Out

THE EFFECTS OF MOBILE TECHNOLOGY ON WORK-LIFE OUTCOMES
BY
CARLOS M. PUERTAS
A Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of Claremont Graduate University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of
Doctor in Philosophy in Psychology
Claremont, California
2009
Approved by:
UMI Number: 3383638
INFORMATION TO USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations
and photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
UMI
UMI Microform 3383638
Copyright 2009 by ProQuest LLC
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
Copyright by Carlos M. Puertas 2006
All Rights Reserved
We, the undersigned, certify that we have read the dissertation of Carlos M. Puertas and
approve it as adequate in scope and quality for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in
Psychology.
Dissertation Committee:
j * *
1
i Ki p I T s,^- . . . r
^/Dr. Stewart I. Donaldson, Member
Dr. Ronald E. Riggio, M^frf&er
Abstract of the Dissertation
The Effects of Mobile Technology on Work-Life Outcomes
by
Carlos M. Puertas
Claremont Graduate University: 2009
Advances in information and communication technologies have made it
increasingly easy for individuals to remain connected to their organizations. Part of this
change may be due to the advent of mobile communication technologies such as smart
phones (e.g., BlackBerry, iPhone, Palm Treo) that have revolutionized when and where
individuals are able to perform their work. Past research concerning the effects of mobile
technology in the workplace has been both optimistic and pessimistic, suggesting that
mobile technology results in increased autonomy, work functioning, and work-schedule
flexibility, while at the same time resulting in negative consequences such as increased
work-life conflict, role overload, and an invasion of workers' sense of personal mastery.
The current study presents a model examining the effects of mobile connectivity
on work-life outcomes during non-working hours. The present study tests a series of
direct, mediating, and moderating models that influence the relationship between mobile
connectivity and stress, psychological well-being, job satisfaction, and life satisfaction.
Specifically, work-life conflict was hypothesized to mediate the relationship between
mobile connectivity and each of the work-life outcome variables, while boundary
management strategy, psychological detachment from work, job involvement, and job
control were included as moderating variables that influence the strength and direction of
the relationship between mobile connectivity and each of the work-life outcomes.
Participants in the study included 311 individuals collected through a web-based
survey among users of mobile technologies. Results indicate that mobile connectivity was
positively related to stress and work-life conflict, while negatively related to
psychological well-being. Furthermore, results from the mediated analyses suggest that
work-life conflict acted as a significant mediator between mobile connectivity and stress,
psychological well-being, and job satisfaction.
The present study's findings suggest that mobile connectivity is impacting work-
life outcomes in more negative than positive ways. Because mobile technologies are
changing the ways in which we stay connected to work while during non-working hours,
it is important to understand how mobile technology affect outcomes related to an
employee's work and non-work lives. Implications for both employees and employers are
discussed with particular emphasis on the changing nature of technology.
Dedication
This dissertation is dedicated to my parents, Angelo and Maria Puertas, who have
always believed in me and supported me during my graduate career, as well as
throughout my entire life. I am eternal grateful for your unwavering love, encouragement,
and patience throughout this process. And to Linda, for your unconditional love, I also
dedicate this work. Lastly, I dedicate this work to those not with us anymore, and to those
who are yet to enter this beautiful world.
vii
Acknowledgments
I would not have been able to complete this dissertation without the help and
support of the following people. First, I would like to thank my committee members for
their guidance and encouragement in completing my dissertation. I would especially like
to thank my committee chair, Dr. Susan Murphy, for her dedication and intellectual
counsel. The countless number of hours she spent meeting, emailing, and texting with me
were invaluable in helping me complete this dissertation. I would also like to thank Dr.
Stewart Donaldson for providing me with academic support and counsel at all stages of
my degree. I am also grateful to Ron Riggio for guiding me through the oral examination
and defense stages of this dissertation, and to Stefanie Johnson for providing thoughtful
and timely comments during the dissertation defense.
I would also like to thank my colleagues and friends at Claremont Graduate
University for their continued support in completing the doctoral program. Specifically, I
would like to thank Lacy Barnes for her unwavering friendship over the past nine years
and for the many more to come. Her nurturing, yet outgoing personality is infectious, and
there is no better person to have shared my graduate career with. I would also like to
thank Kellan London, Dae Ho Lee, and Haney Mostafa for their ongoing friendship and
professional guidance.
I would like to thank the members of my family for their continuous
encouragement throughout this process. I am especially grateful to my parents, Angelo
and Maria Puertas, and siblings Melisa and Cyndi, for never losing faith in me and
pushing me every day to complete the program. I owe this degree to all of you. Lastly, I
would like to thank my loving wife, Linda, for her emotional and spiritual support during
viii
the last stages of my degree. Her unconditional love, brilliance, and encouragement has
made everyday enjoyable and cannot wait to spend the rest of my life with her. Thank
you to all!
TABLE OF CONTENTS
IX
Content
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ix
LIST OF TABLES xi
LIST OF FIGURES xiii
CHAPTER 1 1
Mobile technology and organizational life 1
Mobile connectivity during non-working hours 8
Improving upon previous mobile communication usage measures 9
Examining contrasting work-life models 11
New directions in technology and work-life research 12
Proposed research model 13
CHAPTER 2 15
Defining work-life conflict 15
Work-life conflict theories 18
Boundary theory 21
Separation and integration 22
New research agenda 24
CHAPTER 3 26
Stress and psychological well-being 26
Job and life satisfaction 28
Work-life conflict 32
Boundary management strategy 36
Job involvement 39
Psychological detachment from work 42
Job Control 45
CHAPTER 4 49
Participants and Procedures 49
Respondent Demographics 50
Measures 53
Mobile connectivity 53
Work-life conflict 54
Perceived stress 55
Psychological well-being 56
Job satisfaction 56
Life satisfaction 57
Boundary management strategy 57
Psychological detachment from work 57
Job involvement 58
Psychological job control 58
Demographic items.... 59
CHAPTER 5 60
X
Preliminary analyses 60
Results of formal hypothesis testing 62
Results of formal hypothesis testing 63
Direct effect hypotheses testing 63
Mediating effect of work-life conflict 64
Stress 67
Psychological well-being 67
Job satisfaction and life satisfaction 68
Moderating Hypotheses 75
Moderating effect of boundary management 75
Moderating effect of job involvement 81
Moderating effect of psychological detachment 88
Moderating effect of job control 94
Structural equation modeling 100
CHAPTER 6 103
Key findings 103
Mobile connectivity and work-life outcomes 103
Implications for individuals and organizations 110
Limitations and directions for future research 113
Conclusion 118
REFERENCES 120
APPENDIX A: Tables 1 - 9 134
APPENDIX B: Informed Consent and Measurement Instruments 144
XI
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 64
Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations, and Reliability Estimates for Study
Variables.
Table 2 66
Test of the mediating effects of work-life conflict on the relationship between
mobile connectivity and study outcome variables.
Table 3 71
Regression analyses for the mediating effect of work-life conflict on the
relationship between mobile connectivity and stress.
Table 4 72
relationship between mobile connectivity and psychological well-being.
Table 5 73
relationship between mobile connectivity and job satisfaction.
Table 6 74
relationship between mobile connectivity and life satisfaction.
Table 7 77
Hierarchical regression analyses testing the moderating effect of boundary
management on the relationship between mobile connectivity and stress.
Table 8 78
management on the relationship between mobile connectivity and psychological
well-being.
Table 9 79
management on the relationship between mobile connectivity and job satisfaction.
Table 10 80
management on the relationship between mobile connectivity and life satisfaction.
Table 11 84
Hierarchical regression analyses testing the moderating effect of job involvement
on the relationship between mobile connectivity and stress.
xn
Table 12 85
on the relationship between mobile connectivity and psychological well-being.
Table 13 86
on the relationship between mobile connectivity and job satisfaction.
Table 14 87
on the relationship between mobile connectivity and life satisfaction.
Table 15 90
Hierarchical regression analyses testing the moderating effect of psychological
detachment on the relationship between mobile connectivity and stress.
Table 16 91
detachment on the relationship between mobile connectivity and psychological
well-being.
Table 17 92
detachment on the relationship between mobile connectivity and job satisfaction.
Table 18 93
detachment on the relationship between mobile connectivity and life satisfaction.
Table 19 96
Hierarchical regression analyses testing the moderating effect of job control on
the relationship between mobile connectivity and stress.
Table 20 97
the relationship between mobile connectivity and psychological well-being.
Table 21 98
the relationship between mobile connectivity and job satisfaction.
Table 22 99
the relationship between mobile connectivity and life satisfaction.
xiii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 14
Proposed conceptual model.
Figure 2 62
Complete model of proposed variables.
Figure 3 66
Baron and Kenny (1986) mediation paths.
Figure 4 83
Graphical representation of the moderating effect of job involvement on the
relationship_between mobile connectivity and life satisfaction.
Figure 5 102
Best fitting Structural Equation Model.
CHAPTER 1
Introduction and Overview
Mobile technology and organizational life
According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2004), approximately 21
million persons conducted some type of work at home as part of their primary job. This
number accounted for about 15% of total nonagricultural employment in 2004. More
surprising, of those who were wage and salary workers, only 1 in 4 (or approximately 3.3
million) had a formal agreement with their employer to be paid for the time spent away
from their office. Furthermore, although many developed countries have cut back on the
annual number of hours worked per person over the past decade, Americans have headed
in the opposite direction - adding 58 hours to their yearly total (Brady, 2002). This is in
sharp contrast to the Japanese for example, who have cut more than 191 hours to their
annual number of hours worked per person. Not only are American workers logging more
hours in the office, but advances in information and telecommunications technology has
made it increasingly easy for individuals to remain connected to their organizations while
out of the office. In fact, just in the past six years has the arrival of the popular
'BlackBerry' revolutionized when and where individuals are able to perform their work,
creating a new era of "workplace connectivity" (Schlosser, 2002).
Mobile communication technologies such as pagers, laptops, cellular phones,
PDAs, and smartphones are portable devices that transmit voice and data
communications across a variety of wired and wireless networks. In the past, work-
related communication technologies were found in, and stayed in the workplace. Office
workers were bound to their typewriters, fax machines, office telephones, or desktop
1
computers that were used mainly during normal working hours. With the advent of the
cellular phone and laptop computer however, "virtual workers" started to perform work
outside the office and began using mobile communication devices as the primary means
of maintaining their employee-organization relationship (Boswell & Olson-Buchanan,
2007). In the last decade or so, these communication technologies have become smaller,
more portable, and less expensive, thus making it easier for organizations to equip
workers with a variety of devices to stay connected wherever and whenever they wanted
to work. These devices not only helped individuals stay connected well beyond the
traditional 9-5 work schedule, but they also allowed individuals to bring work-related
matters into their home and personal life. Workers were able to "break free from the
wires" and work virtually from anywhere, giving them the freedom to work from a
satellite office, their home, their car, the beach, and more increasingly, their private time,
nights, weekends, and even while on vacation. Even the highest ranking official of the
United States of America, President Barack Obama, worked with officials at the National
Security Agency to ensure that the transition to his presidency would include the use of
his now-called "BarackBerry."
According to Valcour and Hunter (2005), recent advances in information and
communication technologies have helped shape industrialized nations understand
different ways to organize work, and the effect of this on people's actual experiences at
work. Examples such as the personal computer, the Internet, and cellular phones have all
contributed to a society that that focuses on technological development, connectivity, and
an increasing reliance on mobile technologies. It comes to no surprise therefore, that
newer, more advanced mobile technologies have the ability to substantially impact work-
3
related activities in today's electronic society. An example of such technologies is the
smartphone. Newer smartphones such as the BlackBerry, iPhone, and Treo, are becoming
more than just a fancy accessory to the modern workers' tool belt, offering individuals
with advanced capabilities beyond that of a typical cellular phone. According to
Goodchild and Hodgson (2006), the BlackBerry in particular may be the most common
mobile communications device that has replaced the cellular phone as the "must have"
status symbol for the office executive. As of December 2008, the number of BlackBerry
subscribers had passed more than 21 million subscribers (Research in Motion, 2008).
Additionally, U.S. smartphones sales were up 163% in 2007 versus the same period just
one year previous (Business Wire, 2007). Newer devices such as the iPhone, which was
released in June 2007 by Apple, announced it sold its one-millionth iPhone in less than
three months (Kerris, 2007). The reason for the popularity of these devices, particularly
for business individuals, is quite obvious. Just one device offers features such as a built-in
phone, personal organizer, calendar, media player, GPS system, web browser, camera,
and the ability to access voicemail, email, text, instant messaging, and a variety of
office-related documents. As quoted by Al Smith, president of Apresta (a company that
provides software for wireless devices), "Pulling the plug on the BlackBerry could cost
corporate America millions of dollars. The BlackBerry is more than e-mail but a
handheld office, and if you shut down the BlackBerry, you shut off the data that powers
American business."
As previously alluded to, mobile technologies are all around us. From pagers to
laptop computers to smartphones, today's modern worker is surrounded by technology.
As organizations continue to modernize and become more global, it is even more
4
important for employees to stay connected to their customers and employers.
Furthermore, organizations and their employees are committing more time and resources
to the use of technological tools as a means of accomplishing their work. According to
the United States Department of Labor (2004), nearly 11 million Americans in 2004
performed on average, seven hours of job-related work activities per week at home
without a formal compensation agreement. Most of the individuals who performed this
supplemental work were managers or professionals, with 80 percent indicating that they
relied upon a computer or mobile device to complete their work at home. Fifty-seven
percent of the workers in the same study performing unpaid job-related work activities at
home identified "finishing or catching up on the work" as a leading cause, with an
additional 31% of those surveyed reporting that it was "the nature of the job" (United
States Department of Labor, 2004). As quoted in the book White Collar Sweatshop,
author Jill Fraser clearly portrays the role of technology in today's society as she
observed in an interview:
"Although we thought technology would make our work lives easier and more
creative, the real impact of our laptops, our Palm Pilots, our e-mail and our
cellphones is that we can't ever not work. There's no justification (cited in
Mieszkowski, 2001).
Although mobile technologies were designed to free people from the office and
help make communicating across "time and space" boundaries easier, one has to question
the long term consequences associated with such devices. Using these devices to catch up
on work, respond to urgent emails, or make work related phone calls all have the
potential to negatively impact personal and family well-being. In fact, recent research has
shown that the role of mobile technology has been much debated, characterized as
optimistic on the one hand, and by more negative views on the other (Boswell & Olson-
5
Buchanan, 2007; Chesley, 2005). On the one hand, the use of mobile technology can be
seen as a positive force as it increases people's autonomy, work functioning, and offers
greater work-schedule flexibility (Batt & Valcour, 2003). On the other hand however, the
use of mobile technology has resulted in negative consequences such as increases in
work-life conflict, (Chesley, 2005), increases in individuals' felt conflict between work
and family (Batt & Valcour, 2003), and an invasion of workers' sense of personal mastery
(Chesley, Moen & Shore, 2003). More recently, Boswell and Olson-Buchanan (2007)
investigated the use of mobile technology on work attitudes and work-life conflict.
Although their findings suggest that employees with higher ambition and job
involvement were more likely to use mobile technologies after normal working hours,
they also found that using mobile technologies after normals working hours was
associated with increased work-life conflict as reported by both the employee and a
significant other of the employee.
Although mobile technologies can offer flexibility in terms of when are where an
employee can work, Richardson and Rothstein (2008) state that these devices have in
practice eroded the boundaries between work and non-work while at the same time
contributing to additional working hours outside of the traditional 9-5 work schedule.
Moreover, researchers are increasingly interested in the implications of computer and
communications technology on individual and family well-being, (Chesley, 2005), life
success (Hill, Ferris, & Martinson, 2003), and work-life balance (Valcour & Hunter,
2005). Other research suggests that mobile technologies are challenging traditional work-
life balance theories as they now have the potential to invade personal time during non-
working hours, making it more difficult for employees to draw physical and
6
psychological boundaries between "working from home" and being "home from work"
(Mesmer-Mangus & Viswesvaran, 2006). These authors further state that from an
employer's perspective, there is a belief that offering mobile devices to employees helps
ease the collaboration process between co-workers, increases productivity, and allows
workers to be more flexible in when and where they perform their work. From an
employee perspective however, mobile technologies may allow for increased flexibility,
but at the same have the potential to erode the boundaries of time and space that have
traditionally provided a clear demarcation between work and non-work time. Without
said boundaries (and with the help of mobile technologies), it then becomes possible to
remain connected to the workplace for longer hours and from any location, any time
(Richardson & Rothstein, 2008).
As previously discussed, a new stream of research has begun to examine the use
of mobile and communications technologies during non-working hours to perform job-
related functions (Boswell & Olson-Buchanan, 2007, Fenner & Renn, 2004; Richardson
& Rothstein, 2008). Venkatesh and Vitalari (1992) were among the first to examine the
effects of technology during non-working hours, which they labeled "supplemental work
at home." According to these authors, supplemental work is defined as "a distributed
work arrangement where the home is used as a setting for job-related work by individuals
employed full time outside normal work hours or on weekends" (p. 1688). In a two-year
longitudinal study of computer use among 450 U.S. households, they found that
computer owners worked approximately twice the number of hours on supplemental
work at home than non-owners (7.2 versus 3.5 hours, p < .001). More recently, Fenner
and Renn (2004) described a similar framework referred to as "technology-assisted
7
supplemental work" (TASW), which they defined as "the practice of lengthening
working time by remaining connected to work, coworkers, supervisors, and other
organizational stakeholders from home via advanced digital information technology" (p.
179).
As one could imagine, there has been much debate as to the impact of technology
on work-life outcomes for those who perform work-related activities during non-working
hours (Allen, Renn, & Griffeth, 2003; Boswell & Olson-Buchanan, 2007; Messersmith,
2007). Individuals who engage in technology assisted supplemental work (TASW) for
example, may work at their own schedule, in the privacy of their home, leave work early
to accomplish family related duties, and catch up on work not completed during the
normal work day. Research has also shown however, that individuals who engage in
TASW may not outperform their coworkers because of the types of technology they use,
the types of tasks they perform, an inability to work without structure, feelings of
isolation, and interruptions from family members and friends (Allen, Renn, & Griffeth,
2003). A study by Galinsky, Kim, and Bond (2001) further reveals that workers using
advanced information technology to perform supplementary work frequently express
complaints of feeling overworked and stressed.
Given the vast discrepancy concerning mobile technology and work-life
outcomes, this research focuses specifically on work that is performed outside of
traditional working hours, or as Boswell and Olson-Buchanan (2007) state, work that is
performed during non-work time or "after hours." The reason for this is to determine if
workers who stay connected to work after regular working hours are more prone to
experiencing negative work-life outcomes than those who have the ability to completely
8
disengage from work and work-related activities. Because mobile technologies are
changing the ways in which we stay connected to work while not on company time, it is
important to understand how mobile technologies affect outcomes related to an
employee's work and non-work life. Boswell and Olson-Buchanan state in their moste
recent research that "Understanding the correlates of CT [communication technology]
during non-working hours will not only help researchers develop theories of the role of
CT in the workplace, but also from a practical standpoint will help managers better
understand CT use (or not) among their workforce" (2007:594). As such, boundary
theory, which suggests that individuals vary with respect to how they integrate their
various roles (Nippert-Eng, 1996), becomes extremely relevant to the present study as it
helps us understand the differences in how individuals manage the boundaries between
work and non-work domains. A more thorough discussion of boundary theory will be
described in Chapter 2.
Building upon previous work-life literature related to mobile technology (e.g.,
Boswell & Olson-Buchanan, 2007; Chesley, 2005; Messersmith, 2007), the present study
adds to the existing literature by (1) investigating the role of mobile technology on work-
life outcomes during non-working hours, (2) improving upon previous mobile
communication usage measures, (3) examining three contrasting models (direct effects,
mediating, moderating) as they relate to mobile technology and work-life outcomes, and
(4) proposing both positive and negative relationships between mobile technology and
work-life outcomes. A brief summary of each of the items is presented below.
Mobile connectivity during non-working hours
Mobile connectivity in the context of the present study refers to the use of mobile
9
technologies (e.g., smartphones, cellular phones, and laptop computers) to complete work
or non-work related activities during non-working hours. It refers to the frequency and
duration of the usage of the mobile devices, hence a person's "connectivity" to a mobile
device or network. Additionally, non-working hours is defined as work performed
outside of an individual's traditional 8-hour shift. Any work performed before work, after
work, during holidays, or on weekends can be considered work during non-working
hours. As previously mentioned, the reason for examining work performed during non-
working hours is to examine if individuals who stay connected to work during non-
working hours are more prone to experiencing more negative consequences than those
who have the ability to completely disengage from work and work-related activities.
Previous research on boundary theory supports this argument by stating that increases in
workload can lead to negative work-life outcomes such as stress, decreased sense of
individual well-being, and a blurring of boundaries between work and home (Batt &
Valcour, 2003; Fenner & Renn, 2004; Valcour & Hunter, 2005). Thus, as mobile
connectivity increases the amount of time individuals spend conducting work-related
activities during non-working hours, the relationship between mobile connectivity and
work-life outcomes can have similar detrimental effects.
Improving upon previous mobile communication usage measures
Although past research on technology usage has almost exclusively relied on a
self-report measure of technology usage (Speier & Venkatesh, 2002), the majority of
research has primarily focused on the actual frequency with which an individual uses a
mobile device (i.e., "never" to "very often"). Chesley (2005) for example, distinguished
between two types of technology usage but only measured the frequency of usage for
10
each type of technology. Similarly, Boswell and Olson-Buchanan (2007) surveyed
individuals on the usage of multiple technologies (e.g., cell phones, PDA, pagers), but
only measured the frequency with which the individuals used the devices to complete
their job. Golden and Geisler's (2007) qualitative study on work-life boundary
management and the personal digital assistant (PDA) offered suggestions as to why
people use PDAs, but did not report on the frequency or duration of usage. The present
study will add to the existing literature by creating a new composite measure of mobile
connectivity that combines different types of mobile technologies, and measures usage
behavior in terms of both frequency and duration. This will be done in the following
ways:
First, mobile connectivity during non-working hours will be measured using three
different types of technology devices: smartphones, cellular phones, and laptop
computers. As technology is rapidly advancing and more people are switching to
smartphones, the present study is also interested in determining if differences can be
found between older and newer technologies (e.g., cellular phone vs. smartphones), and
the effects of these technologies on work-life outcomes. Ayyagari (2008) suggests that
the degree to which mobile technologies differ is in their degree of connectivity. A
cellular phone for example, may provide instant access to an individual, but limits the
actions an individual can perform. An individual with a laptop computer may be less
accessible, but may be able to perform more job activities as compared to someone with
just a cellular phone. Advances in mobile technologies such as smartphones however,
allow instant access to individuals and perform almost any job activities as laptop
computers (check and respond to email, schedule meetings, view documents, send and
11
receive attachments, etc.). These differences in technology can have profound impacts on
work-family conflict such that mobile technologies are increasingly invading
personal/family time and space boundaries and increasing an individual's sense of
perceived "connectivity."
Second, the present study will measure mobile connectivity using two different
approaches to usage behavior: frequency and duration. As previously mentioned, mobile
technology has primarily been measured frequency as the only measure of usage,
although recent work by Richardson and Rothstein (2008) has started to include multiple
measures. Measuring mobile connectivity with different approaches gives a more rich
and contextual understanding of mobile connectivity and increases the validity of the
measure. Lastly, and consistent with research by Boswell and Olson-Buchanan (2007),
each of the devices (smartphone, cellular phone, and laptop computer) and measures
(frequency and duration) will be combined into a composite variable to create an overall
measure of mobile connectivity. A more detailed discussion of the procedures used to
create this measure can be found in Chapter 4.
Examining contrasting work-life models
The present study will examine three contrasting models - direct effects,
mediated, and moderated - to investigate the relationship between mobile connectivity,
work-life conflict, and the hypothesized work-life outcomes measures (stress,
psychological well-being, job satisfaction, and life satisfaction). See Figure 1 for a
summary of the hypothesized relationships. Most research to date has focused solely on
negative outcomes associated with mobile technology such as work-family conflict,
negative spillover, family dissatisfaction, distress, and lower overall life quality (e.g.,
12
Batt & Valcour, 2003; Chesley, 2005; Frone, 2003; Valcour & Hunter, 2005). Valcour
and Hunter (2005) state however, that more research is needed to determine the extent to
which technology is a positive force for the integration of work and non-work life, versus
the extent to which technology drives unwelcome cross-domain intrusion and negative
spillover effects. By testing a moderated model for example, the present study will
attempt to determine if any of the moderated variables affect the direction or strength of
the relationships between mobile connectivity and each of the work-life outcome
variables. Valcour and Hunter (2005) support this argument by describing that multiple
factors influence, or moderate the relationship between technology and work-life balance,
and that future research is needed to examine additional factors to better understand this
complex relationship. As individuals cope with the effects of new mobile technologies,
these factors have the potential to influence the direction and strength of the relationship
between technology usage and work-life outcomes.
New directions in technology and work-life research
Research on mobile technology and work-life balance is relatively scarce. Only a
handful of empirical articles have been published in scholarly journals, and most
discussions are theoretical frameworks, white papers, conference proceedings, or
magazine articles discussing the pros and cons of mobile technology in today's society.
The present study will not only challenge previous assumptions related to mobile
technology, but will also attempt to offer new suggestions as to how mobile technologies
can help employees and organizations balance the demands of work and non-work life.
As organizations become increasingly aware of the effects of mobile technology on
work-life outcomes, it is highly unlikely that the tools of mobile connectivity will
13
disappear from organizational life (Goodchild & Hodgson, 2006). As such, continued
research on the effects of mobile technology is greatly warranted to further examine both
the positive and negative effects of staying connected. Lastly, as pressure increases on
organizations to implement mechanisms to become more family-friendly, the call to
better understand how employees navigate between their various roles becomes even
more important (Ashforth et al., 2000; Olson-Buchanan & Boswell, 2006). As mobile
technology affords the boundaries between work and non-work to become increasingly
blurred, organizational behavior (OB) scholars should seek to understand how individuals
use mobile technology to integrate (or segment) their work and non-work roles and the
consequences of such strategies (Olson-Buchanan & Boswell, 2006).
Proposed research model
In order to address the research gaps outlined in the current and subsequent
chapters, a proposed research model is offered which provides a theoretical basis for
understanding the relationship between mobile connectivity and work-life outcomes. The
model integrates ideas and hypotheses from previous research into a set of hypothesized
direct, mediating, and moderating relationships. The general principle is that mobile
connectivity is expected to be significantly related to work-life outcomes via direct,
mediating, and moderating paths. As such, four moderators are hypothesized to affect the
strength and direction of the relationship between mobile connectivity and each of the
work-life outcomes measures, while work-life conflict is expected to mediate the
relationship between mobile connectivity and each of the work-life outcome measures.
See Figure 1 for a conceptual representation of the research model.
Figure 1.
Proposed conceptual model.
14
Work-Life
Conflict
Mobile
Connectivity
/
a
Individual
Differences
(Moderators)
Work-Life
Outcome
Measures
CHAPTER 2
Overview of Work-Life Conflict
Defining work-life conflict
As one of the goals of the present study is to determine the relationship between
mobile connectivity and work-life conflict, it is first necessary to define work-life conflict
and understand its outcomes and consequences on individual and family well-being.
According to Holahan and Gilbert (1979), the most substantial source of conflict in an
individual's life is conflict between the two principal roles that each employed individual
balances: work versus self. This can also be described in terms of the potential for
conflict between work and family, with work referring to employment, and family
referring to life outside of work, and/or responsibilities to spouse/partner and children
(Higgins, Duxbury, & Irving, 1992). One of the earliest definitions of work-family
conflict dates back more than forty years ago, when Kahn et al., (1964) described work-
family conflict as a type of inter-role conflict in which demands from the work role
conflicts with demands from the family role. Since then, the actual meaning of work-
family conflict has not changed significantly and most literature to date still reference the
work of Kahn et al. as the leading definition of work-life conflict.
While the actual definition has not fundamentally changed over the past 40 years,
the actual term "work-family balance" has taken on a new meaning. More recent
literature has substituted the term "work-family" conflict for "work-life" conflict, to
include a broader spectrum of the population that encompasses all individuals in the
workforce, not just those married and/or with children. Research in the work-family
literature has traditionally focused on families, and the concept of a nuclear family with
15
16
men being externally employed and head of household, and women as either
homemakers, or assuming the role of the homemaker and being externally employed. In
research by Frone et al. (1992) for example, only parental and marital stressors were used
as measures of family life. As research progressed however, researchers became more
interested in investigating differences between traditional families as compared to single
individuals, dual-career couples, couples that did not yet have children, and/or
cohabitating couples that were not yet married. These individuals were traditionally
excluded from conceptualizations formerly comprised of only married couples with
children. In addition, there is an entire realm of life not encompassed by work or family
responsibilities (e.g., things done for oneself, friends, and recreation). Therefore,
investigations that include the broader division of work compared to non-work activities
provide a more comprehensive picture of the role work plays in creating conflict in one's
life.
Besides the early work of Kahn et al., (1964), one of the most cited and influential
theoretical articles on work-life conflict is that of Greenhaus and Beutell (1985). These
authors describe work-life conflict as the tension resulting from incompatible pressures of
work and family that constrain a person's ability to satisfactorily fulfill one role at the
expense of the other. Similar to the definition by Kahn et al., Greenhaus and Beutell state
that work-family conflict is "a form of inter-role conflict in which the role pressures from
the work and family domains are mutually incompatible in some respect. That is,
participation in the work (family) role is made more difficult by virtue of participation in
the family (work) role" (p. 77). Greenhaus and Beutell furthermore articulated different
categories of work-life conflict based on directionality and type, and outlined three major
17
sources of conflict between work and family roles. These included time-based conflict
(i.e., incompatible time demands between work and family), strain-based conflict (e.g.,
affective spillover from one domain to the other), and behavior-based conflict (e.g.,
where in-role behavior in one domain is incompatible with role behavior in the other
domain).
Work-life conflict is one of the most studied concepts in the work-life literature,
and is sometimes referred to as negative spillover or work-life interference (Chesley,
2005). It has also been described in terms of the demands imposed upon by an
individual's work and non-work domains. These demands fall into categories of life and
work (or work and non-work), and may include the responsibilities, requirements, duties,
commitments, and expectations that are related to effective performance in each domain
(Netemeyer et al., 1996). When one role (e.g., work) creates conflict with another role
