Marital satisfaction affects workplace creativity:
Religious Homogamy and Forgiveness
Le Ngoc Anh Khoa
To Nguyen Chi Hieu
Tran Tien Khoa
International University, Vietnam National University-HCMC, Vietnam
Abstract
To understand more how significantly the married life can affect the workplace creativity through the
theory of family-work enrichment, religious homogamy and forgiveness are selected as two main factors to
investigate how marital satisfaction can affect workplace creativity through the spillover of psychological
resources from family to work. After collecting the data of 209 people who have husband/wife, the data shows
the positive relationship among religious homogamy and forgiveness to the marital satisfaction. Religious
homogamy is also stressed as the most pronounced when the spouses satisfied with their marriage. Besides,
the result also demonstrates the significant of marital satisfaction indirectly effect the workplace creativity
through the family-work resources spillover. Overall, the research shows that the creativity of employees can
be influenced by their marriage which can be affected by religious homogamy and forgiveness.
Keywords: religious homogamy, forgiveness, marital satisfaction, family, workplace
Introduction
Research background
Creativity is a skill that plays as an important role for companies and organizations. While working,
creativity can be used to predict the future of that organization whether it can be success or not (Tierney,
Pamela, Steven M. Farmer, and George B. Graen, 1999). Besides, creativity is also used to measure the
development of emotion and the relationship among employees in company (Russ, Sandra W, 1998). When
the working environment change, creativity is also the must-have skill to adapt to the new situations (George
J. M., 2007). Thus, understanding what factors influent employee’s creativity is extremely essential. Therefore,
researchers always try to figure out the key lead to the creativity of employees. There are a lot of elements that
can affect individual creativity such as creative personality (Zhou, Jing, and Greg R. Oldham, 2001). Besides,
individual creativity is also reflected through the growth-need strength (Shalley, Christina E., Jing Zhou, and
Greg R. Oldham., 2004) and other factors which were proved by numerous of researchers. However, it seems
that a good marriage also provides sources for creativity which is related to emotion, motivation and energy
(Heller, Daniel, and David Watson, 2005). Religion is one of the important factors that can decide whether

spouses can solve their own problems (Lambert, Nathaniel M., and David C. Dollahite, 2006) and it also affects
the communication between them (Hughes, Patrick C., and Fran C. Dickson, 2005). Besides religion, other
papers also show that forgiveness can affect spouse’s satisfaction because it can built the trust and the loyalty
between spouse (Olson, Jonathan R., et al., 2015). Hence, this research digs deeper in some aspects that can
affect the marital satisfaction which are religious homogamy and forgiveness and figure out how marriage
can affect the employee’s creativity.

84


Divorce rate in Vietnam is quite high and increases year by year. In 2014, there were 60,000 cases of
divorcing and it took 25% comparing with marriage rate. This means four pares get marriage, one pare will
go to the court to divorce. Most spouses experience an unsatisfied marriage which lead to their divorce
decision. Religious and forgiveness are factors that can lead to the end of a marriage.
Besides, in Ho Chi Minh city, numerous of multinational companies are located, which require high level
of experience as well as creativity in working. Opposite to the target of those companies, according to
giaoduc.net, young Vietnamese employees are too mechanically. Instead of creating new ways of working,
Vietnamese chooses copying and becoming followers.
Thus, this research aims to examines (1) How significant religious homogamy and forgiveness affect
marital satisfaction; (2) identify the effect of marital satisfaction on the psychological resources generated (3)
investigate the influence of family-work resource spillover on creativity;
2. Literature review
Relationship between Religion and Marriage
There are numerous researches proved that religion can affect the satisfaction of a marriage. The study of
(Schumm, Walter R., Stephan R. Bollman, and Anthony P. Jurich. , 1982) showed that religion are very
important between spouse and it totally can affect their marriage. Then, this idea is also supported by (Wilson,
Margaret R., and Erik E. Filsinger, 1986) that everything is related to religion can affect many faces of a
marriage including spouse’s point of view. And according to the study of (Olson, Jonathan R., et al., 2015),
having the same religion is very meaningful for the satisfaction of a marriage. The marriage is more stable if
spouses have the same religion because they join the same religious activities which make them have the same

