Work–Family Interference as a Mediator Between Job Characteristics and Employee Well-Being During COVID-19 in China: A Job Demands–Resources Model

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper ‘Work-Family Conflict as A Mediator Between Job Characteristics and Employee Well-Being During COVID-19 In China: A Job Demands-Resources Model’ addresses an interesting topic. The authors focused their attention on the issue of employee well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic. For the purpose of the study, the authors considered physical and mental occupations based on two years of data in the adopted country. The results of the study enabled inference in terms of the adopted objective.

The abstract indicates the purpose and scope of the study, as well as the overall results of the findings. The abstract does not indicate the research gap that the paper addresses, nor does it indicate the research methodology, and in this respect the abstract should be improved.

The introduction presents the background to the research, solidifying the validity of the authors' research in the area undertaken. In the introduction, the authors immediately focus very strongly on the pandemic and its impact on employee wellbeing. I believe that it would have been valuable to emphasise more strongly the aspect of the importance of employee wellbeing for the effectiveness of business functioning (in general, in the world), to then move on to aspects of the impact of the pandemic on employee psychological wellbeing and its impact on business (specifically in the area studied). The above would consolidate further consideration of the role of similar research and strengthen the literature of the paper, which is worth developing.  There is recent literature in this area - it is worth studying e.g. https://doi.org/10.3390/su162410913. To this extent, I suggest this section be supplemented.

The next element in the structure of the paper is a section oriented to discuss definitions for the research, followed by a section oriented to present the ‘Theoretical background and hypotheses’. The authors identified 6 hypotheses, which they strengthened with reference to the literature. At the end of this section, the authors presented the Conceptual framework (figure, page 6). A supplementary discussion is required under this figure. In addition, it is useful to present the research concept in the form of research steps coupled with the methods used at their stage, which I suggest the paper completes.

A further part of the paper is a discussion of methodology. This scope is discussed in the individual topic threads, with reference to the literature. The above is discussed sufficiently.

The ‘Results’ section should be completed with a description between Tables 1 -4 (pages 9-10, 12-13) and under Figure 2 (page 11).

Discussion section correct - I make no observations.

The paper lacks a separate ‘conclusion’ section, which should be referred to in terms of the aim and research gap to highlight the significance (theoretical and practical) of the authors' findings. In this respect, the paper should be supplemented. 

Literature well selected, it is worth developing its scope, especially in the area of introductory content (as suggested).

In summary, this is an original paper, but it needs refinement in the area of the comments indicated above. The abstract, the introduction, the ‘Theoretical background and hypotheses’ section and the results presentation section in the scope reported in the review should be improved. In addition, the implications and the scope of the references are worth strengthening.

Author Response

1. Summary
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding highlighted in the re-submitted files.
2. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Comments 1: The abstract indicates the purpose and scope of the study, as well as the overall results of the findings. The abstract does not indicate the research gap that the paper addresses, nor does it indicate the research methodology, and in this respect the abstract should be improved.
Response 1: We appreciate this valuable feedback. In response, we have incorporated the research gap and methodology into the revised abstract, which can now be found on page 1.
Comments 2: In the introduction section, I believe that it would have been valuable to emphasise more strongly the aspect of the importance of employee wellbeing for the effectiveness of business functioning (in general, in the world), to then move on to aspects of the impact of the pandemic on employee psychological wellbeing and its impact on business (specifically in the area studied).
Response 2: We appreciate your recommendation regarding the study's focus. Our research specifically examines how pandemic-related workplace changes affect work-family conflict and employee well-being across different occupational categories. The core purpose is to develop insights that can help protect and enhance the well-being of vulnerable workers during public health crises. Therefore, we have structured the introduction to emphasize this relationship, beginning with the origin of workplace changes and their subsequent impacts.
Comments 3: At the end of the section of ‘Theoretical background and hypotheses’, the authors presented the Conceptual framework (figure, page 6). A supplementary discussion is required under this figure. In addition, it is useful to present the research concept in the form of research steps coupled with the methods used at their stage, which I suggest the paper completes. Response 3: We appreciate this constructive suggestion to enhance our paper's methodological clarity. Upon careful review, we have added supplementary discussion under Figure 1 (page 12). We have incorporated a comprehensive presentation of our research methodology (page 12-16), organized into three primary stages: Data Source and Sample Characteristics, Measurements, and Analysis Techniques. Within the Analysis Techniques section, we provide a systematic, step-by-step explanation of the statistical methods used to test each hypothesis, ensuring a clear and rigorous presentation of our analytical approach. Comments 4: The ‘Results’ section should be completed with a description between Tables 1 -4 (pages 9-10, 12-13) and under Figure 2 (page 11). Response 4: We appreciate this opportunity to clarify the organization and content of our tables. Table 1 provides demographic information broken down by job categories, offering essential context about our study population. This demographic analysis can be found in the "Descriptive statistics" section on page 17, alongside Table 2, which presents the correlation matrix of our primary study variables. Moving to our analytical results, Table 3 (page 19) displays the outcomes of our multiple regression analyses, specifically examining how job characteristics relate to employee wellbeing across different occupational categories. Table 4, also on page 19, complements this analysis by presenting our mediation analysis results. Comments 5: The paper lacks a separate ‘conclusion’ section, which should be referred to in terms of the aim and research gap to highlight the significance (theoretical and practical) of the authors' findings. In this respect, the paper should be supplemented. Response 5: Thank you for this valuable feedback. We agree that a dedicated conclusion section would strengthen the paper and better highlight our contributions. We have added a conclusion section that: First, explicitly connected our findings back to the original research aim. Second, addressed how our work fills the identified research gaps. Third, articulates both the theoretical implications and practical of our findings (page. 24-25). Comments 6: The implications and the scope of the references are worth strengthening. Response 6: Thank you for this constructive feedback. We will enhance the paper by expanding the implications section to provide more detailed discussion of our findings' impact, including: deeper analysis of the theoretical contributions to the field, more comprehensive examination of practical applications, and consideration of broader implications for future research directions. Moreover, strengthening the reference scope by including more recent and relevant literature, expanding coverage of key theoretical frameworks, adding complementary empirical studies that support our findings.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Manuscript ID: socsci-3397076

