) and time management skills improved by
managing a family may improve task completion at work (FWEff).
Overall, our empirical data demonstrated that Langerian mindfulness was
significantly related to WFE/FWE – more mindful employees seem to be able to generate
positive resources in a role and transfer them to the other. Looking at single dimensions
of the data, significant relationships were confirmed for WFCap, FWAff and FWEff. The
positive relationship with FWEff may indicate that more mindful employees’ are
attentive to their family tasks without narrowing their perspective – which may also
support a more focused and open-minded working style on the job. The positive
relationship with WFCap might be due to the fact that more mindful employees are less
judgmental, and have greater capacity to see or reframe multiple perspectives. As a result,
the potential for conflict at work may be reduced, and self-confidence rises. This may
47
lead employees to perceive themselves to be better family members as well. It would be
interesting to further investigate potential explanations for the identified relationships in
future research, for instance by measuring spouses’ perception of these effects.
For Eastern mindfulness, only the relationship to FWAff was found to be
significant in the data. There was no further indication that Eastern mindfulness supports
the positive transfer of resources from work to family life. This result is interesting as
former studies found Eastern mindfulness to act as a boundary mechanism that reduces
work-family conflict and promotes work-family balance (Allen & Kiburz, 2012; Michel
et al., 2014). One could assume that Eastern mindfulness is more helpful to separate
different life domains – to pay full attention to the task on hand, but then leave that role
behind when engaging in another. In contrast, it might be especially the willingness and
flexibility of employees to allow for new experiences to overlie existing expectations and
frameworks – characteristics of Langerian mindfulness – that may help them integrate
work and family.
H3:!There is a mediation effect in that either (a) mindfulness mediates the relationship
between WFE/FWE and job- and life satisfaction, or (b) WFE/FWE mediates the
relationship between mindfulness and job- and life satisfaction.
The third aim of this study was to test whether there are potential mediating
effects between the variables. Since no strong effects were found for Eastern mindfulness
to WFE/FWE and job- and life satisfaction, in this part focus was laid on Langerian
mindfulness. On the one hand, we assumed that Langerian mindfulness might strengthen
the effect between WFE/FWE and job-and life satisfaction in that the link between
WFE/FWE and job- and life satisfaction gets stronger for individuals that have a higher
48
level of mindfulness. On the other hand, it was also speculated that mindful individuals
demonstrate higher levels of job- and life satisfaction if they have positive experiences at
the work-family interface. The mediation analysis of the data revealed that WFE/FWE
mediates the positive relationship between Langerian mindfulness and job- and life
satisfaction in that Langerian mindfulness predicts WFE/FWE, which in turn predicts
job- and life satisfaction. In other words, being mindful might not always be sufficient for
an employee to feel satisfied with a job – unless he or she is also able to generate positive
psychological resources that transfer between work and family lives, which requires
additional characteristics. This is an important result, because it provides information on
one potential mechanism behind the positive relationship between Langerian mindfulness
and job satisfaction – the ability to create permeability between work and family and
view both as a holistic and integrated system.
In summary, for employees, holding a (Langerian) mindful perspective may help
them interpret their life circumstances in a different light – viewing stress and conflicts as
a result of their interpretation, opening up to change and actively noticing things around
them. As a result, these employees may be able to transfer successes from one domain o
the other, and ultimately perceive more satisfaction on the job and with life in general.
Selecting candidates with respect to mindfulness or training the existing staff may, in a
bottom-up process and over the long run, also create more mindful organizations.
Limitations & Future Research
The conclusions of this thesis were drawn under consideration of several
limitations. First, the study design relies on self-report data to measure all variables of
interest, which may provide several sources of bias. One such bias is common method
49
bias, which may occur if self-report measures do not reflect the true variability due to the
constructs, but rather due to the method used, thereby limiting construct validity
(Brannick, Chan, Conway, Lance, & Spector, 2010). Nevertheless, the current study is
theory driven and based on acknowledged mindfulness and work-family models (Brown
& Ryan, 2003; Greenhaus & Powell, 2006; Langer, 1989). In addition, all scales used
demonstrated stable psychometric properties and have been successfully applied by
research. Nevertheless, we see this study as preliminary – future studies could, for
instance, expose employees to a mindfulness intervention or a brief mindfulness self-
training before measuring different outcome variables – comparing the results to a control
group. Here, the insights of this study support especially the use of Langerian
mindfulness techniques, bringing employees by conditional instruction into a state of
mindfulness, and observing over a longer period of time, how this relates to experiences
and different dimensions of WFE/FWE. Complementary, third-party perspectives of
supervisors and spouses could be used to get a more objective perspective on the
measures taken (Nicklin & McNall, 2014).
Second, in this study, we focused on the trait mindfulness to assess all relevant
relationships. Exploring mindfulness on both state and trait construct levels in one study
might shed light on which aspects of work-family enrichment are driven by a state-like
versus trait-like understanding of mindfulness (Hülsheger et al., 2013). For instance,
employee mindfulness may be less stable and depend on moment-to-moment experiences
over the course of a day. In addition, mindfulness has been interpreted as a
multidimensional construct (Baer et al., 2006) – it would be interesting to analyze the
effect of certain more differentiated facets of mindfulness on all aspects of work-family
50
enrichment. For instance, the attention-related dimension of mindfulness might lead to
transferrable skills, whereas being non-judgmental and flexible might create more
positive feelings in both roles (Allen & Paddock, 2015).
Third, although the mindfulness measures used have been successfully applied,
further studies need to validate the use of the LMS14 in organizational research. As an
alternative, it might be valuable to adapt these measures to specifically assess employees’
work-related mindfulness in a given work setting. For instance, mindfulness in the
workplace might hinge on other factors than a dispositional tendency towards
mindfulness, e.g. on triggers in the work environment that evoke mindfulness in that
specific context (e.g. Dane & Brummel, 2013).