perception about every problem. Thus, this is an important factor that can decrease the rate of divorces among
coupes and increase the satisfaction between them.
Therefore, this research expects that the higher Religious Homogamy is, the higher Marital Satisfaction.
Relationship between Forgiveness and Marriage
The research of (Lin, Wei-Fen, et al, 2004) showed that forgiveness can create positive emotion because it
can decrease the negative feeling such as irritability and worry. Forgiveness also plays a role as the base for a
marriage which encourage spouses trust and loyal to each other (Marks, Loren D., Wesley R. Burr, and Randal
D. Day, 2012). This idea is also supported by (Olson, Jonathan R., et al., 2015) that the forgiveness can lead to
the sympathy between couples which can gain the trust and loyalty from each other.
Therefore, this research expects that the high of forgiveness is, the higher of marital satisfaction.
Relationship between Marriage and Psychological Resources
According to the study of (Ten Brummelhuis, Lieke L., Jarrod M. Haar, and Maree Roche, 2014), the idea
is studying about how the negative as well as the positive psychological resources coming from family can
affect the leaders. The negative resources stand for all pressure bearing from home which make a person feel
tired, depress and exhausted. On the other hand, positive resources create fresh feeling and more creative for
a new day. When the leaders experienced the bad feeling generated at home, the followers can realize easily
through leaders’ reactions. Thus, gradually, the negative feelings from the leader spread to the followers in
workplace. The result of the study shows that the leaders totally are beneficial from the positive psychological
resources generated at home because they are always in good mood which can motivate others. On the other
hand, negative psychological resources will put others in pressure which will affect the working performance
as well as the creativity in workplace. Then, the research of (Tang, Yipeng, Xu Huang, and Yongli Wang., 2017)
also support the previous theory. The research proved that a good marriage can bring more effects for working
people. Those effects become a source of emotion and energy for people who experience it. After researching,

85


they realize good marriage make people more self-reliant as well as optimistic than others. Then, they go to
work with full energy and have enough confidence to solve every problem when it come.
Therefore, this research expects that high marital satisfaction positively lead to high family-work resources

spillover.
Relationship between Psychological Resources and Creativity
The work of (Ford, 1996) proved that psychological improve the performance in working by ideas and
innovations popping up while working. Then, the work of (Fredrickson, 2001) also support the idea. He
showed that these resources can affect the thought and action of a person. That person can increase his
awareness and think out many new ideas and solutions in diversify faces of a problem. For the research of
(Tang, Yipeng, Xu Huang, and Yongli Wang., 2017), they concluded that psychological resources is needed
for less creative person. This resource will help and support them through their daily action and through
which can increase the working performance of those people.
Therefore, this research expects that high level of family-work resources spillover is related to high level of
creativity.
Methodology
Due to the context of the study, this research will apply quantitative method to solve issues related to
statistic, mathematic. Research model will be established after clearing all information about research
problems and research questions. Measurement scale will be constructed. Pilot test will be run first to ensure
that respondents can understand clearly about the survey. Then, questionnaires will be changed. Real survey
will be transferred to companies, organization, schools, offices. After 2-4 weeks, data will be collected. Basing
on raw data, data analysis will be performed to deeply understand about respondents’ choices.
Sample Profile and Data Collection
The target for this research will be employees, workers, staffs who are in marriage in Ho Chi Minh City.
Around 200 people will be the target for this sample size.
Development of Measures
Research instruments: Likert scale from 1 to 5 will be applied in survey when collect data. Each point of
scale will be explained more in survey. After pilot test, the questionnaires may be changed to ensure the
respondents can understand clearly about the survey.
Data collection: Surveys will be applied to collect data from the target. They will be transferred to schools,
offices and companies. After 2 – 4 weeks, they will be collected and selected. Selected surveys will be entered
into Excel to perform data analysis..
The measurement scale [shown in Table 1]
Results

