O

FD

Lc

Ja

b

ARR1A

KWJJ

MCMS

1

m

g

1h

Revue européenne de psychologie appliquée 64 (2014) 83–91

Disponible en ligne sur

ScienceDirectwww.sciencedirect.com

riginal article

ireman’s job stress: Integrating work/non-work conflict with Jobemand-Control-Support model

e stress au travail chez les pompiers : le rôle du conflit travail–vie privée dans leadre du modèle exigence-contrôle-soutien

.-Y. Wonga, J.-H. Linb, S.-H. Liua,∗, T.-H. Wana

Department of Business Administration, Ming Chuan University, 250, Zhong Shan North Road, Sec 5, Taipei 111, Taiwan, ROCGraduate Institute of Recreation, Tourism, and Hospitality Management, National Chiayi University, 580, Shin Min. Rd., Chiayi City 600, Taiwan, ROC

a r t i c l e i n f o

rticle history:eceived 14 May 2012eceived in revised form1 December 2013ccepted 26 December 2013

eywords:ork/non-work conflict

DCS modelob stress

a b s t r a c t

Introduction. – Heavy working load and uncontrollable schedule often lead firemen to face to conflictbetween work and non-work life.Objective. – This study aims to examine the mediating role of work/non-work conflict between firemen’sjob stress and job demand, job control, job support and family support.Method. – Questionnaire survey was used for data collection. Four hundred and twenty-two firemenreturned completed questionnaires. Structure equation modelling was employed for data analysis.Results. – Work/leisure conflict (WLC) and work/family conflict (WFC) mediate partially the relationshipbetween job demand and job control, job support and job stress. The relationship between family supportand job stress is fully mediated by WLC and WFC.Conclusion. – WFC and WLC are integrated into Job Demand-Control-Support model model in currentresearch to narrow the gap of job stress theory.

© 2014 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

ots clés :onflit travail–vie privéeodèle exigences-contrôle-soutien

tress au travail

r é s u m é

Introduction. – Une charge de travail excessive et des horaires variables sont une source importante deconflit entre travail et vie privée chez les pompiers.Objectif. – Cette étude vise à analyser le rôle médiateur du conflit entre travail et vie privée dans la relationentre les demandes et ressources professionnelles et familiales, d’une part, et le stress au travail, d’autrepart.Méthode. – Les données ont été récoltées par questionnaire auprès d’un échantillon de 422 pompiers. Un

modèle d’analyse en équation structurale a été développé.Résultats. – Le conflit travail/loisirs (CTL) et le conflit travail/famille(CTF) sont des médiateurs partielsdans la relation entre demandes du travail, contrôle, soutien au travail et le stress. La relation entre lesoutien familial et le stress au travail est entièrement médiée par CTL et CTF.Conclusion. – L’intégration de CTL et CTF dans le modèle exigence-contrôle-soutien permet de dépassercertaines limites des recherches actuelles dans le domaine du stress au travail.

. Introduction

This study aims to investigate firemen’s job stress. Stress is aajor factor affecting people’s lives, influencing both mental and

∗ Corresponding author.E-mail addresses: qk077521@yahoo.com.tw,

k077521@yahoo.com.tw (S.-H. Liu).

162-9088/$ – see front matter © 2014 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.ttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.erap.2013.12.002

© 2014 Elsevier Masson SAS. Tous droits réservés.

physical health (Hobfoll, 1989), while job stress arises from theworking environment and might be defined as nervousness/anxietyassociated with a job that affects an employee’s emotional or phys-ical health (Hansez, 2008; Netemeyer, Maxham III, & Pullig, 2005).

The sources of firemen’s job stress can be grouped into traumatic

stressors, specific psychosocial challenges, and systemic stressors(Fisher & Etches, 2003). There is a rich literature about traumaticstressors and specific psychosocial challenges, such as dealing withvictims of fire, traumatic incidents and exposure to death (Beaton

8 de psy

&HsanwsP2uific

Eoie(mtd1wn

mddiGobEem

2

2

Ktapa&mSa1bi

asAbsfita

4 J.-Y. Wong et al. / Revue européenne

Murphy, 1993; Corneil, Beaton, Murphy, Johnson, & Pike, 1999).owever, only a few studies have been conducted on systemic

tressors which are defined as a paramilitary, hierarchical powernd command structure. They form the culture of firefighting orga-izations that increases generic work strain and stigmatize firemenho suffer from stress effects (e.g. perceived lack of control, exces-

ive workload, rotating shift-work) (Lourel, Abdellaoui, Chevaleyre,altrier, & Gana, 2008; Lusa, Punakallio, Luukkonen, & Louhevaara,006). While these studies provide a common theoretical basis forsing the Job Demand-Control-Support model (JDCS) for explain-

ng the relation between systemic stressors and the job stress of fireghters, most of them omit the special position of work/non-workonflict in the literature of firemen’s job stress.

Work/non-work conflicts are also systemic stressors (Fisher &tches, 2003). Most literature on work/non-work conflicts focusn work/family conflict (WFC), and only a few studies explore thempact of work/leisure conflict (WLC) (Wong & Lin, 2007). Nev-rtheless, there is a growing interest on such inter-role conflictTau, Liang, & Hsu, 2012). Some evidence supports that leisure

ight help people to resist stress, because leisure activities providehe experience of freedom and sense of control that may cure theepression that resulting from stressful events (Iso-Ahola & Park,996; Iwasaki, 2003). However, when the work domain interferesith one’s leisure life, the function of leisure resisting stress willot work. The concept of WLC should be distinct from WFC.

Additionally, the position of work/non-work conflict in stressodels is ambiguous. For instance, while some research have

efined WFC as a stressor in the job demand-resource model (Vanen Broeck, Vansteenkiste, De Witte & Lens, 2008), other stud-

es have described it as an outcome of other stressors (Bakker &eurts, 2004; Seiger & Wiese, 2009). Although the mediating effectf work/family conflict between job stressors and job stress haseen examined (Pisarski et al., 2006; Proost, De Witte, De Witte, &vers, 2004), to our knowledge there is no study on the mediatingffect of work/leisure conflict. This study integrates the JDCS stressodel and work/non-work conflict to explain firemen’s job stress.