(e.g., life), inter-role conflict may emerge, leading to negative consequences at work or at
home (Mesmer-Magnus & Viswesvaran, 2006).
Literature concerning work-life conflict has conceptualized the relationship
between an individual's work and non-work life in a multitude of ways, with the
presumption that the two domains are inherently distinct. Early literature on work-family
conflict investigated the relationship as though work interfered (or conflicted) with
family, without considering the implications of family interfering with work. As the
research paradigm began to emerge, many researchers began to rethink this
conceptualization which led to the development of work-family conflict as bi-directional,
with conflict arising from work interfering with family (WIF), or conflict arising from
family interfering with work (FIW). Although this directionality distinguished between
18
the sources of conflict, most of the early research focused either on a broad measure of
conflict that included both directions, or just work interfering with family (Tetrick &
Buffardi, 2006). Frone et al. (1992) for example, found that WIF was reported nearly
three times as often as FIW. These researchers argued that since WIF was more likely to
occur than FIW, family boundaries were more permeable than work boundaries and thus
more susceptible to conflict. In a similar study, Gutek et al (1991) reported more WIF
primarily due to the domains of work and family operating more separately than previous
research indicated.
Work-life conflict theories
Several work-life conflict theories have been described to explain the relationship
between work and non-work domains. Edwards and Rothbard (2000) provide a review
and integration of much of the existing research on the relationship between work and
non-work roles. They identified six recurring linking mechanisms depicted in the work-
life literature: spillover, compensation, segmentation, resource drain, congruence, and
conflict. According to these authors, spillover, compensation, and segmentation have
emerged as the dominant models characterizing the linkage between work and non-work
roles. Similarly, Lowry and Moskos (2006) examined the literature on work-life conflict
and described five similar models which describe the relationship between work and non-
work. These included segmentation, spillover, compensation, instrumental, and the
conflict model. These models tend to focus on the individual rather than on the family
unit, and generally assume that work has a greater impact on family than family has on
work. A brief discussion of each of the models is described next.
Segmentation theory proposes that work and non-work are two distinct domains
19
of life that are lived separately with no influence on each other. Segmentation theory
states that work and non-work domains operate independently of each other, and assume
that one can compartmentalize competing role demands. If an individual experiences
stress in the work-domain for example, this stress will not interfere or spillover into the
non-work domain and is kept completely separate.
Spillover theory, which is in contrast to segmentation theory, proposes that either
domain of work or non-work can influence the other in positive or negative ways.
Spillover theory focuses on the impact that satisfaction and affect from one domain has
on the other domain. According to Fredriksen-Goldsen and Scharlach (2001), spillover
theory revolves around the conceptualization that the work domain can have a positive or
negative impact on the non-work domain, meaning that attitudes and behaviors (such as
distress from working long hours) can create distress within the family and personal life.
Googins (1991) termed this process "negative spillover," and is derived from problems
being carried - or spilled over - from one domain to another. For example, increased
satisfaction (or dissatisfaction) in the work domain can lead to increased satisfaction (or
dissatisfaction) in the life domain due to the satisfaction and affect each of the domains
present. Positive spillover on the other hand, refers to situations in which the satisfaction,
energy, and sense of accomplishment derived from one domain positively transfers to
another domain.
Compensation theory proposes that what may be lacking in one sphere, in terms
of demands or satisfactions, can be made up in the other. Compensation theory postulates
that there is an inverse relationship between work and family such that work and non-
work experiences tend to be opposing (Zedeck & Mosier, 1990). Like the other work-life
20
conflict theories, compensation is a bi-directional theory stating that the relationship
between the work and non-work domain is one in which each domain may compensate
for what is missing in the other. Thus, in compensation theory, domains are likely to be
interrelated in a counterbalancing manner. An example of compensation theory is when
individuals who are unsatisfied with family life try to enhance performance at work and
"compensate" for their dissatisfaction at home by excelling at work.
Instrumental theory proposes that activities in one sphere facilitate success in the
other. It is more of a pragmatic theory which argues that one domain enables success and
existence of the other. According to Zedeck & Mosier (1990), instrumental theory
suggests that one environment is a means by which things are obtained in the other
environment. An example of instrumental theory is when work outcomes lead to good
family life and are thus means to get pleasures out of life.
Lastly, conflict theory implies that conflict is inevitable in both work and non-
work domains because both domains are "generally incompatible, given their differing
demands, responsibilities, expectations, and norms (Fredriksen-Goldsen & Scharlach,
2001, p. 56). In conflict theory, the energy, time, and attention necessary for success in
one domain leads to a lack of that resource in the other domain, thus producing conflict
between the two domains. Conflict theory assumes that the two domains of life operate in
a discordant manner, and that anything at work may cause conflict at home and vice-
versa.
Although not classified as a "traditional" work-life conflict theory by many
researchers, much of the research on work-family conflict in based on role-strain or role
theory. Role-strain theory states that individuals have finite amounts of psychological
21
resources, time, and physical energy (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). Each life role exerts
demands on these finite resources, thus causing strain and/or a variety of negative
consequences in both the home and work domain (Frone et al. 1992). According to
Greenhaus and Beutell (1985), role-strain accounts for the suggestion that the demands
and strain from one domain may spill over to affect health and performance in the other
domain.
Although each of the previous theories facilitate a greater understanding of work-
life conflict, one of the most central to the present study is that of boundary theory.
Scholars have long discussed the idea that work and non-work boundaries are becoming
blurred (e.g., Hall & Richter, 1988; Nippert-Eng, 1996), and only recently have
researchers begun to carefully investigate how individuals navigate those boundaries
(Bulger, Matthews, & Hoffman, 2007). In fact, recent research related to the present
study has discussed the issue of blurring boundaries in the context of mobile technology,
suggesting that technology may exacerbate work-life conflict by intruding on family time
and blurring the boundaries between work and non-work (Chesley, Moen, & Shore,
2003; Galinsky & Kim, 2000; Shamir, 1992). Boundary theory can therefore help
researchers and practitioners understand boundaries, boundary management, and the
impact of various boundary management strategies on individual and work-related
outcomes.
Boundary theory
Boundary theory states that individuals vary in the extent to which their various
roles are either integrated or segmented across domains (Nippert-Eng, 1996). Similar to
segmentation theory, boundary theory states that work and non-work domains operate
22
independently of each other, and assume that one can compartmentalize competing role
demands. Boundary theory has also been described as a general cognitive theory of social
classification that focuses on outcomes such as the meanings people assign to home and
work, and the ease and frequency of transitioning between roles (Ashforth et al., 2000).
The general concept of boundary theory, as suggested by Valcour and Hunter (2005), is
that the line between the work and non-work domain may become "blurred" as work-
related activities detract from and/or spillover into one's personal life Furthermore,
boundary theory deals with how people construct, maintain, negotiate, and cross
boundaries between work and non-work life (Ashforth et al., 2000).
Researchers have long recognized that work and non-work are not "separate
spheres," but interdependent domains with "permeable" boundaries (Kanter, 1977; Pleck,
1977). Boundary theory is based on the notion that individuals have a natural tendency to
simplify and order their environment by classifying everyday activities, events, people,
and places into categories (Nippert-Eng, 1996). Individuals for example, create meaning
around their various domains of existence such as home, work, or recreation. Based on
these underlying assumptions, boundary theory is often used to predict the nature of
interactions between social entities, including the benefits and liabilities of varying
degrees of interaction (Sundaramurthy & Kreiner, 2008).
Separation and integration
Central to boundary theory is the notion of separation and integration. As
previously mentioned, individuals vary in the extent to which their various roles are
either integrated or segmented (Nippert-Eng, 1996). With regard to separation,
boundaries are more clear and easily maintained when roles are kept separate. Integration
23
on the other hand, can make role transitions less difficult, but can also confound the
demands of these roles increasing the chance of role blurring. When examining
separation and integration from a boundary theory perspective, it should be noted that the
distinction is not a dichotomy between separation and integration, but more of a
continuum along the two constructs.
According to Ashforth et al. (2000), integration is believed to occur through two
mechanisms: role flexibility and role permeability. Role flexibility refers to the
malleability of the boundary between two or more role domains and its ability to expand
or contract to accommodate the demands of one domain or another (e.g., leaving work
early and finishing work at home). Role permeability on the other hand, can be defined as
"the degree that a role allows one to be physically located in the role's domain, but
psychologically or behaviorally involved in another role" (Ashforth et al., 2000, p. 474).
Role permeability involves the extent to which a boundary allows psychological or
behavioral aspects of one domain to enter another (e.g., the ability to make or take
personal calls while at work). When two or more domains are flexible and permeable,
they are said to be blended or integrated (Ashforth et al., 2000; Clark, 2000).
Furthermore, researchers propose that work-family blurring is more likely to occur in
integrated rather than segmented domains (Ashforth et al., 2000; Nippert-Eng, 1996). In
contrast, Nippert-Eng (1996) argues that when boundaries are highly segmented, they are
"thickened" by the presence of distinct schedules, behaviors, and people in each domain,
so that transitions between domains requires more effort.
Boundary theory and role permeability are important in the present study since
mobile technologies hold the potential to interrupt or distract an individual at any time.
24
Fenner and Renn (2004) describe that when an individual is engaged in work while away
from the office (e.g., via their BlackBerry), the individual may not be "readily available,
either psychologically or physically, to pursue the responsibilities deemed to be important
by the non-work or family role" (p. 191). Consequently, when an inconsistency between
and individual's work and non-work role is valued to be more favorable towards work,
conflict may arise creating tension and stress within the family.
Past research has suggested that a greater integration of work and non-work roles
may be associated with negative work-life consequences (Ashforth et al, 2000; Boswell
& Olson-Buchanan, 2007; Kossek et al., 2005). Boswell and Olson-Buchanan for
example, suggest that mobile connectivity use after normal working hours may be "more
likely to associate with work-life conflict because an individual is not only spending time
working, thus detracting from personal time, but these technologies (e.g., cell phones,
pagers) hold the potential to interrupt or distract an individual at any time and any place"
(p.597). These researchers further state that greater role integration (or permeable
boundaries) can lead to adverse consequences due to unannounced interruptions,
interference, and intrusion of personal life that is associated with introducing mobile
technology into the non-work domain. On the other hand, similar research has shown that
an integration of roles actually increases job performance and productivity (Kossek et al.,
2005), as well as increasing motivation, job satisfaction, and employee morale (Hill et al.,
1998).
New research agenda
Research in the work-family domain was initially conceptualized as an all-
inclusive construct, whereby work conflicting with family, and family conflicting with
25
work, equated to a worker's overall sentiment of work-family conflict (Greenhaus &
Beutell, 1985). Whether work related or non-work related, time-based or strain-based,
researchers have considered a large number of variables as possible outcomes and
antecedents of work-life conflict. Furthermore, with changes to organizational structures,
increased globalization, and advances in mobile technologies, there may be additional
forces causing work-life conflict in today's society. Non-traditional work factors such as
downsizing, flattened work structures, and changes in workplace connectivity may all be
playing a larger role than previously believed. These factors combined with longer
working hours, role overload, and 24/7 demands from organizations may all be leading to
additional negative work-life outcomes. The next chapter will describe some of the
factors influencing the relationship between mobile technology and work-life outcomes,
and help shed light on how individuals and organizations can better manage the
\ increasing impacts of mobile technologies on today's modern worker.
CHAPTER 3
Correlates of Technology and Work-Life Outcomes
Stress and psychological well-being
With little surprise, researchers have found a strong relationship between work-
life conflict and a variety of stress-related outcomes, including burnout, job-related work
stress, individual well-being, role overload, and a blurring of work-life boundaries
(Chesley, 2005; Galinsky, Kim, & Bond, 2001; Milard, 1999). In fact, the majority of
research on stress in the work-life literature has examined the detrimental effects of
actively participating in multiple roles (Rothbard, 2001). As previously discussed,
research on work-life conflict has its roots in role-strain hypothesis, whereby an
individual encounters role conflict when the expectations or demands from one role
interferes with the individual's ability to meet the expectations or demands from another
role (Merton, 1957). A meta-analysis conducted by Allen et al. (2000) further states that
stress-related outcomes are one of the most consistent and strongest findings in the work-
life literature. Some of the stress-related outcomes in the meta-analysis included
psychological strain, somatic/physical strain, depression, substance abuse, role-overload,
and work related stress. These researchers further explain that the effects of stress on
work-life conflict were in both the work and non-work domains, and that the strongest
relationships observed were those of burnout and work-related stress. Additional studies
have linked work-life conflict with role stress, and have found that job stress increased
work-to-family conflict, whereas family stress increased family-to-work conflict (Frone
et. al, 1992).
With regard to technology and stress-related outcomes, there is empirical
26
27
evidence which suggests that mobile technology usage enhances stress in individuals.
Milard (1999) for example, states that mobile technologies not only increase levels of
stress at work, but have also been found to blur the boundaries between work and other
aspects of life. Galinsky, Kim, and Bond (2001) further suggest that workers using
advanced information technology to perform supplementary work frequently express
complaints of feeling overworked and stressed. Weil and Rosen (1997) similarly found
that users of mobile technology reported more blurring of boundaries between work and
life than non-technology users. Not only found in empirical research, but even the
popular press is full of examples describing the effects of technology and stress on
today's employees. Consider the following passage from a 2006 Fast Company magazine
article:
"Unbounded email, CrackBerry, and cell-phone communications have turned civil
society into an anarchic, free-fire zone of ceaseless incoming, stealing our time
and invading nights and weekends. The volume of electronic messaging keeps
mountingwithout rules, limits, or traffic lights" (Robinson, 2006).
In a study examining the effects of information and communication technology on
developing psychological symptoms among technology users, Thomee et al., (2005)
sought to determine if different types of communications technology use were associated
with symptoms of perceived stress, depression, sleep disturbances, and reduced
productivity due to anxiety/depressed mood. Their research found that communication
technology use was associated with symptoms of prolonged stress and depression in
women, but insignificant results for sleep disturbances and reduced productivity for both
men and women. An important implication of this research however, sheds light on how
various types of information and communication technologies can have effects on both
28
stress and psychological well-being.
Similar studies have confirmed findings linking technology use to psychological
health issues such as stress (e.g., Biocca, 2000; Bradley, 2000) and burnout (Duxbury &
Higgins, 2001). Some researchers have even coined terms deriving from technology and
stress. "Technostress" for example, is a term that describes the state of mental and
physiological arousal observed in persons who are heavily dependent on communications
technologies in their work (Arnetz & Wiholm, 1997). Furthermore, "ICT stress"
(information and communications technology stress) has also been used to describe the
condition brought on by interruptions at work, time pressures, and technical problems in
connection with technology use (Johansson-Hiden, Wastlund, & Wallin, 2003). Lastly,
Weil and Rosen (1997) describe how technology characteristics and the present
environment can lead to feelings of individual stress, perceptions of invasion of privacy,
and concerns over job security. Based on the findings reviewed above, the following
hypotheses are generated:
Hypothesis 1: Mobile connectivity
1
will be positively related to stress, such that
higher levels of mobile connectivity will be associated with higher ratings of
stress.
Hypothesis 2: Mobile connectivity will be negatively related to psychological
well-being, such that higher levels of mobile connectivity will be associated with
lower levels of psychological well-being.
Job and life satisfaction
1
Mobile connectivity (MC) refers to the use of mobile technologies (e.g., smartphones, cellular
phones, and laptop computers) to complete work or non-work related activities during non-working hours.
29
As previously discussed, one of the objectives of the present study is to identify
the positive aspects of mobile connectivity associated with work-life outcomes. Past
research has primarily investigated the negative effects of mobile technology on work-
life outcomes, and the present study will attempt to uncover positive aspects associated
with mobile connectivity. First, consider the hypothetical scenario of a mother who needs
to leave work early to pick up her son from soccer practice. The traditional method of
being "physically" connected to work would prevent her from leaving the office, forcing
her to call a friend or relative to complete the favor for her. With the advent of mobile
technologies however, this same worker now has the opportunity to pick up her son while
still being "virtually" connected to work. Although there are many factors involved in
being able to leave work early (e.g., policies, social norms, flexible working schedules),
this example illustrates how mobile connectivity has changed the relationship between
technology and work-schedule flexibility over the past decade. Accordingly, mobile
technologies can offer workers the possibility to facilitate success between their work and
non-work domains by allowing greater work-schedule flexibility and the ability to work
virtually, all without being confined to a single workstation. Just as work can provide
means for a successfully family life (e.g., paycheck earnings going towards a family
vacation), work tools such as mobile technologies can enable individuals the needed
support to balance their work non-work lives.
Although research has clearly documented the relationship between mobile
technology and negative work-life outcome variables such as stress (Millard, 1999), role
overload (Galinsky, Kim, & Bond, 2001), and role conflict (Anderson, Coffey, & Byerly,
2002) just to name a few, other research has shown the positive effects of technology on
30
work-life outcomes and how mobile connectivity can allow individuals to stay connected
to, and allow flexibility in both their work life and personal life. Batt and Valcour (2003)
for example, found that the use of mobile technology increases people's autonomy, work
functioning, and offers greater work-schedule flexibility. Chesley (2005) similarly found
that mobile technology can offer greater work-schedule flexibility, the ability to work
virtually, and allow individuals to better balance work and family responsibilities.
Valcour and Hunter (2005) further suggest that technology can provide opportunities for
individuals to balance their responsibilities at work with family duties and other personal
interests.
Besides providing greater work-schedule flexibility, workplace technology has
also been portrayed as a force enabling the successful integration of multiple-life roles
(Jackson, 2002). Greenhaus et al. (1989) state for example, that virtual work leads to less
conflict and less stress because technology allows for more flexibility and autonomy in
deciding how and when work will be completed. Research has also indicated that work-
life balance is improved with the addition of virtual work due to the added flexibility and
ability to work virtually without time or border constraints (Chesley, 2005). A 2007 study
conducted by Messersmith further adds that working virtually allows employees with
young children to better tend to their needs while still working full- or part-time.
Research by Raghuram and Wiesenfeld (2004) similarly found that although employees
who worked more extensively in a virtual environment experienced more intrusions of
non-work into the work domain, virtual work was associated with decreased feelings of
conflict and job stress. Lastly, research by McGee and Khirallah (2000) states that virtual
work enhances productivity and improves employee morale, while Hill et al. (1998)
31
found that virtual work was positively related to perceptions of higher morale,
productivity, and flexibility.
Although recent research by Boswell and Olson-Buchanan (2007) investigated
some of the positive aspects of mobile connectivity on work-life integration, continued
research is needed to help understand the additional benefits (as well as possible costs)
mobile technology has on individual well-being. Boswell and Olson-Buchanan (2007)
state that factors such as task performance and related process outcomes are needed to
better understand the complex relationship between mobile technology and outcome
variables. They further state that understanding these outcomes becomes important given
the enhanced flexibility and control afforded to employees through mobile technologies,
yet the potential deleterious impact of work-family conflict on both core and
discretionary behaviors (Boswell & Olson-Buchanan, 2007).
Taken altogether, research on technology and work-life balance has produced
mixed and contradictory findings. Although mobile technology has been found to invade
personal/family 'time and space' (Towers et al., 2006) and negatively affect
psychological health (Thome'e, et al., 2005), research has also shown the many positive
aspects such as greater work-schedule flexibility, balance between home and family life,
reduced job stress, and the flexibility to allow individuals to work freely from multiple
locations (Bart & Valcour, 2003; Chesley, 2005; Hill et al., 2003). Moreover, since the
effects of mobile technologies are relatively new to the work-life literature, there is still
much to learn from the relationship between mobile technology and positive work-life
outcomes. Based on the preceding discussion linking mobile technology and positive
work-life outcomes, the following hypotheses will be tested:
32
Hypothesis 3: Mobile connectivity will be positively related to job satisfaction,
such that higher levels of mobile connectivity will be associated with higher
ratings of job satisfaction.
Hypothesis 4: Mobile connectivity will be positively related to life satisfaction,
ratings of life satisfaction.
Work-life conflict
To some, technology can be portrayed as a force successfully enabling the
integration of multiple life roles, allowing individuals better manage their work and non-
work lives (Jackson, 2002). To others however, technology can be seen as a vehicle for
enslavement to work while blurring the personal and work boundaries of individuals
(Foegen, 1993). Although some research supports the positive aspects of technology on
work-life outcomes, most research describes how increased technology negatively
influences work-life outcomes such as work-life conflict, negative work-family spillover,
family dissatisfaction, distress, and lower overall life quality. In fact, most of the studies
on technology and work-life conflict conclude that technology use increases work-life
conflict, the permeability of work/family boundaries, stress, and burnout (Batt &
Valcour, 2003; Frone, 2003). Recent research by Chesley (2005) supports this argument
and states that persistent communications technology use is not only associated with
increased levels of work-life conflict, but is also associated with increases in individual
distress and decreased family satisfaction. Chesley further states that the hypothesis that
technology use positively influences the boundary permeability of work and family roles
has not been adequately tested.
33
Although mobile technologies may have the ability to enhance individual
productivity and enable new forms of working, research on technology has shown that
technology can have differential effects on components of work-life balance. Valcour and
Hunter (2005) for example, outlined some of the positive and negative effects of
technology on work-life balance and found that empirical examinations of the
relationship between technology and work-life integration have offered few consistent
finding. They view technology and work-life balance from a contextualist perspective
and offer the following suggestion:
"Our contextualist perspective suggests that technology per se has few
implications for work-life integration. Rather, configurations of technology in
economic, organizational, individual, and family contexts may exacerbate work-
life conflict, or, in contrast, provide people with opportunity to balance their work
and nonwork lives successfully.
As previously stated, communications technology has been shown to increase
people's autonomy and work functioning (Batt & Valcour, 2003), and has been associated
with higher levels of work-life balance and success at personal/family life (Hill, Ferris, &
Martinson, 2003). On the negative side however, and generally consistent with previous
research, most research suggests that the use of technology is associated with increased
work-life conflict and negative spillover from work to family (e.g., Batt & Valcour, 2003;
Chesley, 2005; Chesley, Moen, & Shore, 2003; Lowry & Moskos; 2006; Valcour and
Hunter, 2005). Communications technology has also been associated with increases in
individuals' felt conflict between work and family life (Batt & Valcour, 2003), increases
in reported spillover from work to family, and invasion of workers' sense of personal
mastery (Chesley, Moen, & Shore, 2003). Moreover, in a qualitative study investigating
the impacts of the mobile phone on work-life balance, Lowry and Moskos (2006) found
34
that individuals most prone to work-life imbalance were those who did not articulate
conscious and definite strategies in the use of their work mobile phones for managing and
negotiating the boundaries between public and private domain. Valcour and Hunter
(2005) further state that technology use increases the permeability of work/family
balance because these technologies provide additional ways to access individuals
anytime, anywhere.
As previously discussed, there has been much research demonstrating the
relationship (both positive and negative) between technology and work-life conflict.
Although a plethora has literature has emerged in the last 10 years, most of the research
has focused on technology in general (computers, internet, email) and has failed to
investigate the effects of mobile technologies on work-life outcomes. In fact, only a
handful of empirical articles (e.g., Boswell & Olson-Buchanan, 2007; Chesley, 2005;
Chesley, Moen & Shore, 2003; Valcour & Hunter, 2005) have begun to understand the
effects of mobile technology on work-life conflict. It is no surprise however, that the
majority of these studies have resulted in mobile technology positively affecting work-
life conflict. Keeping consistent with previous research, the following hypothesis will be
tested:
Hypothesis 5: Mobile connectivity will be positively related to work-life conflict,
ratings of work-life conflict.
Given that work-life conflict has been found to mediate the relationship between
communications technology and work-life outcomes (Chesley, 2005), the following
mediating hypotheses will also be tested:
35
Hypothesis 6a: Work-life conflict will mediate the relationship between mobile
connectivity and perceived stress, such that increases in mobile technology will
positively affect work-life conflict, which in turn will positively affect perceived
stress.
Hypothesis 6b: Work-life conflict will mediate the relationship between mobile
connectivity and psychological well-being, such that increases in mobile
technology will positively affect work-life conflict, which in turn will negatively
affect psychological well-being.
Hypothesis 6c: Work-life conflict will mediate the relationship mobile
connectivity and job satisfaction, such that increases in mobile technology will
positively affect work-life conflict, which in turn will negatively affect job
satisfaction.
Hypothesis 6d: Work-life conflict will mediate the relationship between mobile
connectivity and life satisfaction, such that increases in mobile technology will
positively affect work-life conflict, which in turn will negatively affect life
satisfaction.
Moderator hypotheses
Given the duality of the existing literature, the present study will also take a
contingency perspective on describing the factors affecting technology and work-life
outcomes. More specifically, the present study will examine moderating paths that
influence the strength and direction in which mobile connectivity affects work-life
outcomes. As previously discussed, newer mobile technologies such as smartphones have
recently infiltrated the modern worker's tool belt, allowing individuals to virtually work
36
from anywhere. As individuals try to cope with the effects of new technologies,
differences in how one perceives their relationship between work and non-work domains
(e.g., integrators vs. separators) may have a drastic effect on work-life outcomes. These
effects thus have the potential to influence the strength and direction of the relationship
between mobile technology and work-life outcomes. To support this argument, Valcour
and Hunter (2005) describe that multiple factors influence, or moderate the relationship
between technology and work-life balance. Their research suggest that the effects of
technology on work-life integration is moderated by three sets of moderators: micro-level
moderators (characteristics of the individual and his/her family environment); meso-level
(organizational influences); and macro-level (markets, institutions, and occupations).
This present study will focus on moderating factors at the micro-level since they are more
influenced by individual, rather than organizational and environmental characteristics.
Moderators included in the present study include boundary management strategy, job
involvement, psychological detachment, and job control, and will be discussed in the
following sections.
Boundary management strategy
Boundary management in the context of work-life interrelationships is receiving
increased attention within organizational studies (Clark, 2000; Golden & Geisler, 2007;
Fleming & Spicer, 2004). Boundary management strategy is defined in the present study
as the degree to which one strives to separate or integrate boundaries between work and
non-work roles (Kossek, Lautsch, & Eaton, 2006). Kossek, Noe, and DeMarr (1999)
similarly define boundary management strategy as the principles one uses to organize and
separate role demands and expectations into specific realms of work and non-work. With
37
the advent of mobile technologies and increasing mobile connectivity, employees are
now more than ever experiencing inter-role conflict as they try to balance the demands of
work and personal life (Ashforth, Kreiner, & Fulgate, 2000). Although the introduction of
mobile technologies may allow for greater life-integration, they simultaneously blur the
lines between work and non-work, causing increased conflict and tension between the
two domains (Batt & Valcour, 2003; Fenner & Renn, 2004; Valcour & Hunter, 2005).
As previously stated, research investigating the effects of mobile technologies
have found them instrumental in blurring the boundaries between the work and non-work
domain. Research by Golden & Geisler (2007) has shown for example, that increased
mobile connectivity can lead to constant interruptions and creates a sense of always being
"available" to your organization. Galinsky, Kim, and Bond (2001) similarly found that
workers using advanced information technology to perform work away from the office
frequently express complaints of feeling overworked and stressed. Research related to the
effects of teleworking and telecommuting has also shown to be positively associated with
increased boundary permeability (Standen, Daniels, & Lamond, 1999), such that
workplace technology has the potential to invade workers' lives and is more susceptible
to intrude on family life when carried out in the same location.
With regards to boundary management and work-life conflict, Macan (1994)
found that the impact of technology on work-life conflict may vary with the individual's
boundary management strategies. To this point, Ashforth, Kreiner, and Fugate (2000)
argue that workers who are less skilled in boundary management have more difficulty
separating work and family, and tend to transcend or overlap these domains by bringing
work-related activities into the home. On the other hand however, workers who keep
38
separate boundaries between work and home tend to discourage work-related activities
from encroaching into the home and are more inclined to schedule their work and
domestic tasks to avoid interference with one another (Fenner & Renn, 2004).
Although there is widespread agreement that mobile technologies complicate
work and non-work boundaries, there is little empirical research showing how individuals
and organizations use these technologies to both segment and integrate work and personal
life (Golden & Geisler, 2007). Recent research by Ashforth, Kreiner, and Fugate (2000)
highlight the fact that integrating work and non-work in time and space means that the
borders between the two domains may be permeable, therefore allowing the potential for
workers to be more interrupted by family influences and vice versa. Ashforth et al. (2000)
further argues that the permeability of work and non-work roles allows for unannounced
interruptions, increases confusion about what role to enact at a given time, and prevents
full disengagement from one role to immerse in a current role.
With regards to boundary theory and technology, Nippert-Eng (1996) suggests
that individuals construct mental and [sometimes] physical fences as a means of ordering
their work and family environment from integration to separation. Separators for
example, may turn off their cellular phones at the end of day and tend to not check email
during the evening. Separators can establish a clear divide between work and non-work
and rarely intertwine the two domains. Integrators on the other hand, may be more likely
to bring work into the home, perform work-related activities while away from the office,
or allow themselves to be accessible to their organization 24/7. Integrators believe that
the work and non-work domain may be complimentary to each other and allow each role
to spillover into the other domain.
39
Although previous research has found positive correlations between permeable
boundaries and work-life conflict, the relationship between mobile connectivity,
boundary management, and work-life outcomes has not been adequately tested. The
present study thus provides a new territory for examining how individuals choose to
separate and maintain boundaries between their two roles during non-working hours.
Given the preceding discussion on boundary management strategy, the following
hypotheses are presented:
Hypothesis 7a: Boundary management strategy will moderate the relationship
between mobile connectivity and stress, such that workers with an integration
strategy will receive higher stress ratings than workers with a separation strategy.
Hypothesis 7b: Boundary management strategy will moderate the relationship
between mobile connectivity and psychological well-being, such that workers
with an integration strategy will receive lower psychological well-being ratings
than workers with a separation strategy.
Hypothesis 7c: Boundary management strategy will moderate the relationship
between mobile connectivity and job satisfaction, such that workers with an
