Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Too Close for Comfort? Investigating the Nature and Functioning of Work and Non-work Role Segmentation Preferences

  • Published:
Journal of Business and Psychology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

We examine the bi-directional nature of role segmentation preferences—preferences to protect the home domain from work intrusions, and to protect the work domain from home intrusions—and hypothesize that the dimensions independently prompt individuals to manage their boundaries in ways that complement their preferences.

Design and Methodological Approach

In a series of three studies, we investigate whether segmentation preferences vary on two dimensions, how they reflect enactive and proactive boundary management, and their association with domain-specific satisfaction and performance.

Findings

In Study 1 (field design, n = 314), we confirmed that segmentation preferences comprise two distinct dimensions, and individuals experience fewer intrusions into the domain they desired to protect. In Study 2 (experimental design, n = 1253), we found that participants who prefer to protect their home domain are less inclined to accept jobs in scenarios where their significant other is employed in the same organization, and participants who prefer to protect their work domain are less inclined to initiate a romantic relationship in scenarios that involve a coworker. In Study 3 (field design, n = 65), we found that individuals who prefer to protect their work or home domain report greater satisfaction with the preferred domain, and whereas the preference to protect the work domain is not associated with higher supervisor ratings of job performance, preference to protect the home domain is associated with higher significant-other ratings of non-work performance.

Implications

Understanding employees’ proclivities to blur boundaries can inform recruitment and selection of employees to anticipate organizational fit, diagnose sources of misfit, structure individualized policies to ameliorate employee strain, and decrease turnover costs.

Originality/Value

This synthesis provides a unique investigation of segmentation preference dimensions’ differential functioning and reinforces the validity of the role segmentation preferences concept.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Consistent with previous research (e.g., Honeycutt and Rosen 1997), salary levels were chosen so that an extremely significant effect of salary that was too high or too low would not bias the results.

  2. We controlled for motivation to learn using 3 items adapted from Noe and Schmitt (1986) (α = 0.90), and include it along with the cross-level interaction with job challenge in our model because this trait reflects the desire to allocate effort to endeavors that involve growth, learning, and development. We controlled for achievement striving using Costa and McCrae’s (1992) 10-item scale (α = 0.86), and included it along with the cross-level interaction with salary in our model because this trait reflects characteristic differences in the degree to which money is perceived to be symbolic of desired competence, achievement, and success (Mitchell and Mickel 1999).

  3. Physical attractiveness was manipulated by including a stock photograph of each hypothetical individual in each dating vignette. We asked four independent raters to rank the attractiveness of the individuals in a pre-selected set of stock photographs, and we selected the 16 photographs where there was unanimous agreement with regard to relative attractiveness (8 females, 4 of which were consistently ranked as being more attractive than the other 4, and 8 males, 4 of which were consistently ranked as being more attractive than the other 4).

  4. Personality characteristics were identified on the basis of interviews with “singles” regarding personality preferences in dates.

  5. We expect that, while the importance of physical attractiveness of the target actor appears consistent across both men and women initiators (Eastwick and Finkel 2008), certain individual differences likely mitigate the effect of attractiveness. Thus, we controlled for personality traits openness to experience and extraversion using John and Srivastava’s (1999) ten-item and eight-item scales, respectively, because individuals who are more curious and broad-minded (Barrick and Mount 1991) and whose personalities are congruent (Byrne 1971) may be more likely to initiate relationships with individuals at various levels of physical attractiveness. Reliabilities were α = 0.86 and α = 0.82, respectively.

