在現今，社會變遷隨著科技變得更快，使得工作環境越來越多變、嚴峻，也讓員工的情緒變得比以往複雜，變得有可能同時經歷正、負向情緒的狀態。而也是因為這更複雜的環境，使得員工在工作中必須要發揮更多的創造力、產生更多的創造行為來因應工作環境，而創造力一直是公司關注的事情之一。因此，環境的多變讓情感變的更加複雜的狀態，加上員工需要激發出更多的創造行為以因應環境，是否會讓員工的工作家庭衝突更加劇是公司必須關注的議題。
本研究以資源保存理論之基礎，並以台灣的在職工作者為研究對象，探討情感雙歧、創造行為與工作家庭衝突之間的關係；權力距離為調節變項，探討其是否會對情感雙歧與創造行為產生干擾作用。本研究以問卷調查法進行，最終回收239份有效問卷，並透過驗證式因素分析、相關分析與迴歸分析等進行資料分析。
實證結果顯示：（1）情感雙歧對於工作家庭衝突有正向影響。（2）專注於多元差異的創造行為不會對情感雙歧與工作家庭衝突間的關係產生影響。（3）專注於選擇的創造行為會對情感雙歧與工作家庭衝突間的關係產生影響。（4）權力距離對情感雙歧與專注於多元差異的創造行為的不會產生調節作用。（5）權力距離對情感雙歧與專注於選擇的創造行為的不會產生調節作用。
而本研究根據分析結果提出的理論貢獻與管理意涵包含：（1）從情感的角度去看對創造行為的影響。（2）公司可以調控員工情緒來提升員工專注於選擇的創造行為，但要注意員工的家庭狀態。（3）以資源保存理論來探討情感。

Nowadays, as technology becomes faster, the work environment becomes more and more varied and severe, and employees' emotions become more complex than ever. They may experience both positive and negative emotions at the same time. Also because of this more complex environment, employees have to be more creative and generate more creative behaviors in response to the work environment, and creativity has always been one of the company's concerns. Therefore, the changing environment makes the emotions more complex, and the need for employees to stimulate more creative behaviors to respond to the environment, whether these will make more work-family conflict is an issue that companies must pay attention to.
Based on resource conservation theory, this study investigated the relationship between affect ambivalence, creative behavior, and work-family conflict by using Taiwanese employed workers as the target population. The study was conducted by questionnaire survey. A 239 valid questionnaires were collected and analyzed through empirical factor analysis, correlation analysis, and regression analysis.
The empirical results showed that: (1) affect ambivalence had a positive effect on work-family conflict. (2) Variance-focused creative behavior did not affect the relationship between affect ambivalence and work-family conflict. (3) Selection-focused behavior influenced the relationship between affect ambivalence and work-family conflict. (4) Power distance does not moderate the relationship between affect ambivalence and variance-focused creative behavior. (5) Power distance does not moderate the relationship between affect ambivalence and selection-focused creative behavior.
The implications of this study include: (1) The impact on creative behavior from an affective perspective. (2) Companies can regulate employees' emotions to enhance employees' selection-focused creative behavior, but companies also should pay attention to employees' family status. (3) Use resource conservation theory to discuss the emotions.

Baas, M., Dreu, C. K. W. D., & Nijstad, B. A. (2008). Supplemental material for a meta-analysis of 25 years of mood–creativity research: Hedonic tone, activation, or regulatory focus? Psychological Bulletin, 134, 779–806. doi:10.1037/a0012815.supp
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J Pers Soc Psychol, 51(6), 1173-1182. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.51.6.1173
Barsade, S. G., & Gibson, D. E. (2007). Why does affect matter in organizations? Academy of Management Perspectives, 21, 36-59.
Bergeron, D. M. (2007). The potential paradox of organizational citizenship behavior: Good citizens at what cost? The Academy of Management Review, 32, 1078-1095.
Carlson, D. S., Kacmar, K. M., & Williams, L. J. (2000). Construction and initial validation of a multidimensional measure of work–family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 56(2), 249-276. doi:10.1006/jvbe.1999.1713
Chang, Y.-Y., & Shih, H.-Y. (2019). Work curiosity: A new lens for understanding employee creativity. Human Resource Management Review, 29(4). doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2018.10.005
Cole, M. S., Carter, M. Z., & Zhang, Z. (2013). Leader–team congruence in power distance values and team effectiveness: The mediating role of procedural justice climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 962-973.
Devellis, R. F. (1991). Scale development: Theory and applications. Newbury Park, CA: Sage,.
Fong, C. T. (2006). The effects of emotional ambivalence on creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 49(5), 1016-1030.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39-50.
George, J. M. (2011). Dual tuning: A minimum condition for understanding affect in organizations? Organizational Psychology Review, 1(2), 147-164. doi:10.1177/2041386610390257
George, J. M., & Zhou, J. (2007). Dual tuning in a supportive context: Joint contributions of positive mood, negative mood, and supervisory behaviors to employee creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 50(3), 605–622.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Academy of Management Review, 10(1), 76-88.
Gutek, B. A., Searle, S., & Klepa, L. (1991). Rational versus gender role explanations for work-family conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 560-568.