Finally, using the snowballing technique as a recruitment method may limit the
diversity of the sample in certain aspects. For instance, after the first initiation by the
researcher by contacting the own network, these contacts will contact their network for
further recruitment. This may lead to a participant pool that shares similar characteristics
(e.g. academic background, nationality, etc.), thereby limiting the generalizability of the
data. Indeed, the sample demonstrates this effect as almost 80% of participants work in
the private sector and academia, and national diversity is low. Nevertheless, snowballing
has the advantage that the sample consists of employees with different working
backgrounds and from different companies rather than relying on a single company. We
also diversified recruitment by using other sources (e.g. newsletter of a nationally diverse
student association). In addition, the study is at risk for a potential self-selection bias with
an over-proportionate number of subjects participating due to the wish to experience
better work-family balance (Michel et al., 2014). This is a shortcoming shared with many
51
studies in work-family research (McNall et al., 2014) and should be reflected more
carefully.
Aside from the limitations inherent in this study, there are a number of interesting
avenues for future research. First, in work-family research, cross-national studies are
scarce (Allen, 2012). It would be interesting to conduct a cross-cultural study, comparing
collectivistic (e.g. China, India, Japan) and individualistic (e.g. USA, Germany, Nordic
countries) societies. For instance, one might assume that other factors are enriching in
different countries: while employees from collectivistic cultures might experience
enrichment mainly due to their social relationships at work/at home, employees from
individualistic cultures might benefit more from focused time spent in each role or a
competitive salary.
Second, half of the participants of this study were employed in the private sector
whereas other industries such as governments were highly underrepresented. It might be
interesting to repeat the analyses of this paper including a wider ranger of industries in
order to gain a cross-industry perspective. For instance, it could be that the Langerian
mindfulness – WFE/FWE link is especially strong for employees in the social sector (e.g.
medical care) due to the psychological involvement in their work.
Third, there is a further need to investigate the underlying mechanisms explaining
the positive association between Langerian mindfulness and work-family enrichment.
Potential mediators might be employee innovativeness, positive reframing, or the
capability to accept change and uncertainty.
Fourth, it would be valuable to see how mindfulness as a mindset may spread
between employees. If Langerian mindfulness is a characteristic that positively impacts
52
employees’ experience between work and family life, how can employees influence their
co-workers mindfulness levels? Or can employee mindfulness even spread out to family
life and inspire family members to become more mindful as well? How about the whole
organization? Is it possible that Langerian mindfulness on an individual level
accumulates to a more mindful organization on an aggregate level (Weick & Sutcliffe,
2006)?
Finally, this study has only looked at the benefits that may result from combining
work and family. It would also be interesting to investigate the phase during which
parents stay at home before going back to work. How might this phase equip parents with
the necessary resources to successfully participate in different roles? For instance, are
mothers or fathers that stay home after having a child more stress resistant? How do they
prioritize different life domains? Is it possible that having children may protect against
burnout? How could mindfulness enable successful transitions between these time
periods? How do these effects differ in countries with longer (e.g. Germany) versus
shorter parental leave periods (e.g. USA)? Investigating these questions in a longitudinal,
cross-national study design will add to the existing work-family literature.
53
APPENDICES
Appendix 1
IRB Study Approval
54
Appendix 2
Eligibility Screening
Instructions: Thank you for your interest in participating in our research study. Please
complete this short online survey to find out whether you are eligible to participate in this
study.
1. Please indicate your year of birth (yyyy). [ ] (requirement: greater or equal 1999)
2. What is your current employment status (Pick the one answer that applies best):
Employed, full-time (if applies, proceed)
Employed, part-time (if applies, proceed)
Unemployed, looking for work (if applies, end screening)
Unemployed, not looking for work (if applies, end screening)
Self-employed, full-time (if applies, proceed)
Self-employed, part-time (if applies, proceed)
Student, full-time (if applies, end screening)
Student, part-time (if applies, end screening)
3. How many hours do you work per week? [ ] (requirement: greater or equal 20)
4. Please indicate your English reading skills.
Excellent (if applies, proceed)
At least 9th grade level (if applies, proceed)
Less than 9th grade level (if applies, end screening)
Basic (if applies, end screening)
5. Do you have children?
Yes (if applies, proceed)
No (if applies, end screening)
6. How many children currently live at your home? [ ] (req.: greater or equal 1)
55
Appendix 3
Demographic Survey
Instructions: Thank your for participating in our research study. Please provide some demographic information below. If you do not want to continue, you may interrupt the survey at any time.
1. What is your gender?
Female
Male
2. In which sector do you work?
Private sector
Public sector
Academia
Not for profit
Government
Other
3. Please indicate your ethnic origin.
American Indian or Alaska Native
Asian
Black or African American
Hispanic or Latino
Native Hawaiian other Pacific Islander
White
4. What is your current relationship status?
Married
Engaged
In a committed relationship
Single
Separated/divorced
Widowed
56
Appendix 4
Langer Mindfulness Scale (LMS14; Bodner, 2000; Pirson et al., 2012)
Instructions: Below are a number of statements that refer to your personal outlook. Please rate the extent to which you agree with each of these statements ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). If you are confused by the wording of an item, have no opinion, or neither agree nor disagree, use the "4" or "neutral" rating.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly Disagree Slightly Neutral Slightly Agree Strongly
Disagree Disagree Agree Agree
1. I like to investigate things. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. I generate few novel ideas. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. I make many novel contributions. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. I seldom notice what other people are up to. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5. I avoid thought provoking conversations. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6. I am very creative. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
7. I am very curious. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8. I try to think of new ways of doing things. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
9. I am rarely aware of changes. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
10. I like to be challenged intellectually. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
11. I find it easy to create new and effective ideas. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
12. I am rarely alert to new developments. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
13. I like to figure out how things work. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
14. I am not an original thinker.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
57
Appendix 5
Mindful Attention and Awareness Scale (MAAS; Brown & Ryan, 2003)
Instructions: Below is a collection of statements about your everyday experience. Using the 1-6 scale below, please indicate how frequently or infrequently you currently have each experience. Please answer according to what really reflects your experience rather than what you think your experience should be. Please treat each item separately from every other item.