Manuscript Title: Work-Family Conflict as A Mediator Between Job Characteristics and Employee Well-Being During COVID-19 In China: A Job Demands-Resources Model

Review comments:

ABSTRACT

1.       The abstract should describe the content and scope of the paper and identifies the paper’s objective or hypothesis, its methodology and its findings, conclusions or intended results. The abstract should begin with a brief but precise statement of the problem or issue, followed by a description of the research method and design, the major findings, and the conclusions reached. Some of these issues are not included. Information on the methodological tools used and the number of cases analyzed is not included, nor is the location of the study indicated.

INTRODUCTION

2.       In the introduction, explain better why workers in alternative work arrangements, those with lower levels of education, and female laborers are among the most affected by the pandemic. Also clarify why reginal income inequality has intensified in China. Is income inequality during the COVID-19 pandemic limited only to China or the same situation occurred in other countries?

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

3.       Provide a clearer explanation of what JD-R model is and how it can be applied to the specific context in this research setting revealing the relationships between the factors used in this study. For example, job demand might have a direct impact on job satisfaction and job resources might affect work stress along with indirect effects through work-family interference? 

4.       The research hypotheses stated in this study are unclear regarding whether they aim to identify correlations between specific variables or to examine the influence of specific variables, specifically between antecedents and outcome variables based on the conceptual framework. I highly recommend restating these hypotheses and providing a research model rather than the conceptual framework.

5.       It is also recommended to unify the terminology presented in the research hypotheses, conceptual framework, Table 2, and 4.

METHODS

6.       It is considered appropriate to explain in more detail the well-founded reasons for including these survey items in the study rather than others. Were these items validated or reviewed by experts? What scientific reasons justify the inclusion of these items and not others from the previous studies?

RESULTS

7.       On page 12, it says, “As presented in Table5…….employee well-being”, but Table 5 cannot be found. I recommend that the authors check for errors and typos in Tables and the text of the manuscript.

8.       On page 12, it is presented as "Mental work-load had a positive effect on work stress via positive WFI for both white collars (.054 [.028, .086]).................... WFI only for blue collars (.041 [.018, .069])", but .054 and .041 cannot be found in Table 4, which provides the Mediation Analysis Summary. Where did the authors get this numbers?

9.       Considering the mediation effect of a specific variable, the indirect effect must be considered. The mediation effect can only be determined to be statistically significant if the indirect effect is statistically significant and the confidence interval does not include 0. Are the indirect effects for each path presented in Table 4 statistically significant? I highly recommend that the authors should double-check Table 4, re-present the results of the mediation analysis, and restate the result and discussion sections.

DISCUSSION

10.    Provide the theoretical and practical implications separately along with research limitations and directions for future studies. I highly recommend that the authors should include a conclusion section. Discussion and conclusions should be separated into two sections to increase readability, and the conclusion section should include research limitations and directions for future studies.

Author Response

1. Summary
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions highlighted in the re-submitted files.
2. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors Comments 1: The abstract should describe the content and scope of the paper and identifies the paper’s objective or hypothesis, its methodology and its findings, conclusions or intended results. The abstract should begin with a brief but precise statement of the problem or issue, followed by a description of the research method and design, the major findings, and the conclusions reached. Some of these issues are not included. Information on the methodological tools used and the number of cases analyzed is not included, nor is the location of the study indicated.
Response 1: In response to this valuable feedback, we have enhanced the abstract on page 1 to include a comprehensive treatment of four key elements: the precise problem statement, methodological approach, primary findings, and research conclusions.
Comments 2: In the introduction, explain better why workers in alternative work arrangements, those with lower levels of education, and female laborers are among the most affected by the pandemic. Also clarify why reginal income inequality has intensified in China. Is income inequality during the COVID-19 pandemic limited only to China or the same situation occurred in other countries?
Response 2: Thank you for this constructive feedback. We have revised the introduction section on page 2, paragraph 1, to provide a more focused analysis of why the pandemic has disproportionately affected workers in alternative work arrangements and those with lower educational and income levels. To maintain this clear focus, we have removed the discussion of female laborers and regional income inequality in China. Comments 3: Provide a clearer explanation of what JD-R model is and how it can be applied to the specific context in this research setting revealing the relationships between the factors used in this study. For example, job demand might have a direct impact on job satisfaction and job resources might affect work stress along with indirect effects through work-family interference? Response 3: We appreciate your thorough feedback and have made several substantive improvements to the document. Specifically, we have enhanced the theoretical foundation by incorporating the concept of JD-R model in the first paragraph on page 7. We have also strengthened the empirical basis by adding recent studies that examine the relationship between job characteristics and employee wellbeing, with particular attention to work-family interference's mediating role. Based on this expanded analysis, we have comprehensively revised hypotheses 3 through 6, which can now be found on pages 9-12. Comments 4: The research hypotheses stated in this study are unclear regarding whether they aim to identify correlations between specific variables or to examine the influence of specific variables, specifically between antecedents and outcome variables based on the conceptual framework. I highly recommend restating these hypotheses and providing a research model rather than the conceptual framework. Response 4: We appreciate this constructive feedback regarding our hypothesis’s development. We have revised hypotheses 3 through 6 to more precisely articulate the relationships between variables within the JD-R model. These revisions strengthen the theoretical underpinning of our research and provide clearer direction for our empirical analysis. Furthermore, upon careful review, we have added supplementary discussion under Figure 1 and have provided a hypothetical model instead of the conceptual framework (page 12). Comments 5: It is also recommended to unify the terminology presented in the research hypotheses, conceptual framework, Table 2, and 4. Response 5: Thank you for highlighting this recommendation regarding terminology consistency. We have conducted a comprehensive review of our terminology usage across the research hypotheses, conceptual framework, and Tables 2 and 4. In response, we have standardized our terminology. Comments 6: It is also recommended to unify the terminology presented in the research hypotheses, conceptual framework, Table 2, and 4. Response 6: Thank you for highlighting this recommendation regarding terminology consistency. We have conducted a comprehensive review of our terminology usage across the research hypotheses, conceptual framework, and Tables 2 and 4. In response, we have standardized our terminology.

Comments 7: It is considered appropriate to explain in more detail the well-founded reasons for including these survey items in the study rather than others. Were these items validated or reviewed by experts? What scientific reasons justify the inclusion of these items and not others from the previous studies?

Response 7: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. The selection of survey items for this study was guided by several well-founded theoretical and methodological considerations, following a rigorous development process. Our approach was primarily anchored in the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model (Demerouti et al., 2001; Bakker & Demerouti, 2007), which has been extensively validated across diverse occupational settings and cultural contexts. This theoretical framework was particularly relevant as it provides a comprehensive understanding of how job characteristics influence employee well-being and performance. We specifically drew upon recent applications of the JD-R model to the Chinese population during the pandemic (Wang et al., 2021), as this research demonstrated strong ecological validity for our study context. The selection of items was further refined based on their demonstrated psychometric properties and their specific applicability to the unique circumstances of our research population. The decision to exclude certain items from previous studies was carefully considered. Our primary criterion was the contextual applicability of items to our specific research setting. We focused on items that maintained their conceptual integrity and measurement validity within the Chinese workplace context during the pandemic period, while excluding items that might have limited relevance or could potentially introduce measurement artifacts due to contextual differences.

Comments 8: On page 12, it says, “As presented in Table5…….employee well-being”, but Table 5 cannot be found. I recommend that the authors check for errors and typos in Tables and the text of the manuscript.

Response 8: We appreciate the attention to detail in reviewing our manuscript. Following your comment, we have conducted a thorough double-check of all tables and text throughout the manuscript.

Comments 9: On page 12, it is presented as "Mental work-load had a positive effect on work stress via positive WFI for both white collars (.054 [.028, .086]).................... WFI only for blue collars (.041 [.018, .069])", but .054 and .041 cannot be found in Table 4, which provides the Mediation Analysis Summary. Where did the authors get this numbers?

Response 9: Thank you for your careful review of our manuscript. We have thoroughly examined Table 4 and updated the data to ensure complete accuracy (page 19). The revised table now reflects the correct values throughout, maintaining consistency with our analysis and findings. All corresponding textual references to Table 4 have also been updated accordingly.

Comments 10: Considering the mediation effect of a specific variable, the indirect effect must be considered. The mediation effect can only be determined to be statistically significant if the indirect effect is statistically significant and the confidence interval does not include 0. Are the indirect effects for each path presented in Table 4 statistically significant? I highly recommend that the authors should double-check Table 4, re-present the results of the mediation analysis, and restate the result and discussion sections.

Response 10: We appreciate your valuable feedback regarding the mediation analysis. Following your comment, we have conducted a comprehensive reexamination of our mediation analysis, focusing specifically on the indirect effects and their statistical significance. You are correct that establishing mediation requires demonstrating statistically significant indirect effects with confidence intervals that do not include zero. We have thoroughly reviewed Table 4 and revised our analysis using bootstrapping procedures to calculate the indirect effects and their 95% confidence intervals for each mediation path. Based on this re-analysis, we have updated the Results section to accurately reflect the statistical significance of each mediation path (page 19 and Table 4). The Discussion section has also been modified to align with these revised findings, ensuring our interpretations are fully supported by the statistical evidence (page 20-23).

Comments 11: Provide the theoretical and practical implications separately along with research limitations and directions for future studies. I highly recommend that the authors should include a conclusion section. Discussion and conclusions should be separated into two sections to increase readability, and the conclusion section should include research limitations and directions for future studies.

Response 11: Thank you for this detailed and constructive feedback. We agree that separating the discussion and conclusions sections will improve the paper's clarity and readability. We have revised the paper's structure as follows: First, in the discussion section, we have presented our interpretation of the findings, compared our results with existing literature, and provided in-depth analysis of the results. Second, we have added a new conclusions section that includes theoretical implications, practical implications, research limitations, and future research directions (page 23-25).

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have improved the article. It may be considered for publication.

Author Response

1. Summary
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding highlighted in the re-submitted files.
2. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Comments 1: The authors have improved the article. It may be considered for publication.
Response 1: We sincerely thank you for your thorough evaluation of our manuscript. Your constructive feedback has significantly enhanced various aspects of our work. Specifically, your comments have helped us strengthen the theoretical background and empirical research foundation, leading to a more precise and well-grounded presentation of the topic. We appreciate how your feedback enabled us to refine our research design, questions, hypotheses, and methodological approach, resulting in a clearer and more rigorous presentation of our study framework. Your insights were instrumental in developing more coherent, balanced, and compelling arguments in our discussion of findings. Your guidance also helped us ensure that our results and references to secondary literature more thoroughly support our conclusions, enhancing the overall validity of our research. We are grateful for your careful consideration throughout the review process. We thank you for determining that our manuscript meets the publication standards, and we appreciate your recommendation for publication consideration.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It seems more appropriate to use 'Research model' rather than 'Hypothetical model' for the title of Figure 1 on page 12.

  

Author Response

1. Summary
We sincerely thank you for your thorough evaluation of our manuscript. Your constructive feedback has significantly enhanced various aspects of our work. Specifically, your comments have helped us strengthen the theoretical background and empirical research foundation, leading to a more precise and well-grounded presentation of the topic. We appreciate how your feedback enabled us to refine our research design, questions, hypotheses, and methodological approach, resulting in a clearer and more rigorous presentation of our study framework. Your insights were instrumental in developing more coherent, balanced, and compelling arguments in our discussion of findings. Your guidance also helped us ensure that our results and references to secondary literature more thoroughly support our conclusions, enhancing the overall validity of our research. We are grateful for your careful consideration throughout the review process. We thank you for determining that our manuscript meets the publication standards, and we appreciate your recommendation for publication consideration.
2. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors Comments 1: It seems more appropriate to use 'Research model' rather than 'Hypothetical model' for the title of Figure 1 on page 12.
Response 1: Based on your valuable feedback, we have modified Figure 1 on page 12 by updating its title from 'Research Model' to 'Hypothetical Model' to more accurately reflect its content and purpose.