A Conservation of Resources Approach to Blackberry Use, Work-Family Conflict and Well-Being: Job Control and Psychological Detachment from Work as Potential Mediators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper provides a comparison study of the relationships between using the Blackberry (BB) device for work purposes during non-work hours and (a) work-family conflict and (b) well-being, and the potential mediators of these relationships from a Conservation of Resources (COR) approach. Findings revealed that greater usage of the BB for work purposes during non-work hours was related to higher levels of work-family conflict. In particular greater frequency of use was related to an inability to psychologically detach from work, resulting in work-family conflict and low levels of well-being. Furthermore using the device for long periods was also related to an inability to psychologically detach from work, resulting in low levels of well-being. The findings did not support job control as a potential mediator; although support was found for the COR theory, as the mediating effect of detachment from work was greater than the mediating effect of job control on the relationship between BB use and work-family conflict, supporting that resource loss is more salient than resource gain. In light of these findings this paper proposes that organisations should aim to reduce the negative impact that using this device for work purposes during non-work hours has on employees, by either reducing the usage of the device or by ensuring employees are capable of handling the device and demands of the job.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".