. Theoretical background

.1. JDCS model

The Job Demand-Control model (JDC model) was proposed byarasek (1979) for identifying two crucial aspects of work situa-

ions: job demand and job control. Job demand is the major stressornd is defined as the extent to which the work environment taxesersonal capacity for the job, including work loading, pace of worknd working hours (Karasek, 1979; Finney, Stergiopoulos, Bonato,

Dewa, 2013). Job control refers resources for resisting stress thatight be used to respond to job demand (Karasek, 1979; Toker,

hirom, Melamed, & Armon, 2012) and is defined in this study as theutonomy for arranging work schedules and time control (Breaugh,985; Peng, Hwang, & Wong, 2010). The JDCS model was proposedy Johnson and Hall (1988) and integrates informal job supports

nto the JDC model.In addition, many studies confirm that not only job support but

lso family support might help to reduce stress-related outcomes,uch as burnout (Bakker, Demerouti, & Schaufeli, 2005; Melamed,rmon, Arie, Shirom, & Shapira, 2011). Therefore, this study com-ines job support and family support as a sub-construct of socialupport. Social support is defined as providing actual assistance or

eelings of attachment to a person that is perceived as caring or lov-ng (Hobfoll & Stokes, 1988; Toker et al., 2012), and is separated intowo aspects: job support (support from co-workers or supervisors)nd family support (support from family members).

chologie appliquée 64 (2014) 83–91

Fire-fighting is a high strain job (high demand and low con-trol) (Chen, Chen, Chou, Sun, Chen, Tsai, & Chao, 2007; Karasek &Theorell, 1990). Lourel et al. (2008) indicates that job demand andjob control predict firemen’s burnout significantly. Shift-work isone of the characteristics of fire-fighting work (Fisher & Etches,2003; Shreffler, Meadows, & Davis, 2011; Smith, Ortiz, Steffen,Tooley, Wiggins, Yeater, Montoya, & Bernard, 2011). Pisarski et al.(2006) find that job support and job control influence a shiftworker’s physical and psychological health. In sum, JDCS modelfocuses on the negative aspects of work and negative consequencesof work (Van den Broeck et al., 2008) and can be considered asuitable model to explore firemen’s job stress.

2.2. Work/non-work conflict

In the past, most job stress models have only focused on vari-ables in the working domain. For instance, the JDC, JDCS andJD-R models all concentrate on the direct impact of job-relatedantecedents on job stress (Janssen, Bakker, & De Jong, 2001; Johnson& Hall, 1988; Karasek, 1979). However, work/non-work conflicthas become a major attribute of human life today (Lin & Rashid,2010; Moore, 2006). Work/non-work conflict is a sort of inter-role conflict in which the roles demanded in work and non-workdomains are mutually incompatible (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985).Here are two forms of conflict, namely, work/non-work conflictand non-work/work conflict (Frone, Russell, & Cooper, 1992; Tauet al., 2012). The former refers to demand from the workplace inter-fering with the performance of non-work-related responsibilities,and the latter is the demand of the non-work domains meddlingwith the performance of work-related duties (Netemeyer, Boles, &McMurrian, 1996; Ng & Feldman, 2012).

This study focuses on work/non-work conflicts. Work/non-workconflict consists of two distinct dimensions: work/family conflict(WFC) and work/leisure conflict (WLC) (Rice, Frone, & McFarlin,1992). From a role perspective, family implies responsibility forparents, children or spouse (Rice et al., 1992), while in leisureroles people do not need to respond to anyone. WFC occurs onlywhen people live with family members (Greenhaus & Beutell,1985), unlike WLC that people may experience even though theylive alone. WLC may therefore be an important sub-construct ofwork/non-work conflict.

Fisher and Etches (2003) have found that firemen suffer fromwork/non-work conflict, while shift-work, a characteristic of fire-fighting jobs, is a major source of work/non-work conflicts (Pisarskiet al., 2006; Shreffler et al., 2011). Shift-work makes people losecontrol over work shift schedules, and increases work/life conflict(Bohle, Willaby, Quinlan, & McNamara, 2011; Pisarski et al., 2006).The position of work/non-work conflict in the job stress literatureof firemen should be clarified.

The findings of several studies confirm that work/non-work con-flict is one type of stressor (Frone et al., 1992; Dierdorff & Ellington,2008). For the JD-R model, work/family conflict is defined as ajob demand (Van den Broeck et al., 2008). However, much empir-ical evidence points to other types of job demand in the JD-Rmodel, such as work load, emotional demand, and physical demandthat might be considered as antecedents of work/non-work con-flicts (Bakker & Geurts, 2004; Michel, Kotrba, Mitchelson, Clark,& Baltes, 2011). In addition, some evidence also suggests that jobcontrol (e.g. schedule control) and social support (e.g. supervisorsupport and peer support) significantly predict work/non-workconflicts (Bohle et al., 2011; Seiger & Wiese, 2009; Wong & Lin,2007). As far as job stress is concerned, work/non-work conflict

is a predictor. However, for other job stress-related antecedents,work/non-work conflict could be an outcome (Michel et al., 2011).There are only a few studies that attempt to clarify the mediat-ing role of work/family conflicts among job stress and other job

de psy

sIpWmt

aeosotscs

3

w2mtco&bOm1taSstte

m

a

wRtordolr(

m

a

f(wvWia

J.-Y. Wong et al. / Revue européenne

tress-related antecedents (Pisarski et al., 2006; Proost et al., 2004).nter-role conflict leads to stress because resources are lost in therocess of juggling between different roles (Netemeyer et al., 2005).FC may explain how work and family domains contest for fire-en’s resources, and WLC may clarify why firemen cannot restore

heir energy.JDCS models explain the direct impact of stress-related

ntecedents on job stress, but do not consider the negative spilloverffect from work domains to family domains that is confirmed inther studies (Bohle et al., 2011; Pisarski et al., 2006). This negativepillover effect may lead to further resource losses and aggravatene’s job stress. However, the spillover effect from work domainso leisure domains is not confirmed and to narrow this gap in jobtress theories, work/non-work conflict should be introduced tolarify the indirect effect of job stress-related antecedents on jobtress. The concept model of the current study is shown in Fig. S1.