Questionnaires were sent directly to suitable targets. 209 answers were collected.
Surveys are collected randomly. As shown in the Table 2, male respondents occupied 40.7% while female
respondents were 59.3%.
Basing on the sample size of 209, respondents who are from 20 to 35 years old, took off 35.9%. Respondents
who are from 36-45 years old are 40.7% and the rest are 23.4% of respondents who are above 46 years old.
Reliability test
To test internal consistency reliability of the measurement model,we used cronbach’s alpha criteria with
reference to Anderson and Gerbing (1988). EXP1 and QUAL4 violate the rule of Field (2005) as their
“Cronbach's alpha if item deleted” values are higher than the overall Cronbach's alpha, thus they were

86


removed from the measurement model [See Table 3]. The result of reliability test after removing inappropriate
items well supported the internal consistency reliability of measurement model.
Preliminary analyses of empirical data
The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) Measure of Sampling Adequacy and Bartlett's Test of Sphericity were
conducted to assess sampling adequacy and examine whether factor analysis applies to the measurement. A
total of 23 items contributes to the KMO values of 0.891 at a significant level of 0.000, which exceeds the
meritorious threshold of 0.80 (Kaiser, 1974), therefore appeared to be applicable for further analysis.
Common bias method
As both dependent and independent variables were taken from the same respondent doing selfadministered survey might result in the inflated relationship between variable, also known as common
method bias (Podsakoff, & Organ, 1986; Conway, & Lance, 2010). To detect the potential of common method
bias, we conducted Harman’s single-factor test (Podsakoff, & Organ, 1986) with an approach of unrotated
maximum likelihood analysis extracting all variables into one factor. The single factor only covers 29.23% of
the whole variance, which is less than 50%. Thus the probability that a substantial common method bias occurs
is low.
Measurement model evaluation
At the initial stage, we measured the validity and reliability of measurement model both with Exploratory
Factor Analysis and Confirmatory Factor Analysis approach.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)
As the measurement items were adopted and modified from prior studies, an EFA approach of maximum
likelihood analysis with eigenvalues greater than 1 through Promax rotation for 20 measured items was
conducted. Concerning Fabrigar, Wegener, MacCallum, and Strahan (1999), maximum likelihood best suits
data relatively normally distributed. The result of pattern matrix categorized 23 items into six distinct
components [see Table 4]. None of the factors loaded under the value of 0.5 meets the requirement of Hair,
Anderson, Tatham and Black (1998). Besides, there is no items having a value of loading value minus crossing
value greater than 0.3. Therefore, it is unnecessary to delete any items. Then, we used the determinant of the
matrix as a criterion to test for multicollinearity. As the determinant value of 23-item matrix is 0.000021, greater
than the threshold of 0.00001 recommended by Field (2005), multicollinearity is not a problem for these data.
Furthermore, the data highly met the requirement of Anderson and Gerbing (1988) that total variance
explained was 57.29%, higher than recommended of 50%.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)
Next, we conducted CFA by AMOS software version 20 to firstly examine the consistency within measured
constructs using model fit indices and further assess measurement model’s validity.
Model fit. The results demonstrated that the measurement model fits the data well at p=0.000: the ratio of
chi-square test size and number of degrees of freedom [χ2/d.f.] = 1.42, root mean square error of
approximation [RMSEA] = 0.03, standardized root mean square residual [SRMR] = 0.02, normed fit index
[NFI] = 0.92, goodness of fit index [GFI] = 0.93, and comparative fit index [CFI] = 0.98 (Carmines, & McIver,
1981). The measures of overall fit meet conventional standards. Hence, the measurement model met the
requirement of absolute fit, incremental fit, and parsimonious fit.
The validity of measurement model. All 23 items loaded significantly into proper constructs at p < 0.001
and their value of Standardized Regression Weights are all greater than 0.5, which indicates the convergent
validity exists (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988; Hair, Bush, & Ortinau, 2006). With reference to Fornell and Larcker (1981),
the square root of each AVE in each variable [written in bold in the matrix diagonal of Table 5] is greater in all
cases than the other correlation values among the latent variables [written in off-diagonal elements in their
corresponding row and column]. Therefore, the discriminant validity of the measurement scale is also verified.
Besides, for all constructs, the composite reliability exceeds the threshold value of 0.7 (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988).
Following Bagozzi and Yi (1988), we verified convergent validity for a reflective measurement model by


