A work–family enrichment intervention: Transferring resources across life domains.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study expands the work-family enrichment literature by integrating enrichment theory (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006), social-cognitive theory (Bandura, 2001), capitalization theory (e.g., Gable, Reis, Impett, & Asher, 2004), and creative cognition theory (e.g., Smith, Ward, & Finke, 1995), in order to advance a novel conceptual model of the effects of resource transfer training on enrichment and job satisfaction. The model was tested by developing and evaluating a work-to-family enrichment training program, the Resource Transfer Training, which was based on Greenhaus and Powell's (2006) enrichment theory and interpersonal capitalization theory (Ilies, Keeney, & Scott, 2011). The training was administered to 163 administrative employees using a longitudinal prepost experimental design. Consistent with hypotheses, findings indicated that, compared to a control training condition, the Resource Transfer Training increased development-based enrichment from work to family (the transfer of skills, knowledge and values). Furthermore, the effect of the training on both development-based and affect-based enrichment (the transfer of positive affect) was mediated by enrichment self-efficacy, and the indirect effects of the training on enrichment were moderated by initial social-emotional work resources. Finally, as hypothesized, enrichment self-efficacy and enrichment experiences sequentially mediated the effect of the training on job satisfaction. This work advances theory by demonstrating that human agency can facilitate enrichment experiences across roles, and by exploring new antecedents of enrichment through theoretically driven training components. It advances practice by devising and testing a work-to-family enrichment intervention that can serve as a tool for organizations to increase positive synergy between work and nonwork roles. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".