. Hypotheses

Much evidence suggests that job demand is positively associatedith work/non-work conflict (Butler, Grzywacx, Bass, & Linney,

005; Dierdorff & Ellington, 2008). High job demand means fire-en must devote most of their time and energy to accomplishing

heir tasks. On the other hand, a negative relationship between jobontrol and work/non-work conflict is supported by the findingsf several studies (Mauno, Kinnunen, & Ruokolainen, 2006; Michel

Hargis, 2008). Low job control results in a waste of resourcesy constraining the autonomy of work schedules and time control.wing to the high level of resources consumed by working, fire-en find it hard to execute family roles well (Greenhaus & Beutell,

985), and this is when WFC occurs. When people suffer from WFC,hey lose time and energy in the process of juggling with both worknd family (Grandey & Cropanzano, 1999; Netemeyer et al., 2005).uch processes might become a resource losing cycle, increasing intrength and speed (Hobfoll, 2002). It becomes difficult for firemeno concentrate on their job in such a cycle and it is important to notehat slipping into high job stress would be common (Netemeyert al., 2005).

H1a: the relationship between job demand and job stress isediated by work/family conflict.H1b: the relationship between job control and job stress is medi-

ted by work/family conflict.Leisure might be seen as a way to cope with stress and that

ould maintain good health (Iwasaki & Mannell, 2000; Zuzanek,obinson, & Iwasaki, 1998). Leisure provides people with oppor-unities to experience higher level of freedom of choice and sensef control (Iwasaki, 2003). In other words, leisure might help toecover one’s energy resources (Hobfoll, 2002). However, high-emand and low-control job environments may interfere withne’s leisure life and result in WLC (Wong & Lin, 2007). Given theack of sufficient resources to accomplish tasks, WLC may inhibitesource recovery mechanisms and job stress may be enhancedHobfoll, 2002).

H2a: the relationship between job demand and job stress isediated by work/leisure conflict.H2b: the relationship between job control and job stress is medi-

ted by work/leisure conflict.When one’s capabilities cannot meet demands arising from dif-

erent life domains, social support becomes an important resourceHobfoll, 1989; Laugaa, Rascle, & Bruchon-Schweitzer, 2008). Inork places, support from supervisors and colleagues reduce indi-

idual’s work/non-work conflicts by sharing workloads (Seiger &iese, 2009). Firemen have difficulties to play their role in the fam-

ly and enjoy leisure without being supported by their co-workersnd supervisors (Hsu, 2011; Janssen et al., 2001). Lack of job

chologie appliquée 64 (2014) 83–91 85

support may lead to high work/non-work conflicts, and the result-ing WLC and WFC in turn increases firemen’s job stress as personalresources are reduced. Thus job support may influence job stressthrough WLC and WFC.

H3a: the relationship between job support and job stress is medi-ated by work/family conflict.

H3b: the relationship between job support and job stress is medi-ated by work/leisure conflict.

Family support is different from job support. By sharing familyresponsibilities (Wadsworth & Owens, 2007) or creating opportu-nities to enjoy leisure activities (Iso-Ahola & Park, 1996; Iwasaki,2003; Michel & Hargis, 2008), family support helps to preventwork/non-work conflicts from developing. Sharing family respon-sibility might prevent firemen from feeling guilty about poor familyperformance. Consequently, firemen can concentrate on their jobbecause of diminishing WFC (Netemeyer et al., 2005). Family sup-port may also decrease firemen’s WLC and help them conservingpersonal resources to resist job stress. Several studies point outthat support from family and friends are important elements inthe stress-coping function of leisure (Iwasaki, 2003; Zuzanek et al.,1998). For instance, when family members help firemen to arrangeleisure activities, firemen do not need to expend additional energyplanning their leisure. In other words, family support may decreasefiremen’s WFC and WLC, and so prevent job stress from rising.

H4a: the relationship between family support and job stress ismediated by work/family conflict.

H4b: the relationship between family support and job stress ismediated by work/leisure conflict.

4. Method

4.1. Procedures and samples

Firemen in Taipei City and New Taipei City, Taiwan assisted theauthors in collecting data. There are four brigades in Taipei City andseven brigades in New Taipei City and every brigade governs severalfire stations. There are different shift systems between Taipei Cityand New Taipei City, with the firemen who work in Taipei City onduty for 24 hours, then off duty for 24 hours, while firemen whowork in New Taipei City are on duty 48 hours, then off duty for24 hours.

A self-report questionnaire was designed for data collection.Samples were drawn from 38 stations in Taipei city and 59 stationsin New Taipei City. A total of 600 questionnaires were sent to sta-tion managers who were asked to distribute the questionnaires tostaff. Eventually, 422 full-time firemen returned completed ques-tionnaires. The response rate was 73.67% with 61.7% of respondentshaving worked more than four years. All respondents were male,14.93% of respondents were managers, and the rest first line fire-men. Regarding age (range 20 to 50 years), 53.1% of respondentswere less than 30-years-old, 6.4% over 40-years-old and 40.5% agedbetween 31 to 40, and 6.4% over 40-years-old. Most respondents,83.4%, worked 24 hours, then were off duty 24 hours, and the othersworked 48 hours, then were off duty 24 hours. Married respon-dents were 43.1%, and 84.1% of respondents often worked on theirscheduled off duty days.

4.2. Measures

4.2.1. Scales of constructsAll constructs were measured by Likert 5 point scales,

the response format was 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (stronglyagree). Because the samples were firemen in Taiwan, the

8 de psy

t(

4jo(A

4iWCebwt

4fl“

4att(is

4tsifwsfpw

4

Bdacrans

sopd2r

iti

6 J.-Y. Wong et al. / Revue européenne

ranslation-back-translation procedure recommended by Brislin1980) was conducted1.

.2.1.1. Job stress. Job stress was assessed using four items from theob stress scale developed by Netemeyer et al. (2005). Three itemsn this scale were cited from House and Rizzo’s anxiety-stress scaleHouse & Rizzo, 1972), and the fourth from Netemeyer et al. (2005).

typical item was: “I feel fidgety or nervous because of my job”.