87


evaluating the average variance extracted (AVE) of each latent variable instead of using items’ loadings and
cross-loadings. All of the AVE values [shown in Table 5] are greater than the acceptable threshold of 0.5, so
convergent validity is confirmed.
With reference to Fornell and Larcker (1981), the square root of each AVE in each variable, written in bold
in the matrix diagonal of Table 5, is greater in all cases than the off-diagonal elements in their corresponding
row and column, supporting the discriminant validity. Besides, Sweeney and Soutar (2001) suggested that the
discriminant validity is also assured if correlations between pairs of variables are significantly below one. As
the square root of AVE [shown in Table 5] is verified for all pairs, so the discriminant validity is also confirmed.
Therefore, the validity and reliability of measurement scale is confirmed.
Structural model evaluation
For this study, Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) was applied in-depth to examine the hypothesized
causal relationship between latent constructs as well as their significance level (Hair et al., 1998). Before
conducting SEM, we first assess the structural model’s overall model fit indices to estimate the strength of
relationships among scale items and latent constructs.
Model fit
The overall result is significant and shows good fit indices: [Chi-square] = 457.582; [χ2/d.f.] = 1.182 (< 3);
[GFI] = 0.906 (>0.9); [TLI] = 0.927 (>0.9); [CFI] = 0.936 (>0.9), and [RMSEA] = 0.024 (<0.08). As a result, the final
research model of SEM fit with data.
Hypotheses testing

Next, we used SEM to examine 8 proposed hypotheses. According to the Standardized
Regression Weights statistics [shown in Table 6], p-values of remaining paths namely CRED>PI, TRUST->CRED, HOM->CRED, QUA->PI are all less than 0.05. Especially, with regard to
CRED->PI, TRUST->CRED, and QUA->PI, all of the p-values are highly significant at a
confidence level of 99.9%. Furthermore, all estimate weights are positive; hence these relationships are
proved to be positive by the data. H1, H3, H4, H7 are therefore supported. The statistics in Table 6 also
reveal that regarding the strength of relationships on CRED, TRUST shows the strongest
positive effect (0.556) highly significant under the confidence level of 99.9%.

In the contrary, p-values of two paths, namely EXP->CRED and QUA->CRED, are greater
than 0.05, which indicates the significance under the confidence level of 95%. Consequently, H2,
H6 are not supported by data.
Conclusions
Religious Homogamy
The outcome shows that Religious Homogamy strongly affects spouses’ Marital Satisfaction with β = 0.375.
Religion is the same as a habit living in a person’s blood. It even affects every choice in daily life. For spouses,
their religion will be experienced clearly by their partner. Thus, to have a good marriage, two people must
have the same thought about the religion they are bearing. This religion will stand for many decisions and
through in their daily life. Then, they can reduce the chance that arguments will occur. Problems can also be
solved with the satisfaction receiving from both sides.
Forgiveness
Although Forgiveness is deleted from the model, basing on the data, it still positively affects the Marital
Satisfaction with β = 0.128. This index is much lower than Religious Homogamy because it received a lot of

88


opposite through. Most spouses will forgive each other and hope their partner will be better in the future.
However, this through much depends on the situation and how serious the mistake is. If the mistakes are too
serious that can affect the honor and dignity of the other, there will be no forgiveness.
Marital Satisfaction
The outcome shows that Religious Homogamy mainly influences marital Satisfaction. Besides, Marital
Satisfaction strongly links to Family-Work Resource Spillover with β = 0.625. This factor is also a prefix that
will lead to the Creativity in workplace. Marriages will generate all energy and emotion to become an invisible
resource. This resource may be negative or positive depend on whether the marriage good or bad.
Family-Work Resource Spillover
Family-Work Resource Spillover positively affect the Creativity of employees in workplace with β = 0.347.
This means that if the Marital Satisfaction is good, positive resource will be generated which will make
employees more creative and vice versa. This proved that the husband/wife of a person will indirectly affect