1. I could be experiencing some emotion and not be
conscious of it until some time later.
1 2 3 4 5 6
2. I break or spill things because of carelessness, not paying
attention, or thinking of something else.
1 2 3 4 5 6
3. I find it difficult to stay focused on what’s happening in
the present.
1 2 3 4 5 6
4. I tend to walk quickly to get where I’m going without paying attention to what I experience along the way.
1 2 3 4 5 6
5. I tend not to notice feelings of physical tension or
discomfort until they really grab my attention.
1 2 3 4 5 6
6. I forget a person’s name almost as soon as I’ve been told it for the first time.
1 2 3 4 5 6
7. It seems I am “running on automatic” without much awareness of what I’m doing.
1 2 3 4 5 6
8. I rush through activities without being really attentive to them.
1 2 3 4 5 6
9. I get so focused on the goal I want to achieve that I lose touch with what I am doing right now to get there.
1 2 3 4 5 6
10. I do jobs or tasks automatically, without being aware of what I’m doing.
1 2 3 4 5 6
11. I find myself listening to someone with one ear, doing something else at the same time at the samedoing something else at the same doing s something else at the same time.
1 2 3 4 5 6
12. I drive places on “automatic pilot” and then wonder why I went there.
1 2 3 4 5 6
13. I find myself preoccupied with the future or the past. 1 2 3 4 5 6
14. I find myself doing things without paying attention. 1 2 3 4 5 6
15. I snack without being aware that I’m eating. 1 2 3 4 5 6
58
Appendix 6
Work-Family Enrichment Scale (WFE/FWE; Carlson et al., 2006)
Instructions: To respond to the items that follow, mentally insert each item into the sentence where indicated. Then indicate your agreement with the entire statement using the scale provided below. Place your response in the blank in front of each item. Please note that in order for you to strongly agree (4 or 5) with an item you must agree with the full statement. Take for example the first statement:
My involvement in my work helps me to understand different viewpoints and this helps me be a better family member.
To strongly agree, you would need to agree that (1) your work involvement helps you to understand different viewpoints AND (2) that these different viewpoints transfer to home making you a better family member.
My involvement in my work ———————.
Work to family development
1. Helps me to understand different viewpoints and
this helps me be a better family member
1 2 3 4 5
2. Helps me to gain knowledge and this helps me be
a better family member
1 2 3 4 5
3. Helps me acquire skills and this helps me be a
better family member
1 2 3 4 5
4. Puts me in a good mood and this helps me be a better family member
5. Makes me feel happy and this helps me be a better family member
1 2 3 4 5
6. Makes me cheerful and this helps me be a better
family member
1 2 3 4 5
7. Helps me feel personally fulfilled and this helps me be a better family member
1 2 3 4 5
8. Provides me with a sense of accomplishment and this helps me be a better family member
1 2 3 4 5
9. Provides me with a sense of success and this helps me be a better family member
1 2 3 4 5
59
My involvement in my family ———————.
Family to work development
1. Helps me to gain knowledge and this helps me be a better worker
1 2 3 4 5
2. Helps me acquire skills and this helps me be a
better worker
1 2 3 4 5
3. Helps me expand my knowledge of new things
and this helps me be a better worker
1 2 3 4 5
4. Puts me in a good mood and this helps me be a better worker Makes me feel happy and this helps me be a better family member
1 2 3 4 5
5. Makes me feel happy and this helps me be a
better worker
1 2 3 4 5
6. Makes me cheerful and this helps me be a better worker
1 2 3 4 5
7. Requires me to avoid wasting time at work and this helps me be a better worker
1 2 3 4 5
8. Encourages me to use my work time in a focused manner and this helps me be a better worker
1 2 3 4 5
9. Causes me to be more focused at work and this helps me be a better worker.
1 2 3 4 5
60
Appendix 7
Job Satisfaction Scale (Brayfield & Rothe, 1951)
Instructions: Some jobs are more interesting and satisfying than others. We want to know how you feel about your job. For each statement below, use the following scale to indicate which is most descriptive on your current job.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly Disagree Slightly Neutral Slightly Agree Strongly
Disagree Disagree Agree Agree
1. I feel fairly well satisfied with my present job. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. Most days I am enthusiastic about my job 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. Each day of work seems like it will never end. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. I find real enjoyment in my work. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5. I consider my job rather unpleasant. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
61
Appendix 8
Satisfaction with Life Scale (Diener et al., 1985)
Instructions: Below are five statements with which you may agree or disagree. Using the 1-7 scale below, indicate your agreement with each statement by placing the appropriate number on the line preceding that item. Please be open and honest in your responding.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly Disagree Slightly Neutral Slightly Agree Strongly
Disagree Disagree Agree Agree
[ ] In most ways my life is close to my ideal.
[ ] The conditions of my life are excellent.
[ ] I am satisfied with my life.
[ ] So far I have gotten the important things I want in life.
[ ] If I could live my life over, I would change almost nothing.
62
Appendix 9
Study Invitation Flyer
63
Appendix 10
Consent Form
Participation is voluntary
It is your choice whether or not to participate in this research. If you choose to participate, you may change your mind and leave the study at any time. Refusal to participate or stopping your participation will involve no penalty or loss of benefits to which you are otherwise entitled.
What is the purpose of this research?
The purpose of this research is to identify some of the key factors that impact the quality of employees’ work and family lives and help them in both roles.