.2.1.2. Work/non-work conflict. Two scales were used for measur-ng WFC and WLC, two components of work/non-work conflict. The

FC scales were composed of five items developed by Anderson,offey, and Byerly (2002). A typical item was: “You do not havenough time for your family or other important people in your lifeecause of your job.” Ten items from the WLC (Wong & Lin, 2007)ere also used. A typical item was: “The time that I spend on work

akes up my leisure time.”

.2.1.3. Job demand. The 5-item job demand scale was translatedrom Karasek’s (1979) job demand scale, which includes work over-oad (e.g., “I have a great deal of work to do”), and time demand (e.g.,I didn’t have enough time to finish my job”).

.2.1.4. Job control. It should be noted that job control measuresutonomy over work schedules and time off, but does not measureask control. The autonomy over work schedules was assessed withhree items from Breaugh’s (1985) work schedule autonomy scalee.g., “I have control over the scheduling of my work”). The threetems of the time off control scale were also based on Breaugh’scale (e.g., “I have control over the scheduling of my time-off”).

.2.1.5. Social support. Job support and family support are two dis-inct types of social support measured in this study. The job supportcale included support from supervisors and co-workers. A four-tem manager support scale from Anderson et al. (2002) was usedor assessing supervisor support (e.g., “My supervisor understandshen I talk about personal issues”). Based on the manager support

cale of Anderson et al. (2002), two 4-item scales of co-worker andamily support were also developed. (e.g., “My co-worker is sup-ortive when I have a life problem” and “My family are supportivehen I have a working problem”).

.2.2. Control variablesThe demographic variables are set as control variables. However,

ecker (2005) indicates that only potential predictors of depen-ent variables (i.e. mediators and outcomes) have to be taken intoccount. In other words, only variables which are significantlyorrelated to the mediators or outcomes are considered. The cor-elations between variables are showed in Table 1. marital statusnd shift work system are related to WLC, WFC and job stress sig-ificantly, but other demographic variables are not. In sum, maritaltatus and shift work system are set as control variables.

Marital status (1 = married; 0 = otherwise) and working shiftystem (1 = working 24 hours, off 24 hours; 0 = working 48 hours,ff 24 hours) were appointed as control variables in analyticrocedures. Marital status and working hours are important

emographic variables in the literature of WFC (Michel et al.,011). Individuals who are married often have more family roleesponsibilities.

1 Two translators were employed: one for translating the original English textnto Chinese, another for back translating the Chinese text into English. The back-ranslated text was compare with the original text to ensure that the meaning of alltems was not lost in the translation procedure.

chologie appliquée 64 (2014) 83–91

5. Results

The mean, standard deviation and the correlation coefficientbetween each variable are shown in Table 1. LISREL 8.7 versionwas used to evaluate the measurement models and the structuralmodels, and SPSS Statistic 17 was employed for testing the indirecteffects of mediators.

5.1. Measurement Model Fit

For determining the adequacy of the theoretical model, themeasurement model indices of constructs were examined withconfirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The CFA results are shown inTables S1 and S2. The �2 value of the measurement model is sig-nificant (�2

(774) = 1186.93 p < 0.05), but other indices also achievethe standard value, including NCI (1.53, < 3), RMSEA (= 0.036,< 0.08), CFI (= 0.99, > 0.90), NFI (= 0.97, > 0.90), NNFI (= 0.99, > 0.90),SRMR (= 0.048, < 0.05), GFI (= 0.88) and AGFI (= 0.86) are closer to0.90. In sum, the adequacy of the measurement model is accept-able.

Reliability, validity and other related tests were examined, andthe means, standard deviations and correlations for all variablesused in this study are illustrated below. As Bagozzi and Yi (1988)suggest, the reliability test depends on three criteria: standardizedestimates (between 0.50 and 0.95), composition reliability (CR) (i.e.,CR value, > 0.6) (Fornell & Larcker, 1981), and the p-value (< 0.05).Tables S1 and S2 show that the factor loadings of all variables arehigher than 0.50. The CR values of all constructs are between 0.80and 0.94. Cronbach’s � of all constructs are higher than 0.7. TheAVE value should be 0.50 or above (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Asshown in Tables S1 and S2, the AVE value for each construct ishigher than 0.50. Fornell and Larcker (1981) also suggest that dis-criminant validity is based on a comparison of squared pair-wisecorrelations between constructs and the AVE value for each con-struct. The square root of each construct’s AVE value is given bybold numbers on the diagonal (from 0.78 to 0.85) and the val-ues should be greater than their correlations with other constructs(Table 1). The correlations between each construct and other con-structs are listed off the diagonal. Thus, discriminant validity isachieved.

Harman’s single-factor test and controlling for the effects of asingle unmeasured latent method are recommended for testingcommon method variance (CMV) (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, &Podsakoff, 2003). The result of Harman’s single-factor test suggeststhe presence of eight factors. The first unrotated factor accounts for29% of the total variance. To confirm these results, controlling forthe effects of a single unmeasured latent method as proposed byWidaman (1985) was conducted. The results indicated that whilethe method factor improved model fit, it only accounted for 13.75%of the total variance.

5.2. Structural model

In order to test the mediating effect of work/non-work con-flicts, mediational analysis procedure was performed accordingto the recommendations of Holmbeck (1997). At first, authorsexamined the mediating role of work/non-work conflicts in therelationship between job stress-related antecedents and job stress.The full mediation model was tested first. Fit statistics associ-ated with this model are adequate (�2

(848) = 1281.87, p < 0.05;RMSEA = 0.04; CFI = 0.99; NFI = 0.97; NNFI = 0.99, SRMR = 0.05;GFI = 0.88; AGFI = 0.86).