the way a person work which show how important the role of family and marriage are.
The significance of the study and practical implication
The finding shows that spouses that having the same religious faith and beliefs will experience a marriage
with full of satisfaction. Besides, the study also stresses that, the emotion and energy generated (psychological
resources – in another way) at home will strongly affect the creativity of employees in workplace. All evidences
prove that marriage is playing the role of a source of intelligent inspiration.
The research also emphasizes that employees will be influenced by their social-relation life of employees
outside the organization and company. Thus, to improve employees’ performance, organizations and
companies should care more about the psychological experience of their employees through their social
relationship which have not focused for a long time.
Limitations and Future Research
Because of the limit time, there were only 209 people who completed the survey. Those target people are
chosen randomly and they do not represent for the whole population. Thus, this research can be more
accurately if having enough time and resources. Besides, the research can be expanded in the whole Vietnam
with the larger sample size to get a better result.
References
Amabile, Teresa M. Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity. Hachette UK, 1996.
Botwin, Michael D., David M. Buss, and Todd K. Shackelford. "Personality and mate preferences: Five factors in mate selection and marital
satisfaction." Journal of personality 65.1 (1997): 107-136.
Chinitz, Joshua G., and Robert A. Brown. "Religious Homogamy, Marital Conflict, and Stability in Same‐Faith and Interfaith Jewish
Marriages." Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 40.4 (2001): 723-733.
David, Prabu, and Laura Stafford. "A relational approach to religion and spirituality in marriage: The role of couples’ religious
communication in marital satisfaction." Journal of Family Issues36.2 (2015): 232-249.
Fincham, Frank D., F. Georgia Paleari, and Camillo Regalia. "Forgiveness in marriage: The role of relationship quality, attributions, and
empathy." Personal Relationships 9.1 (2002): 27-37.
Fincham, Frank D., Julie Hall, and Steven RH Beach. "Forgiveness in marriage: Current status and future directions." Family Relations
55.4 (2006): 415-427.
Ford, Cameron M. "A theory of individual creative action in multiple social domains." Academy of Management review 21.4 (1996): 11121142.
Fredrickson, Barbara L. "The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions."
American psychologist 56.3 (2001): 218.George, J. M. "Creativity in organizations. The Academy of Management Annals, 1 (1), 439477." (2007).

Heller, Daniel, and David Watson. "The dynamic spillover of satisfaction between work and marriage: the role of time and mood." Journal
of Applied Psychology 90.6 (2005): 1273.
Hirst, Giles, Daan Van Knippenberg, and Jing Zhou. "A cross-level perspective on employee creativity: Goal orientation, team learning
behavior, and individual creativity." Academy of management journal 52.2 (2009): 280-293.