References

  • Abelson, R. P. (1985). A variance explanation paradox: When a little is a lot. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 129–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abrams, D., Ando, K., & Hinkle, S. (1998). Psychological attachment to the group: Cross-cultural differences in organizational identification and subjective norms as predictors of workers’ turnover intentions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 1027–1039.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashforth, B. E., Kreiner, G. E., & Fugate, M. (2000). All in a day’s work: Boundaries and micro role transitions. Academy of Management Review, 25, 472–491.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aslop, R. (2008). The trophy kids grow up: How the Millennial generation is shaping up the workplace. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. In N. Schmitt & W. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 71–98). New York: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breaugh, J. A., & Billings, R. S. (1988). The realistic job preview: Five key elements and their importance for research and practice. Journal of Business and Psychology, 2, 291–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bretz, R. D., & Judge, T. A. (1994). The role of human resources systems in job applicant decision processes. Journal of Management, 20, 531–551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bulger, C. A., Matthews, R. A., & Hoffman, M. E. (2007). Work and personal life boundary management: Boundary strength, work/personal life balance, and the segmentation-integration continuum. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12, 365–375.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cable, D. M., & Judge, T. A. (1997). Interviewers’ perceptions of person-organization fit and organizational selection decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 546–561.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, G. D, Jr, & Klesh, J. R. (1983). Assessing the attitudes and perceptions of organizational members. In S. E. Seashore, E. E. Lawler III, P. H. Minis, & C. Cammann (Eds.), Assessing organizational change: A guide to methods, measures, and practices (pp. 71–138). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carver, M. D., & Jones, W. H. (1992). The family satisfaction scale. Social Behavior and Personality, 20, 71–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan, D. (2009). So why ask me? Are self-report data really that bad? In C. E. Lance & R. J. Vandenberg (Eds.), Statistical and methodological myths and urban legends: Doctrine, verity, and fable in the organizational and social sciences (pp. 311–338). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chapman, D. S., Uggersley, K. L., Carroll, S. A., Piasentin, K. A., & Jones, D. A. (2005). Applicant attraction to organizations and job choice: A meta-analytic review of the correlates of recruiting outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 928–944.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, Z., Powell, G., & Greenhaus, J. (2009). Work-to-family conflict, positive spillover, and boundary management: A person-environment fit approach. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74, 82–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, S. C. (2000). Work/family border theory: A new theory of work/family balance. Human Relations, 53, 747–770.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conway, J. M., & Lance, C. E. (2010). What reviewers should expect from authors regarding common method bias in organizational research. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25, 325–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, H. M. (1991). On the significance of effects and the effects of significance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 1013–1018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costa, P. T, Jr, & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deal, J. J., Altman, D. G., & Rogelberg, S. G. (2010). Millennials at work: What we know and what we need to do (if anything). Journal of Business and Psychology, 25, 191–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eastwick, P. W., & Finkel, E. J. (2008). Sex differences in mate preferences revisited: Do people know what they initially desire in a romantic partner? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 245–264.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Eckenrode, J., & Gore, S. (Eds.). (1990). Stress and coping at the boundary of work and family. In Stress between work and family (pp. 1–16). New York: Plenum.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, J. R., & Rothbard, N. P. (1999). Work and family stress and well-being: An examination of person-environment fit in the work and family domains. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 77, 85–129.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, J. R., & Rothbard, N. P. (2000). Mechanisms linking work and family: Clarifying the relationships between work and family constructs. Academy of Management Review, 25, 178–199.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fabrikant, G. (2008). Would you hire your husband? (p. BU1). New York: New York Times.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, D. C., & Arnold, H. J. (1978). Position choice: Comparing the importance of organizational and job factors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 706–710.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, A. B., & Welsh, T. (1994). Getting comfortable with couples in the workplace. New York: Fortune Magazine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frayer, L., & Noguchi, Y. (2014). When divorce leads to a happily ever after for a small business. NPR Morning Edition.