Finally, comparison was made between the full, the partialmediation model and the final model. Test for �2 change was usedto test differences in model fit and the results are shown in Table 2.The additional direct path in Model IV was not significant, so Model

J.-Y. Wong et al. / Revue européenne de psychologie appliquée 64 (2014) 83–91 87

Table 1Means, standard deviations and correlations.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Work-leisure conflict 0.84Work-family conflict 0.70*b 0.80Job stress 0.63* 0.58* 0.79Job demand 0.38* 0.33* 0.43* 0.80Job control –0.33* –0.30* –0.34* –0.28* 0.78Job support –0.22* –0.17* –0.29* 0.00 0.12* 0.85Family support –0.29* –0.31* –0.19* –0.08 0.27* 0.09 0.83Marital status 0.22* 0.39* 0.19* 0.13* –0.09 0.04 –0.09 –a

Shift work system 0.13* 0.18* 0.18* 0.08 –0.15* –0.01 0.02 –0.01 –a

Age level 0.01 0.03 0.02 –0.02 –0.03 0.02 –0.08 0.30** –0.17** –a

Educational level –0.01 –0.00 –0.01 –0.03 –0.05 0.00 0.06 –0.11* 0.05 –0.30** –a

Tenure level –0.04 –0.04 0.01 0.06 –0.04 0.02 –0.10* 0.25** –0.28** 0.74** –0.28** –a

Position 0.01 0.02 0.01 –0.01 –0.01 0.03 –0.07 0.12* –0.02 0.52** –0.09 0.43** –a

Mean 3.57 3.47 3.83 3.88 2.82 2.52 3.77 1.43 1.83 1.28 1.92 2.54 0.05Standard deviation 0.71 0.78 0.72 0.72 0.84 0.92 0.78 0.50 0.37 0.63 0.31 1.73 0.21

Bpositi

Ifmcar

aRGd(sHnvsajpeWdcrwv

TR

*

old numbers on the diagonal parentheses are square root of each construct’s AVE.a Marital status, shift work system, age level, educational level, tenure level, and

b *P < 0.05.

V was not a partial mediation model. According to the results of theull mediation model and all partial mediation models, the revised

odel was established. The revised model was set as a baseline toompare with other models. The differences between the baselinend other models are all significant. The result indicated that theevised model is better than other models significantly.

The revised model is showed in Fig. 1. This model yielded better fit than other models (�2

(525) = 862.52, p < 0.05;MSEA = 0.03; CFI = 0.99; NFI = 0.97; NNFI = 0.99, SRMR = 0.05;FI = 0.88; AGFI = 0.86). Marital status (� = 0.16, p < 0.001) and jobemand (� = 0.32, p < 0.001) relates positively to WLC. Job control� = –0.11, p < 0.001), job support (� = –0.22, p < 0.001) and familyupport (� = –0.19, p < 0.001) is associated negatively with WLC.owever, the paths from working shift system to WLC wereot significant. The independent variables account for 33% ofariance in WLC. Marital status (� = 0.34, p < 0.001), working shiftystem (� = 0.15, p < 0.001) and job demand (� = 0.29, p < 0.001) aressociated positively with WFC. Job control (� = –0.11, p < 0.001),ob support (� = –0.11, p < 0.001) and family support (� = –0.22,

< 0.001) relate negatively to WFC. All independent variablesxplain 42% of variance in WFC. WLC (� = 0.29, p < 0.001) andFC are (� = 0.32, p < 0.001) related positively to job stress. Job

eman > d (� = 0.29, p < 0.001) is related positively to job stress. Job

ontrol (� = –0.14, p < 0.001) and job support (� = –0.11, p < 0.001)elate negatively to job stress. The paths from marital status andork shift system to job stress are not significant. All independent

ariables and mediators account for 61% of variance in job stress.

able 2esults of comparison between full and the partial mediation models.

Model Additional direct paths

Full mediation modela –

Partial mediation model Ib Job demand → Job stress

Partial mediation model IIc Job control → Job stress

Partial mediation model IIId Job support → Job stress

Partial mediation model IVe Family support → Job stress

Final model (base line)f Job demand → Job stress

Job control → Job stress

Job support → Job stress

p < 0.05.a Comparison is made between full mediation model and final model.b Path from job demand to job stress is added to full mediation model and comparisonc Path from job control to job stress is added to full mediation model and comparison id Path from job support to job stress is added to full mediation model and comparison

e Path from family support to job stress is added to full mediation model and comparisf Path from job demand, job control and job support to job stress are added to full med

on are categorical variables, so AVE values are not estimated.

The indirect effects of WLC and WFC in all relationshipsare shown in Table 3. Bootstrap technique was used to esti-mate indirect effect (Preacher & Hayes, 2008). A Sobel test andcomparison between indirect effects was also conducted. Espe-cially, in the relationship between job support and job stress, theindirect effect of WLC is stronger than WFC (the upper and lowerlimits of Bootstrap confidence interval are 0.0097 and 0.0672),because 0 is not included in the confidence interval (CI) (Preacher &Hayes, 2008). However, in other relationships between job demand[CI = (–0.1474, 0.0221)], job control [CI = (–0.0179, 0.1195)] andfamily support [CI = (–0.0269, 0.1123)] and job stress, the differencebetween the indirect effects of WLC and WFC was not significant.

6. Discussion

6.1. The mediation role of work/non-work conflict

This paper explores firemen’s job stress by integrating the jobstrain model and work/non-work conflict theory. The mediatingeffects of work/non-work conflicts in the relationship betweenjob stress-related antecedents and job stress were examined. Thefindings narrow the gaps in job stress theory by confirming that

job stress-related antecedents influence job stress in two differ-ent ways. Those antecedents not only affect firemen’s job stressesdirectly, but also through the indirect effect of work/non-work con-flicts.

Path coefficient(t-value)

�2(df) ��2

(df)

– 900.28(528) 37.76(3)*

0.21 (4.27*) 884.96(527) 22.44(2)*

–0.18 (–3.90*) 882.69(527) 20.17(2)*

–0.15 (–3.59*) 892.88(527) 30.36(2)*

0.02 (0.44) 900.41(527) 37.89(2)*

0.21 (4.32) 862.52(525) ––0.13 (–2.95)–0.17 (–4.06)

is made with final model.s made with final model.is made with final model.on is made with final model.iation model.

88 J.-Y. Wong et al. / Revue européenne de psychologie appliquée 64 (2014) 83–91

Fig. 1. Revised model. ***p < 0.001.

Table 3Summary of total, indirect and indirect effect on job stress.