How long will I take part in this research?
Your participation in this research will take about 10 minutes.
What can I expect if I take part in this research?
As a participant, you will, after providing your consent, complete a confidential online eligibility questionnaire to assess some basic requirements for study participation. If you are eligible to participate, you will be forwarded to the main survey with questions related to your personality, your overall well-being and your satisfaction at work and at home.
What are the risks and possible discomforts?
We do not foresee any major risks or discomforts. Nevertheless, we are collecting data on your well-being. You may skip any questions you do not want to answer or stop your participation in the study by closing the window. In addition, we ask you to answer the survey in private to prevent others from seeing your responses.
Are there any benefits from being in this research study?
We cannot promise any benefits to you or others from your taking part in this research. However, possible benefits from this research study include improved mood or quality of life. If you wish, you can send an email message to Anne Gerrit Strack ([email protected]) and we will send you a copy of any manuscripts based on the research (or summaries of our results).
64
Will I be compensated for participating in this research?
You will not be compensated for this study, but, if you provide us with your email address, you will be able to participate in a raffle and win a $100 gift certificate from amazon.com.
If I take part in this research, how will my privacy be protected? What happens to the information you collect?
The data will be collected anonymously. Your name and other information that could be used to identify you is not collected by the researcher. If you provide us with your email address in order to participate in the raffle, we de-associate your email address with your survey results by copy and pasting the address into a separate file and delete it from the survey data.
If I have any questions, concerns or complaints about this research study, who can I talk to?
The Principal Investigator for this study is Anne Gerrit Strack, [email protected], +49 151 68156537. The thesis director is Dr. Deborah Phillips, [email protected], 973-902-7938, who can be reached
• If you have questions, concerns, or complaints, • If you would like to talk to the research team, • If you think the research has harmed you, or • If you wish to withdraw from the study.
This research has been reviewed by the Committee on the Use of Human Subjects in Research at Harvard University. They can be reached at 617-496-2847, 1414 Massachusetts Avenue, Second Floor, Cambridge, MA 02138, or [email protected] for any of the following:
• If your questions, concerns, or complaints are not being answered by the research team,
• If you cannot reach the research team, • If you want to talk to someone besides the research team, or • If you have questions about your rights as a research participant.
Statement of Consent I have read the information in this consent form. All my questions about the research have been answered to my satisfaction.
I agree to join the research (checkbox online)’
65
Appendix 11
Debriefing
1. What was this study about? The purpose of this research was to identify some of the key factors that impact the quality of employees’ work and family lives and help them in both roles. Specifically, we wanted to see whether a higher level of mindfulness is related to an increased quality of life in both domains. Previous studies have found that mindfulness, or the flexible awareness and enhanced attention to experiences in the present moment, is related to many positive effects at the workplace, e.g. better performance, improved relationships and more well-being.
2. How was the study conducted? In today’s study, you were asked to answer a survey to assess your level of mindfulness, your overall well-being and your satisfaction at work and at home. All participants in the study were asked to answer the same questions.
3. What was the hypothesis? We expect to find that more mindful people have the ability to transfer positive feelings and experiences at work to their family life and vice versa. For instance, more mindful employees may master difficult team conflicts more successfully, thereby also increasing their personal conflict management skills with other family members.
4. Why is this study important? Employees do not necessarily need to experience conflicts between their work and family lives. Both domains may increase our happiness beyond what would be possible when engaged in only one role. Knowing more about the factors that impact the quality of employees’ work and family may help corporate managers improve employees’ and their families’ lives. More specifically, companies might develop training programs to increase their employees’ well-being.
5. References: Allen, T. D., & Kiburz, K. M. (2012). Trait mindfulness and work–family balance among working parents: the mediating effects of vitality and sleep quality. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80(2), 372–379. Hülsheger, U.R., Alberts, H.J., Feinholdt, A., & Lang, J.W. (2013). Benefits of mindfulness at work: the role of mindfulness in emotion regulation, emotional exhaustion, and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(2), 310-325.
6. How to contact the researcher: If you have questions or concerns about your participation, or want to request a summary of research findings, please contact the researcher: Anne Gerrit Strack, [email protected], +49 151 68156537. For any problems related to this study, you may also contact the faculty member who is supervising it: Dr. Deborah Phillips, [email protected], 973-902-7938.
7. Whom to contact about your rights as a participant in this research: For questions, concerns, suggestions, or complaints that have not been or cannot be
66
addressed by the researcher, or to report research-related harm, please contact the Committee on the Use of Human Subjects in Research at Harvard University, 1414 Massachusetts Avenue, Second Floor, Cambridge, MA 02138. Phone: 617-496-2847. Email: [email protected]
67
References
Albert, S. (1990). Mindfulness, an important concept for organizations: a book review essay on the work of Ellen Langer. The Academy of Management Review, 15(1), 154-159.
Allen, T. D. (2012). The work-family role interface: a synthesis of the research from industrial and organizational psychology. In I.B. Weiner (Ed.): Handbook of Psychology, 2nd Edition (pp. 698-713). Chichester, West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Allen, T. D., Cho, E., & Meier, L. L. (2014). Work-family boundary dynamics. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1, 99-121. doi: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091330
Allen, T. D., & Kiburz, K. M. (2012). Trait mindfulness and work–family balance among wor-king parents: the mediating effects of vitality and sleep quality. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80(2), 372–379. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2011.09.002
Allen, T. D., & Paddock, E. L. (2015). How being mindful impacts individuals’ work-family balance, conflict, and enrichment: a review of existing evidence, mechanisms and future directions. In J. Rebs, & P.W. Atkins (Eds.): Mindfulness in Organizations: Foundations, Research, and Applications (pp. 213-238). Cambridge, UK: University Press.