  • Greenhaus, J. H., & Powell, G. N. (2003). When work and family collide: Deciding between competing role demands. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 90, 291–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haavio-Mannila, E., Kauppinen-Toropainen, K., & Kandolin, I. (1988). The effect of sex composition of the workplace on friendship, romance, and sex at work. In B. Gutek, A. H. Stromberg, & L. Larwood (Eds.), Women and work: An annual review (Vol. 3). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, D. T., & Richter, J. (1988). Balancing work and home life: What can organizations do to help? Academy of Management Executive, 2, 213–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hays, C. (1995). When business partners are marriage partners (p. F10). New York: New York Times.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hecht, T. D., & Allen, N. J. (2009). A longitudinal examination of the work-nonwork boundary strength construct. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 839–862.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44, 513–524.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hochshild, A. (1997). The time bind: When work becomes home and home becomes work. New York: Metropolitan Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, D. A., Griffin, M. A., & Gavin, M. B. (2000). The application of hierarchical linear modeling to organizational research. In K. Klein & S. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 467–511). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Honeycutt, T. L., & Rosen, B. (1997). Family friendly human resource policies, salary levels, and salient identity as predictors of organizational attraction. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50, 271–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hyland, M. M., Rowsome, C., & Rowsome, E. (2005). The integrative effects of flexible work arrangements and preferences for segmenting or integrating work and home roles. Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, 6, 141–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, C. L., & LePine, J. A. (2003). Peer responses to a team’s weakest link: A test and extension of LePine and Van Dyne’s model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 459–475.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The big five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 692–724.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirchmeyer, C. (1995). Managing the work-nonwork boundary: An assessment of organizational responses. Human Relations, 48, 515–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kossek, E. E., & Laustch, B. A. (2012). Work-family boundary management styles in organizations: A cross-level model. Organizational Psychology Review, 2, 152–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kossek, E. E., Lautsch, B. A., & Eaton, S. C. (2005). Flexibility enactment theory: Implications of flexibility type, control, and boundary management for work-family effectiveness. In E. E. Kossek & S. J. Lambert (Eds.), Work and life integration: Organizational, cultural, and individual perspectives (pp. 243–261). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kreiner, G. E. (2006). Consequences of work-home segmentation or integration: A person-environment fit perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 485–507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kreiner, G. R., & Ashforth, B. E. (2004). Evidence toward an expanded model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 1–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations, measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49, 1–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005). Consequences of individuals’ fit at work: A meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-group, and person-supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58, 281–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Locke, E. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1297–1349). Chicago: Rand McNally.

    Google Scholar 

  • Losee, S., & Olen, H. (2007). Office mate. Avon, MA: Adams Media Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, R. A., & Barnes-Farrell, J. L. (2010). Development and initial evaluation of an enhanced measure of boundary flexibility for the work and family domains. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 15, 330–346.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, R. A., Barnes-Farrell, J. L., & Bulger, C. A. (2010). Advancing measurement of work and family domain boundary characteristics. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 77, 447–460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, T. R., & Mickel, A. E. (1999). The meaning of money: An individual difference perspective. Academy of Management Review, 24, 568–578.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mook, D. G. (1983). In defense of external invalidity. American Psychologist, 38, 379–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2010). Mplus user’s guide (6th ed). Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.

  • Myers, K. K., & Sadaghiani, K. (2010). Millennials in the workplace: A communication perspective on Millennials’ organizational relationships and performance. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25, 225–238.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nippert-Eng, C. E. (1996). Home and work: Negotiating boundaries through everyday life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Noe, R. A., & Schmitt, N. (1986). The influence of learner attitudes on training effectiveness: Test of a model. Personnel Psychology, 39, 497–532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ollier-Malaterre, A., Rothbard, N. P., & Berg, J. M. (2013). When worlds collide in cyberspace: How boundary work in online social networks impacts professional relationships. Academy of Management Review, 38, 645–669.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olsen, R. (2008). Self-Selection Bias. In P. J. Lavrakas (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Survey Research Methods (pp. 809–811). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olson-Buchanan, J. B., & Boswell, W. R. (2006). Blurring boundaries: Correlates of integration and segmentation between work and non-work. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 432–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, Y., Fritz, C., & Jex, S. M. (2011). Relationships between work-home segmentation and psychological detachment from work: The role of communication technology use at home. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 16, 457–467.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Paustian-Underdahl, S. C., Halbesleben, J. R. B., Carlson, D. S., & Kacmar, K. M. (2013). The work-family interface and promotability: Boundary integration as a double-edged sword. Journal of Management.

