...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of Applied Psychology >The Jingle-Jangle of Work-Nonwork Balance: A Comprehensive and Meta-Analytic Review of Its Meaning and Measurement
【24h】

The Jingle-Jangle of Work-Nonwork Balance: A Comprehensive and Meta-Analytic Review of Its Meaning and Measurement

机译：Jingle-Jangle的工作 - 非工作余额：对其含义和测量的全面和荟萃分析审查

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

We review research on work-nonwork balance to examine the presence of the jingle fallacy-attributing different meanings to a single construct label-and the jangle fallacy-using different labels for a single construct. In 290 papers, we found 233 conceptual definitions that clustered into 5 distinct, interpretable types, suggesting evidence of the jingle fallacy. We calculated Euclidean distances to quantify the extent of the jingle fallacy and found high divergence in definitions across time and publication outlet. One exception was more agreement recently in better journals to conceptualize balance as unidimensional, psychological, and distinct from conflict and enrichment. Yet, over time many authors have committed the jangle fallacy by labeling measures of conflict and/or enrichment as balance, and disagreement persists even in better journals about the meanings attributed to balance (e.g., effectiveness, satisfaction). To examine the empirical implications of the jingle and jangle fallacies, we conducted meta-analyses of distinct operational definitions of balance with job, life, and family satisfaction. Effect sizes for conflict and enrichment measures were typically smaller than effects for balance measures, providing evidence of a unique balance construct that is not interchangeable with conflict and enrichment. To begin to remedy concerns raised by our review, we propose a definition of work-nonwork balance drawing from theory, empirical evidence from our review, and normative information about how balance should be defined. We conclude with a theory-based agenda for future research.
机译：我们回顾了关于工作-非工作平衡的研究，以检验是否存在将不同含义归因于单个结构标签的叮当谬误和将不同标签用于单个结构的叮当谬误。在290篇论文中，我们发现233个概念定义，分为5种不同的、可解释的类型，这表明了叮当谬误的证据。我们计算了欧几里德距离来量化叮当谬误的程度，并发现不同时间和出版物的定义存在很大差异。一个例外是最近在更好的期刊上更一致地将平衡概念化为一维的、心理的，有别于冲突和充实。然而，随着时间的推移，许多作者已经犯下了jangle谬论，将冲突和/或充实的衡量标准称为平衡，甚至在更好的期刊上，关于平衡的含义（例如，有效性、满意度）也存在分歧。为了检验“叮当”和“叮当”谬误的实证含义，我们对工作、生活和家庭满意度的不同平衡操作定义进行了元分析。冲突和充实措施的影响大小通常小于平衡措施的影响，这提供了一种独特的平衡结构的证据，这种结构与冲突和充实措施不可互换。为了开始纠正我们的审查提出的担忧，我们从理论、审查中的经验证据以及关于如何定义平衡的规范性信息中提出了工作-非工作平衡的定义。最后，我们提出了一个基于理论的未来研究议程。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号