Core self-evaluations, social support and life-domain conflicts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Based on the conservation of resources (COR) theory (Hobfoll, 1989, 2002), this study first investigates the direct influence of core self-evaluations (CSEs) on work-to-family (W → F) and family-to-work (F → W) conflicts. Second, it tests the mediating impact of Social support from work and home domains in the associations between CSEs and both directions of work-family conflict. This study finally examines the moderating influence of CSEs in the associations between work and home domain social support and both directions of work-family conflict. Design/methodology/approach Human resources professionals (629), and engineers (169) employed in Canada completed an online survey. Both directions of work-family conflict were measured as well as CSEs, and work and home domain social support. Findings Results indicate that higher CSEs are associated with lower W → F and F → W conflicts. They also suggest an indirect association between CSEs and W → F conflict through supervisor support. The indirect association between CSEs and F → W conflict through home domain social support was also supported. Besides, it appears that CSEs moderate the association between home support and F → W conflict. Research limitations/implications Our findings underscore the relevance of considering both dispositional and environmental factors together in work-life research. Results question within- vs. cross-domain conceptualizations of work-life spillover. They also indicate how both differential choice and effectiveness operate in conjunction with managing work-life domains. Originality/value The research presents a comprehensive model linking work-family conflict, social support and CSEs. It draws from an integrative personality framework (Judge et al., 1998) and COR theory (Hobfoll, 1989) to explore the underlying processes of CSEs, often inferred but not specified or incorporated into work-life research.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".