89


Hughes, Patrick C., and Fran C. Dickson. "Communication, marital satisfaction, and religious orientation in interfaith marriages." The
Journal of Family Communication 5.1 (2005): 25-41.
Jaussi, Kimberly S., Amy E. Randel, and Shelley D. Dionne. "I am, I think I can, and I do: The role of personal identity, self-efficacy, and
cross-application of experiences in creativity at work." Creativity Research Journal 19.2-3 (2007): 247-258.
Lambert, Nathaniel M., and David C. Dollahite. "How religiosity helps couples prevent, resolve, and overcome marital conflict." Family
Relations 55.4 (2006): 439-449.
Lin, Wei-Fen, et al. "Effects of forgiveness therapy on anger, mood, and vulnerability to substance use among inpatient substancedependent clients." Journal of consulting and clinical psychology 72.6 (2004): 1114.
Madjar, Nora, Greg R. Oldham, and Michael G. Pratt. "There's no place like home? The contributions of work and nonwork creativity
support to employees' creative performance." academy of management journal 45.4 (2002): 757-767.
Marks, Loren D., Wesley R. Burr, and Randal D. Day. Sacred matters: Religion and spirituality in families. Routledge, 2012.
Myers, Scott M. "Religious homogamy and marital quality: Historical and generational patterns, 1980–1997." Journal of Marriage and
Family 68.2 (2006): 292-304.
Myers, Scott M. "Religious homogamy and marital quality: Historical and generational patterns, 1980–1997." Journal of Marriage and
Family 68.2 (2006): 292-304.
Olson, Jonathan R., et al. "Shared religious beliefs, prayer, and forgiveness as predictors of marital satisfaction." Family Relations 64.4
(2015): 519-533.
Russ, Sandra W. "Play, creativity, and adaptive functioning: Implications for play interventions." Journal of Clinical Child Psychology
27.4 (1998): 469-480.
Schumm, Walter R., Stephan R. Bollman, and Anthony P. Jurich. "The “Marital Conventionalization” Argument; Implications for the
Study of Religiosity and Marital Satisfaction." Journal of Psychology and Theology 10.3 (1982): 236-241.
Shalley, Christina E., Jing Zhou, and Greg R. Oldham. "The effects of personal and contextual characteristics on creativity: Where should
we go from here?." Journal of management 30.6 (2004): 933-958.

Tang, Yipeng, Xu Huang, and Yongli Wang. "Good marriage at home, creativity at work: Family–work enrichment effect on workplace
creativity." Journal of Organizational Behavior 38.5 (2017): 749-766.
Ten Brummelhuis, Lieke L., Jarrod M. Haar, and Maree Roche. "Does family life help to be a better leader? A closer look at crossover
processes from leaders to followers." Personnel Psychology 67.4 (2014): 917-949.Tierney, Pamela, Steven M. Farmer, and George B.
Graen. "An examination of leadership and employee creativity: The relevance of traits and relationships." Personnel psychology 52.3
(1999): 591-620.
Wilson, Margaret R., and Erik E. Filsinger. "Religiosity and marital adjustment: Multidimensional interrelationships." Journal of Marriage
and the Family (1986): 147-151.
Zhou, Jing, and Greg R. Oldham. "Enhancing creative performance: Effects of expected developmental assessment strategies and creative
personality." The Journal of Creative Behavior 35.3 (2001): 151-167.

International Journal of Information
Acknowledgement
It is acknowledged that this work is not supported by any funding organizations.
Table 1: Measurement scale
Variables
Religious
homogamy

Code
RH1
RH2
RH3
RH4

Forgiveness

Marital
satisfaction


F1
F2
F3
F4
F5
MS1
MS2
MS3
MS4
MS5

Item Description
To what extent do you and your spouse agree on religious
matters, such as your view of God and the purpose of life?
How much would you/ your spouse say your/his/her
religious beliefs influence your daily life?
How religious are you compared to your (husband/wife)?
How often do you and your (husband/wife) attend
church/ pagoda together?
I would disapproval with my spouse.
I would think favorably for my spouse.
I would condemn my spouse.
I would forgive my spouse.
I wish him/her well.
How would you say you feel about your marriage?
How do you feel about your spouse as someone to confide
in about things that are important to you?
How do you feel about your sexual relationship?
I am very happy about how we make decisions and
resolve conflicts.

I am not happy with our communication and feel that my
partner does not understand me.

90

Sources
Olson, Jonathan R.,
et al. (2015)
Myers, S. M. (2006)

Fincham, F. D.,
Paleari, F., &
Regalia, C. (2002).

Botwin, M. D., Buss,
D. M., &
Shackelford, T. K.
(1997).
Tang, Y., Huang, X.,
& Wang, Y. (2017).


Family–work
resource
spillover

FW1
FW2
FW3


Creativity

C1
C2
C3
C4

My home life helps me to relax and feel ready for the next
day’s work.
The love and respect I get at home makes me feel confident
about myself at work.
Providing for what is needed at home makes me work
harder at my job.
Often has new and innovative ideas.
Suggests new ways of performing work tasks.
Develops adequate plans and schedules for the
implementation of new ideas.
Encourages others to think in new ways.

Tang, Y., Huang, X.,
& Wang, Y. (2017).

Tang, Y., Huang, X.,
& Wang, Y. (2017).
Jaussi, K. S., Randel,
A. E., & Dionne, S.
D. (2007).

Table 2. Socio-demographic profile of the respondents.
Category


%

Nationality
Vietnamese

100

Age
25-35
36-45
Above 46
Gender
Male
Female
N=209

35.9
40.6
23.5
59.3
40.7

Table 3. The result of Reliability test (before removing inappropriate items)

Construct

Item

RH1


Religious
Homogamy
(RH)

RH2
RH3
RH4
FOR1

Forgiveness
(FOR)

FOR2
FOR3
FOR4
FOR5

Initial
Cron.
Alpha

Instrument
To what extent do you and your spouse
agree on religious matters, such as your
view of God and the purpose of life?
How much would you/ your spouse say
your/his/her religious beliefs influence
your daily life?)
How religious are you compared to your

(husband/wife)?
How often do you and your
(husband/wife) attend church/ pagoda
together?
I would disapproval with my spouse.
I would think favorably for my spouse.
I would condemn my spouse.
I would forgive my spouse.
I wish him/her well.

91

Corrected
Items - Total
Correlation

Cron.
Alpha
Items
Deleted

0.401

0.759

0.623

0.638

0.625


0.660

0.571

0.677

0.718

0.792

0.632

0.813

0.559
0.647
0.697

0.831
0.810
0.795

0.744

0.842

if



How would you say you feel about your
marriage?
How do you feel about your spouse as
someone to confide in about things that
are important to you?
How do you feel about your sexual
relationship?
I am very happy about how we make
decisions and resolve conflicts.
I am not happy with our communication
and feel that my partner does not
understand me
My home life helps me to relax and feel
ready for the next day’s work.
The love and respect I get at home makes
me feel confident about myself at work.
Providing for what is needed at home
makes me work harder at my job.
Often has new and innovative ideas
Suggests new ways of performing work
tasks

MS1
MS2
Marital
Satisfaction
(MS)

MS3
MS4

MS5

FamilyWork
Resource
Spillover
(FW)

FW1
FW2
FW3
CRE1
CRE2

Creativity
(CRE)

Develops adequate plans and schedules
for the implementation of new ideas.

CRE3
CRE4

0.815

0.861

0.807

Encourages others to think in new ways


0.743

0.734

0.727

0.740

0.626

0.772

0.583

0.785

0.360

0.845

0.769

0.774

0.757

0.785

0.685


0.853

0.633

0.755

0.749

0.698

0.652

0.743

0.485

0.831

Table 4. Pattern Matrix
Factor
1
F1

0.842

F5

0.806

F2


0.799

F4

0.796

F3

0.666

2

FW0

0.929

FW2

0.846

FW1

0.794

FW3

0.780

3


MS3

0.874

MS2

0.798

MS4

0.769

MS1

0.763

4

CRE1

0.886

CRE2

0.868

92

5



CRE3

0.834

RH4

0.853

RH3

0.810

RH2

0.799

Table 5. Scales reliability and validity
CR

AVE

MSV

MaxR(H)

CRE

FW


FOR

MS

CRE

0.833

0.626

0.196

0.862

0.791

FW

0.882

0.652

0.386

0.893

0.322

0.807


FOR

0.845

0.523

0.011

0.854

0.008

0.038

0.724

MS

0.847

0.583

0.386

0.865

0.443

0.621


0.105

0.763

RH

0.778

0.541

0.145

0.800

0.376

0.124

-0.062

0.381

RH

0.736

Table 6. The structural model
Hypothesis


Relationship

Estimate

S.E.

C.R.

p-value

Decision

H1

RH->MS

0.335

.076

4.401

***

Supported

H2

FOR->MS


0.111

.067

1.655

0.098

Not supported

H3

MS->FW

0.510

.067

7.623

***

Supported

H4

FW->CRE

0.316


.075

4.237

***

Supported

***significant at p < 0.001; **significant at p < 0.01; *significant at p < 0.05

93