integration strategy will receive lower job satisfaction ratings than workers with a
separation strategy.
Hypothesis 7d: Boundary management strategy will moderate the relationship
between mobile connectivity and life satisfaction, such that workers with an
integration strategy will receive lower life satisfaction ratings than workers with a
separation strategy.
Job involvement
40
Besides boundary management strategies, employee characteristics such as job
involvement, role identification, and work-role salience have been found to influence the
relationship between technology and work-life outcomes (Valcour & Hunter, 2005). Prior
research has shown the importance of job involvement and work centrality in fostering
more discretionary types of work behaviors (Boswell & Olson-Buchanan, 2007).
Furthermore, Kanungo (1982) describes that employees with high job-involvement
purposely identify with their jobs because of the job' s unique ability to satisfy their most
important intrinsic and extrinsic needs. Ashforth, Kreiner, and Fugate (2000) similarly
describe that individuals are likely to favor work or non-work roles that provide
satisfying extrinsic or intrinsic rewards.
Job involvement is primarily based on upon an individual's level of self-esteem
and work motivation, which are satisfied and influenced by situational characteristics of
the job (Brown, 1996; Kanungo, 1982). Individuals high in job involvement consider the
work they do to be central to their existence and get much satisfaction out of their work,
while individuals low in job involvement see work as a means to an end and do not feel
as satisfied. A meta-analysis conducted by Brown (1996) further suggests that employees
who rate high on job involvement are inclined to demonstrate more job effort, are more
satisfied with their work, will be more committed to their organizations, and are less
inclined to quit their jobs than their low job-involvement counterparts. Moreover,
individuals who are more committed to their work adopt a set of favorable attitudes
toward the career that conforms to commitment. As a result, workers with high career
commitment tend to view their job more positively than workers with low career
commitment and are more persistent towards attaining their internalized career goals
41
(Aryee & Tan, 1992).
With regards to technology and job involvement, Batt and Valcour (2003) found
that technology-based stressors such as pervasive electronic monitoring are associated
with higher levels of job burnout and work exhaustion, which is in turn related to lowered
satisfaction with work-life integration. Fenner and Renn (2004) further argue that
employees high in job involvement will be internally motivated to extend their workday
through technological tools because they consider work central to their existence.
Schlosser's (2002) qualitative study on wireless technologies similarly revealed an
important role for self-identify in how individuals perceive and use technologies, and in
particular how individuals use technologies to complement their personae. Their research
suggests that individuals whose personal identification is linked closely to their work are
more likely to use mobile technologies even when involved in other domains (e.g., in the
family). Furthermore, since individuals who are more involved in their work may be able
to tolerate higher levels of stressors at work (Batt & Valcour, 2003), higher job
involvement may serve as a buffer against the negative effects of technology. As job
involvement motivates individuals to commit more psychological and emotional
resources to their work role versus their family role, these individuals may be more
committed to their job and thus more likely to view technology as an extension of their
work and as a way of improving their career prospects and personal performance. Based
on the preceding discussion of job involvement, the following hypotheses are presented:
Hypothesis 8a: Job involvement will moderate the relationship between mobile
connectivity and stress, such that workers who are more involved in their job will
receive lower stress ratings than workers who are less involved in their job.
42
Hypothesis 8b: Job involvement will moderate the relationship between mobile
connectivity and psychological well-being, such that workers who are more
involved in their job will receive higher psychological well-being ratings than
workers who are less involved in their job.
Hypothesis 8c: Job involvement will moderate the relationship between mobile
connectivity and job satisfaction, such that workers who are more involved in
their job will receive higher job satisfaction ratings than workers who are less
involved in their job.
Hypothesis 8d: Job involvement will moderate the relationship between mobile
connectivity and life satisfaction, such that workers who are more involved in
their job will receive higher life satisfaction ratings than workers who are less
involved in their job.
Psychological detachment from work
Psychological detachment is concept described as being psychologically detached
from the pressures and demands of work. Etzion, Eden, and Lapidot (1998) first
introduced the term sense of detachment to describe an "individual's sense of being away
from the work situation" (p. 579). Psychological detachment from work goes one step
further and is defined as the ability to "disengage oneself mentally from work and to stop
thinking about one's work and job-related problems or opportunities" (Sonnentag &
Fritz, 2007, p. 205). Simply stated, psychological detachment is a process related to
recovering or unwinding from the job stressors of work (Sonnentag & Fritz, 2007). It
implies not being occupied by work-related duties during non-working hours such as
receiving job-related phone calls at home or actively engaging in job-related activities.
43
For the purposes of the present study, psychological detachment will be used to
emphasize the psychological component of disengaging from work during non-working
hours, as opposed to simply being physically absent from the workplace (Sonnentag &
Bayer, 2005).
It is no surprise that psychological detachment has been associated with a number
of stressors, including poor psychological health, physical well-being, and burnout (Eden,
2001; Lundberg & Lindfors, 2002). Geurts, Kompier, Roxburgh, and Houtman (2003)
further argued that high workload negatively affects health and well-being because it
limits the opportunities for recovery. More specifically, higher workload makes
psychological detachment from work less likely, thus causing negative consequences
such as stress and work-life conflict. Evidence from longitudinal research suggests that
high workload is one of the core job-related predictors of poor health and well-being
(Carayon, 1993; Ganster, Fox, & Dwyer, 2001). Other research has found negative
effects of chronic time pressure and the amount of daily work hours on psychological
detachment from work during evening hours (Sonnentag & Bayer, 2005).
In a study investigating the relationship between workload and psychological
detachment, Cropley and Purvis (2003) examined the degree of rumination about job-
related issues among school teachers between the hours of 5 p.m. and 9 p.m. Their
research suggests that teachers with low workload (compared to those with high
workload) showed a fast decrement in rumination, indicating that they were successful in
psychologically detaching from work. Teachers with high workloads on the other hand,
showed a less prominent decline in rumination and were still ruminating about their job at
9 p.m. Although research on mobile connectivity and psychological detachment is very
limited, Sonnentag (2001) further argued that the probability to recover from the stressors
of work will be low if a person continues to pursue job-related activities during off-job
time. It can thus be argued that individuals who continue to work during non-working
hours via mobile devices limit the potential for psychological detachment, making them
more susceptible to negative health and well-being consequences. Given the literature
describing the relationship between psychological detachment from work and work-life
outcomes, the following hypotheses are presented:
Hypothesis 9a: Psychological detachment from work will moderate the
relationship between mobile connectivity and stress, such that workers who are
less detached from their job after normal working hours will receive higher stress
ratings than workers who are more detached from their job.
Hypothesis 9b: Psychological detachment from work will moderate the
relationship between mobile connectivity and psychological well-being, such that
workers who are less detached from their job after normal working hours will
receive lower psychological well-being ratings than workers who are more
detached from their job.
Hypothesis 9c: Psychological detachment from work will moderate the
relationship between mobile connectivity and job satisfaction, such that workers
who are less detached from their job after normal working hours will receive
lower job satisfaction ratings than workers who are more detached from their job.
Hypothesis 9d: Psychological detachment from work will moderate the
relationship between mobile connectivity and life satisfaction, such that workers
who are less detached from their job after normal working hours will receive
45
lower life satisfaction ratings than workers who are more detached from their job.
Job Control
In the work-life literature, job control - or sometimes referred to as control over
work time - is defined as the ability to manage work and family demands while lessening
the resource drain that is associated with work-related activities (Valcour, 2007) In more
simple terms, job control is the ability to exert control over when and where to schedule
work, or the ability to interrupt work when needing to respond to family or personal
demands. Job control functions as an important resource to support employees' work-life
balance because it is closely related to the ability to manage multiple role demands
(Kossek, Lautsch, & Eaton, 2006). Job control plays an important role in the present
study since mobile technology has the potential to infiltrate an individual's personal and
family life. Having control over one's work can lessen the strain people feel in situations
in which work constraints make it difficult to attend to important family matters, and vice
versa (Valcour, 2007).
Research has long shown that personal autonomy over how a job is done is linked
to increased individual well-being (Hackman & Oldham, 1980). With the advent of
mobile technologies, individual control over when and where the job is done are key
aspects of job control that should be assessed as more professionals are completing jobs
away from the traditional office (Kossek, Lautsch, & Eaton, 2006). Longer hours,
working on weekends, and the inability to "shut down" all contribute to the amount of
control a worker has over his or her job. As work hours increase for example, individuals
with high work control are more likely to continue meeting their multiple role demands.
By contrast, individuals with low work control do not have the same work-based resource
46
to rely on, have less capacity to meet multiple role demands, and are more likely to result
in lower satisfaction ratings with work family balance (Kossek et al., 2006).
Sonnentag and Fritz (2007) on the other hand, explain control in an alternate
manner. They describe job control as "a person's ability to choose an action from two or
more options" (p. 207). In their research, the focus of control shifts from control over
work, to personal control over leisure time away while from the workplace. Personal
control has been associated with positive reevaluation of stressful situations and has been
found to be associated with lower distress and higher psychological well-being (Lazarus,
1966). Larson (1989) further found that the experience of control during the day was
positively related to happiness. In relation to control over work and psychological well-
being, Ryan and Deci (2001) found that the psychological experience of control over
work time was associated with feelings of well-being and contentment, two psychological
resources that bolster individuals' satisfaction and performance in multiple domains.
Since job control has to do with how much control one has in deciding when and
where to work, comparisons can be made between technology and workplace flexibility.
Virtual work and telework for example, are two examples of workplace flexibility
benefits that allow individuals to better manage how, when, and where they work.
Research conducted by Hill et al. (2003) for example, states that the flexibility inherent in
telework generally benefits the family, and that telework enables increases autonomy in
the scheduling of paid work and housework. Valcour (2007) further found that that the
use of mobile technology increases people's autonomy, work functioning, and offers
greater work-schedule flexibility. Greenhaus et al. (1989) similarly explains that virtual
work leads to less stress and conflict because technology allows for more autonomy in
47
deciding how and when work will be completed. Lastly, recent research by Chesley
(2005) indicates that work-life balance is improved with the addition of virtual work due
to the added flexibility and ability to work virtually.
Both virtual work and telework and just two examples of resources for meeting
work and family demands. Having control over one's work means having the ability to
control when and where one works. Past research has shown that job control leads to
increased satisfaction with work-family balance and individual well-being (Hackman &
Oldham, 1980). This argument is further supported by research finding that control is
associated with lower work-family conflict (Kossek, Lautsch, & Eaton, 2006), as well as
by studies that have demonstrated the impact of flexible work arrangements (e.g., flex
time and telecommuting) on work-family conflict (Anderson, Coffey & Byerly, 2002;
Hill, Hawkins, Ferris, & Weitzman, 2001). Given the preceding literature on job control,
the following hypotheses will be tested:
Hypothesis 10a: Job control will moderate the relationship between mobile
connectivity and stress, such that workers with more job control will receive
lower stress ratings than workers with less job control.
Hypothesis 10b: Job control will moderate the relationship between mobile
connectivity and psychological well-being, such that workers with more job
control will receive higher psychological well-being ratings than workers with
less job control.
Hypotheses 10c: Job control will moderate the relationship between mobile
connectivity and job satisfaction, such that workers with more job control will
receive higher job satisfaction ratings than workers with less job control.
48
Hypotheses lOd: Job control will moderate the relationship between mobile
connectivity and life satisfaction, such that workers with more job control will
receive higher life satisfaction ratings than workers with less job control.
CHAPTER4
Measures and Methodology
Participants and Procedures
Data for the present study was collected using an online survey software tool
(Zoomerang.com) that allows users to create, send, and analyze survey data on-demand.
Zoomerang offers survey software creation as a service for businesses and individuals
conducting consumer, competitor, academic, and customer satisfaction surveys. Similar
to other online survey providers (e.g., SurveyMonkey), Zoomerang allows researchers to
create online surveys that have the potential to reach participants via the Internet
throughout the United States. Although the traditional methods of questionnaire
administration are through phone, mail, personal interview, and web-surveys such as
SurveyMonkey, there is a growing interest in administering surveys thought Internet
respondent panels as they offer advantages of cost, data collection speed, control over
attributes, and higher generalizability due to large national databases (Piccolo & Colquitt,
2006). As opposed to traditional internet surveys where researchers provide their own
email addresses for potential participants, Zoomerang offers a supplementary service that
lets researchers tap into Zoomerang's extensive online participant pool (ZoomPanel),
having the potential to reach Zoomerang's 2.5 million existing pre-screened members.
Zoomerang reports that the profile of the ZoomPanel is representative of the U.S.
population and can be filtered based on selected attributes. This kind of data makes for
greater participant selection control as it allows researchers to filter a search criteria
based on participant attributes relevant to a given study. For the present study, potential
respondents were filtered on the basis of age (18 years of age and older), location (United
49
50
States of America), and employment status (full-time and part-time). In addition, since
one of the goals of the present study was to investigate the effects of mobile technology
on work-life outcomes, potential survey respondents were filtered on the basis of if they
used mobile technologies (smartphones, cellular phones, or laptop computers) to
complete work or non-work related activities. Filtering the search criteria allowed for a
more targeted audience and ensured that all survey questions would be relevant to the
given population.
Although the ZoomPanel includes more than 2.5 million members, a response rate
of 400 unique participants was set as the target sample for the present study. Zoomerang
members who met the criteria for the present survey (as described above) were invited
via email to take part in the survey. This email contained a web link with the title and a
brief description of the survey. If participants agreed to participate, they were redirected
to the online survey and asked to agree with the informed consent, stating that they read
and understood the contents of the form and were 18 years of age or older. If participants
did not agree with the informed consent, their survey was automatically ended.
As an incentive for completing the survey, Zoomerang provided participants with
"ZoomPoints" which are redeemable for popular movies, music, gift cards, and more. In
general, the number of "ZoomPoints" participants receive for each completed survey
varies based on the particular survey, and usually ranges between 25 and 150.
Respondent Demographics
As requested, a total of 400 individual responses were obtained from the
Zoomerang sample, which had been filtered on the basis of age (18 years of age and
older), location (Unites States), employment status (full-time and part-time), and users of
51
mobile technologies (smartphones, cellular phones, laptop computers, etc.). Since the
present study was designed to examine the effects of mobile technology on traditional
full-time workers, the sample was further filtered to only include respondents who were
employed full-time or self-employed, and worked a minimum of 30 hours per week.
Furthermore, the data were screened for out-of-range values, input errors, and missing
data (see Chapter 5 for a more thorough discussion of the data screening procedures).
Of the original 400 original participants, 311 usable responses were included in
the study. Participants included 157 males (51%) and 153 females (49%). Approximately
80% (n = 248) of participants listed their ethnic background as White/Caucasian,
followed by Black/African American (n = 22, 7%), Asian/Pacific Islander (n = 19, 6%),
Spanish/Hispanic/Latino (n = 13, 4%), Multi-Ethnic (n = 3, 1%), Other (n = 3, 1%), and
Native American (n = 1, <1%). Approximately 69% (n = 212) of participants were
married or living with another adult in a committed relationship, and slightly less than
half (n = 148, 48%) were taking care of children under 18 years of age or other family
members (e.g., parents, grandparents). About one-third of participants were between the
ages of 35-44 (n = 105, 34%), followed by those between 45-54 years old (n = 79, 25%),
25-34 years old (n = 72, 23%), 55-64 years old (n = 41, 13%), 65 years and older (n = 11,
4%), and 18-24 years old (n = 3, 1%). More than half of the participants were college
graduates (n = 188, 61%), while the remaining one-third had at least an associate's degree
or some college (n = 105, 34%). Approximately 91% identified as working full-time (n =
283), while the rest identified as either self-employed (n = 28, 9%).
Participants reported spending the majority of their working time at their
company's office and/or satellite office locations (n = 229, 74%), followed by working
52
from a home office (n = 46, 15%), and time spent equally between a company and home
office (n = 19, 6%). Approximately two-thirds of participants reported working between
40-49 hours per week (n = 195, 63%), followed by those who worked 30-39 hours per
week (n = 70, 22%), and those who worked more than 50 hours per week (n = 46, 15%).
Sixty-three percent of participants reported working between 0-5 additional hours per
week, (n = 195), 15% between 6-9 additional hours per week (n = 47), 14% between 10-
19 additional hours per week (n = 44), and 7% more than 20 additional hours per week (n
= 23).
Participants were fairly evenly distributed in terms of occupational level and
organizational size. For occupational level, 29% of participants identifying themselves as
Director level of above (n = 86), 19% as Manager or Assistant Manager level (n = 60),
31% as Supervisor level or below (n = 99), 6% in an academic role (n = 17), 13% as
"Other" (n = 39), and 2% in professional roles (e.g., doctor, lawyer, computer
programmer). For organization size, 33% of participants (n = 102) worked in small-sized
companies (1-99 employees), 38% of participants (n = 117) in mid-sized organizations
(100-5000 employees), and 29% of participants (n = 91) in large-sized organizations
(more than 5000 employees).
Regarding participants' frequency and duration of mobile technology usage, 31%
of participants (n = 97) most frequently used laptops to complete work or non-work-
related activities while away from their primary office, followed by users of smartphones
(n = 90, 29%), cellular phones (n = 59, 19%), and devices listed as "other" (n = 7, 2%).
For those who used mobile technologies to complete work-related activities while away
from their primary office, participants reported (in hours) using laptops (M = 9.71, SD =
53
9.42) more often than smartphones (M = 8.01, SD = 11.22) or cellular phones (M = 6.63,
SD = 8.50).
Measures
In the following section, the measures included in the survey are described in
detail. Sets of survey items that measured particular constructs (e.g., stress, work-life
conflict, perceived stress, etc.) were averaged to compute scale scores for each
respondent. For example, the 10 items that were used to measure perceived stress were
averaged to calculate a respondent's overall perceived stress score. Some scales were
adapted from previously published measures with high reliability. Unless otherwise
noted, all question were Likert-type scale items with response ratings ranging from 1 =
"strongly disagree" to 5 = "strongly agree." The items included in each of the scales are
listed in Tables 1- 9.
Mobile connectivity
Past research on mobile technology usage has almost exclusively used a self-
report measure of technology usage (Speier & Venkatesh, 2002). Mobile connectivity in
the present study refers to the use of mobile technologies (e.g., smartphones, cellular
phones, and laptop computers) to complete work or non-work related activities.
Furthermore, since a goal of the present study was to measure individual's mobile
connectivity during non-working time, participants were asked to answer questions
related to their mobile connectivity during non-working hours and while away from their
company's work location. To ensure an accurate response, a composite score of mobile
connectivity was created using two different approaches: frequency of usage and duration
of usage.
54
First, mobile connectivity was measured by asking respondents to report the
frequency with which they use an array of mobile devices to perform their job during
nonworking hours. Response options were on a five-point Likert-type scale with 1 =
"very rarely" and 5 = "very often." This measure is based on Batt and Valcour's (2003)
measure of flexible technology use and adapted by Boswell and Olson-Buchanan (2007).
The measure assessed the frequency usage of three mobile devices: smartphones, cellular
phones, and laptop computers. Responses to the individual technologies were then
averaged to create an index of reported frequency by device, and then combined to create
an overall index of mobile connectivity frequency
Second, respondents were asked to report the amount of free time, or non-working
time (in hours) they used each of the mobile devices in a typical week. This measure
assessed the duration of time participants used each of the three mobile devices while
away from their primary office. Similar to mobile connectivity frequency, responses to
the individual technologies were averaged to create an index of reported duration by
device, and then combined to create an overall index of duration. Furthermore, in order to
reduce the effect of observation errors, a new 'duration' variable was created which
categorized (binned) each continuous data point into one of five discrete categories,
representing the total number of usage hours for all three devices: 1-4 hours, 5-9 hours,
10-19 hours, 20-30 hours, and 40+ hours. Lastly, mobile connectivity frequency and the
new duration variable were combined into a composite variable to create an overall
measure of mobile connectivity.
Work-life conflict
Work-life conflict was assessed using a modified version of Carlson, Kacmar, &
55
Williams' (2000) 18-item multidimensional scale. The language on the scale was slightly
modified to be more inclusive of individuals without a typical family structure. Items
containing the word "family" were modified so that it read "family/personal." Sample
items include, "The time I spend on family/personal responsibilities often interferes with
my work responsibilities," and "My work keeps me from my family/personal activities
more than I would like." Consistent with previous research (e.g., Carr, Boyar, & Gregory,
2008; Witt & Carlson, 2006), the scale was divided into two major subscales: work
interference with family (WIF), and family interference with work (FIW). Item responses
for each of the subscales were averaged to create an overall score for each subscale, with
higher scores indicating more work-family conflict in either direction (WIF or FIW). The
coefficient alpha for the WIF subscale was .90, and .93 for the FIW subscale (n = 311).
However, since the purpose of the present study was to investigate the effects of mobile
connectivity (a work-related construct) on work-life outcomes, only WIF was included in
the analyses and will hereafter be referred to as work-life conflict.
Perceived stress
Perceived stress was measured using the 10-item Perceived Stress Scale (PSS;
Cohen, Kamarck & Mermelstein, 1983) The PSS is a measure of the degree to which
situations in one's life are appraised as stressful. The scale was rated using a 5-point
Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = "never" to 5 = "very often". Sample items included,
"In the last month, how often have you felt nervous and stressed?" and "In the last month,
how often have you been able to control irritations in your life?" Cohen, Kamarck and
Mermelstein reported a coefficient alpha of .85 for this scale, and an alpha of .88 (n =
311) was found in the present study.
56
Psychological well-being
The General Health Questionnaire 12 (GHQ-12) was used to assess psychological
well-being. The GHQ-12 is a widely used instrument covering a range of psychiatric
symptoms, designed to assess the degree of psychological morbidity and well-being. In
the present study, 12 questions were structured such that respondents were asked to
compare their current mental state to how they usually feel. Six positively worded
questions (sample item: "Have you recently been able to face up to your problems?") and
six negatively worded questions (sample item: "Have you recently lost much sleep over
worry?") were assessed on a 5-point Likert-type scale. Positively worded questions were
rated from 1 = "better than usual" to 5 = "much less than usual," and negatively worded
questions were rated from 1 = "not at all" to 5 = "much more than usual." Although the
scale is intended on measuring psychological well-being along two dimensions (positive
and negative), the GHQ-12 has been extensively evaluated in terms of its validity and
reliability as a unidimensional index of psychological well-being (Hardy et. al, 1999). An
overall score of psychological well-being was calculated by taking the aggregate mean of
each of the 12 questions. The coefficient alpha in the present study was .92 (n = 311).
Scores for this item were later reversed to reflect higher scores indicating more
psychological well-being, and lower scores indicating less psychological well-being.
Job satisfaction
Job satisfaction was measured using a 3-item short form scale taken from the
Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire (Cammann, Fichman, Jenkins, &
Klesh, 1979). Sample items include, "All in all, I am satisfied with my job," and "In
general, I like working for my organization." Applications of this scale in previous
57
research (see Cook, Hepworth, Wall, & War, 1981) yielded a coefficient alpha of .77. In
the present study, the scale had a coefficient alpha of .93 (n = 311).
Life satisfaction
Life satisfaction was measured using the Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS)
developed Pavot and Diener (1993) The SWLS is a 5-item instrument designed to
measure global cognitive judgments of one's lives. Sample items included, "In most ways
my life is close to ideal," and "If I could live my life over, I would change almost
nothing." Pavot and Diener reported a coefficient alpha of .87, and the present study
yielded a coefficient alpha of .91 (n = 311).
Boundary management strategy
Boundary management strategy is a 10-item scale taken from a study by Kossek,
Lautsch, and Eaton (2005). The scale ranges from a strategy favoring high separation (5 =
"strongly agree"), where one strives to keep their work and personal roles very separate,
to a strategy favoring high integration, where one strives to let work and family roles blur
(1 = "strongly disagree"). Some items were reversed coded so that the higher the scale,
the higher the separation. Sample items included, "I prefer to not talk about my family
issues with most people I work with," and "I tend to integrate work and family/personal
roles throughout the work day" (reverse coded). The coefficient alpha for the scale in the
present study was .79 (n = 311).
Psychological detachment from work
Psychological detachment from work was measured using a 4-item modified
version of the Recovery Experience Questionnaire (Sonnentag & Fritz, 2007). Sample
items included, "When I leave work, I forget about the responsibilities and stressors of
58
work" and "I don't think about work at all when I get home." The items were rated on a
5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = "strongly disagree" to 5 = "strongly agree"
with higher scores indicating more psychological detachment. A coefficient alpha of .85
was reported by the authors, and in the present study yielded a .91 (n = 311).
Job involvement
Job involvement was measured using Kanungo's (1982) 10-item Job Involvement
Questionnaire (JIQ). Sample items included, "The most important things that happen to
me involve my present job" and "I consider my job to be very central to my existence."
The scale originally used a 6-point agree-disagree response format but was revised to use
a 5-point Likert scale. Boswell and Olson-Buchanan (2007) used a modified, 6-item
version of the JIQ scale to determine how the use of telecommunications technologies
beyond normal work hours related to work-related attitudes and work-life conflict. They
found a coefficient alpha of .72. The present study used the original 10-item scale and
found a coefficient alpha of .85 (n = 311).
Psychological job control
Psychological job control was measured using scales from two previous studies.
Psychological job control measures an individual's perceptions of one's personal freedom
to control where, when, and how one completes their job. A 3-item scale was used which
was adapted from the Job Diagnostics Survey (Hackman & Oldham, 1980). Sample items
included, "How much autonomy do you have in your job," and "To what extent does
your job permit you to decide on your own about how to go about doing your work."
Responses to these questions ranged from 1 = "very little" to 5 = "very much."
Additionally, Kossek, Lautsch, and Eaton (2005) suggested four additional items to
59
capture newer forms of flexibility as noted in the work-family literature: personal
flexibility control over work location and scheduling (i.e., time and place autonomy).
Sample items from this scale included, "To what extent does your job permit you to
decide on your own about when the work is done" and "I have the freedom to work
wherever is best for me - either at home or at work." Responses to these questions ranged
from 1 = "very little" to 5 = "very much" with higher numbers indicating more
psychological job control. Kossek, Lautsch, and Eaton reported a coefficient alpha of .74
for this scale and the present study reported a coefficient alpha of .89 (n = 311) for the
combined 7-item scale.
Demographic items
Participants were also asked to provide information regarding their gender, age,
education level, yearly household income range, ethnicity, employment status, industry,
functional area, job level, company size, and responsibility for dependent care. However,
for the purposes of the present study, only age and gender were used as control variables
in the final analyses.
CHAPTER 5
Results
Preliminary analyses
Prior to performing statistical analyses, the data were screened as recommended
by Tabachnick and Fidell (2007). Data were screened for out-of-range values (outliers),
input errors, missing data, skewness, and kurtosis. Furthermore, analyses of scatterplots
and histograms of the independent and dependent variables were examined to determine
if the data were sampled from a multivariate normal distribution. The skewness and
kurtosis for each variable revealed no values greater than an absolute value of one,
suggesting reasonably normal distributions. Since all variables adequately satisfied
assumptions of normality, no statistical transformations were necessary.
In order to test the relationships between the predictor variable (mobile
connectivity), mediator variable (work-life conflict), moderator variables (boundary
management, job involvement, psychological detachment, job control), and criterion
variables (stress, psychological well-being, job satisfaction, life satisfaction),
correlational, regression, and structural equation modeling (SEM) analyses were
conducted. See Figure 2 for a model of all proposed relationships. For each of the
proposed hypotheses, preliminary analyses were conducted to ensure that the
assumptions underlying correlational, regression, and ANOVA statistical methods were
satisfied. Means, standard deviations, correlations, and reliability estimates are presented
in Table 1. Missing values for the mediating variable (work-life conflict), moderating
variables (boundary management, psychological detachment, job involvement, job
control) and criterion variables (stress, psychological well-being, job satisfaction, life
60
61
satisfaction) were imputed using mean substitution.
Furthermore, in order to ensure that each of the independent variables (IVs) were
well-conditioned for moderated regression, each of the IVs were mean-centered to
prevent multicollinearity. According to Lynch (2003), the problem of multicollinearity
primarily occurs when IVs are more highly correlated with other IVs then they are with
the dependent variable. In order to alleviate this problem, each IV in the moderated
regresssion analysis was mean-centered by subtracting the mean from each score,
resulting in a shift of the data towards the mean. All further values used in the moderated
regression analyses refer to the mean-centered values for each independent variable
(mobile connectivity, boundary management, psychological detachment, job
involvement, and job control).
Lastly, the data were tested for common method bias. As in the present study, one
of the problems with single-respondent data is the possibility of common method bias. As
noted by Bagozzi and Yi (1991), common method bias is one of the main sources of
systematic measurement error in which the exclusive reliance on self-reported survey
data may be indicative of common method variance. One of the most common tests
available to test for common method bias is Harmon's single-factor test (Podsakoff &
Organ, 1986). In this test, if a substantial amount of common method variance is present
in the data sample, either a single factor will emerge from the factor analysis or one
general factor will account for the majority of the covariance in the variables. An
exploratory factor analysis using principal components analysis without rotation revealed
three factors with Eigenvalues greater than 1 explaining 62% of the variance, with the
first factor explaining 29% of the variance, followed by 19%) and 14% in the second and
62
third factor, respectively. These findings indicate that the variances are well distributed
among multiple factors, suggesting a lack of common method bias in the data sample.
Figure 2.
Complete model of proposed variables.
63
Results of formal hypothesis testing.
Direct effect hypotheses testing
Hypotheses 1 - 5 examined the relationships between mobile connectivity and
perceived stress (HI), psychological well-being (H2), job satisfaction (H3), life
satisfaction (H4), and work-life conflict (H5). More specifically, Hypothesis 1, 3, 4, and
5 stated that mobile connectivity would be positively related to perceived stress, job
satisfaction, life satisfaction, and work-life conflict, respectively. Conversely, Hypothesis
2 stated that mobile connectivity would be negatively related to psychological well-being.
Correlational analyses using Pearson's correlation coefficient were used to examine the
relationship between mobile connectivity and each of the outcome variables. As
hypothesized, mobile connectivity was positively related to perceived stress (r = .12, p <
.05) and work-life conflict (r = .16, p < .01), providing support for Hypotheses 1 and 5.
Similar support was found for Hypothesis 2, as mobile connectivity was negatively
related to psychological well-being (r = -.1 \,p < .05). No support was found for
Hypotheses 3 and 4, as mobile connectivity was not positively related to job satisfaction
(r = -.02, p > .05) or life satisfaction (r = -.05, p > .05). Moreover, the direction of the
relationships in Hypotheses 3 and 4 were in the opposite (negative) direction than as
originally hypothesized, suggesting that mobile connectivity may be negatively related to
job satisfaction and life satisfaction.
V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e