Allis, P., & O’Driscoll, M. (2008). Positive effects of nonwork-to-work facilitation on well-being in work, family, and personal domains. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23(3), 273–291. doi: 10.1108/02683940810861383
Aryee, S., Srinivas, E. S., & Tan, H. H. (2005). Rhythms of life: Antecedents and outcomes of work-family balance in employed parents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(1), 132–146. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.90.1.132
Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., Hopkins, J., Krietemeyer, J., & Toney, L. (2006). Using self-report assessment methods to explore facets of mindfulness. Assessment, 13(1), 27-45. doi: 10.1177/1073191105283504
68
Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., & Allen, K. B. (2004). Assessment of mindfulness by self-report: the Kentucky Inventory of Mindfulness Skills. Assessment, 11(3), 191-206.
Banks, K., Newman, E., & Saleem, J. (2015). An overview of the research on mindfulness-based interventions for treating symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder: a systematic review. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 71(10), 935-963. doi: 10.1002/jclp.22200
Barnett, R. C., & Hyde, J. S. (2001). Women, men, work, and family: an expansionist theory. American Psychologist, 56(10), 781-796. doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.10.781
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1183.
Bhargava, S., & Baral, R. (2009). Antecedents and consequences of work-family enrichment among Indian managers. Psychological Studies, 54(3), 213–225. doi: 10.1007/s12646-009-0028-z
Biegel, G. M., Brown, K. W., Shapiro, S. L., & Schubert, C. M. (2009). Mindfulness-based stress reduction for the treatment of adolescent psychiatric outpatients: a randomized clinical trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 77(5), 855-866. doi: 10.1037/a0016241
Biernacki, P., & Waldorf, D. (1981). Snowball sampling: problems and techniques of chain referral sampling. Sociological Methods & Research, 10(2), 141-163.
Bodner, E. T. (2000). On the assessment of individual differences in mindful information processing (Doctoral dissertation). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
Brannick, M. T., Chan, D., Conway, J. M., Lance, C. E., & Spector, P. E. (2010). What is method variance and how can we cope with it? A panel discussion. Organizational Research Methods, 13(3), 407-420. doi: 10.1177/1094428109360993
Brayfield, A. H., & Rothe, H. F. (1951). Index of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 35(5), 307-311.
69
Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2003). The benefits of being present: mindfulness and its role in psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(4), 822-848.
Buchheld, N., Grossman, P., & Walach, H. (2001). Measuring mindfulness in insight meditation (Vipassana) and meditation-based psychotherapy: the development of the Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory (FMI). Journal for Meditation and Meditation Research, 1(1), 11-34.
Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment characteristics of families summary, retrieved from https://www.bls.gov/news.release/famee.nr0.htm
Burpee, L. C., & Langer, E. J. (2005). Mindfulness and marital satisfaction. Journal of Adult Development, 12(1), 43-51. doi: 10.1007/s10804-005-1281-6
Butler, A. B., Grzywacz, J. G., Bass, B. L., & Linney, K. D. (2005). Extending the demands-control model: A daily diary study of job characteristics, work-family conflict and work- family facilitation. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 78(2), 155–169. doi: 10.1177/1523422307305490
Caligiuri, P., & Lazarova, M. (2005). Work-life balance and the effective management of global assignees. In S.A.Y. Poelmans (Ed.). Work and family: an international research perspective (pp. 121-145). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Carlson, L. E., & Brown, K. W. (2005). Validation of the Mindful Attention Awareness Scale in a cancer population. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 58(1), 29-33. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2004.04.366
Carlson, D. S., Grzywacz, J. G., & Kacmar, K. M. (2010). The relationship of schedule flexibility and outcomes via the work-family interface. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 25(4), 330–355. doi: 10.1108/02683941011035278
Carlson, D. S., Grzywacz, J. G., & Kacmar, K. M. (2008). The relationship of schedule flexibility and outcomes via the work-family interface, Journal of Managerial Psychology, 25(4), 330-355. doi: 10.1108/02683941011035278
70
Carlson, D. S., Kacmar, K. M., Zivnuska, S., Ferguson, M., & Whitten, D. (2011). Work-family enrichment and job performance: a constructive replication of affective events theory, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 16(3), 297-312. doi: 10.1037/a0022880
Carlson, D. S., Kacmar, K. M., Wayne, J. H., & Grzywacz, J. G. (2006). Measuring the positive side of the work-family interface: development and validation of a work-family enrichment scale. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68(1), 131-164. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2005.02.002
Carmody, J. (2014). Eastern and Western approaches to mindfulness: similarities, differences, and clinical implications. In The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of Mindfulness (pp. 48-57). New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons
Carson, S. H., & Langer, E. J. (2006). Mindfulness and self-acceptance. Journal of Rational & Cognitive-Behavior Therapy, 24(1), 29-43. doi: 10.1007/s10942-006-0022-5
Carter, J., Hougaard, R., & Stembridge, R. (2017). Assessment: how mindful are you? Harvard Business Review, 2017.
Cinamon, R. G., & Rich, Y. (2010). Work family relations: Antecedents and outcomes. Journal of Career Assessment, 18(1), 59–70. doi: 10.1177/1069072709340661
Clark, S. C. (2000). Work/family border theory: a new theory of work/family balance. Human Relations, 53(6), 747-770. doi: 10.1177/0018726700536001
Crain, T. L., & Hammer, L. B. (2015). Work-family enrichment: a systematic review of antecedents, outcomes, and mechanisms. In: Advances in positive organizational psychology (pp. 303-328). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Finding Flow: The Psychology Of Engagement With Everyday Life. New York: Basic Books.
Dane, E., & Brummel, E. J. (2013). Examining workplace mindfulness and its relations to job performance and turnover intention. Human Relations, 67(1), 105-128. doi: 10.1177/0018726713487753
71
Desrosiers, A., Vine, V., Klemanski, D. H., & Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (2013). Mindfulness and emotion regulation in depression and anxiety: common and distinct mechanisms of action, Depression and Anxiety, 30(7), 654-661. doi: 10.1002/da.22124
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The Satisfaction with Life Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71-75. doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13
Duxbury, L. E., & Higgins, C. A. (1992). Gender differences in work-family conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(1), 60-74.
Edwards, J. R., & Rothbard, N. P. (2000). Mechanisms linking work and family: Clarifying the relationship between work and family constructs. Academy of Management Review, 25, 179–199. doi: 10.1177/0734371X14540179
Eldor, L., Harpaz, I., & Westman, M. (2016). The work/nonwork spillover: the enrichment role of work engagement. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 1-14. doi: 10.1177/1548051816647362
Feldman, G. C., Hayes, A. M., Kumar, S. M., Greeson, J. G., & Laurenceau, J. P. (2007). Mindfulness and Emotion Regulation: The Development and Initial Validation of the Cognitive and Affective Mindfulness Scale-Revised (CAMS-R). Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 29, 177-190. doi: 10.1007/s10862-006-9035-8
Franche, R. L., Williams, A., Ibrahim, S., Grace, S. L., Mustard, C., Minore, B., & Stewart, D. E. (2006). Path analysis of work conditions and work-family spillover as modifiable work- place factors associated with depressive symptomology. Stress and Health, 22(2), 91–103. doi: 10.1002/smi.1087
Garland, E. L., Farb, N. A., Goldin, Ph. R., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2015). The mindfulness-to-meaning theory: extensions, applications, and challenges at the attention-appraisal-emotion interface. Psychological Inquiry, 26(4), 377-387.
Gilbert, L. A. (2014). Men in dual-career families: current realities and future prospects (2nd ed.), New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
72
Glomb, T. M., Duffy, M. K., Bono, J. E., & Yang, T. (2011). Mindfulness at work. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 30, 115-157. doi: 10.1108/S0742-7301
Goode, W. J. (1960). A theory of role strain. American Sociological Review, 25, 483-496. doi: 10.2307/2092933
Goodman, L. A. (1961). Snowball Sampling. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics,
32(1), 148-170. doi:10.1214/aoms/1177705148
Greenhaus, J. H., & Allen, T. D. (2010). Work-family balance: a review and extension of the literature. In L. Tetrick & J. C. Quick (Eds.), Handbook of occupational health psychology (2nd ed.) (pp.165-183). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles. The Academy of Management Review, 10(1), 76-88. doi: 10.5465/AMR.1985.4277352
Greenhaus, J. H., Collins, K. M., & Shaw, J. D. (2002). The relation between work-family balance and quality of life. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63 (3), 510-531. doi: 10.1016/S0001-8791(02)00042-8
Greenhaus, J. H., & Powell, G. N. (2006). When work and family are allies: a theory of work-family enrichment. Academy of Management Review, 31(1), 72-92. doi: 10.5465/AMR.2006.19379625
Grzywacz, J. G., & Butler, A. B. (2005). The impact of job characteristics on work-family facilitation: Testing a theory and distinguishing a construct. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10(2), 97–109. doi: 10.1037/1076-8998.10.2.97
Grzywacz, J. G., & Marks, N. F. (2000). Reconceptualizing the work-family interface: An ecological perspective on the correlates of positive and negative spillover between work and family. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5(1), 111–126.
Halpern, D. F., & Murphy, S. E. (Eds.). (2005). From work–family balance to work– family interaction: Changing the metaphor. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
73
Hammer, L. B., Kossek, E. E., Yragui, N. L., Bodner, T. E., & Hanson, G. C. (2009). Development and validation of the multidimensional measure of family supportive supervisor behaviors (FSSB). Journal of Management, 35(4), 837–856. doi: 10.1177/0149206308328510
Hanh, T. N. (1976). The miracle of mindfulness: a manual of meditation. Boston: Beacon Press.
Hanson, G. C., Hammer, L. B., & Colton, C. L. (2006). Development and calidation of a multidimensional scale of perceived work-family positive spillover. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11(3), 249-265. doi: 10.1037/1076-8998.11.3.249
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: a regression-based approach. New York: The Guilford Press.
Holgate, S. T., Komaroff, A. L., Mangan, D., & Wessely, S. (2011). Chronic fatigue syndrome: understanding a complex illness. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 12(9), 539-544. doi: 10.1038/nrn3087
Hülsheger, U.R., Lang, J.W., Depenbrock, F., Fehrmann, C., Zijlstra, F., & Alberts, H.J. (2014). The power of presence: the role of mindfulness at work for daily levels and change trajectories of psychological detachment and sleep quality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(6), 1113-1128. doi: 10.1037/a0037702
Hülsheger, U. R., Alberts, H. J., Feinholdt, A., & Lang, J. W. (2013). Benefits of mindfulness at work: the role of mindfulness in emotion regulation, emotional exhaustion, and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(2), 310-325.!doi: 10.1037/a0031313
Ie, A., Haller, C. S., Langer, E. J., & Courvoisier, D. S. (2012). Mindful multitasking: the relationship between mindful flexibility and media multitasking. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(4), 1526-1532.
Ie, A., Ngnoumen, C. T., & Langer, E. J. (2014). The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of Mindfulness. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
Jones, A. P., & Butler, M. C. (1980). A role transition approach to the stresses of organizationally-induced family role disruption. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 42(2), 367-376.
74
Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., & Locke, E. A. (2000). Personality and job satisfaction: the mediating role of job characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(2), 237-249.
Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., Durham, C. C., & Kluger, A. N. (1998). Dispositional effects on job and life satisfaction: The role of core evaluations, Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(1), 17-34.
Kabat-Zinn, J. (1982). An outpatient program in behavioral medicine for chronic pain patients based on the practice of mindfulness meditation: theoretical considerations and preliminary results. General Hospital Psychiatry, 4(1), 33–47.
Kahnemann, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Macmillan
Kirchmeyer, C. (2000) Work–life initiatives: Greed or benevolence regarding workers’ time. In C. L. Cooper and D. M. Rousseau (Eds.) Trends in Organisational Behavior (pp. 79–93). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Kirchmeyer, C. (1992). Perceptions of nonwork-to-work spillover: Challenging the common view of conflict-ridden relationships. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 13, 231–249. doi: 10.1207/s15324834basp1302_7
Kofodimos, J. R. (1993). Balancing act. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kopelman, R. E., Greenhaus, H., & Connolly. T. F. (1983). A model of work, family, and interrole conflict: A construct validation study. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 32, 198-215.
Kreiner, G. E. (2006). Consequences of work–home segmentation or integration: A person–environment fit perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 485–507. doi: 10.1002/job.38
Langer, E. J. (2014a), Mindfulness. 25th Anniversary Edition. Boston, MA: Da Capo Press.
Langer, E. J. (2014b). Mindfulness in the age of complexity. Harvard Business Review, 68-73.
75
Langer, E. J. (2009). Counter clockwise: Mindful health and the power of possibility. New York, NY, USA: Ballantine Books.
Langer, E. J. (2005). Well-being: Mindfulness versus positive evaluation. In C.R. Snyder & S.J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 214–230). New York: Oxford University Press.
Langer, E. J. (1993). A mindful education. Educational Psychologist, 28(1), 43-50. doi:
10.1207/s15326985ep2801_4
Langer, E. J. (1989). Mindfulness. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Langer, E. J., Beck, P., Janoff-Bulman, R., & Timko, C. (1984). An exploration of relationships among mindfulness, longevity, and senility. Academic Psychology Bulletin, 6(2), 211-226.
Langer, E. J., & Piper, A. I. (1987). The prevention of mindlessness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(2), 280-287.
Langer, E. J., & Rodin, J. (1976). The effects of choice and enhanced personal responsibility for the aged: a field experiment in an institutional setting. Journal of Social Psychology, 34(2), 191-198.
Leroy, H., Anseel, F., Dimitrova, N. G., & Sels, L. (2013). Mindfulness, authentic functioning, and work engagement: a growth modeling approach. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 82(3), 238-247.!doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2013.01.012
Levinthal, D., & Rerup, C. (2006). Crossing an apparent chasm: bridging mindful and less-mindful perspectives on organizational learning. Organization Science, 17(4), 502–513. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1060.0197
Littman-Ovadia, H., Zilcha-Mano, S., & Langer, E. J. (2014). Vocational personalities and mindfulness. Journal of Employment Counseling, 51(4), 170-179.
Lu, J. F., Siu, O. L., Spector, P. E., & Shi, K. (2009). Antecedents and outcomes of a fourfold taxonomy of work-family balance in Chinese employed parents. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 14, 182–192. doi: 10.1037/a0014115
76
Marks, S. P. (1977). Multiple roles and role strain: Some notes on human energy, time and commitment. American Sociological Review, 42(6), 921–936.
Marzuq, N., & Drach-Zahavy, A. (2012). Recovery during a short period of respite: the interactive roles of mindfulness and respite experience. Work and Stress, 26(2), 175-194. doi: 10.1080/02678373.2012.683574
McBeth, J., Macfarlane, G. J., & Silman, A. J. (2002). Does chronic pain predict future psychological distress? Pain, 96(3), 239-245.
McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 60, 175-215. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1992.tb00970.x
McNall, L. A., Masuda, A. D., Shanock, L. R., & Nicklin, J. M. (2011). Interactions of
core self-evaluations and perceived organizational support on work-to-family enrichment. The Journal of Psychology, 145(2), 133-149. doi: 10.1080/00223980.2010.542506
McNall, L. A., Nicklin, J. M., & Masuda, A. D. (2010). A meta-analytic review of the
consequences associated with work-family enrichment. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(3), 381-396. doi: 10.1007/s10869-009-9141-1
McNall, L. A., Scott, L. D., & Nicklin, J. M. (2015). Do positive affectivity and boundary
preferences matter for work-family enrichment? a study of human service workers. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 20(1), 93-104.
Michel, A., Bosch, Ch., & Rexroth, M. (2014). Mindfulness as a cognitive-emotional
segmentation strategy: an intervention promoting work-life balance. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 87(4), 733-754.
Michel, J. S., & Clark, M. A. (2013). Investigating the relative importance of individual differences o the work-family interface and the moderating role of boundary preference for segmentation. Stress & Health, 29(4), 324-336. doi: 10.1002/smi.2474
Michel, J. S., & Clark, M. A. (2009). Has it been affect all along? A test of work-to-family and family-to-work models of conflict, enrichment, and satisfaction. Personality and Individual Differences, 47(3), 163-168. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2009.02.015
77
Michel, J. S., Clark, M. A., & Jaramillo, D. (2011). The role of the Five Factor model of personality in the perceptions of negative and positive forms of work-nonwork spillover: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79(1), 191–203. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2010.12.010
Nicklin, J. M., McNall, L. A. (2014). Work-family enrichment, support, and satisfaction: a test of mediation. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 22(1), 67-77.!doi: 10.1080/1359432X.2011.616652
Pagnini, F., & Langer, E. J. (2015). Mindful reappraisal: comment on “mindfulness broadens awareness and builds eudaimonic meaning: a process model of mindful positive emotion regulation”. Psychological Inquiry, 26(4), 365-367.!doi: 10.1080/1047840X.2015.1073660
Paulson, D., & Leuty, M. E. (2015). Dispositional coping, personality traits, and affective style relating to conflict between work and family domains. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 1-21.!doi: 10.1007/s10834-015-9470-3
Pedersen, D. E., Minnote, K. L., Kiger, G., & Mannon, S. E. (2009). Workplace policy and environment, family role quality, and positive family-to-work spillover. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 30, 80–89.
Phillips, D. R., & Pagnini, F. (2016). Health and the Psychology of Possibility. In S. M. Fatemi (Ed.): Critical mindfulness. Exploring Langerian Models (pp. 173-182). Basel, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
Phillips, D. R., & Pagnini, F. (2014). A Mindful approach to chronic illness. In A. Ie, Ch. T. Ngnoumen, & E. J. Langer (Eds.): The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of Mindfulness (pp. 852-863). Chichester, West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Pirson, M. (2014). Mindfulness at work. In A. Ie, Ch. T. Ngnoumen, & E. J. Langer (Eds.): The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of Mindfulness (pp. 458-470). Chichester, West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Pirson, M., Langer, E., Bodner, T., & Zilcha, S. (2012). The development and validation of the Langer Mindfulness Scale: Enabling a socio-cognitive perspective of mindfulness in organizational contexts. SSRN Electronic Journal. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2158921
78
Pleck, J. H., Staines, G. L., & Lang. L. (1980). Conflicts between work and family life. Monthly Labor Review, 103(3), 29-32.
Powell, G. N., & Greenhaus, J. H. (2010). Sex, gender, and the work-to-family interface: exploring negative and positive interdependencies. Academy of Management, 53(3), 513-534. doi. 10.5465/AMJ.2010.51468647
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 36(4), 717-731.
Proost, K., De Witte, H., De Witte, K., & Schreurs, B. (2010). Work–family conflict and facilitation: the combined influence of the job demand–control model and achievement striving. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 19, 615–628. doi: 10.1080/13594320903027826
Reb, J. M., Allen, T., & Vogus, T. (2017). Call for papers: mindfulness at work: pshing theoretical and empirical boundaries. Retrieved from https://www.journals.elsevier.com/organizational-behavior-and-human-decision-processes/call-for-papers/call-for-papers-mindfulness-at-work-pushing-theoretical-and
Reb, J. M., Narayanan, J., & Chaturvedi, S. (2014). Leading mindfully: two studies of the influence of supervisor trait mindfulness on employee well-being and performance. Mindfulness, 5(1), 36-45. doi: 10.1007/s12671-012-0144-z
Roeser, R. W., Schonert-Reichl, K., Jha, A., Cullen, M., Wallace, L., Wilensky, R., Oberle, E., & Thomson, K. (2013). Mindfulness training and reductions in teacher stress and burnout: results from two randomized, waitlist-control field trials. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(3), 787-804. doi. 0.1037/a0032093
Rotondo, D. M., & Kincaid, J. F. (2008). Conflict, facilitation, and individual coping styles across the work and family domains. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23(5), 484–506. doi: 10.1108/02683940810884504
Segal, Z. V., Williams, J. M. G., & Teasdale, J. D. (2002). Mindfulness- based cognitive therapy for depression—A new approach to preventing relapse. New York: Guilford Press.
79
Sieber, S. D. (1974). Toward a Theory of Role Accumulation. American Sociological Review, 39(4), 567-578.
Siu, O., Lu, J., Brough, P., Lu, C., Bakker, A. B., Kalliath, T., . . . Shi, K. (2010). Role resources and work–family enrichment: The role of work engagement. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 77(3), 470–480. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2010.06.007
Smeets, E., Neff, K., Alberts, H., & Peters, M. (2014). Meeting suffering with kindness: effects of a brief self-compassion intervention for female college students. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 70(9), 794-807. doi: 10.1002/jclp.22076
Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic Confidence Intervals for Indirect Effects in Structural Equation Models. Sociological Methodology, 13, 290–312. doi:10.2307/270723
Stevens, D. P., Minnotte, K. L., Mannon, S. E., & Kiger, G. (2007). Examining the ‘‘neglected side of the work-family interface’’: Antecedents of positive and negative family-to-work spillover. Journal of Family Issues, 28, 242–262. doi: 10.1177/0192513X06294548
Sumer, H. C., & Knight, P. A. (2001). How do people with different attachment styles balance work and family? A personality perspective on work-family linkage. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(4), 653–663.
Van Steenbergen, E. F., Ellemers, N., & Mooijaart, A. (2007). How work and family can facilitate each other: distinct types of work-family facilitation and outcomes for women and men. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12(3), 279-300. doi: 10.1037/1076-8998.12.3.279
Voydanoff, P., & Donnelly, B. W. (1999). Multiple roles and psychological distress: The intersection of the paid worker, spouse, and parent roles with the role of the adult child. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 725-738.
Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1992). Affects separable and inseparable: on the hierarchical arrangement of the negative affects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 489-505. doi.apa.org/journals/psp/62/3/489
Wayne, J. H., Grzywacz, J. G., Carlson, D. S., & Kacmar, K. M. (2007). Work-family facilitation: a theoretical explanation and model of primary antecedents and consequences. Human Resource Management Review, 17(1), 63-76.
80
Wayne, J. H., Grzywacz, J. G., Carlson, D. S., & Kacmar, K. M. (2004, April). Defining work–family facilitation: A construct reflecting the positive side of the work– family interface. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Chicago, IL.
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(1), 108-130. doi: 10.1016/S0001-8791(03)00035-6
Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2006). Mindfulness and the quality of organizational attention. Organization Science, 17(4), pp. 514-524. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1060.0196
Williams, A., Franche, R.-L., Ibrahim, S., Mustard, C. A., & Roussy Layton, F. (2006). Examining the relationship between work-family spillover and sleep quality, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11(1), 27-37. doi: 10.1037/1076-8998.11.1.27
Zimmerman, K. L. (2009). Operationalizing the antecedents of work-family positive spillover: A longitudinal study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Portland State University