Independent variable Effect Estimate Bootstrap ULCI Bootstrap LLCI Z-value of Sobel test p-valuea

Job demand Total effect 0.4317 – – – 0.000a

Direct effect 0.2070 – – – 0.000a

Indirect effectb 0.2247 0.1632 0.2877 – –Partial indirect effect (WFC) 0.0820 0.0453 0.1372 4.002 0.000Partial indirect effect (WLC) 0.1427 0.0909 0.2095 5.4894 0.000Compare indirect effect –0.607 –0.1474 0.0221 – –

Job control Total effect –0.2959 – – – 0.000a

Direct effect –0.1199 – – – 0.000a

Indirect effectb –0.1759 –0.2377 –0.1223 – –Partial indirect effect (WFC) –0.0645 –0.1099 –0.0327 –3.867 0.000Partial indirect effect (WLC) –0.1114 –0.1696 –0.0662 –5.164 0.000Compare indirect effect 0.0469 –0.0179 0.1195 – –

Job support Total effect –0.1230 – – – 0.000a

Direct effect –0.0503 – – – 0.025a

Indirect effectb –0.0727 –0.1115 –0.0373 – –Partial indirect effect (WFC) –0.0179 –0.0409 –0.0028 –2.022 0.043Partial indirect effect (WLC) –0.0548 –0.0857 –0.0297 –4.014 0.000Compare indirect effect 0.0368 0.0097 0.0672 – –

Family support Total effect –0.1887 – – – 0.000a

Direct effect 0.0047 – – – 0.898a

Indirect effectb –0.1934 –0.2618 –0.1314 – –Partial indirect effect (WFC) –0.0790 –1304 –0.0431 –4.056 0.000Partial indirect effect (WLC) –0.1144 –0.1764 –0.0671 –4.820 0.000Compare indirect effect 0.0354 –0.0269 0.1123 – –

ULCI: upper limit of confidence interval; LLCI: lower limit of confidence interval.a p-value of t-statistic of estimate.b Indirect effect = partial indirect effect (WFC) + partial indirect effect (WLC).

de psy

stadrct2wf

iAamr

Wsnats

6

wattf

cg2tiosstlLd1swril

net

7

cadto

J.-Y. Wong et al. / Revue européenne

The present findings extend the JDCS by highlighting thepillover effect between work and non-work domains. The result ofhe structured model indicates that WFC and WLC partially medi-te the relationship between three job-related antecedents (jobemand, job control, and job support) and job stress. The significantelationship between job-related antecedents and work/non-workonflict implies the existence of a spillover effect from work domaino non-work domain (Butler et al., 2005; Dierdorff & Ellington,008). On the other hand, the significant relationship betweenork/non-work conflict and job stress represents a spillover effect

rom non-work domains to work domains (Netemeyer et al., 2005).The current findings also highlight the need to include fam-

ly support in the JDCS model to explain firemen’s job stresses.ccording to the results, two work/non-work conflicts fully medi-te the relationship between family support and job stress. Thisight imply that support from family members help firemen to

esist job stress by decreasing their WLC and WFC.According to a comparison of indirect effects between WLC and

FC, the indirect effect of WLC on the relationship between jobupport and job stress is stronger than WFC, although there iso difference in the relationship between other job stress-relatedntecedents and job stress. The findings mentioned above confirmhat WLC is also an important construct of work/non-work conflict,imilar to WFC.

.2. Work/non-work conflict in the resource loss process

The empirical evidence of the mediating effect of work/non-ork conflict in the relationship between job stress-related

ntecedents and job stress contributes significantly to explaininghe resource loss process, which results in high job stress. However,he mechanism of resource loss resulting from WFC is differentrom WLC.

WFC describes that resources are continually lost when peopleannot meet the responsibilities of work and family as they jug-le the two roles (Grandey & Cropanzano, 1999; Netemeyer et al.,005). It is a cycle concept that loss of resources tends to leado further, stronger and faster resource loss (Hobfoll, 2002). WFCmplies that the work and family domains continually withdrawne’s resources, resulting in a serious resource loss cycle. This studypecifically includes WLC in work/non-work conflict. WLC repre-ents another type of resource loss process that is different fromhe mechanism of WFC. Unlike WFC, which concentrates on theoss cycle, WLC focuses on the effects that hinder resource recovery.eisure is a sort of resource that gives people the feeling of self-etermination and helps them to recover energy (Iso-Ahola & Park,996; Iwasaki, 2003). The threat of resource loss will result in hightress (Hobfoll, 2002). WLC means that the work domain interferesith leisure life. It implies that people lose time and opportunity to

etain, protect and build resources by participating in leisure activ-ties. WLC can be seen as a type of resource loss threat that alsoeads to rising stress (Hobfoll, 1989).

In sum, the indirect effect of WFC describes the mechanism ofet loss of resources. On the other hand, the indirect effect of WLCxplains the threat of loss of resources that causes people to loseheir capacity to recover individual resources.

. Limitations and suggestions for future research

Several limitations in this study should be acknowledged. Theross-sectional design of the present research limits conclusions

bout causal relationships between variables. The study was con-ucted in Taiwan, so cultural factors may affect the results. Furtherests the external validity of findings for firemen populations inther countries is need in the future. Additionally, this study only

chologie appliquée 64 (2014) 83–91 89

examined the mediating role of work/non-work conflict in theJDCS model. The interactive effects between independent variablesweren’t considered to prevent developing an over complex model.On the basis of the current study, future research could investigatethe role of work/non-work conflict in the interactive JDCS model.In addition, this study only considered two types of resources (jobcontrol and job support) in the work domain, thus the authors iden-tified the JDCS model as appropriate to explain firemen job stress.However, work/non-work conflict may also be a mediator betweenother job resources (e.g. task control, organizational support). Inother words, other theories, such as the JD-R model could also beemployed in the future to test the mediating hypotheses presentedhere.