  • Peak, M. H. (1995). Cupid in a three-piece suit. Management Review, 84, 5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearce, J. L. (2001). Organization and management in the embrace of government. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pierce, C. A., Aguinis, H., & Adams, S. K. R. (2000). Effects of a dissolved workplace romance and rater characteristics on responses to a sexual harassment accusation. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 869–880.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pierce, C. A., Byrne, D., & Aguinis, H. (1996). Attraction in organizations: A model of workplace romance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 5–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pierce, C. A., Karl, K. A., & Brey, E. T. (2012). Role of workplace romance policies and procedures on job pursuit intentions. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 27, 237–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pinder, C. C. (1998). Work motivation in organizational behavior. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Powell, G. N. (1986). What do tomorrow’s managers think about sexual intimacy in the workplace? Business Horizons, 29, 30–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powell, G. N., & Greenhaus, J. H. (2007). Influence of sex, gender self-schema, and segmentation preferences on work-to-family enrichment. In Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Philadelphia.

  • Powell, G. N., & Greenhaus, J. H. (2010). Sex, gender, and the work-to-family interface: Exploring negative and positive interdependencies. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 513–534.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pratt, M. G. (1998). To be or not to be? Central questions in organizational identification. In D. A. Whetten & P. C. Godfrey (Eds.), Identity in organizations: Building theory through conversations (pp. 171–208). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Prentice, D. A., & Miller, D. T. (1992). When small effects are impressive. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 160–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Price, R. H. (1974). The taxonomic classification of behaviors and situations and the problem of behavior-environment congruence. Human Relations, 27, 567–585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quinn, R. E. (1977). Coping with cupid: The formation, impact, and management of romantic relationships in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22, 30–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riketta, M. (2005). Organizational identification: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 358–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothbard, N. P., Phillips, K. W., & Dumas, T. L. (2005). Managing multiple roles: Work-family policies and individuals’ desires for segmentation. Organization Science, 16, 243–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rousseau, D. M. (2005). I-deals: Idiosyncratic deals employees bargain for themselves. New York: M. E. Sharpe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwoerer, C., & Rosen, B. (1989). Effects of employment-at-will policies and compensation policies on corporate image and job pursuit intentions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 653–656.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, M. E. (1971). Group dynamics: The psychology of small group behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheldon, K. M., & Elliot, A. J. (1999). Goal striving, need satisfaction, and longitudinal well-being: The self-concordance model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 482–497.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Smith-Lovin, L. (1979). Behavior settings and impressions formed from social scenarios. Social Psychology Quarterly, 4, 31–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smola, K. W., & Sutton, C. D. (2002). Generational differences: Revisiting generational work values for the new millennium. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 363–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snijders, T. B., & Bosker, R. J. (1999). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snyder, M., & Gangestad, S. (1982). Choosing social situations: Two investigations of self-monitoring processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 123–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snyder, M., & Ickes, W. (1985). Personality and social behavior. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (3rd ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spragins, E. (2004). Dangerous liaisons: As small firms relax their rules on office romances, some face unexpected consequences. Fortune Small Business.

  • Stryker, S. (1968). Identity salience and role performance: The relevance of symbolic interaction theory for family research. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 30, 558–564.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Twenge, J. M. (2010). A review of the empirical evidence on generational differences in work attitudes. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25, 201–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Dick, R., Van Knippenberg, D., Kerschreiter, R., Hertel, G., & Weiseke, J. (2008). Interactive effects of work group and organizational identification on job satisfaction and extra-role behavior. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 72, 388–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Knippenberg, D., & van Schie, E. C. M. (2000). Foci and correlates of organizational identification. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73, 137–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vault Careers (2014). Love is in the air: Vault’s 2014 office romance survey. Vault.com Blogs.