M
S
D

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

1
0

1
.

M
o
b
i
l
e

c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y

2
.

B
o
u
n
d
a
r
y

m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

3
.

P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

d
e
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

4
.

J
o
b

i
n
v
o
l
v
e
m
e
n
t

5
.

J
o
b

c
o
n
t
r
o
l

6
.

W
o
r
k
-
l
i
f
e

c
o
n
f
l
i
c
t

7
.

S
t
r
e
s
s

8
.

P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

w
e
l
l
-
b
e
i
n
g

9

J
o
b

s
a
t
i
s
f
a
c
t
i
o
n

1
0
.

L
i
f
e

s
a
t
i
s
f
a
c
t
i
o
n

2
.
8
5

2
.
9
8

3
.
0
4

2
.
7
4

3
.
2
0

2
.
6
4

2
.
6
1

3
.
9
7

3
.
5
8

3
.
2
1

0
.
9
6

0
.
6
0

0
.
9
7

0
.
6
8

0
.
9
6

0
.
8
1

0
.
6
9

0
.
5
4

1
.
0
1

0
.
8
7

.
.
.

-
.
1
3
*

-
.
1
0

.
1
2
*

.
1
4
*

.
1
6
*
*

.
1
2
*

-
.
1
1
*

-
.
0
2

-
.
0
5

(
.
7
9
)

.
4
2
*
*

-
.
0
6

-
.
1
2
*

.
1
6
*
*

-
.
0
4

-
.
0
1

-
.
0
2

.
0
3

(
.
9
1
)

-
.
3
2
*
*

-
.
2
0
*
*

-
.
0
8

-
.
1
3
*

.
0
7

.
0
4

.
1
6
*
*

(
.
8
5
)

.
3
3
*
*

.
2
1
*
*

.
0
6

-
.
1
6
*
*

.
3
8
*
*

.
0
9

(
-
8
9
)

-
.
1
5
*

.

1
7
*
*

.
0
6

3
9
*
*

.
2
0
*
*

(
.
9
0
)

.
5
6
*
*

-
.
5
7
*
*

-
.
2
9
*
*

.

j
7
*
*

(
.
8
8
)

-
.
7
2
*
*

-
.
4
7
*
*

-
.
4
6
*
*

(
.
9
2
)

.
3
3
*
*

.
3
1
*
*

(
.
9
3
)

.
5
1
*
*

(
.
9
1
)

N
o
t
e
:

R
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
s

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d

o
n

t
h
e

d
i
a
g
o
n
a
l

C
o
r
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n

i
s

s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t

a
t

t
h
e

0
.
0
5

l
e
v
e
l
;

*
*
C
o
r
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n

i
s

s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t

a
t

t
h
e

0
.
0
1

l
e
v
e
l

65
Mediating effect of work-life conflict
Hypotheses 6a through 6d state that work-life conflict mediates the relationship
between mobile connectivity and each of the work-life outcomes (stress, psychological
well-being, job satisfaction, and life satisfaction). Mediation occurs when the effect of the
independent variable leads to changes in a mediating variable, which in turn affects the
dependent variable. Thus, mobile connectivity is suggested to affect work-life conflict,
which in turn is suggested to affect each of the outcome variables.
According to Baron and Kenny (1986), a variable acts as a mediator when four
conditions have been met using a stepwise procedure involving a series of regression
analyses. See Figure 3 for a diagram of proposed mediator paths. The four conditions
include: (1) mobile connectivity must be significantly related to the outcome variable
(path c), (2) mobile connectivity must be significantly related to work-life conflict (path
a), (3) work-life conflict must be significantly related to the outcome variable while
controlling for mobile connectivity (path b), and (4) the previous significant relationship
between mobile connectivity and the outcome variable is no longer significant after
controlling for the effects of work-life conflict (path c'). Following the steps outlined by
Baron and Kenny, the following regression equations were calculated: (1) regressing each
of the work-life outcomes onto mobile connectivity, (2) regressing work-life conflict onto
mobile connectivity, and (3) regressing each of the outcomes variable onto both work-life
conflict and mobile connectivity simultaneously. Three separate mediation analyses were
conducted for each of the four outcome variables, resulting in a total of 12 regression
equations. Control variables (age and gender) were additionally included in each of the
regression analyses. See Table 2 for a summary of all path results.
66
Figure 3.
Baron and Kenny (1986) mediation paths.
Mediator
/S C
Predictor Outcome
(C)
Table 2.
Test of the mediating effects of work-life conflict on the relationship between mobile
connectivity and study outcome variables.
Outcome
Stress
Psychological
well-being
Job
satisfaction
Life
satisfaction
Path
a
0.13*
(0.05)
0.13*
(0.05)
0.13**
(0.05)
0.13**
(0.05)
Path
b
0.43***
(0.04)
-0.35***
(.03)
-0 33***
(0.07)
-0.16*
(0.06)
Path
c
0.09*
(0.04)
-0.07*
(0.03)
-0.04
(0.06)
-0.05
(0.05)
Path
c'
0.04
(0.03)
-0.03
(0.03)
0.01
(0.06)
-0.03
(0.05)
Red. in
Effect
0.05
-0.04
-0.05
-0.02
z
2.53*
-2.54*
-2.28*
-1.86
Note: Values shown are unstandardized (b) path coefficients. Values shown in
parentheses are accompanying standard errors.
*p < .05; **p <.01; ***p < .001
67
Stress
Hypotheses 6a stated that work-life conflict will mediate the relationship between
mobile connectivity and stress. The following sets of regression equations were used to
test this relationship. See Table 3 for the results of this analysis. In the first step of
analysis, there was a significant relationship between mobile connectivity and stress,
producing an R
2
of .14, F(l, 306) = 5.92,p < .05 and a significant beta weight (fi = .13, p
< .05). In the second step of analysis, there was a significant relationship between mobile
connectivity and work-life conflict, producing an R
2
of .09, F(\, 306) = $.03, p < .01 and
a significant beta weight (fi = .16, p < .01). In the third step of the analysis, the
relationship between work-life conflict and stress produced an R of .36, F(l, 306) =
117.88, p < .001 and a significant beta weight (fi = .50, p < .001), while the relationship
between mobile connectivity and stress yielded a non-significant R of .37, F(\, 305) =
1.25,/? > .05 and a non-significant beta weight (fi = .05, p > .05) in step 4. According to
Baron and Kenny, in order to demonstrate complete mediation, the relationship between
mobile connectivity and stress would have to be non-significant in the final model. Since
the relationship between mobile connectivity and stress was non-significant in the final
model, there is support for Hypothesis 6a stating the work-life conflict mediates the
relationship between mobile connectivity and stress. The Sobel test further confirmed that
this mediated effect was statistically significant, z = 2.53,p < .05.
Psychological well-being
The next set of regression equations were used to test work-life conflict as a
mediating variable between mobile connectivity and psychological well-being
(Hypothesis 6b). See Table 4 for the results of this analysis. In the first step of analysis,
68
there was a significant relationship between mobile connectivity and psychological well-
being, producing an R
2
of .09, F(l, 306) = 5.37,p < .05 and a significant beta weight (JS =
-A3,p< .05). In the second step of analysis, there was a significant relationship between
mobile connectivity and work-life conflict, producing an R of .09, F(l, 306) = 8.03, p <
.01 and a significant beta weight (fi = .16, p < .01). In the third step of the analysis, the
relationship between work-life conflict and psychological well-being produced an R of
.34, F(l, 306) = 126.03,;? < .001 and a significant beta weight (/? = -.53, p < .001), while
the relationship between mobile connectivity and psychological well-being yielded a non-
significant R
2
of .34, F(l, 305) = .90, p > .05 and a non-significant beta weight (p = -.05,
p > .05) in step 4. Since the relationship between mobile connectivity and psychological
well-being was non-significant in the final model, there is support for Hypothesis 6b
stating the work-life conflict mediates the relationship between mobile connectivity and
psychological well-being. The Sobel test further confirmed that this mediated effect was
statistically significant, z = -2.54,p < .05.
Job satisfaction and life satisfaction
Similar to the analyses conducted for stress and psychological well-being, Baron
and Kenny's (1986) mediation steps were conducted for job satisfaction and life
satisfaction (Hypotheses 6c and 6d, respectively). In the first step of the analysis, a non-
significant R
L
of .07, F(l, 306) = .37,p > .05 was found for job satisfaction, and a non-
- y
significant R
A
of .02, F{\, 306) = .82,/? > .05 was found for life satisfaction. Although
step 1 outlined by Baron and Kenny had been violated, Kenny, Kashy, and Bolger (1998)
more recently state that all four steps do not have to be met in order for there to be
mediation. These researchers argue that although step 4 is necessary for complete
69
mediation, step 1 is not necessarily required and that a path from the initial variable to the
outcome is implied if steps 2 and 3 are met. Shrout and Bolger (2002) similarly state that
mediation can occur even when an initial link between two variables is not established
(via suppression or small effect sizes). As such, all possible mediation models were
estimated, even if an initial link between mobile connectivity and the outcome variable
was not established.
With regards to job satisfaction, there was a significant relationship between
mobile connectivity and work-life conflict in the second step of analysis producing an R
2
of .09, F(l , 306) = 8.03,;? < .01 and a significant beta weight (fi = .16,p < .01). In the
third step of the analysis, the relationship between work-life conflict and job satisfaction
produced an R
2
of .13, F(l , 306) = 23.61,/? < .001 and a significant beta weight (fl = -.27,
p < .001), while the relationship between mobile connectivity and job satisfaction yielded
a non-significant R
2
of. 13, F(l, 305) = .02, p > .05 and a non-significant beta weight {fi =
.01,/? > .05) in step 4. Since the relationship between mobile connectivity and job
satisfaction was non-significant in the final model, there is support for Hypothesis 6c
stating the work-life conflict mediates the relationship between mobile connectivity and
job satisfaction. The Sobel test further confirmed that this mediated effect was
statistically significant, z - -2.28, p < .05. See Table 5 for the results of this analysis.
Steps 2-4 were also conducted for life satisfaction. In the second step of analysis,
there was a significant relationship between mobile connectivity and work-life conflict,
producing an R
2
of .09, F(l , 306) = 8.03,/? < .01 and a significant beta weight (fi = .16,/?
< .01). In the third step of the analysis, the relationship between work-life conflict and
life satisfaction produced an R
2
of .04, F(l, 306) = 6.83,/? < .01 and a significant beta
70
weight (fi = -A5,p< .05), while the relationship between mobile connectivity and life
satisfaction yielded a non-significant R of .04, F(l , 305) = .25,p > .05 and a non-
significant beta weight (fi - -.03, p > .05) in step 4. Although the relationship between
mobile connectivity and life satisfaction was non-significant in the final model, the Sobel
test found that this mediated effect was not statistically significant, z = 1.86, p > .05. This
result suggests that work-life conflict does not mediate the relationship between mobile
connectivity and life satisfaction, providing no support for Hypothesis 6d. See Table 6 for
the results of this analysis.
71
Table 3.
Regression analyses for the mediating effect of work-life conflict on the relationship
between mobile connectivity and stress.
(Hypothesis 6a)
Predictor
Stepl
Mobile connectivity
Step 2
Mobile connectivity
Step 3 & Step 4
Work-life conflict
Mobile connectivity
Outcome
Stress
Work-life conflict
Stress
P
.13
.16
.50
.05
P
<.05
<.01
<.001
.27
AR
2
.02*
.02**
25***
.00
Note: Main effect variables are centered, prior to inclusion. Values shown are
standardized coefficients
*/?<.05; **/?<.01; ***/?<.001
72
Table 4.
between mobile connectivity and psychological well-being.
(Hypothesis 6b)
Predictor
Stepl
Mobile connectivity
Step 2
Mobile connectivity
Step 3 & Step 4
Work-life conflict
Mobile connectivity
Outcome
Psychological well-
being
Work-life conflict
Psychological well-
being
P
-.13
.16
-.53
-.05
P
<.01
<.01
<.001
.34
AR
2
.02*
.02**
97***
.00
*/?<.05; **/?<.01; ***/?<.001
73
Table 5.
between mobile connectivity and job satisfaction.
(Hypothesis 6c)
Predictor
Step 1
Mobile connectivity
Step 2
Mobile connectivity
Step 3 & Step 4
Work-life conflict
Mobile connectivity
Outcome
Job satisfaction
Work-life conflict
Job satisfaction
fi
-.03
.16
-.27
.01
P
.55
<.01
<.001
.88
AR
2
.00
.02**
07***
.00
*/?<.05; **p<.01; ***/?< .001
74
Table 6.
between mobile connectivity and life satisfaction.
(Hypothesis 6d)
Predictor
Step 1
Mobile connectivity
Step 2
Mobile connectivity
Step 3 & Step 4
Work-life conflict
Mobile connectivity
Note: Main effect variab
Outcome
Life satisfaction
Work-life conflict
Life satisfaction
P
-.05
.16
-.15
-.03
P
.37
<.01
<.05
.62
es are centered, prior to inclusion. Values shown
AR
2
.00
.02**
.02**
.00
are
*p<. 05; **/?<.01; ***p<.001
75
Moderating Hypotheses
Hypotheses 7-10 examined the moderating effects of boundary management,
psychological detachment, job involvement, and job control on the relationship between
mobile connectivity and each of the four outcome variables (stress, psychological well-
being, job satisfaction, and life satisfaction). In order to test the hypothesized
relationships among these variables, moderated hierarchical regression analyses were
conducted and changes in R were examined for each of the models. Furthermore, prior to
conducting the analyses, predictor variables were mean-centered to reduce any problems
of multicollinearity (Aiken & West, 1991). Centering a variable converts it to deviation
scores so that each variable has a mean of zero.
Moderating effect of boundary management
Hypotheses 7a - 7d stated that boundary management would moderate the
relationship between mobile connectivity and each of the work-life outcome variables.
Specifically, the present study hypothesized that an individual's boundary management
strategy would moderate the degree to which mobile connectivity affects each of the
outcome variables (e.g., stress, psychological well-being, job satisfaction, and life
satisfaction). With regards to stress, individuals with an integration boundary
management strategy (integrators) were expected to experience higher stress ratings than
those with a separation management strategy (separators). Furthermore, this research
hypothesized that integrators would receive lower psychological well-being ratings, job
satisfaction ratings, and life satisfaction ratings than their separator counterparts. Results
were initially not supported by these analyses as boundary management was not
significantly related to stress (r = .04,p > .05), psychological well-being (r = -.0l,p>
76
.05), job satisfaction (r = -.02,p > .05), or life satisfaction (r = .03,p > .05).
In order to test the extent to which boundary management moderated the
relationship between mobile connectivity and each of the outcome variables, moderated
hierarchical regression analyses were conducted. See Tables 7 - 10 for the results of these
analyses. Control variables were entered in the first step of the model (age and gender),
followed by mobile connectivity and boundary management in the second and third steps,
respectively. Lastly, the product of mobile connectivity and boundary management was
entered in the fourth step of the model. No additional support was found for Hypothesis
7a - 7d as the AR
2
of the interaction component of this model was not significant with
stress (AF = 2.33, p > .05), psychological well-being (AF = .37, p > .05), job satisfaction
(AF = .82, p > .05), or life satisfaction (AF = 1.92, p > .05). Therefore, the moderated
hierarchical regression analyses did not support the moderating role of boundary
management as predicted in Hypotheses 7a - 7d.
While boundary management was not shown to moderate the relationship
between mobile connectivity and each of the outcome variables, a main effect of mobile
connectivity (J3 = .13, AR = .02, p < .05) was found for stress, as well as significant main
effect of mobile connectivity (fi = -.13, AR
2
= .02, p < .05) for psychological well-being.
These findings further support Hypotheses 1 and 2, indicating a positive relationship
between mobile connectivity and stress, and a negative relationship between mobile
connectivity and psychological well-being.
77
Table 7.
Hierarchical regression analyses testing the moderating effect of boundary management
on the relationship between mobile connectivity and stress.
(Hypothesis 7a)
Variable
Model 1 - Control variables
Age
Gender
Model 2 - Main effect
Age
Gender
Mobile connectivity
Model 3 - Main effect of moderator
Age
Gender
Mobile connectivity
Boundary management
Model 4 - 2-way interaction
Age
Gender
Mobile connectivity
Boundary management
Mobile connectivity X Boundary
management
P
-.34
.01
-.34
.02
.13
-.34
.02
.13
-.02
-.35
.02
.11
-.02
.08
P
<.001
.80
<.001
.72
.02
<.001
.78
.02
.74
<.001
.79
.04
.77
.13
AR
2
12***
.02*
.00
.01
*p<.05; **p<.0l; ***/?<.001
78
Table 8.
on the relationship between mobile connectivity and psychological well-being.
(Hypothesis 7b)
Variable
Age
Gender
Age
Gender
Mobile connectivity
Age
Gender
Mobile connectivity
Boundary management
Age
Gender
Mobile connectivity
Boundary management
management
P
21
.02
.27
.01
-.13
.27
.01
-.13
-.03
.27
.01
-.14
-.03
.03
P
<.001
.74
<.001
.81
.02
<.001
.89
.02
.64
<.001
.90
.02
.67
.55
AR
2
07***
.02*
.00
.00
*/? < .05; **/?<.01; ***/? < .001
79
Table 9.
on the relationship between mobile connectivity and job satisfaction.
(Hypothesis 7c)
Variable
Age
Gender
Age
Gender
Mobile connectivity
Age
Gender
Mobile connectivity
Boundary management
Age
Gender
Mobile connectivity
Boundary management
management
P
.25
.01
.26
.01
-.03
.25
.01
-.04
-.02
.26
.01
-.03
-.02
-.05
P
<.001
.84
<.001
.86
.55
<.001
.92
.52
.73
<.001
.92
.65
.70
.37
AR
2
.06***
.00
.00
.00
*p<.05; **/?<.01; ***/?<.001
80
Table 10.
on the relationship between mobile connectivity and life satisfaction.
(Hypothesis 7d)
Variable
Age
Gender
Age
Gender
Mobile connectivity
Age
Gender
Mobile connectivity
Boundary management
Model 4 - Hypothesized 2-way interaction
Age
Gender
Mobile connectivity
Boundary management
management
P
.12
.09
.12
.08
-.05
.12
.09
-.05
.04
.13
.09
-.03
.04
-.08
P
.04
.14
.03
.15
.37
.03
.12
.42
.48
.03
.12
.61
.51
.17
AR
2
.02
.00
.00
.01
*p<.05; **p<.0\; ***
p
<.001
81
Moderating effect of job involvement
Hypotheses 8a - 8d predicted that job involvement would moderate the
relationship between mobile connectivity and each of the outcome variables. More
specifically, individuals who were more involved in their job were expected to receive
lower stress ratings, higher psychological well-being ratings, higher job satisfaction
ratings, and higher life satisfaction ratings than individuals who were less involved in
their job. Research indicates that individuals with high job involvement purposely
identify with their jobs because of the job's unique ability to satisfy their most important
intrinsic and extrinsic needs (Kanungo, 1982). Similarly, high-job involved employees
consider the work they do to be central to their existence and get much satisfaction out of
their work, while low-job involved employees see work as a means to an end and do not
feel as satisfied. Initial results were partially supported for Hypothesis 8c, as job
involvement was related to job satisfaction (r = .38, p < .001), but negatively related to
psychological well-being (r = -.16, p < .01) for Hypotheses 8b. The relationship between
job involvement and stress (r = .06, p > .05) and life satisfaction (r = .09,p>.05) were
not initially supported for Hypotheses 8a and 8d, respectively.
As in the previous moderated hierarchical regression analyses, control variables,
mobile connectivity, and job involvement were entered in the first, second, and third
steps, respectively, followed by the product of mobile connectivity and job involvement
in the fourth step of the model. No additional support was found for Hypothesis 8a - 8c
as the AR of the interaction component of this model was not significant with stress (AF
= .28, p = .596), psychological well-being (AF= 1.76, p > .05), or job satisfaction (AF =
1.341,/? > .05). See Tables 11 - 14 for the results of these analyses. For Hypotheses 8d
82
however, there was a marginal moderating effect of job involvement on the relationship
between mobile connectivity and life satisfaction, yielding a AR of .01, F(l , 304) = 3.57,
p < . 10, and a beta weight of /? = . 11, p < . 10 for the interaction term of this model.
Although the two-way interaction did not account for significant incremental variance in
job satisfaction above and beyond the variance explained by the main effects, the
moderating effect of job involvement was plotted to show this relationship (see Figure 4).
Based on visual inspection, the moderating effect of job involvement on the relationship
between mobile connectivity and life satisfaction was consistent with predictions
(although not significant): increased mobile connectivity was associated with higher life
satisfaction under conditions of higher job involvement. Simple slope calculations
following Aiken and West's (1991) procedures confirm however, that the job
involvement levels (high, medium, and low) were not significantly different from zero (t
= .61,/? > .05; t = -.85, p> .05; t- -1.92, p < .10, respectively). These results suggest that
that although all three slopes were not-significantly different from zero, the slope for low
levels of job involvement was steeper than the slopes of high and medium levels of job
involvement. Conceptually, mobile connectivity is more strongly associated with life
satisfaction for those with low levels of job involvement than for those with high or
medium levels of job involvement. Thus, incongruent with Hypotheses 8d, simple slope
analyses suggest that the moderating effect of job involvement did not affect the
Although the moderated regression analyses did not statistically support
Hypotheses 8a - 8c, significant main effects were found for each of the outcome
variables. There was a significant main effect of mobile connectivity for stress, (J3 = .13,
83
AR
2
= .02,p < .05) as well as significant main effect of mobile connectivity ifi = -.13, AR
2
= .02, p < .05) for psychological well-being. There was also a main effect of job
involvement for psychological well-being (@_ = -.\5, AR
2
= .02,p < .05), job satisfaction
09 = .40, AR
2
= .15,p< .001), and life satisfaction (fi = .12, AR
2
= .01, p < .05), above and
beyond the effects of mobile connectivity.
Figure 4.
Graphical representation of the moderating effect of job involvement on the relationship
between mobile connectivity and life satisfaction.
Moderating Effect of Job Involvement on the Relationship
between Mobile Connectivity and Life Satisfaction
Job
Involvement
-high
med
Mobile Connectivity
84
Table 11.
Hierarchical regression analyses testing the moderating effect of job involvement on the
(Hypothesis 8a)
Variable
Age
Gender
Age
Gender
Mobile connectivity
Age
Gender
Mobile connectivity
Job involvement
Age
Gender
Mobile connectivity
Boundary management
Mobile connectivity X job involvement
P
-.34
.01
-.34
.02
.13
-.34
.03
.12
.05
-.34
.03
.12
.05
-.03
P
<.001
.80
<.001
.72
.02
<.001
.59
.02
.32
<.001
.60
.02
.34
.60
AR
2
12***
.02*
.00
.00
*p<.05; **/?<.01; ***;?<.001
85
Table 12.
(Hypothesis 8b)
Variable
Age
Gender
Age
Gender
Mobile connectivity
Age
Gender
Mobile connectivity
Job involvement
Age
Gender
Mobile connectivity
Boundary management
Mobile connectivity X Job involvement
P
21
.02
.27
.01
-.13
.26
-.01
-.11
-.15
.27
-.01
-.11
-.14
.07
P
<.001
.74
<.001
.81
.02
<.001
.82
.04
.01
<.001
.85
.04
.01
.19
AR
J
A T * * *
.02*
.02**
.01
*/?<.05; **p<.0l; ***
p
<.001
86
Table 13.
(Hypothesis 8c)
Variable
Age
Gender
Age
Gender
Mobile connectivity
Age
Gender
Mobile connectivity
Job involvement
Age
Gender
Mobile connectivity
Boundary management
P
.25
.01
.25
.01
-.03
.27
.08
-.08
.40
.28
.08
-.08
.41
.06
P
<.001
.84
<.001
.86
.55
<.001
.12
.14
<.001
<.001
.11
.14
<.001
.25
AR
2
Qg***
.00
15***
.00
*p<. 05; **p<.01; ***p<.001
87
Table 14.
(Hypothesis 8d)
Variable
Age
Gender
Age
Gender
Mobile connectivity
Age
Gender
Mobile connectivity
Job involvement
Age
Gender
Mobile connectivity
Boundary management
fi
.12
.09
.12
.08
-.05
.13
.10
-.06
.12
.14
.11
-.06
.13
.11
P
.04
.14
.03
.15
.37
.03
.07
.26
.04
.02
.07
.27
.03
.06
AR
2
.02
.00
.01*
.01
*p<.05; **/?<.01; ***/? < .001
88
Moderating effect of psychological detachment
Hypotheses 9a - 9d stated that psychological detachment would moderate the
relationship between mobile connectivity and each of the work-life outcome variables.
Specifically, the present study hypothesized that an individual's level of psychological
detachment (more detachment vs. less detachment) would enhance or lessen the degree to
which mobile connectivity affects each of the outcome variables (e.g., stress,
psychological well-being, job satisfaction, and life satisfaction). With regards to stress,
individuals who were less psychologically detached from their jobs were expected to
experience higher levels of stress ratings than those who were less psychologically
detached from their jobs. Furthermore, this research hypothesized that individuals who
were less psychologically detached from their jobs would receive lower psychological
well-being ratings, job satisfaction ratings, and life satisfaction ratings than those who
were more psychologically detached from their jobs. Initial results were partially
supported for Hypothesis 9a and 9d, as psychological detachment was related to stress (r
= -A3,p< .05) and life satisfaction (r = .16,p < .01), respectively. The relationship
between psychological detachment and psychological well-being (r = .07, p > .05) or job
satisfaction (r = .04, p > .05) were not initially supported for Hypotheses 9b and 9c. No
additional support was found for Hypothesis 9a - 9d as the AR
2
of the interaction
component of this model was not significant with stress (AF= .85,/? > .05),
psychological well-being (AF = .20,p > .05), job satisfaction (AF= .93,p > .05), or life
satisfaction (AF= 1.08,/? > .05). Therefore, the moderated hierarchical regression
analyses did not support the moderating role of psychological detachment as predicted in
Hypotheses 9a - 9d. See Tables 15 - 18 for the results of these analyses.
89
While psychological detachment was not shown to moderate the relationship
between mobile connectivity and each of the outcome variables, a main effect of mobile
connectivity (fi= A3,AR = .02,p < .05) was found for stress, as well as significant main
effect of mobile connectivity (/? = -.13, AR
2
= .02, p < .05) for psychological well-being.
There was also a significant main effect of psychological detachment (fi = -.11, AR =
.01,/? < .05) for stress, as well as a significant main effect of psychological detachment (fi
= A6,AR = .03, p < .01) for life satisfaction, above and beyond the effects of mobile
connectivity.
90
Table 15.
detachment on the relationship between mobile connectivity and stress.
(Hypothesis 9a)
Variable
Age
Gender
Age
Gender
Mobile connectivity
Age
Gender
Mobile connectivity
Psychological detachment
Age
Gender
Mobile connectivity
Boundary management
Mobile connectivity X psychological
detachment
fi
-.34
.01
-.34
.02
.13
-.34
.01
.12
-.11
-.34
.01
.11
-.11
.05
P
<.001
.80
<.001
.72
.02
<.001
.79
.03
.04
<.001
.83
.06
.04
.36
AR*
12***
.02*
.01*
.00
*p<. 05; **/?<.01; ***/>< .001
91
Table 16.
detachment on the relationship between mobile connectivity and psychological well-
being.
(Hypothesis 9b)
Variable
Age
Gender
Age
Gender
Mobile connectivity
Age
Gender
Mobile connectivity
Age
Gender
Mobile connectivity
Boundary management
detachment
fi
.27
.02
.27
.01
-.13
.27
.02
-.12
.06
.27
.01
-.13
.06
.03
P
<.001
.74
<.001
.81
.02
<.001
.77
.03
.28
<.001
.80
.02
.28
.59
AR
2
m***
.02*
.00
.00
*p<.05; **/?<.01; ***/? < .001
92
Table 17.
detachment on the relationship between mobile connectivity and job satisfaction.
(Hypothesis 9c)
Variable
Age
Gender
Age
Gender
Mobile connectivity
Age
Gender
Mobile connectivity
Age
Gender
Mobile connectivity
Boundary management
detachment
P
.25
.01
.25
.01
-.03
.25
.01
-.03
.03
.26
.01
-.02
.03
-.06
P
<.001
.74
<.001
.81
.02
<.001
.77
.03
.28
<.001
.80
.02
.28
.59
AR
2
.06***
.00
.00
.00
*p<. 05; **p<M; ***/?<.001
93
Table 18.
detachment on the relationship between mobile connectivity and life satisfaction.
(Hypothesis 9d)
Variable
Age
Gender
Age
Gender
Mobile connectivity
Age
Gender
Mobile connectivity
Age
Gender
Mobile connectivity
Boundary management
detachment
P
.12
.09
.12
.08
-.05
.12
.09
-.04
.16
.12
.09
-.02
.16
-.06
P
.04
.14
.03
.15
.37
.03
.11
.53
.01
.03
.10
.73
.01
.30
AR
2
.02
.00
.02**
.00
*/?<.05; **/?<.01; ***
p
<.001
94
Moderating effect of job control
Hypotheses 10a - lOd stated that job control would moderate the relationship
between mobile connectivity and each of the work-life outcome variables. Specifically,
