Psychological Detachment Mediating the Daily Relationship between Workload and Marital Satisfaction

Abstract

Scholars already demonstrated that psychologically detaching from work after workhours can diminish or avoid the negative effects of job demands on employees' well-being. In this study, we examined a curvilinear relationship between workload and psychological detachment. Moreover, we investigated the moderating influence of an employee's work-home segmentation preference on the relation between detachment and marital satisfaction. In addition, we applied and extended the stressor-detachment model by examining detachment as a mediator of the relation between workload and marital satisfaction. A total of 136 employees participated in our daily diary survey study during 10 consecutive working days. The results of the Bayesian 2-level path analyses revealed a negative linear and curvilinear relationship between workload and psychological detachment on a daily basis. Daily detachment positively related to marital satisfaction, with one's preference to segment work from home reinforcing this relationship. Moreover, psychological detachment fully mediated the daily relationship between workload and marital satisfaction. Implications for practice and suggestions for future research are discussed.

Being mindful at work and at home: Buffering effects in the stressor–detachment model

“…However, we did not find any significant three‐way interactions. Second, drawing on the Yerkes–Dodson law and activation theory, Germeys and De Gieter () suggested a negative curvilinear relationship between workload and detachment: employees might best detach on days when they have medium levels of workload (i.e., quantitative demands) as very low levels of workload may hinder detachment as employees feel bored whereas very high levels of workload may hamper detachment as employees feel overwhelmed by their workload. We tested this proposition with our data but did not find a significant negative quadratic (i.e., inverted u‐shaped) relationship between quantitative demands and detachment.…”

“…Further, a second explanation for the non‐significant main effects of job demands on employees’ detachment could be seen in the possibility that the job demands–detachment relationship is actually a nonlinear one as suggested by a recent study by Germeys and De Gieter (). Germeys and De Gieter () found a negative quadratic effect of workload on detachment in addition to a significant negative linear effect. In our study, we did not find support for a quadratic effect of quantitative demands on detachment.…”

Effects of workload on teachers' functioning: A moderated mediation model including sleeping problems and overcommitment

“…Fourth and finally, in our study, workload was the only job demand of interest, yet the consideration of other job demands and resources may offer a more complete understanding of how teachers' work environment may affect their functioning. Additionally, we apprehended workload as a hindrance stressor, yet research showed that workload may be perceived as a challenge stressor (LePine et al, ), or that it may have curvilinear effects on individual functioning and may not have adverse effects up to a certain level (Germeys & De Gieter, ). Future research could further explore how workload may have counterintuitive effects on individual functioning.…”

The Relationship between Job Demands and Employees’ Counterproductive Work Behaviors: The Mediating Effect of Psychological Detachment and Job Anxiety

“…If this situation continues, health problems and sickness absence will occur ( Meijman and Mulder, 1998 ). As a main recovery strategy, psychological detachment could help to avoid further consuming employees’ resources and provides opportunities for their replenishment ( Germeys and De Gieter, 2016 ).…”

“…Previous studies emphasize the moderating effect of psychological detachment, and most suggest that this is not significant ( Safstrom and Hartig, 2013 ; DeArmond et al, 2014 ). To date, few studies have examined the mediating effect of psychological detachment ( Germeys and De Gieter, 2016 ).…”