Work‐family conflicts, threat‐appraisal, self‐efficacy and emotional exhaustion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine associations between work‐family conflicts, threat appraisals, self‐efficacy, and emotional exhaustion. Threat appraisal was hypothesized to mediate relations between work‐family conflicts (work‐to‐family and family‐to‐work) and emotional exhaustion. Self‐efficacy was hypothesized to moderate relations between work‐family conflicts and threat appraisal, with relations expected to be weaker for individuals high in self‐efficacy. Design/methodology/approach University employees (n=159; 67 percent female) participated in this non‐experimental study. Data were gathered via questionnaire. Two‐thirds of participants completed measures of work‐family conflicts and threat‐appraisal a few weeks prior to completing measures of self‐efficacy and emotional exhaustion; remaining participants completed one cross‐sectional survey. Findings Observed relations were consistent with predicted mediation hypotheses. Contrary to predictions, self‐efficacy did not moderate relations between work‐to‐family conflict and threat‐appraisal and the relation between family‐to‐work conflict and threat‐appraisal was stronger for those with higher self‐efficacy. Self‐efficacy was negatively related to emotional exhaustion. Practical implications Organizations should foster positive work‐family climates to help alleviate work‐family conflicts. Managers should demonstrate compassion when dealing with employees who have serious family concerns, as even efficacious individuals may find such situations threatening. Originality/value This research integrates stress theories with research on the work‐family interface. The relevance of threat appraisal and the role of self‐efficacy are highlighted.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".