Evaluating Relational Factors as Possible Protective Factors for Work–Life Balance via a Linear Mixed Effects Model

Abstract

This study seeks to understand how work–life balance (WLB) changes over time, and if relational factors – relationship and sexual satisfaction – may have protective effects. Grounded in Bronfenbrenner’s (1986) family ecological theory a linear mixed effects analysis was used to analyze over 4,000 individual reports of WLB over three years.

The primary finding showed that on average, individuals rated their WLB just above average and their scores decrease over time. While relationship satisfaction did not have significant associations with WLB alone, the interaction between relationship and sexual satisfaction was found to be a protective factor, increasing WLB scores. This indicates that having higher sexual satisfaction can enhance the protective effect that relationship satisfaction has on WLB.

An intriguing finding was the significant difference in WLB scores for men compared to women. On average, men experience significantly lower WLB scores. This could be related to how WLB was measured, or possibly due to gender roles. Future research should further explore this relationship.

The results of this study provide information that researchers’ can consider as they design studies and interventions targeting WLB. An additional hope is that employers will consider these results when they create workplace policy and other initiatives.

This study is one of the first to explore WLB in association with relationship and sexual satisfaction and the interaction between sexual and relationship satisfaction. This chapter tests the interactions between mesosystems in a unique way that enhances researchers understanding of WLB.

Citation

Hubbard, A. (2018), "Evaluating Relational Factors as Possible Protective Factors for Work–Life Balance via a Linear Mixed Effects Model", Blair, S.L. and Obradović, J. (Ed.) The Work-Family Interface: Spillover, Complications, and Challenges (Contemporary Perspectives in Family Research, Vol. 13), Emerald Publishing Limited, Leeds, pp. 349-364. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1530-353520180000013018