Abstract
AbstractIn the contemporary 24/7 working society, the separation of work and private life is increasingly turning into an unrealizable ideal. Ruminating about work outside the work context lets work spill over into private lives and affects the dynamics of workers’ private relationships. Although negative work rumination was linked to couples’ reduced relationship satisfaction, little is known about the mechanism of action and the impact of positive work rumination. Drawing on the load theory of selective attention, we hypothesize that both negative and positive work rumination occupy attentional resources and thus reduce workers' attention to the partner on the same day. Lower levels of attention to the partner, in turn, should relate to lower levels of both partners’relationship satisfaction. However, sharing the work-related thoughts with the partner might support the resolution of the work issue the worker is ruminating about, which releases attentional resources and thus buffers the negative association between rumination and attention to the partner. We conducted a daily diary study and the findings based on 579 daily dyadic observations from 42 dual‐earner couples support the proposed cognitive spillover-crossover mechanism and the buffer mechanism of thought-sharing. We conclude that negative and positive work rumination takes up scarce attentional resources and thus jeopardizes relationship quality. However, sharing thoughts with one's partner seems to be a useful strategy for couples to maintain or even increase their relationship satisfaction in the light of work rumination.
Funder
Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften
University of Vienna
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Social Sciences (miscellaneous)
Reference96 articles.
1. Asparouhov, T. (2006). General multi-level modeling with sampling weights. Communications in Statistics-Theory and Methods, 35, 439–460. https://doi.org/10.1080/03610920500476598
2. Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2013). The spillover-crossover model. In J. G. Grzywacz & E. Demerouti (Eds.), New frontiers in work and family research (pp. 54–71). Psychology Press.
3. Barber, L. K., & Santuzzi, A. M. (2015). Please respond ASAP: Workplace telepressure and employee recovery. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 20, 172–189. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038278
4. Bartsch, L. M., Singmann, H., & Oberauer, K. (2018). The effects of refreshing and elaboration on working memory performance, and their contributions to long-term memory formation. Memory & Cognition, 46, 796–808. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-018-0805-9
5. Berntsen, D. (1996). Involuntary autobiographical memories. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, 435–454. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(199610)10:5%3c435::AID-ACP408%3e3.0.CO;2-L