  • Walster, E., Aronson, V., Abrahams, D., & Rottman, L. (1966). Importance of physical attractiveness in dating behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 508–516.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wanous, J. P. (1992). Organizational entry: Recruitment, selection, orientation, and socialization of newcomers (2nd ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilke, D. (2013). Forbidden love: Workplace romance policies now stricter. Society for Human Resource Management.

  • Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17, 601–617.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winkel, D. E., & Clayton, R. W. (2010). Transitioning between work and family roles as a function of boundary flexibility and role salience. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76, 336–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zerubavel, E. (1991). The fine line: Making distinctions in everyday life. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Human Resource Management, School of Management and Labor Relations, Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA

    Jessica R. Methot

  2. Department of Management, W. P. Carey School of Business, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, 85287-4006, USA

    Jeffery A. LePine

Authors
  1. Jessica R. Methot
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jeffery A. LePine
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jessica R. Methot.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Job Choice Scenarios

You graduated college a few years ago with a degree in accounting and you have just been offered a new position with an accounting firm. With this firm, you will be working in a [fairly stable, predictable, and consistent or dynamic, challenging, and sometimes ambiguous] environment that will require [you to use the same basic skills for daily tasks that don’t vary much from week to week or a number of different skills, creativity, and constant problem solving]. In your job, you will have a [low degree of responsibility, you will be given clear and specific directions for how to complete your work, and you will not need to be involved in much decision-making about how to schedule your time and work tasks or high degree of responsibility, significant control over work decisions, and even though you will not receive much guidance, you will have substantial freedom in how you schedule your time and work tasks]. The average salary in the accounting industry for your position is approximately $60,000, and the firm is offering a salary that is [5 % below or 5 % above] the industry average. Your significant other, whom you have been dating for nearly 1 year, [works in a different company than the one or does work at the firm] that is offering you the job.

Manipulation Check

One hundred thirty-nine participants were randomly assigned to a manipulation check group. They read vignettes with manipulations of job challenge, salary, and permeability, and rated from 1 (not at all challenging) to 5 (very challenging), the degree to which they perceived the job context as challenging; on a scale from 1 (high) to 3 (low), the level of salary offered by the hypothetical organization; and by responding yes or no, whether they perceived their hypothetical significant other worked in the same organization. Ratings of job challenges, salary, and permeability were strongly correlated to our a priori categorization of these manipulations (r = 0.69, r = 0.70, and r = 0.87, p < 0.01, respectively).

Appendix 2: Dating Scenarios

You are currently single but you are interested in finding someone to spend more time with—thinking that perhaps this friendship could turn into a dating relationship. You have known [name] for a little while, and after a few times of talking with [him/her] you have thought about asking [him/her] out. [Name] has described [himself/herself] as [quiet and introspective or outgoing and social] and you have found [him/her] to be [thoughtful and serious or energetic and light-hearted]. One thing you often consider before initiating a dating relationship with someone is whether you work together. In this case, [he/she does work in the same company as you do or you and he/she work in different companies].

Manipulation Check

We conducted a manipulation check using the same subset of 139 participants from sub-study 1. For attractiveness ratings, participants indicated whether they wished to respond to questions regarding males or females, were directed to the respective photos, and rated from 1 (very unattractive) to 5 (very attractive) the individuals’ attractiveness. Ratings were strongly correlated with the category of attractiveness we assigned to the manipulations (r = 0.67 female photos, and r = 0.74 male photos, both p < 0.01). Next, participants read vignettes with manipulations of personality and boundary permeability, and rated from 1 (very introverted) to 5 (very extraverted), the degree to which they perceived the individual to be extraverted, and whether (yes or no) they perceived that the hypothetical individual worked in the same organization. Participants’ ratings of personality and boundary permeability were again strongly correlated to our a priori categorization of the vignettes (r = 0.78 and r = 0.67, p < 0.01, respectively).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Methot, J.R., LePine, J.A. Too Close for Comfort? Investigating the Nature and Functioning of Work and Non-work Role Segmentation Preferences. J Bus Psychol 31, 103–123 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-015-9402-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-015-9402-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation