Department of Management, University of Texas at Arlington.
Department of Psychological Science, Purdue University.
J Appl Psychol. 2018 Feb;103(2):182-214. doi: 10.1037/apl0000259. Epub 2017 Oct 9.
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. (PsycINFO Database Record
我们回顾了关于工作与非工作平衡的研究，以检验叮当谬误（为单一结构标签赋予不同含义）和叮当谬误（为单一结构使用不同标签）的存在。在 290 篇论文中，我们发现了 233 个概念定义，这些定义聚类为 5 种不同的、可解释的类型，这表明叮当谬误的存在是有证据支持的。我们计算了欧几里得距离来量化叮当谬误的程度，发现定义在时间和出版物上存在很大的分歧。一个例外是，最近在更好的期刊中，越来越多的人倾向于将平衡概念化为单一维度、心理上的，与冲突和丰富不同。然而，随着时间的推移，许多作者犯了叮当谬误，将冲突和/或丰富的衡量标准标记为平衡，即使在更好的期刊中，关于平衡的含义（例如，有效性、满意度）也存在分歧。为了检验叮当谬误和叮当谬误的实证意义，我们对平衡与工作、生活和家庭满意度的不同操作定义进行了元分析。冲突和丰富措施的效应大小通常小于平衡措施的效应大小，这为平衡的独特结构提供了证据，即平衡结构与冲突和丰富结构不可互换。为了解决我们的综述中提出的问题，我们从理论、综述中的实证证据以及关于平衡应如何定义的规范性信息中提出了一个工作与非工作平衡的定义。最后，我们提出了一个基于理论的未来研究议程。
