Is Multitasking a Crossover Stressor? The Spillover and Crossover Dynamics of Spousal Work-family Multitasking and Its Link to Psychological Distress
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research has well-established the spillover effects of work-family conflict on health along with its crossover effects on other family members. However, no study to my knowledge has examined the crossover effects of spousal work-family multitasking on their partner’s mental health. This study seeks to advance research by documenting the relationship between perceptions of spousal work-family multitasking and the respondents’ psychological distress along with the intervening mechanisms that explain this pattern. Drawing on five waves of panel data from the Canadian Work, Stress, and Health Study (2011–2019, n = 2,147 respondents), the results reveal that when respondents perceive their spouse to engage in work-family multitasking very often, the respondents report elevated levels of distress. The association between spousal work-family multitasking and respondents’ distress is explained by perceptions of spousal work-to-family conflict and respondents’ family-to-work conflict. The implications of these results are discussed in light of crossover stress and role theory, the stress process model, and work-family boundary theories.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".