this research hypothesized that an individual's level of job control (more control vs. less
control) would enhance or lessen the degree to which mobile connectivity affects each of
the outcome. With regards to stress, individuals who had more job control were expected
to experience lower levels of stress ratings than those who had less job control.
Furthermore, the present study hypothesized that individuals who had more job control
would receive higher psychological well-being ratings, job satisfaction ratings, and life
satisfaction ratings than those who had less job control. Initial results were partially
supported for Hypothesis 10a, 10c, and lOd, as job control was related to stress (r = -.17,
p < .05), job satisfaction (r = .39,p < .001) and life satisfaction (r = .20,p < .001),
respectively. The relationship between job control and psychological well-being (r = .06,
p > .05) was not significant.
Moderated hierarchical regression analyses were conducted to test the extent to
which job control moderated the relationship between mobile connectivity and each of
the outcome variables. Control variables, mobile connectivity, and job control were
entered in the first, second, and third steps, respectively, followed by the product of
mobile connectivity and job control in the fourth step of the model. This procedure was
repeated for each of the four outcome variables. No additional support was found for
Hypothesis 10a - lOd as the AR
2
of the interaction component of this model was not
significant with stress (AF = 1.77, p> .05), psychological well-being (AF = 2.16, p >
.05), job satisfaction (AF = .04, p > .05), or life satisfaction (AF= .12, p > .05).
95
Therefore, the moderated hierarchical regression analyses did not support the moderating
role of job control as predicted in Hypotheses 10a - lOd. Tables 19- 22 for the results of
these analyses.
While job control was not shown to moderate the relationship between mobile
connectivity and each of the outcome variables, significant main effects were found each
of the outcome variables. There was a significant main effect of mobile connectivity (fi =
.13, AR
2
= .02, p < .05) for stress, and a significant main effect of mobile connectivity (fi
= -.13, AR .02,p < .05) for psychological well-being. Furthermore, there was also a
significant main effect of job control (fi = .37, AR
2
= A2,p< .001) for job satisfaction, as
well as a main effect of job control (/? = .22, AR
2
= .04, p < .01) for life satisfaction,
above and beyond the effects of mobile connectivity.
Table 19.
(Hypothesis 10a)
Variable
Age
Gender
Age
Gender
Mobile connectivity
Age
Gender
Mobile connectivity
Job control
Age
Gender
Mobile connectivity
Boundary management
Mobile connectivity X Job control
P
-.34
.01
-.34
.02
.13
-.32
.00
.14
-.09
-.32
.01
.13
-.08
-.07
P
<.001
.80
<.001
.72
.02
<.001
.93
.01
.14
<.001
.90
.01
.15
.19
AR
2
j2***
.02*
.01
.00
*/?<.05; **/?<.01; ***;?<.001
Table 20.
(Hypothesis 10b)
Variable
Age
Gender
Age
Gender
Mobile connectivity
Age
Gender
Mobile connectivity
Job control
Age
Gender
Mobile connectivity
Boundary management
P
21
.02
.27
.01
-.13
.27
.01
-.13
.00
.28
.01
-.12
-.01
.08
P
<.001
.74
<.001
.81
.02
<.001
.82
.02
.94
<.001
.86
.03
.90
.14
AR
2
ny* **
.02*
.00
.01
*/?<.05; * * p<. 01; ***/?<.001
Table 21.
(Hypothesis 10c)
Variable
Age
Gender
Age
Gender
Mobile connectivity
Age
Gender
Mobile connectivity
Job control
Age
Gender
Mobile connectivity
Boundary management
P
.25
.01
.25
.01
-.03
.15
.08
-.08
.37
.15
.08
-.08
.37
.01
P
<.001
.84
<.001
.86
.55
.01
.16
.13
<.001
.01
.16
.13
<.001
.85
AR
2
.06***
.00
j2***
.00
*p<. 05; **/?<.01; ***/?<.001
Table 22.
(Hypothesis Wd)
Variable
Age
Gender
Age
Gender
Mobile connectivity
Age
Gender
Mobile connectivity
Job control
Age
Gender
Mobile connectivity
Boundary management
0
.12
.09
.12
.08
-.05
.06
.12
-.08
.22
.06
.12
-.08
.22
.02
P
.04
.14
.03
.15
.37
.30
.04
.16
<.001
.29
.04
.17
<.001
.73
AR
2
.02
.00
04***
.00
*p<. 05; **/?<.01; ***<.001
100
Structural equation modeling
Structural equation modeling using AMOS 7.0 (Arbuckle, 1997) was used to
simultaneously assess the competing hypothesized models and corroborate the results
from the preceding regression analyses. Structural equation modeling was selected as an
additional technique because of its several advantages over regression modeling,
including but not limited to: allowing for analysis of paths among variables in the model,
better model visualization through its graphical modeling interface, the desirability of
testing models overall rather than coefficients individually, the ability to test models with
multiple dependent variables, the ability to model mediating variables rather than be
restricted to an additive model as in regression, and lastly, the desirability of its strategy
of comparing alternative models to assess relative model fit (McDonald & Ho, 2002).
Furthermore, SEM also allows for analysis of an entire system of variables and
assessment of a complete model to determine goodness of fit (i.e., the extent to which the
model is able to explain the observed data) and the validity of the hypothesized model
(i.e., significant of the hypothesized paths).
The first step of the SEM analyses was to test whether the structural model
yielded results that supported the hypothesized paths in the overall model. Overall, the
original model of the hypothesized relationships did not demonstrate acceptable
goodness-of-fit. Results from the goodness of fit indices (CFI, NFI, RPI) were well below
.95, the recommended 'rule of thumb' according to Hu and Bentler (1999). Given the
poor fit of the overall model, post-hoc analyses were conducted by removing all non-
significant paths from the overall model. Similar to the overall model, the resulting model
did not demonstrate an acceptable goodness of fit, x
2
(10)
=
48.44, p < .001, CFI = .85;
101
NFI = .83, and RFI = .54.
To find the best fitting model, additional post-hoc analyses were conducted until
satisfactory fit indices were found. The best fitting model, as shown in Figure 5, yielded a
X
2
(5) = 18.85,/? < .01, CFI = .90; NFI = .87, and RFI - .75. SEM reports path coefficients
in the form of maximum likelihood estimates, which are identical to the standard least-
square solution for regression coefficients (Arbuckle, 1997). As predicted from
Hypothesis 5, the relationship between mobile connectivity and work-life conflict was
significant (ML = .13, p < .01), as well as the relationship between work-life conflict and
psychological well-being (ML = -.37,p < .001). Consistent with Hypotheses 7 - 1 0
however, no moderating effects were supported by the SEM analyses, suggesting that the
interaction term did not account for any additional variance in the outcome variables.
102
Figure 5.
Best fitting Structural Equation Model.
Goodness of Fit Indices:
X
2
= 18.85
DF = 5
CFI = .90
NFI = .87
RFI = .75
"k-k-k
CHAPTER 6
Discussion
The present study sought to investigate the relationship between mobile
connectivity and a variety of work-life outcomes. More specifically, the present study
tested a series of direct effect, mediating, and moderating models that influenced the
relationship between mobile connectivity and stress, psychological well-being, job
satisfaction, and life satisfaction. Building upon previous work-life literature related to
mobile technology (e.g., Boswell & Olson-Buchanan, 2007; Chesley, 2005; Messersmith,
2007), the present study attempted to add to the existing body of literature in the
following ways: (1) investigate the role of mobile connectivity during non-working hours
on work-life outcomes, (2) improve upon previous mobile communication usage
measures, and (3) examine three contrasting models (direct effects, mediating,
moderating) as they relate to mobile connectivity and work-life outcomes. The results of
the study demonstrate the value of examining a range of moderating and mediating
variables to help explain the complex relationship between mobile connectivity and
various work-life outcome variables. In the following sections, key findings from the
study and theoretical implications are presented, followed by a discussion of the
implications for organizations, limitations of the present study, and directions for future
research.
Key findings
Mobile connectivity and work-life outcomes
One of the goals of the present study was to test both positive and negative
outcome variables associated with mobile connectivity during non-working hours. As
103
104
previously discussed, most research has focused solely on negative outcomes associated
with mobile technology such as work-family conflict, negative spillover, family
dissatisfaction, distress, and lower overall life quality (e.g., Batt & Valcour, 2003;
Chesley, 2005; Frone, 2003; Valcour & Hunter, 2005). Following research from Valcour
and Hunter however, the present study tested outcomes to determine the extent to which
technology was a positive force for the integration of work and non-work life, versus the
extent to which technology drives unwelcome cross-domain intrusion and negative
spillover effects.
The present study proposed that mobile connectivity would be positively
associated with perceived stress, job satisfaction, life satisfaction, and work-life conflict,
while negatively associated with psychological well-being. In support of Hypothesis 1
and consistent with previous research establishing a link between mobile technology and
stress (Bradley, 2000; Galinsky, Kim, & Bond, 2001; Milard, 1999), the present study
found a positive relationship between mobile connectivity and stress for individuals who
engaged in work-related activities during non-working hours. Moreover, the relationship
between mobile connectivity and stress was the strongest finding among any of the work-
life outcome variables. This finding comes as no surprise as a meta-analysis conducted by
Allen et al. (2000) found that stress-related outcomes were one of the most consistent and
strongest findings in the work-life literature. This finding is also supported by more
recent research that found that different types of communications technology use were
associated with symptoms of perceived stress (Thome'e, et al., 2005).
In support of Hypotheses 2, there was a significant negative relationship between
mobile connectivity and psychological well-being. This finding is similarly supported by
105
recent research indicating a relationship between persistent communication use and
psychological distress (Chesley, 2005). Chesley's findings suggest that persistent
communication use is significantly linked to increased distress and decreased family
satisfaction, as well as increases in negative work-to-family or family-to-work spillover
in individuals. As stress and psychological well-being are related constructs, it comes as
no surprise that increases in mobile connectivity would lead to increases in stress and
decreases in psychological well-being. Such relationships are further explained by role-
strain hypotheses, whereby an individual encounters role conflict when the expectations
or demands from one role (i.e., staying connected after-hours) interfere with the
individual's ability to meet the expectations or demands from another role (Merton,
1957).
As one of the objectives was to identify positive aspects of mobile connectivity on
work-life outcomes, Hypotheses 3 and 4 stated that mobile connectivity would be
positively related to job satisfaction and life satisfaction. While such relationships had not
been formally tested in past research, similar research has been shown demonstrating the
positive effects of technology on work-life outcomes. Chesley (2005) for example, found
that mobile technology can offer individual's greater work-schedule flexibility, the ability
to work virtually, and allow individuals to better balance work and family
responsibilities. Moreover, research by Batt and Valcour (2003) found that the use of
mobile technology increased people's autonomy, work functioning, and offered greater
work-schedule flexibility. Lastly, a 2007 study conducted by Messersmith further added
that working virtually allowed employees with young children to better tend to their
needs while still working full- or part-time.
106
Although the aforementioned studies found positive relationships between mobile
technology and work-life outcomes, findings in the present study were not supported by
Hypotheses 3 and 4, indicating no significant relationship between mobile connectivity,
job satisfaction, and life satisfaction, respectively. Furthermore, the relationships between
mobile connectivity and job and life satisfaction were in the negative, rather than
hypothesized positive direction. While not statistically significant, these finding suggest
that mobile connectivity may be negatively influencing job and life satisfaction, rather
than acting as a positive influence between the proposed variables. These finding further
corroborate the abundance of literature suggesting the detrimental effects of mobile
technology on work-life outcomes (e.g., Anderson, Coffey, & Byerly, 2002; Batt &
Valcour, 2003; Galinsky, Kim, & Bond, 2001; Milard, 1999).
One of the fundamental questions of the present study can be summarized into
one succinct question: Does mobile technology exacerbate or reduce work-life conflict?
This one question was the impetus for present study, which then lead to additional
questions investigating the nature of this relationship. Given the trend of Hypotheses 1 -
4, it was no surprise to find a significant positive relationship between mobile
connectivity and work-life conflict (Hypothesis 5). This finding is consistent with similar
studies linking technology and work-life conflict, suggesting that increases in mobile
technology leads to increases in work-life conflict, stress, and burnout (Batt & Valcour,
2003; Chesley, 2005; Frone, 2003). As Fenner and Renn (2004) eloquently state, when an
individual is engaged in technology usage during after-hours,
"the worker who may also be a member of a family is not readily available, either
psychologically or physically, to pursue those responsibilities deemed to be of important
by the nonwork on family role. When work represents the most important values
embraced by the worker, conflict may ignite within the family. This conflict serves to
107
motivate the worker to disengage from the preferred work activity so he/she is free to
redirect efforts to a family-oriented activity, while holds lower value, and thus, increases
dissatisfaction in that domain" (p. 191).
Additional research by Chesley (2005) further supports this argument by stating
that persistent communications technology use is not only associated with increased
levels of work-life conflict, but also increases individual distress and decreased family
satisfaction.
Mediating effect of work-life conflict
Although the zero-order correlations provided support for Hypotheses 1, 2, and 5,
a main objective of the present study was to investigate the role of work-life conflict as a
mediating variable between mobile technology and each of the work-life outcomes
(stress, psychological well-being, job satisfaction, and life satisfaction). Previous research
has supported such relationships, as Chesley (2005) found that negative work-to-family
spillover mediated the relationship between communication use and negative affect
(psychological distress). Results from the present study supported Hypotheses 6a - 6c,
suggesting that work-life conflict partially mediated the relationship between mobile
connectivity and stress, psychological well-being, and job satisfaction, respectively.
Work-life conflict partially mediated the relationship between mobile
connectivity and each of the work-life outcomes. As predicted, mobile connectivity was
related to work-life conflict, which in turn was related to stress, psychological well-being,
and job satisfaction. For stress and psychological well-being, the relationship between
work-life conflict and each of the outcome variables was in the proposed direction.
Mobile connectivity positively affected work-life conflict, which in turn positively
affected stress and negatively affected psychological well-being. For job satisfaction
108
however, zero-order correlations initially provided no support for Hypothesis 6c. As
previously discussed however, recent research suggests that an initial correlation between
the independent and dependent variable is not required, as the independent variable could
have a direct effect on the dependent variable as well as an indirect effect on the
dependent variable through the mediating variable (MacKinnon, Krull, & Lockwood,
2000). Moreover, the relationship between the independent variable and dependent
variable may reverse in sign after the introduction of the mediator, suggesting that the
mediator is acting as a suppressor variable. As in the case of the present study, the
introduction of work-life conflict changed the nature (and direction) of the relationship
between mobile connectivity and job satisfaction, ultimately providing support for
Hypothesis 6c.
Taken altogether, these findings suggest that mobile connectivity affected work-
life conflict, which in turn affected stress, psychological well-being, and job satisfaction.
These mediated paths add to the importance of this research by examining alternate
models in explaining the relationship between mobile connectivity and work-life
outcomes. As previously discussed, the majority of work-life research has only examined
the direct effects of technology on outcome variables (e.g., Batt & Valcour, 2003;
Chesley, 2005; Frone, 2003; Lowry & Moskos, 2006). This research advances the field
by establishing a key mediating variable between mobile connectivity and work-life
outcomes. More specifically, these findings help uncover an active mechanism that links
mobile connectivity via work-life conflict to well-established outcome variables in the
work-life literature (e.g., stress, psychological well-being, and job satisfaction).
Moderated regression analyses
109
The present study not only predicted direct and mediated effects on work-life
outcomes, but also moderating effects of individual characteristics on the relationship
between mobile connectivity and each of the proposed work-life outcomes. More
specifically, boundary management, psychological detachment from work, job
involvement, and job control were all hypothesized to moderate the relationship between
mobile connectivity and stress, psychological well-being, job satisfaction, and life
satisfaction. Valcour and Hunter (2004) support this argument by describing that certain
factors influence, or moderate the relationship between technology and work-life balance.
A total of 16 moderated regressions were conducted to test the proposed
relationships. Despite previous research suggesting that individual difference have been
found to influence the relationship between technology and work-life outcomes (e.g.,
Boswell & Olson-Buchanan, 2007; Valcour & Hunter, 2005), no statistical significance
were found for any of the hypotheses. While main effects were found for each of the
relationships, no significant interaction terms were found to be significant for any of the
moderating variables. Only the moderating effect of job involvement on the relationship
between mobile connectivity and life satisfaction (Hypothesis 6c) approached levels of
statistical significance (p < .01). This finding corroborates previous research that job
involvement may serve as a buffer for individuals against the negative effects of mobile
technology (Valcour & Hunter, 2005). Although not quite significant at the p < .05 level,
results from the present study suggest that increases in mobile connectivity is associated
with increases in life satisfaction under conditions of high job involvement. A more
detailed examination of the simple slopes reveal however, that the slope for low levels of
job involvement was steeper than the slopes of high and medium levels of job
110
involvement. Conceptually, mobile connectivity was more strongly associated with life
satisfaction for those with low levels of job involvement than for those with high or
medium levels of job involvement. Statistically, there was no real difference. This finding
does suggest however, that the moderating effect of job involvement may be warranted in
future research to determine the extent to which mobile technology affects work-life
outcomes.
Lastly, in testing the combination of mediating and moderating variables in a
structural equation model, the mediation of work interfering with family remained
significant, yet as shown before, none of the moderators were significant in the model,
thus corroborating the regression analysis.
Implications for individuals and organizations
The invention and diffusion of information and communication technologies are
said to be revolutionizing work and family life. As suggested by Valcour and Hunter
(2005), recent advances in information and communication technologies have helped
shape industrialized nations understand different ways to organize work, and the effect of
this on people's actual experiences at work. The personal computer, the Internet, and
more recently smartphones, are all contributing to a society that that focuses on
technological development, connectivity, and an increasing reliance on mobile
technologies. It comes to no surprise therefore, that newer, more advanced mobile
technologies have the ability to substantially impact work-related activities in today's
electronic society. This is particularly significant as people are now working at times and
places outside of the traditional workspace, increasingly blurring the boundaries between
work-life and non-work life. For some, this integration is welcomed, as it has been shown
I l l
to increases people's autonomy, work functioning, and offer greater work-schedule
flexibility (Batt & Valcour, 2003). For others however, the use of mobile technology has
resulted in negative consequences such as increases in work-life conflict, (Chesley,
2005), increases in individuals' felt conflict between work and family (Batt & Valcour,
2003), and an invasion of workers' sense of personal mastery (Chesley, Moen, & Shore,
2003).
Results from the present study suggest however, that the effects of mobile
technology were more associated with negative rather than positive work-life outcomes.
Mobile connectivity was positively related to stress and work-life conflict, while
negatively related to psychological well-being. These findings corroborate similar
findings in the work-life literature suggesting that the effects of mobile technology use
hinders, rather than helps individuals manage their work and non-work roles (Batt &
Valcour, 2003; Chesley, 2005; Frone, 2003). Role-strain theory further supports these
findings by suggesting that that increased stress or strain is experienced by an individual
when incompatible or finite resources are associated with a single role (Greenhaus &
Beutell, 1985). When each role (e.g., work vs. non-work) exerts demands on each of
these resources, strain and/or a variety of negative consequences are more likely to occur.
Greenhaus and Beutell further add that that the demands and strain from one domain may
spillover to affect health and performance in the other domain. As in the case of the
present study, demands from the work-domain were associated with negative
consequences in the non-work domain explained by an increase in work-life conflict and
stress, and a reduction in psychological well-being.
When considering the practical implications of mobile technology on individual
112
and organizational well-being, one must take into perspective both the positive and
negative aspects of being "connected" to their organization. While the results of the
present study found that mobile connectivity was associated with negative consequences,
other research has found positive outcomes (e.g., Valcour & Hunter, 2005). In addition,
more and more researchers are accepting the fact that technology not only represents a
threat to the quality of modern life, but can also represent new opportunities for
integrating work and non-work life. To this point, Boswell and Olson-Buchanan (2007)
state that examining these relationships will not only help researchers develop theories of
the role of mobile technology in the workplace, but also from a practical standpoint will
help managers better understand the effects of mobile technology among their workforce.
From an employee/individual perspective, mobile technology can offer the
flexibility to complete work whenever or wherever their company allows them to. It also
allows individuals to spend more time with their families, attend to personal matters
throughout the day, or take a long lunch while still being connected to their work. At first
glance, technology seems like the perfect answer to today's overworked and overstressed
workforce begging for more work-life balance and greater flexibility. This flexibility
however, may come at a cost. As presented in the present study, the "benefit" of having a
mobile device may intrude on family time, personal time, and ultimately lead to negative
consequences such as stress and decreased psychological well-being. These advances in
mobile technology, which were originally meant to help individuals manage their work
and non-work life, have become the very same devices that have enabled workers to be
"on call," expected to respond to employers and coworkers around the clock. Also, as
previously discussed, mobile devices have caused work to overflow into the
113
family/personal life, causing unwanted disruptions and a blurring of the boundaries
between work life and non-work life. These consequences however, may be the price
some individuals are willing to pay in order to have the flexibility to attend to family or
personal demands.
From an employer/organization perspective, mobile devices were meant to offer
employees the flexibility and convenience of completing work in multiple places, while
offering the allure of increasing employee productivity. In fact, a 2007 study by Ipsos
Reid (a leading global survey-based market research group) and Research in Motion (maker
of the BlackBerry) found that BlackBerry devices and other smart phones have had a
large impact on executive and employee productivity (cited in Kamath, 2007). This study
found that BlackBerry users, on average, convert one hour of downtime to productive
time each day, while simultaneously increasing overall team efficiency by 38 percent.
While the aforementioned study found that mobile connectivity allowed for more
flexibility and responsiveness to customer needs, others have cautioned that these same
devices have also resulted in negative impacts on work-life balance by making it more
difficult to switch off from the office (e.g., Boswell & Olson-Buchanan, 2007; Chesley,
2005)
As previously discussed, the effects of mobile technology on work-life outcomes
is a fairly new phenomenon. Only recently have researchers begun to investigate the
organizational and strategic implications of such effects. While technology has afforded
individuals flexibility in when and where they conduct work-related activities, it has also
led to feelings of constant "connectedness" and led to increases in workload.
Furthermore, although mobile technology has shown great promise and potential for
114
organizational use, one must realize the costs associated with such use. Initially,
technology was supposed to reduce the number of work hours and free up leisure time.
More recently however, individuals and practitioners are beginning to find that the
"work-life balance pendulum" may be swinging in the opposite direction, causing
employees to log more hours both in, and out of the office. For some, this integration of
work and non-work may be initially welcomed. As found in the present study however,
such boundary crossing may lead to implications for work-life conflict and future studies
are needed to examine the complex relationship between mobile technology and work-
life outcomes.
There is no doubt that work-life conflict will continue to affect individuals and
organizations for years to come. Factors such as globalization, skills shortages,
unemployment, downsizing, restructuring, and rapid technology growth have all
contributed to an unprecedented rate of organizational change, often without adequate
support for the employees most affected by this change (Cooper & Rousseau, 1996). As
the workforce becomes increasingly connected to mobile technologies, individuals will
be faced with yet additional pressures tying to maintain a balance between their work and
non-work roles. Furthermore, as younger generations adopt newer forms of technology,
the implications for organizations become even more important as researchers begin to
understand how these technologies are used. As these younger generations are expected
to be connected "24/7," the notion of role transitions, boundary management, and blurred
boundaries may therefore become irrelevant as they have essentially grown up with
mobile devices and have not seen life any other way. Future studies should therefore
continue to build upon previous work by focusing more directly on how these mobile
115
technologies are used, as well as exploring the benefits and consequences associated with
their use.
Limitations and directions for future research
Although the present study attempted to add to the existing literature regarding
mobile technology and work-life outcomes, it is not without its limitations. First, the
cross-sectional design limits the ability to find a direct causal relationship between
mobile technology and each of the outcome variables. The conceptual model tested for
example, that mobile connectivity was positively related to stress. Although the zero-
order correlations provide support for this statement, it cannot be concluded that mobile
connectivity causes stress, but simply that they related to each other. Moreover, results
from the present study indicate that mobile connectivity causes increases in work-life
conflict, which in turn, resulted in changes in stress and psychological well-being.
Although results from the mediated analyses provide evidence that this may the case,
cause cannot be established without a true experimental design.
Second, since the data was collected at one point in time and relied entirely on
self-report data, results of the present study may suffer from common method bias.
Common method bias is a potential problem in organizational research and becomes a
concern when variables are measured using a single survey (Campbell, 1982). Bagozzi &
Yi (1991) further state that common method bias is a problem because it is one of the
main sources of measurement error, ultimately threatening the validity of the conclusions
among the relationships. As mentioned in the Results Section however, the data were
tested for common method bias using the Harmon's single-factor test (Podsakoff &
Organ, 1986) and results indicated that common method bias was not a substantial
116
problem.
Third, problems in the actual measurement of the independent variable (mobile
connectivity) may have affected the relationships between mobile connectivity and each
of the outcome, mediating, and moderating variables. Although similar techniques were
used as in past studies (e.g., Boswell & Olson-Buchanan, 2007), the present study
included a new measure of mobile connectivity that had never been tesetd in empirical
research. Consequently, the relatively low zero-order correlations and lack of moderation
may have been a result of measurement error in the inpendent variable. Measurement
error is the variation between measurements of the same quantity on the same individual.
As mobile connectivity was measured in terms of frequeny and duration of three mobile
devices, the presence of measurement error in the independent variables could have
affected the results of the study. As mobile connectivity continues to evolve, future
research should investigate alternative ways of measuring mobile connectivity and
incorporate additional, objective measures (e.g., data and phone records) to reduce the
chance of measurement error.
Fourth, the findings may not be generalizable to other populations. Respondents
from the present study were limited to online users who were part of an existing
respondent panel (ZoomPanel). While the results from this sample may be generalizable
to similar "online-users," one cannot rule out that unknown factors specific to this
population group may have confounded the results. Because individuals who participated
in the present survey were members of Zoomerang and thus online, the results may
therefore be inadvertently representative of a greater proportion of organization members
who were "connected" and willing to participate in online surveys.
117
As noted at the beginning of the present study, literature concerning work-life
balance is a multifaceted phenomenon, and mobile technology was shown to have
contradictory effects on various work-life outcomes. Due to the diverse literature
regarding the effects of mobile technology on work-life outcomes, this research
attempted to add to the existing literature by testing a set of direct, moderated, and
mediated models. Although the nature of the present study was more exploratory in
nature, the present study was intended to contribute to existing models of mobile
connectivity that can be expanded upon and further refined in future studies.
Furthermore, the discussion and results of the mediated and moderated models were not
intended to be exhaustive, and future studies should continue to investigate how
individual characteristics influence the strength and direction of mobile technology on
work-life outcomes. Researchers could investigate for example, the effects of mobile
technology on additional work-life outcomes, including multiple types and directions of
work-life conflict (i.e., time-based, behavior-based, strain-based), job commitment, and
how mobile technologies affect job productivity.
As suggested by Valcour and Hunter (2005), future research could also take into
account the patterns of technology use among couples, as well as the family/life resources
and demands that may moderated the relationship between work and non-work.
"Crossover effects" could be examined to determine if the effects of mobile technology
on stress for example, can be passed from one individual to another (e.g., spouse to
spouse). This finding would help determine if the effects of mobile technology not only
affect the user of mobile technology, but also other members of the household that are in
close contact with the actual user of mobile technology.
118
Lastly, research on mobile technology should be aimed at finding ways to
minimize the negative effects of technology on work-life outcomes. As mobile
technologies have been shown to have a number of side effects on work-life balance,
future research should continue to investigate the positive aspects of mobile technology
and how individuals and organizations can best utilize the tools of technology to
successfully balance work and non-work life. While users of mobile technology may see
the benefits in remaining connected after hours, they must also realize that the effects of
such connectivity may lead to negative consequences. As such, a greater dialogue
between research scientists, technology users, and organizational managers should be
facilitated to gain a better awareness of how mobile connectivity affects linkages between
technology and work-life outcomes. Additionally, case studies and longitudinal research
would help supplement our understanding of the relevant variables that should be
included in subsequent research to test the effects of mobile technology on work-life
outcomes in a variety of organizational contexts.
Conclusion
One of the objectives of the present study was to examine the positive and
negative effects of mobile connectivity on a variety of work-life outcomes. The present
study not only challenged previous assumptions related to mobile technology, but also
attempted to offer new suggestions as to how mobile technologies can help employees
and organizations balance the demands of work and non-work life. Although the results
of this research indicate that mobile connectivity was associated with more negative than
positive outcomes, mobile technology has been shown in similar research to show great
promise and potential for individual and organizational use. In addition, there is a
119
growing acceptance among researchers and employers that technology can offer new
opportunities for individuals to balance the scales between work and non-work life. As
mobile technologies continue to advance at exponential rates, continued research is
greatly warranted to help explain the complex relationship between mobile connectivity
and work-life outcomes.
REFERENCES
Aiken, L., & West, S. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions.
Thousand Oaks, CA US: Sage Publications, Inc.
Allen, T., Herst, D., Brack, C, & Sutton, M. (2000). Consequences associated with
work-to-family conflict: A review and agenda for future research. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 5(2), 278-308.
Allen, D., Renn, R., & Griffeth, R. (2003). The impact of telecommuting design on social
systems, self-regulation, and role boundaries. Research in personnel and human
resources management, Vol 22 (pp. 125-163). Oxford England: Elsevier Science
Ltd.
Anderson, S. E., Coffey, B. S., & Byerly, R. T. (2002). Formal organizational initiatives
and informal workplace practices: Links to work-family conflict and job-related
outcomes. Journal of Management 28, 787-810.
Arbuckle, J. L. (2006). Amos 7.0 User's Guide. Chicago: SPSS
Arnetz, B., & Wiholm, C. (1997). Technological stress: Psychophysiological symptoms
in modern offices. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 43(1), 35-42.
Aryee, S., & Tan, K. (1992). Antecedents and outcomes of career commitment. Journal
of Vocational Behavior, 40(3), 288-305.
Ashforth, B., Kreiner, G., & Fugate, M. (2000). All in a day's work: Boundaries and
micro role transitions. Academy of Management Review, 25(3), 472-491.
Ayyagari, R. (2008). What and why of technostress: Technology antecedents and
implications. Dissertation Abstracts International, 68(11). Retrieved August 2,
2009, from ProQuest Digital Dissertation database (Publication No. AAT
121
3290694).
Bagozzi, R., & Yi, Y. (1991). Multitrait-multimethod matrices in consumer research.
Journal of Consumer Research, 17(4), 426-439.
Baron, R., & Kenny, D. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182.
Batt, R. & Valcour P. M. (2003). Human resource practices as predictors of work-family
outcomes and employee turnover. Industrial Relations, 42(2), 189-220.
Biocca, F. (2000). New media technology and youth: trends in the evolution of new
media. Journal of Adolescent Health, 27(2), 22-29.
Boswell, W. R., & Olson-Buchanan, J. B. (2007). The use of communications
technologies after hours: The role of work attitudes and work-life conflict.
Journal of Management, 33(4), 592-610.
Bradley, G. (2000). The information and communication society: How people will live
and work in the new millennium. Ergonomics, 43(1), 844-857.
Brady, D. (2002, August 26). Rethinking the rat race. Business Week Online. Retrieved
October 8, 2008 from
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/02_34/b3796646.htm
Brown, S. (1996). A meta-analysis and review of organizational research on job
involvement. Psychological Bulletin, 120(2), 235-255.
Bulger, C, Matthews, R., & Hoffman, M. (2007). Work and personal life boundary
management: Boundary strength, work/personal life balance, and the
segmentation-integration continuum. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,
122
12(A), 365-375.
Business Wire, (2007). New U.S. Quarterly smartphone tracker from iGR smartphone
sales volumes by operating system and market segment. Retreived August 18,
2008 from
http://findarticles.eom/p/articles/mi_mOErN/is_2008_Oct_23/ai_n3 0929919/pg_2
/?tag=content;col 1
Byron, K. (2005). A meta-analytic review of work-family conflict and its antecedents.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67, 169-198.
Cammann,C, Fichman, M., Jenkins, D., & Klesh, J. (1979). The Michigan
Organizational Assessment Questionnaire. Unpublished manuscript, University of
Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Campbell, H. (1982). The prevalence and ramifications of psychopathology in psychiatric
residents: An overview. American Journal of Psychiatry, 139(11), 1405-1411.
Carayon, P. (1993). A longitudinal test of Karasek's Job Strain Model among office
workers. Work & Stress, 7(4), 299-314.
Carlson., D. S., Kacmar, M. K., & Williams, W. J. (2000). Construction and initial
validation of a multidimensional measure of work-family conflict. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 56,249-216.
Carr, J., Boyar, S., & Gregory, B. (2008). The moderating effect of work-family
centrality on work-family conflict, organizational attitudes, and turnover
behavior. Journal of Management, 34(2), 244-262.
Chesley, N. (2005). Blurring Boundaries? Linking technology use, spillover, individual
distress, and family distraction. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 1237-1248.
Chesley, N., Moen, P., & Shore, R.P. (2003). The new technology climate. In P. Moen
(Ed.), It's about time: Couples and careers (pp. 220-241). Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press.
Clark, S. (2000). Work/family border theory: A new theory of work/family balance.
HumanRelations, 53(6), 747-770.
Cohen, S., Kamarck, T. & Mermelstein, R. (1983). A global measure of perceived stress.
Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24, 385-396.
Cook, J., Hepworth, S., Wall, T., & War, T. (1981). The experience of work. New York:
Academic Press.
Cooper, C, & Rousseau, D. (1996). Trends in organizational behavior, Vol. 3. Hoboken,
NJ-US: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Cropley, M., & Purvis, L. (2003). Job strain and rumination about work issues during
leisure time: A diary study. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 12(3), 195-207.
Duxbury, L., & Higgins, C. (1994). Interference between work and family: A status
report on dual-career and dual-earner mothers and fathers. Employee Assistance
Quarterly, 9, 55-80.
Duxbury, L., & Higgins, C. (2001). The 2001 National Work-Life Conflict Study: Report
One. Retrieved June 1, 2008 from http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/work-
travail/reportl/index-eng.php.
Duxbury, L., Higgins, C, & Mills, S. (1992). After-hours telecommuting and work-
family conflict: A comparative analysis. Information Systems Research, 3, 173-
190.
124
Eden, D. (2001). Job stress and respite relief: Overcoming high-tech tethers. Exploring
theoretical mechanisms and perspectives (pp. 143-194). US: Elsevier
Science/JAI Press.
Edwards, J., & Rothbard, N. (2000). Mechanisms linking work and family: Clarifying the
relationship between work and family constructs. Academy of Management
Review, 25(1), 178-199.
Etzion, D., Eden, D., & Lapidot, Y. (1998). Relief from job stressors and burnout:
Reserve service as a respite. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53(4), 577-585.
Fenner, G.H., & Renn, R.W. (2004). Technology-assisted supplemental work: Construct
definition and research framework. Human Resource Management, 43, 179-200.
Fleming, P., & Spicer, A. (2004). 'You can checkout anytime, but you can never leave':
Spatial boundaries in a high commitment organization. Human Relations, 57(1),
75-94.
Foegen, J. (1993) Telexploitation, Labor Law Review Journal, May, 53-61.
Fredriksen-Goldsen, K. I., & Scharlach, A. (2001/ Families and work: New directions in
the twenty-first century. New York: Oxford University Press.
Frone, M. (2003). Work-family balance. Handbook of occupational health psychology
(pp. 143-162). Washington, DC US: American Psychological Association.
Frone, M., Russell, M, & Cooper, M. (1992). Antecedents and outcomes of work-family
conflict: Testing a model of the work-family interface. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 77, 67-75.
Galinsky, E., Kim, S. S., & Bond, J. T. (2001). Feeling overworked: When work becomes
too much. New York: Families and Work Institute.
125
Ganster, D., Fox, M., & Dwyer, D. (2001). Explaining employees' health care costs:
A prospective examination of stressful job demands, personal control, and
physiological reactivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(5), 954-964.
Geurts, S., Kompier, M., Roxburgh, S., & Houtman, I. (2003). Does work-home
interference mediate the relationship between workload and well-being? Journal
of Vocational Behavior, 63(3), 532-559.
Golden, A., & Geisler, C. (2007). Work-life boundary management and the personal
digital assistant. Human Relations, 60(3), 519-551.
Goodchild, S., & Hodgson, M. (2006). CrackBerry addicts: Why the workers who can't
switch off are suing their employers. Retrieved March 28, 2008 from
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/crackberry-addicts-why-the-workers-
who-cant-switch-off-are-suing-their-employers-418309.html.
Googins, B. (1991). Work/family conflict: Private lives, public responses. New York:
Auburn House.
Greenhaus, J.H., & Beutell, N.J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family
roles. Academy of Management Review, 10, 76-88.
Greenhaus, J., Parasuraman, S., Granrose, C, & Rabinowitz, S. (1989). Sources of work-
family conflict among two-career couples. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 34(2),
133-153.
Gutek, B., Searle, S., & Klepa, L. (1991). Rational versus gender role explanations for
work-family conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(4), 560-568.
Hackman, J., & Oldham, G. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Hall, D. T., & Richter, J. (1988). Balancing work life and home life: What can
organizations do to help? Academy of Management Executive, 3, 213-223.
Halpern, D.F., & Murphy, S.E. (2005). From balance to interaction: Why the metaphor is
important. In D.F. Halpern & S.M. Murphy (Eds.), From work-family balance to
work-family interaction (pp. 3-11). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Higgins, C, Duxbury, L., & Irving, R. (1992). Work-family conflict in the dual-career
family. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 57(1), 51-75.
Hill, E., Ferris, M., & Martinson, V. (2003). Does it matter where you work? A
comparison of how three work venues (traditional office, virtual office, and home
office) influence aspects of work and personal/family life. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 63(2), 220-241.
Hill, E., Hawkins, A., Ferris, M., & Weitzman, M. (2001). Finding an extra day a week:
The positive influence of perceived job flexibility on work and family life
balance. Family Relations, 50(1), 49-58.
Hill, E., Hawkins, A., Martinson, V., & Ferris, M. (2003, October). Studying 'working
fathers': Comparing fathers' and mothers' work-family conflict, fit, and adaptive
strategies in a global high-tech company. Fathering, 1(3), 239-261.
Hill, E., Miller, B., Weiner, S., & Colihan, J. (1998). Influences of the virtual office on
aspects of work and work/life balance. Personnel Psychology, 51(3), 667-683.
Holahan, C, & Gilbert, L. (1979). Interrole conflict for working women: Careers versus
jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64(\), 86-90.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation
Modeling, 6(1), 1-55.
127
Hughes, R.J., & Hans, J.D. (2001). Computers, the internet, and families: A review of the
role new technology plays in family life. Journal of Family Issues, 22, 776-790.
Jackson, M. (2002, October 22). Using technology to add new dimensions to the nightly
call home. The New York Times, pp. 8.
Johansson-Hiden, B., Wastlund, E., & Wallin, S. (2003). Reflecting on ICT and stress:
Conceptional connections and a suggested application. Karlstad: Karlstad
University Studies.
Kahn, R.L., Wolfe, D.M., Quinn, R.P., Snoek, J.D. & Rosenthal, R.A. (1964).
Organizational stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. New York: John
Wiley.
Kamath, J. P. (2007). Blackberry users save 60 minutes a day, according to research by
Ipsos Reid. Retrieved on Dec 12, 2008 from
http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2007/07/05/225357/blackberry-users-
save-60-minutes-a-day-according-to-research-by-ipsos.htm
Kanter, R. M. (1977). Work and family in the United States: A critical review and agenda
for research and policy. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Kanungo, R.N. (1982). Work alienation: An integrative approach. New York: Praeger
Publishers.
Kenny, D., Kashy, D., & Bolger, N. (1998). Data analysis in social psychology. The
handbook of social psychology, Vols. 1 and 2 (4th ed.) (pp. 233-265). New York,
NY US: McGraw-Hill
Kerris, N. (2007, September 10). Apple Sells One Millionth iPhone. Retrieved August 2,
2009 from http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/09/10iphone.html.
128
Kossek, E.E., Lautsch, B.A., & Eaton, S.C. (2005). Flexibility enactment theory:
Implications of flexibility type, control and boundary management work. In E. E.
Kossek and S. J. Lambert (Eds.), Work and life integration: Organizational,
cultural, and individual perspectives (pp. 151-170). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
Associates.
Kossek, E.E., Lautsch, B.A., & Eaton, S.C. (2006). Telecommuting, control, and
boundary management: Correlates of policy use and practice, job control, and
work-family effectiveness. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 347-467.
Kossek, E., Noe, R., & DeMarr, B. (1999). Work-family role synthesis: Individual and
organizational determinants. International Journal of Conflict Management,
10(2), 102-129.
Larson, R. (1989). Is feeling 'in control' related to happiness in daily life? Psychological
Reports, 64(31), 775-784.
Lazarus, R. (1966). Psychological stress and the coping process. New York, NY US:
McGraw-Hill.
Lowry, D., & Moskos, M. (2006). Ring, ring.. .why don't you leave me alone? The
impact of the work mobile phone on the work life balance. Presented at the
Australian Centre for Research in Employment and Work (ACREW) Conference,
Prato, Italy.
Lundberg, U., & Lindfors, P. (2002). Psychophysiological reactions to telework in female
and male white-collar workers. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 7(4),
354-364.
Macan, T. (1994). Time management: Test of a process model. Journal of Applied
129
Psychology, 79(3), 381-391
MacKinnon, D., Krull, J., & Lockwood, C. (2000). Equivalence of the mediation,
confounding and suppression effect. Prevention Science, 1(4), 173-181.
McDonald, R., & Ho, M. (2002). Principles and practice in reporting structural equation
analyses. Psychological Methods, 7(1), 64-82.
McGee, M. K., & Khirallah, D. R. (2000). Backlash. InformationWeek, 805, 50-64.
Merton, R. (1957). The role-set: Problem in sociological theory. British Journal of
Sociology, 8, 106-120.
Mesmer-Magnus, J.R., & Viswesvaran, C. (2006). How family-friendly work
environments affect work/family conflict: A meta-analytical examination. Journal
of Labor Research, 4, 555-574.
Messersmith, J. (2007). Managing work-life conflict among information technology
workers. Human Resource Management, 46(3), 429-451.
Mieszkowski, K. (2001). The age of overwork. Salon. Retrieved November 11, 2008
from
http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2001/03/01/white_collar_sweatshop/print.ht
ml
Netemeyer, R. G., Boles, J. S., & McMurrian, R. (1996). Development and validation of
work-family conflict and family-work conflict scales. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 81, 400-409.
Nippert-Eng, C. E. (1996). Home and work: Negotiating boundaries through everyday
life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
O'Driscoll, M. (1996). The interface between job and off-job roles: Enhancement and
130
conflict. In C. Cooper & I. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial
and organizational psychology (pp. 279-306). Chichester: John Wiley.
Olson-Buchanan, J., & Boswell, W. (2006). Blurring boundaries: Correlates of
integration and segmentation between work and nonwork. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 68(3), 432- 445.
Papadakis, M., & Collins, E., (2001). The application and implications of information
technology in the home: Where are the data and what do they say? (NSF 01-313).
Arlington, VA: Division of Sciences Resources, National Science Foundation.
Pavot, W., & Diener, E. (1993). Review of the satisfaction with life scale. Psychological
Assessment, 5, 164-172.
Piccolo, R., & Colquitt, J. (2006). Transformational leadership and job behaviors: The
mediating role of core job characteristics. Academy of Management Journal,
49(2), 327-340
Pleck, J. (1977). The work-family role system. Social Problems, 24(4), 417-427.
Podsakoff, P., & Organ, D. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and
prospects. Journal of Management, J 2(4), 531-544.
Raghuram, S., & Wiesenfeld, B. (2004). Work-nonwork conflict and job stress among
virtual workers. Human Resource Management, 43(2), 259-277.
Research in Motion, (2008). Research in Motion reports third quarter results. Retrieved
April 3, 2009 from http://press.rim.com/financial/release.jsp?id=l950.
Richardson, K., & Rothstein, H. (2008). Examining the situational and individual
correlates of workplace connectivity behavior. Unpublished manuscript, Baruch
College, New York, NY.
131
Robinson, J. (2007. An E-Tool Bill of Rights. Retrieved March 22, 2008, from Fast
Company web site: http://vvrww.fastcompany.eom/magazine/l 11/next-sanity.html
Rothbard, N. (2001). Enriching or depleting? The dynamics of engagement in work and
family roles. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(4), 655-684.
Ryan, R., & Deci, E. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research
on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 141-
166.
Schlosser, F. K. (2002). So, how do people really use their handheld devices? An
interactive study of wireless technology use. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
23, 401-423.
Schockley, K.M, & Allen, T.D. (2007). When flexibility helps: Another look at the
availability of flexible work arrangements and work-family conflict. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 71, 479-493.
Shamir, B. (1992). Home: The perfect workplace? Work, families, and organizations
(pp. 272-311). San Francisco, CA US: Jossey-Bass.
Shrout, P., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies:
New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7(4), 422-445.
Sonnentag, S. (2001). Work, recovery activities, and individual well-being: A diary
study. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6(3), 196-210.
Sonnentag, S., & Bayer, U. (2005). Switching off mentally: Predictors and
consequences of psychological detachment from work during off-job time.
Journal of OccupationalHealth Psychology, 10(4), 393-414.
Sonnentag, S., & Fritz, C. (2007). The recovery experience questionnaire: Development
132
and validation of a measure assessing recuperation and unwinding at work.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12, 204-221.
Speier, C, & Venkatesh, V. (2002,). The hidden minefields in the adoption of sales force
automation technologies. Journal of Marketing, 66(3), 98-111.
Standen, P., Daniels, K., & Lamond, D. (1999). The home as a workplace: Work-family
interaction and psychological well-being in telework. Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, 4(4), 368-381.
Sundaramurthy, C. & Kreiner, G. (2008). Governing by managing identity boundaries:
The case of family businesses. Entrepreneur ship Theory and Practice, 32, 391-
591.
Tabachnick, B., & Fidell, L. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston, MA :
Allyn & Bacon/Pearson Education.
Tetrick, L., & Buffardi, L. (2006). Measurement issues in research on the work-home
interface. Work-life balance: A psychological perspective (pp. 90-114). New
York, NY US: Psychology Press.
Thomee, S., Eklof, M., Gustafsson, E., Hagberg, M., & Nilsson, R. (2007). Prevalence of
perceived stress, symptoms of depression and sleep disturbances in relation to
information and communication technology (ICT) use among young adultsAn
explorative prospective study. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(3), 1300-1321.
Towers, I., Duxbury, L., Higgins, C., & Thomas, J. (2006). Time thieves and space
invaders: Technology, work and the organization. Journal of Organizational
Change Management, 19(5), 593-618.
US Bureau of Labor Statistics (2004). Work at home in 2004. Retrieved on 10/8/08 from
133
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/homey.nrO.htm.
Valcour, M. (2007). Work-based resources as moderators of the relationship between
work hours and satisfaction with work-family balance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 92(6), 1512-1523.
Valcour, P. M., & Hunter, L.W. (2005). Technology, organizations, and work-life
integration. In E. E. Kossek & S. J. Lambert (Eds.), Managing work-life
integration in organizations: Future directions for research and practice (pp. 61-
84). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Venkatesh, A., & Vitalari, N.P. (1992). An emerging distributed work arrangement: An
investigation of computer-based supplemental work at home. Management
Science, 38(\2), 1687-1706.
Weil, M.M., & Rosen, L.D. (1997). Technostress: Coping with technology @work@
home@play. New York: Wiley.
Witt, L., & Carlson, D. (2006). The work-family interface and job performance:
Moderating effects of conscientiousness and perceived organizational support.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11(4), 343-357.
Zedeck, S., & Mosier, K. (1990). Work in the family and employing organization.
American Psychologist, 45(2), 240-251.
134
Appendix A:
Scale Items
Table 1.
Work-life conflict items.
1. My work keeps me from my family activities more than I would like.
2. The time I must devote to my job keeps me from participating equally in
household responsibilities and activities.
3. I have to miss family activities due to the amount of time I must spend on work
responsibilities.
4. The time I spend on family responsibilities often interferes with my work
responsibilities.
5. The time I spend with my family often causes me not to spend time in activities at
work that could be helpful to my career.
6. I have to miss work activities due to the amount of time I must spend on family
responsibilities.
7. When I get home from work I am often too frazzled to participate in family
activities/responsibilities.
8. I am often so emotionally drained when I get home from work that it prevents me
from contributing to my family.
9. Due to all the pressures at work, sometimes when I come home I am too stressed
to do the things I enjoy.
10. Due to stress at home, I am often preoccupied with family matters at work.
11. Because I am often stressed from family responsibilities, I have a hard time
concentrating on my work.
12. Tension and anxiety from my family life often weakens my ability to do my job.
13. The problem-solving behaviors I use in my job are not effective in resolving
problems at home.
14. Behavior that is effective and necessary for me at work would be
counterproductive at home.
15. The behaviors I perform that makes me effective at work do not help me to be a
better parent and spouse.
16. The behaviors that work for me at home do not seem to be effective at work.
17. Behavior that is effective and necessary for me at home would be
counterproductive at work.
18. The problem-solving behavior that works for me at home does not seem to be as
useful at work.
136
Table 2.
Perceived stress items.
1. In the last month, how often have you been upset because of something that
happened unexpectedly?
2. In the last month, how often have you felt that you were unable to control the
important things in your life?
3. In the last month, how often have you felt nervous and "stressed"? (R)
4. In the last month, how often have you felt confident about your ability to handle
your personal problems?
5. In the last month, how often have you felt that things were going your way? (R)
6. In the last month, how often have you found that you could not cope with all the
things that you had to do?
7. In the last month, how often have you been able to control irritations in your life?
(R)
8. In the last month, how often have you felt that you were on top of things? (R)
9. In the last month, how often have you been angered because of things that were
outside of your control?
10. In the last month, how often have you felt difficulties were piling up so high that
you could not overcome them?
(R) indicate reversed scored items
Table 3.
Psychological well-being items.
Positively worded items:
Have you recently...
1. been able to concentrate on whatever you are doing?
2. felt that you were playing a useful part in things?
3. felt capable of making decisions about things?
4. been able to enjoy your normal day-to-day activities?
5. been able to face up to your problems?
6. been feeling reasonably happy, all things considered?
Negatively worded items:
1. lost much sleep over worry?
2. felt constantly under strain?
3. felt that you couldn't overcome your difficulties?
4. been feeling unhappy and depressed?
5. been losing self-confidence in yourself?
6. been thinking of yourself as a worthless person?
138
Table 4.
Job satisfaction items.
1. All in all, I am satisfied with my job.
2. In general, I like my current job.
3. In general, I like working in this organization.
Table 5.
Life satisfaction items.
1. In most ways my life is close to my ideal.
2. The conditions of my life are excellent.
3. I am satisfied with my life.
4. So far I have gotten the important things I want in life.
5. If I could live my life over, I would change almost nothing.
Table 6.
Boundary-management items.
1. I only take care of personal needs at work when I am "on break" or during my
lunch hour.
2. I prefer to not talk about my family issues with most people I work with.
3. Throughout the work day, I deal with personal and work issues as they occur. (R)
4. It would be rare for me to read non-work related materials at work.
5. I tend to integrate work and family roles through the work day. (R)
6. I tend to handle emails related to my family separate from emails related to my
work.
7. I try to not think about my family or friends when at work, so I can focus.
8. I tend to not talk about work issues with my family.
9. I actively strive to keep my family and work-life separate.
10. All in all, I see myself as someone who tries to keep work and personal roles
separated most of the time.
Table 7.
Psychological detachment from work items.
1. When I leave work, I forget about the responsibilities and stressors of work.
2. I don't think about work at all when I get home.
3. I distance myself from my work and work-related activities when I get home.
4. Leaving work gives me a break from the demands of work.
Table 8.
Job involvement items.
1. The most important things that happen to me involve my present job
2. To me, my job is only a small part of who I am. (R)
3. I am very much involved personally in my job.
4. I live, eat and breathe my job.
5. Most of my interests are centered around my j ob.
6. I have very strong ties with my present job which would be very difficult to break.
7. Usually I feel detached from my job. (R)
8. Most of my personal life goals are job-oriented.
9. I consider my job to be very central to my existence.
10.1 like to be absorbed in my job most of the time.
143
Table 9.
Job control items.
1. How much autonomy do you have in your job?
2. To what extent does your job permit you to decide on your own about how to go
about doing your work?
3. To what extent does your job permit you to decide on your own about where the
work is done?
4. To what extent does your job permit you to decide on your own about when the
work is done?
5. My job gives me considerable opportunity for independence and freedom in how I
do the work.
6. I have the freedom to work wherever is best for me - either at home or at work.
7. I do not have control over when I work. (R)
(R) indicates reversed scored item
144
Appendix B:
Informed Consent and Measurement Instruments
Mobile Connectivity Survey
You are being astetf to participate m a research stady corsttacted by the
Kravs Leadership Institute at Claremort McKenna College. The results
of this research study wiH hep us urtderstarid the impact of mobile
technologies en one's work life Thena are no foreseeable risks,
discomforts, or inconveniences in completing tMs survey, and it is
intended to add to t i e existing body of knowledge regarding work-life
balance. Any information obtained during: Ms study is anonymous to us.
If you volunteer to participate in this study, you may Mfarraw your
consent at any time wiiHiQui consequence. You imay also raftise to
answer any questions you dc not wts:h to answer assd remain in the
study. There is no penalty for choosing not to complete fee surveys and
you may withdraw yoar consent at any time and discontinue
pariioipstion without penalty You are not waiving any iega! claims,
rights, or lesraiedies because of your participation in this research study.
H you have any questions or concerns about the research, pfease
contact Professor Ssasars Murphy (5rreunphy$grai3c.e8'u).
If you hawe questions regarding your righis as a research participant,
contact
Mschael O'NeiB, Chair InstiMbaa! Review Board
Claremont McKearta College
S5D Columbia Avenue, Claremont CA 91711
(SO} 807 - 8336 mDneiB@cmD.edu
The research study has been explained to me. I agree that I have
read and understood at! of the above and certify that 1 am 18 years
of age or older.
JU JKU
SUsvsry Para 1
Thank you for participating in this survey; your answers are very important to JS.
Mobile technologies such as eel! phones, smartphones, pagers, and laptops are
changing the way we do business ar*d connect with others, both at work and
while away from work. This survey '/.ill ast. you a series of questions related to
your mobile technology usage patterns, and general questions related to your
fife, job, and personal characteristics. The fisst set of questions will measure yoar
cerrerst work hours, and the frequency with which you use a range of rnoble
devices.
2 First, does your current employer pay for you to have a mobile device
as part of your job. either directly paying for the devioerptan, or
nEirntjw5in>g you for retated escpesses? "Pl ease note t i e difference
befeseers ell phones amd Rewersraarlphones (Blackberry, Tree,
iphone}, nsfcick: usually offer advanced capabilities teyond ffliat of a
typical ceil phone, often wi f i PC-Hte furactaiaffiy.
Sraartptase
Cell: pfione
Laptop
1
Yd
_L,
_ JL
HftSW
* Ira whiash location do you; speed: the fnao<riry of your working hours?
Bsje !o ihe growing prevalence of mobile technologies sucn as cell phones and
smartphones. many people are working adeHiotna! hours aSerSheir jiormal
working; hours, such as coming home from work and continuing to
work sistng their mobile devices. The following 2 questions ask how many hours
you isork daring a typical wort! week during: your normal wortang hours white
at the office, and tew many hours you: work during a typical week after your
normal worS(ing: hours while away from ttse office. The sum of the two answers
should represent your Mai number of work hours, both at She office and away
trots the office.
Please i ndicaSe Sue ruiratier of hours yata work in a typical
week OURtNG normal wori chg hours and while AT your company' s
work location, indudiesg your primary office location arai.'c<r aay
saieilrtetaBoSe offices yeu: may woj k from. **lf you *orfc primarily from
a naraB office, please consider Shis to be year primary office.
Rease trioleate the number of hours yoa work in a typicat week AFTER
normal working hours and whi l e AWAY from youreouipainy's worts
location (e.g., continuing work at home, daring your commute
tontarn mssrk, weekends, eta.}.
Which mobile device do you roost frequently use to complete work or
non-related work activities white AWftY from your company's wortt
location.
Please indlieaie the frequency wife which yoy use each of the msfais
devices to eotnptelB worts: or non-wo?fc related aefiwties white .AWAY
from your company's wor* location.
1
Smartprtane
Cell phone
Laptop
WJJVB?
Pager
2
JL.
JLi
j .
g^
3
. . . ; 2J. . _
JJ
-3J
4 5
.4!. - ^ >.
^JJ_ JJ_
tic not hae
. , , r ~" . . . .
~mj
^
Ptease indicate the amount of time (in Naurs) you use each of the
mobie devices irt a typical week white AWAY from your primary
office Jocatiors. if you do not own one of the devices, please: insert
a zere {0} in the box.
Smartphorse
Cell phone
Laptop
Paper
Please indicate the amount of free feme, or non-work ferje $n hotars),
you use each of the raobfle devices irt a typical weed while AWAY front
your primary office location- IF you: do not own one of the devices,
please insert a zero (0) m the box.
SraartphsDBe
Cell phone
Laptop
Pager
Now we'd like to ask you a few questions regarding your feelings, health,
and attitudes towards your job.
1 i The following questions ask about your feelings and thoughts during; fie
last raonth. In each ease, please indicate how often you Jet or Shought a
certain way.
1 2 3 * s
rceve? stalest ECtfer soisseilmes Mt%/ osSsti veiy cSfin
In the last month, how often have you beeji upset because of something
that happened unexpectedly'
3
'
SMK&4&* ! J 4 K S W -3S&SS&? ' sSSKS&r i & ^ W
In the last month. hew often have you feftthat you were unable to
control t i e wrsporian't things in your life'
7
V ' . ^ h ^ ^wjl^Ldl j^^LXSf *"/#&/ m *.*.*.-
fn the last month, how often have you felt nenraus and "stressed"?
JL JL -Li JU JU
trt the last month, how often lave you fett confident about your ability to
haraffe year personal problems''
X" JL Jj J~i JJ
En the last month, how often have you felt that ihings were going your
way?
MSBSt*** flwSW- WWStrf- -SJS* C ^ * )
r
In the last month, hem often hava you found that you could no! cope
wdft all the things that you had to do?
>raiW 3^&^ ,&^g^ * ^ S ^ ^ ^ ^
En the last month, how often have you been able to control irritations in
your life?
Ifo the last month, how often have you felt that you were on top of
things?
. V. -JL ' i *
%
, Xi
tn the last month, how often have you been angered because of things
that were outside of your oonirol?
, .dM ,..4-.,. ^ . 4i -^
tn the last month, how often have you felt difficulties were pilmg up so
high that you could not overcame them''
w* x? **& *&mfr/& t wi wwf -mtoam^
11 We would now I t e to know how you have beers feeing in general over
the past few weeks. Please iredieafe the frequency with wrtsich eaoh of
the foliovMiflB statements have nraade you feel within the last 3 weeks or
less, comparing your current mental state with how you usually
2 z *
better Irian usual zsma as usual: tess iJias SIKHBI rrsssclt Sess tfiaei usaal
been ai l e to concentrate on whatever you are dosng?
1 2 3i 41
j i . Tuf j ' m?* .. . M^ W* n, ' " '
felt that you were playing a useful part m -filings
7
TSsSSwjr' sj uj apj * sxaSas^ a 3 w f
felt capable of making decisions about fangs'*
. 1 - M. S ,AJ
been able to enjoy your normal day-to-day activities?
~1~ ,JL S&J - ^
been able to face up So your problems''
been feeling reasonably happy, all ihings considsred?
i '^ s ' 3
. . . - ^ S W saSs*^
1
*&Zsot
12 Simitar (o she atiove questions, please indicate the frequency with
which, each of the following statements haw* made ysu feel nmthirt 1he
last 3 weeks or fess, compari ng your current mental state wi t h how
you usually feel.
Haweyou recently.-
1! 2 5 4
si3tata& r&QmcEe OtJSfrusua* EBtteen&<3reiBr)Ki^s5 miscfe snore iiiass smial
lost much sleep over wosy?
fett constantly under strain?
1
3
3 *
felt that you couSrint oveTcajne your difficulties?
J . IL> Ji-i
been feelirag unhappy and depressed;?
J L J L , 51
been losing self-confidence in yourself?
a s a ^ - " nr f f i . . ^ sssSka^
been thinking of yourself as a worthless person?
13 Please Mi caf e your level of agreement wHh each of the fallowing Items:
1 2
3
neltftei
s&urtgSV tflsarjrse disagree
A 5
neither ansae isar
disagree
En most ways my fife is close to my ideal.
The conditions a* my life are excellent
^ ^ g ^ ^ ^ U J F v^Ztvtf Xtiij> wtss^
l am safefied with ray life.
So far I have gotten the important Ibsngs 1 want in frfe.
V ^ S " * ^ - - A S W
1
>$$ - ht aXv^ W* ^ * *
1
Efl i>ould live my Irfe over, I would change almost nothing.
&**&& -v.J^hhWh^ VK * 4 A^ > - J ^ r f ^KOMvHtof
Your j ob can fee an important aspect in deiemiiniag has* you view yow work and
personal l i e. These rtexJ set of questions wils ask abooi your cuirent Jab. and
how you manage the boundaries beSareen ysur work-life a:nd: sred homafpersonal
* * Please indicate your level of agreement wish e&cii of ihe fallowrtng items:
i 2 4 5
nelttieraoFEe.nor
All in all, t am satisfied with my j ob.
_Jw -JL' ..^-i J?~? JsL
En general J 8ke my current Job
^ S r f '2J* -ctjbit sbj? BS?^ x
hi general, I i ke working for my organization
J J JL, JLS j y j t .
The most important things Shai happen to me involve my present j ob
To me, my j ob is only a smaSI part of who I am
- S &S t i ^ V5BS&SS? sCfl^SW KWU&J^
1
HK^ S? '
i am very much iswotad personally in ray |ob.
l _ 2 SI 4 , i i
aSaas^ - i ssassj 'isEsssis? u^^HJa* * ss
I live, eal and brealhe my j ob.
Most of my interests are centered around my job
151
^ I* Js*/ ^ J k2m* nielli*
% have very si r ens
t l e s w
* h f y present j ab which would toe very difficult
to break.
JU J L JU 4J J L
Usualy 1 feel detached from my joi>.
I J 2 3 I 4 S
^ & & & & a^
V
& tt& & & ? ^ T ^ afJyJ &8&H&& T l ^ l ^
Most of my personal life goals a<e j ab-oTerted
X- X J j JJ 'JJ
f, consider my j ob to be very central to my ejftstense.
JU JL JJ JLf JL
E Wte 1o he absorbed in rrsy j ob most of the time
U iaSan.-. 'WJS&ffi' 'aâag I+JHSH *j5sia*
15 Hease TOfsicate yousr level of agreement wish easii of the following terns
regarding your mvolweraemt in your current j ob.
1 2 4 S
neither aotee rsar
S3sS5tee dl sagnH!
i only fake care of personal needs at work when I am "on break' car
iftirifig any lunch hriur.
H i J J J U Jb J-
S
S prefer to not talk about my family/personal issues with 1he people I
work with.
Thfougtiout the work day, E deaf with personal and work sssjes as they
occur.
rtwroiid be rare for me to read non-work reSaied materials at work.
t tend to integrate work and femilyJoersonal roles (rsrough the work day.
t^f,^f l o^L* ' v ^
E tend to handle emails related to my family^personal Itfe separate from
emails related to my work.
*aaSs^ J kJ J k J Jkv a A ^
E try to not think about, my feraily or friends when at work, so that I can
focus.
I. i j SI 4 , ht
E tend to not talk about work issues whh ray family or friends.
(acttvely stnve to keep my familyfpersonal4ife and work-life separate
-vfo*# &&#' s^sffiUrf *^fim* -~~.%r*?
M in all, I see myself as someone who fries to keep work and personaE
roles separated most of the time.
JU
W e- mw want to ask you questions: about how your woftsspaee is set up af home,
if you do raot currentiy have a designated workspace at hosme, please select NO
on the fatewirtg question.
11
16 DB you currently have a separate mfepface at home?
1 ' Do you use Ws spase only far iraffereiated! purposes?
1S Da other members in your teusehol J {e.g_, family, raommafes) use fee
space wfhen you a?e mi there?
Sscreev Pssae 4
Yau are almost dose! The next set of questions asks about the amount of
autonomy you have m ymir j ob. Jo&s with high autonomy alto** yoy I D determine
'//hen and where you complete your job resporssSbiiHes, asfsilte jobs, with) less
autonomy are usually are a Suit more inflexible m terms of deciding when and
where to do your wo* .
19 Please answer the following questions as they negate fo your current
j ob.
1 2 3 4 S
ver^Bflte sossestest mffiSeratc Amount mStealitt. very nmSi
How much autonomy do you have in your job?
"=^* ' *^.? *-&*' ^j3p &&W'
To wtiat extent does your job permit you to decide on your own about
how to go about doing your work"*
~ L s r.a .,*.J JJLJ mM
152
To what extent does yoar job permit ytm to decide on your own about
WHERE the work is done?
To what extent doss your job permit yoy to decide cm your own about
WHEN She work is done?
Please indicate ihe accuracy of each of the following Hems:
2
3
t
very ^sscurate inaccurate ^ ^ accurate vesy accurate
My job gives me considerable opportunity for independence and
freedom m ho i do the work
I have the freedom fo wort! wherever is best for me either at the office
or away ftom the office.
, :
1
' -
2
- H ^
J
, 4
J
I do not have control over when J work
* SW a^.igr î i ^rrf -at wW *3H&>
21 PSease indicate your Sevel of agreement wBh eacJi of the foltowiing iems.:
neither BOHCEST
slinmsty fflsagree disagree olsaaree aêe sfenr^r/ agree
When f tesve work. I forget about the responsibilities and stressors of
work
t don't think about work at all when i get home.
osfc&as^ l u ^ s ^ ' iftnj&fa' WOSSSBJB' ^ s & w '
t distance mysetf from my work, and work-related adwifies aften I get
home.
Jr*J *JW *JiL/ MW* -**SL^
Leaving work gives me a tweak from ihe demands of my j ob.
U . 2 * _ 3 j i j Sj
22 in 3 servtereses or Jess, how would yen describe She impact of mobile
tectaglogy {e.g., smadpbcnes, ceil phones, etc.) on your ability to
balance wtsrk-ffe and your famiyêrsoaaj He?
a
2 3 Worts-life bafamoe i s a ver y i mport ant asper f m t oday' s ftee#c soci ety.
Rease iaialcaie your l evel of agr eemeni wr i t easSi of t he f ol l owi ng
st at ement s. Pl ease mark each i t em whi l e keepi ng in mi nd hosw i appl i es
t c your current ernpi oymerrt and f smil'i'.'personal si tuati on.
i 2 4 S
neither aoree
1
isar
5*KffiflN' ^B3S?ee: disagree rti3nT^ aarce sHrangly soree
My work keeps me: f r om my f ar f y/ per sonal acfewties mor e ftan I: woul d
Hi e.
_ "*-* " ^ -
8 J 4 J
The ti me I must d e v me l o my j ob keeps me f r om parti ci pati ng equal l y m
househokJ' personal respons'tiififcies and acti vi ti es.
j j ..i.t j y . JL ".JL*
I have to mass f ami l y/ persona) acti vi ti es due t o t he amount Of t i me I must
spend cm work responsi bi l i ti es.
4' +lww -* wt* -**>&**.} -wv&hff* coxwx' "
The t i me S spend on farralyt'persanal responsi bi l i ti es of t en i nterferes wi t h
my work responsi bi l i ti es.
Ju" -J, ! JLi JLr J j
The t i me 3 spend wi t h my fami l y and fri ends often causes me no* t o
spend t i me in acti vi ti es at work 1haS coul d be hei pfal t o my career.
V4dKJ&< ^ . j gf r y f ->* ^]SL^ 0*tt$l4 t^^Mf*
i have t c mi ss wor k acti vi ti es due t o t he amount of t i me I must spend on
f arj i i y/ personal r esponsbi i i i es.
JLJ Lki -AJ JU -*
When I get home f r om work I am often t oo f razzl ed to parti ci pate i n
famfflyfcersonal aoSwBes or responsi j i Ht i es.
J. . JfJ JSJ ^, JJ
t am of t en so emot i onal l y drai ned when I get home from work t hai i t
prevent s me fronn corrtnbatin.g t o my farai ty or my personal life.
Due t o all t he pr essur es at work, somet i mes when I come home I am
t oo stressed 1o do t he t hi ngs ! enj oy
J L JU .Pi iu %
Dae to st ress at home. ] am of t en preoccupi ed wi t h f ami l y/ personal
matters at work.
Because 1 am of t en st ressed f rom faWtilyypersonal responsi bi l i ti es, 1
have a har d t i me concent rat i ng on my work
Tensi on and ari Ki ety f rom my fomily/parsortaE Be of t en weakens my
ability to do roy $ob
n
4.
The pTJ<t>lem-5lvmg behaviors I iiss in my )ob are not effective in
resoVjng problems at home of in my personal life
Behavior that 15 effective arid necessary for me at wosk would be
counterproductive at home or m ny personal fife.
The behaviors ( perform that make me effective at work do not help me
to be a better person in my personal life.
MMSISMIS" V S J S S M * mXi W ~s2W -HBBSBK?
Thee behaviors that work for me at home or ifi my personal Itfe do not
seem to be effective at work
Behavior ihat is effective and necessary for me at home or in my
personal life would tie counlerproducftrai at work
JL. _sJ <JLi JU JL
The prooteiTH&alvmg behavior that works for me at home or in my
personal life does mot seem to be as useful at work.
The nexf questions are for cSasaifigaliim pmposss stuff. They mil only be used to
group ymir answers mtk others titce'/Burself.
* 3 Please indicate your gender.
# Male
<3> Femste
*
J
Please- select the category that includes your age.
28
What best describes your levei of education?
( J Some High School
I P High School graduate or equivalent
| | ) Some cofiege
%U Associate degree
81 Bachelor's degree
2l Graduate or professional degree
2S Wlaicfe one of ttie f ot awi g rang*
5
indudes your total yearly household
incoBve before taxes?
28 Which one of fte following best descrf>es ymi?
" Are you art a ccmnrciHesI reJafcnsfsip?
i;ss I... HO j
SO Are you Jiving witfi seemeorte iin a committed reSaiiortshifS?
>> What is your marrtai status?
32 /ere you presenriy taking casre of anyone, and i so, how many?If none,
please place a. zero (0) in the box.
Children under 5
years of age?
Crjildren between
5 - 12?
Child ren between
1 3 - t t ?
Parents orolher
r members?
MOTE TO ZOOMEftANG USER: The next question is the basis for skip iogic. If
the respondent aasweis ttiat stbs is ejmptayeri either f uMme, paiMSme, or serf-
emptoyed, srn wiB be asked additional questions on the following page about
industry, functional: area, title, and number of employees.
" Which one of t i e Mlowiing best describes your employment staius?
34 !ra whssh industry do you work
7
35 Vfeiofe of 9is following most accurately describes you? arJmsry
funcfianai work area?
j ^g^gÊgg^^g^^^g
38 VBhieft of lfte fol owrtg most aceuraieiiir describes your occapatkma? itte
its your coBipsny or organization?
# CEOPresktenÔwnerfGMt'Partaer
O Vtoe PresidenifAsst Vsce President
C^ CFOrereasurer/Contrafler
^ DirectoÂsst Dsrector/DeparSrnenit Head
O Managen'Asst Manager
Smalt business owner
S^ CflericatfAdmijiisfrattve Support
^ DocteiPhysicaart
<3 DevelopeiiJProgrammer
i$ Lawyer
<i# Supervisor
i J Educator
^ SisflHndivKlual Conirioutor
Sil OihSF
y> Doatwork
37 Appfoximaisiy how many people are in your argankaiion?

Out

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Out

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE EFFECTS OF MOBILE TECHNOLOGY ON WORK-LIFE OUTCOMES

You might also like