8. Practical implications

On the basis of the findings, a number of suggestions are pro-posed. High job demand and low job control are characteristics offire-fighting work. Overlong working hours and lack of workingtime autonomy are the sources of firemen’s job stress. Shorteningworking hours in a work shift is a necessary mean for reducing thisstress. Working one day and then coming off duty for 24 h hoursis better than working two days continually. This not only reducesfiremen’s loads, but also increases the freedom of resource alloca-tion. As likewise, volunteer participation may ease the manpowerdemands of fire stations, help to share full-time firemen’s work-loads and reduce their working hours. Avoiding calling back off dutyfiremen might increase their sense of time-off control, and dimin-ish work/non-work conflict and job stress. Organizations have toprovide non-work friendly programs that match the specific needsof constituent groups (Bardoel, Moss, Smyrnios, & Tharenou, 1999;Horelli, 2006). Improving the EAP (e.g., allowance for leisure, childeducation, and child or elder care programs) may also help fam-ily members to support firemen’s role in leisure activities and thefamily. However, both the regulations about avoiding call backand improvement of the EAP rely on the support of supervisorsand co-workers. Managers should be trained in executing stressmanagement strategies and creating supportive cultures (Fisher &Etches, 2003). The EAP only works when the captains of fire stationsreally support subordinates to use such a program. In addition, iffiremen are able to identify the norms of mutual help, they mighthave opportunities to avoid interfering with colleagues’ non-worklife such as frequent call backs to those off duty.

Disclosure of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest con-cerning this article.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by a grant from National ScienceCouncil of Taiwan, ROC under contract No. NSC96-2416-H-130-002-MY3.

Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary data (Fig. S1, Tables S1 and S2) associ-ated with this article can be found, in the online version, athttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.erap.2013.12.002.

References

Anderson, S. E., Coffey, B. S., & Byerly, R. T. (2002). Formal organizational initiativesand informal workplace practices: Links to work-family conflict and job-relatedoutcomes. Journal of Management, 28, 787–810.

9 de psy

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

C

C

D

F

F

F

F

G

G

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

I

I

0 J.-Y. Wong et al. / Revue européenne

agozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structure equations models.Academic of Marketing Science, 16, 76–94.

akker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2005). The crossover of burnout andwork engagement among working couples. Human Relations, 58, 661–689.

akker, A. B., & Geurts, S. A. (2004). Toward a dual-process model of work-homeinterference. Work and Occupations, 31, 345–366.

ardoel, E. A., Moss, S. A., Smyrnios, K., & Tharenou, P. (1999). Employee charac-teristics associated with the provision of work-family policies and programs.International Journal of Manpower, 20, 563–576.

eaton, R., & Murphy, S. (1993). Sources of occupational stress among firefighters/EMTs and fire fighter/paramedics and correlations with job-related out-comes. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine, 8, 140–150.

ecker, T. E. (2005). Potential problems in the statistical control of vari-ables in organizational research: A qualitative analysis with recommenda-tions. Organizational Research Methods, 8, 274–289. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1094428105278021

ohle, P., Willaby, H., Quinlan, M., & McNamara, M. (2011). Flexible work in callcentres: Working hours, work-life conflict and health. Applied Ergonomics, 42,219–224.

reaugh, J. A. (1985). The measurement of work autonomy. Human Relations, 38,551–570.

rislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written material.In H. C. Triandis, & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (vol.1) (pp. 389–444). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

utler, A. B., Grzywacz, J. G., Bass, B. L., & Linney, K. D. (2005). Extending the demands-control model: A daily study of job characteristics, work-family conflict, andwork-family facilitation. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,78, 155–169.

hen, Y. S., Chen, M. C., Chou, F. H. C., Sun, F. C., Chen, P. C., Tsai, K. Y., & Chao,S. S. (2007). The relationship between quality of life and posttraumatic stressdisorder or major depression for firefighters in Kaohsiung, Taiwan. Quality ofLife Research, 16, 1289–1297.

orneil, W., Beaton, R., Murphy, S., Johnson, C., & Pike, K. (1999). Exposure totraumatic incidents and prevalence of posttraumatic stress symptomatology inurban firefighters in two countries. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 4,131–141.

ierdorff, E. C., & Ellington, K. J. (2008). It’s the nature of the work: Examiningbehavior-based sources of work-family conflict across occupations. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 93, 883–892.

inney, C., Stergiopoulos, E., Hensel, J., Bonato, S., & Dewa, C. S. (2013). Organiza-tional stressors associated with job stress and burnout in correctional officers;a systematic review. BMC Public Health, 13, 1–13.

isher, P., & Etches, B. (2003). A comprehensive approach to workplace stress andtrauma in fire-fighting: A review document prepared for the International Asso-ciation of Firefighters. In 17th Redmond Symposium October 5–9, San Francisco,CA,

ornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unob-servable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18,39–50.

rone, M. R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M. L. (1992). Antecedents and outcomes of work-family conflict: Testing a model of the work-family interface. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 77, 65–78.

randey, A. A., & Cropanzano, R. (1999). The conservation of resources model appliedto work-family conflict and strain. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 350–370.

reenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and familyroles. Academy of Management Review, 10, 76–88.

ansez, I. (2008). The “Working conditions and control questionnaire” (WOCCQ):Towards a structural model of subjective stress. European Review of AppliedPsychology, 58, 253–262.

obfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizingstress. American Psychologist, 44, 513–524.

obfoll, S. E. (2002). Social and psychological resources and adaption. Review ofGeneral Psychology, 6, 307–324.

obfoll, S. E., & Stokes, J. P. (1988). The process and mechanics of social support. In S.Duck, D. F. Hay, S. E. Hobfoll, W. Ickes, & B. M. Montgomery (Eds.), Handbook ofpersonal relationships: Theory, research and interventions (pp. 497–517). Oxford:John Wiley and Sons.

olmbeck, G. N. (1997). Toward terminological, conceptual, and statistical clarity inthe study of mediators and moderators: Examples from the child-clinical andpediatric psychology literatures. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65,599–610.

orelli, L. (2006). Environmental human-friendliness as a contextual determinantfor quality of life. European Review of Applied Psychology, 56, 15–22.

ouse, R. J., & Rizzo, J. R. (1972). Role conflict and ambiguity as critical variables ina model of organizational behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Perfor-mance, 7, 467–505.

su, Y. R. (2011). Work-family conflict and job satisfaction in stressful working envi-ronments: The moderating roles of perceived supervisor support and internallocus of control. International Journal of Manpower, 32, 233–248.

so-Ahola, S. E., & Park, C. J. (1996). Leisure-related social support and self-

determination as buffers of stress-illness relationship. Journal of Leisure Research,28, 169–187.

wasaki, Y. (2003). Examining rival models of leisure coping mechanisms. LeisureSciences, 25, 183–206.

chologie appliquée 64 (2014) 83–91

Iwasaki, Y., & Mannell, R. C. (2000). Hierarchical dimensions of leisure stress coping.Leisure Sciences, 22, 163–181.

Janssen, P. P. M., Bakker, A. B., & De Jong, A. (2001). A test and refinement of thedemand-control-support model in the construction industry. International Jour-nal of Stress Management, 8, 315–332.

Johnson, J. V., & Hall, E. M. (1988). Job strain, work place social support,and cardiovascular disease: A cross-sectional study of a random sampleof the Swedish working population. American Journal of Public Health, 78,1336–1342.

Karasek, R. (1979). Job demand, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implicationsfor job redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 285–306.

Karasek, R. A., & Theorell, T. (1990). Healthy work: Stress, productivity and the recon-struction of working life. New York: Basic Books.

Laugaa, D., Rascle, N., & Bruchon-Schweitzer, M. (2008). Stress and burnout amongFrench elementary school teachers: A transactional approach. European Reviewof Applied Psychology, 58, 241–251.

Lin, Z., & Rashid, H. (2010). The mediating role of work-leisure conflict on job stressand retention of it professionals. Academy of Information and Management Sci-ences Journal, 13, 25–40.

Lourel, M., Abdellaoui, S., Chevaleyre, S., Paltrier, M., & Gana, K. (2008). Relationshipsbetween psychological job demands, job control and burnout among firefighters.North American Journal of Psychology, 10, 489–496.

Lusa, S., Punakallio, A., Luukkonen, R., & Louhevaara, V. (2006). Factors associatedwith changes in perceived strain at work among fire-fighters: A 3-year follow-up study. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 79,419–426.

Mauno, S., Kinnunen, U., & Ruokolainen, I. (2006). Exploring work and organization-based resources as moderators between work-family conflict, well-being, andjob attitudes. Work and Stress, 20, 210–233.

Melamed, S., Armon, G., Arie Shirom, A., & Shapira, I. (2011). Exploring thereciprocal causal relationship between job strain and burnout: A longitu-dinal study of apparently healthy employed persons. Stress and Health, 27,272–281.

Michel, J. S., & Hargis, M. B. (2008). Linking mechanisms of work–family conflict andsegmentation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73, 509–522.

Michel, J. S., Kotrba, L. M., Mitchelson, J. K., Clark, M. A., & Baltes, B. B. (2011).Antecedents of work–family conflict: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Organi-zational Behavior, 32, 689–725.

Moore, J. (2006). Homeworking and work-life balance: Does it add to quality of life?European Review of Applied Psychology, 56, 5–13.

Netemeyer, R. G., Boles, J. B., & McMurrian, B. (1996). Development and valida-tion of work–family conflict and family–work conflict scales. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 81, 400–410.

Netemeyer, R. G., Maxham, J. G., III, & Pullig, C. (2005). Conflicts in the work-familyinterface: Links to job stress, customer service employee performance, and cus-tomer purchase intent. Journal of Marketing, 69, 130–143.

Ng, T. W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2012). The effects of organizational and communityembeddedness on work-to-family and family-to-work conflict. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 97, 1233–1251.

Peng, Y. P., Hwang, S. N., & Wong, J. Y. (2010). How to Inspire University librari-ans to become “good soldiers”? The role of job autonomy. Journal of AcademicLibrarianship, 36, 287–295.

Pisarski, A., Brook, C., Bohle, P., Gallois, C., Watson, B., & Winch, S. (2006).Extending a model of shiftwork tolerance. Chronobiology International, 23,1363–1377.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Commonmethod biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature andrecommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies forassessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. BehaviorResearch Methods, 40, 879–891.

Proost, K., De Witte, H., De Witte, K., & Evers, G. (2004). Burnout among nurses:Extending the job demand-control-support model with work-home interfer-ence. Psychologica Belgica, 44, 269–288.

Rice, R. W., Frone, M. R., & McFarlin, D. B. (1992). Work-nonwork conflict and theperceived quality of life. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 155–168.

Seiger, C. P., & Wiese, B. S. (2009). Social support from work and family domainsas an antecedent or moderator of work-family conflicts. Journal of VocationalBehavior, 75, 26–37.

Shreffler, K. M., Meadows, M. P., & Davis, K. (2011). Firefighting and fathering:Work-family conflict, parenting stress, and satisfaction with parenting and childbehavior. Fathering, 9, 169–188.

Smith, B. W., Ortiz, J. A., Steffen, L. E., Tooley, E. M., Wiggins, K. T., Yeater, E. A.,Montoya, J. D., & Bernard, M. L. (2011). Mindfulness is associated with fewer PTSDsymptoms, depressive symptoms, physical symptoms, and alcohol problems inurban firefighters. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 79, 613–617.

Tau, S. H., Liang, Y. W., & Hsu, S. J. (2012). A multidimensional measurement ofwork-leisure conflict. Leisure Sciences, 34, 395–416.

Toker, S., Shirom, A., Melamed, S., & Armon, G. (2012). Work characteristics as pre-dictors of diabetes incidence among apparently healthy employees. Journal ofOccupational Health Psychology, 17, 259–267.

Van den Broeck, A., Vansteenkiste, M., De Witte, H., & Lens, W. (2008). Explain-ing the relationships between job characteristics, burnout, and engagement:The role of basic psychological need satisfaction. Work and Stress, 22, 277–294.

de psy

W

W

J.-Y. Wong et al. / Revue européenne

adsworth, L. L., & Owens, B. P. (2007). The effects of social support on work - familyenhancement and work–family conflict in the public sector. Public Administra-tion Review, 67, 75–87.

idaman, K. (1985). Hierarchically nested covariance structure models for multi-trait – muttimethod data. Applied Psychological Measurement, 9, 1–26.

chologie appliquée 64 (2014) 83–91 91

Wong, J. Y., & Lin, J. H. (2007). The role of job control and job support in adjustingservice employee’s work-leisure conflict. Tourism Management, 28, 729–735.

Zuzanek, J., Robinson, J. P., & Iwasaki, Y. (1998). The relationships between stress,health, and physically active leisure as a function of life-cycle. Leisure Sciences,20, 253–275.