Harrison, S. H., & Wagner, D. T. (2016). Spilling outside the box: The effects of individuals’ creative behaviors at work on time spent with their spouses at home. Academy of Management Journal, 59(3), 841-859. doi:10.5465/amj.2013.0560
Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources a new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44, 413-524.
Hobfoll, S. E. (2002). Social and psychological resources and adaptation. Review of General Psychology, 6(4), 307-324. doi:10.1037//1089-2680.6.4.307
Kemper, T. D., & Lazarus, R. S. (1992). Emotion and adaptation. Contemporary Sociology, 21(4). doi:10.2307/2075902
Kung, F. Y. H., & Chao, M. M. (2019). The impact of mixed emotions on creativity in negotiation: An interpersonal perspective. Front Psychol, 9, 2660. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02660
Larsen, J. T., McGraw, A. P., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2001). Can people feel happy and sad at the same time? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(4), 684-696. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.81.4.684
Larsen, J. T., McGraw, A. P., Mellers, B. A., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2004). The agony of victory and thrill of defeat: mixed emotional reactions to disappointing wins and relieving losses. Psychological Science, 15, 325-330.
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 Organizational Behavior, 32(5), 689-725. doi:10.1002/job.695
Netemeyer, R. G., McMurrian, R., & Boles, J. S. (1996). Development and validation of work-family conflict and family-work conflict scale. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(4), 400-410.
Policastro, E., & Gardner, H. 1998. From case studies to robust generalizations: An approach to the study of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity: 213–225. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Reiter-Palmon, R., & Illies, J. J. (2004). Leadership and creativity: Understanding leadership from a creative problem-solving perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(1), 55-77. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2003.12.005
Sarooghi, H., Libaers, D., & Burkemper, A. (2015). Examining the relationship between creativity and innovation: A meta-analysis of organizational, cultural, and environmental factors. Journal of Business Venturing, 30(5), 714-731. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2014.12.003
Saucier, G. (1994). Mini-markers: A brief version of Goldberg's unipolar big-five markers. J Pers Assess, 63(3), 506-516. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa6303_8
Sue-Chan, C., & Hempel, P. S. (2016). The creativity-performance relationship: How rewarding creativity moderates the expression of creativity. Human Resource Management, 55(4), 637-653. doi:10.1002/hrm.21682
Thompson, M. M., Zanna, M. P., & Griffin, D. W. (1995). Let’s not be indifferent about (attitudinal) ambivalence. Ohio State University series on attitudes and persuasion, 4, 361-386.
van Hemert, D. A., Poortinga, Y. H., & van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2007). Emotion and culture: A meta-analysis. Cognition and Emotion, 21(5), 913-943. doi:10.1080/02699930701339293
Vosburg, S. K. (1998). The effects of positive and negative mood on divergent-thinking performance. Creativity Research Journal, 11(2), 165-172. doi:10.1207/s15326934crj1102_6
Wang, H., & Guan, B. (2018). The positive effect of authoritarian leadership on employee performance: The moderating role of power distance. Front Psychol, 9, 357. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00357
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The panas scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063-1070.
Westwood, R., & Low, D. R. (2016). The multicultural museculture, creativity and innovation. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 3(2), 235-259. doi:10.1177/14705958030032006
Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. (1993). Toward a theory of oraginazational creativity. Academy of Management Revlew, 18, 293-321.
Yuan, F., & Zhou, J. (2015). Effects of cultural power distance on group creativity and individual group member creativity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(7), 990-1007. doi:10.1002/job.2022
Zhang, X., & Bartol, K. M. (2010). Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity: The influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process engagement. Academy of Management Journal, 53(1), 107–128.
吳宗祐, & 鄭伯壎. (2006). 難應付客戶頻次、知覺服務訓練效用兩者及情緒勞動與情緒耗竭之關係－“資源保存理論”的觀點. 管理學報, 第23卷(第5期), 581-599. doi:10.6504/JOM.2006.23.05.04
紀乃文, 張火燦, & 黃仙麗. (2012). 工作場域中的情感雙歧：探討服務人員情感雙歧與其服務品質及工作滿意度之關係. 人力資源管理學報, 第12卷(第1期), 1-22. doi:10.6147/JHRM.2011.1201.01
張婷婷, & 陸洛. (2009). 資源損失與資源獲得對職家衝突之影響：資源保存理論的觀點. 臺大管理論叢, 第20卷(第1期), 69-98. doi:10.6226/NTURM2009.20.1.69
陳明哲. (2014). 文化雙融：一位管理學者的反思與行踐. 管理學報, 第31卷(第4期), 263-282. doi:10.6504/JOM.2014.31.04.01
陳建丞, 王秀菁, & 何青燕. (2019). 快樂的員工比較會兼顧工作與家庭？員工正向情感特質與職家衝突間關係之中介機制探討. 人力資源管理學報, 第19卷(第2期), 83-107. doi:10.6147/JHRM.201912_19(2).0004
陳彥君, & 沈其泰. ( 2015). 檢驗主管認同與權力距離傾向對於真誠領導與服務品質之關係的效果. 人力資源管理學報, 第15卷(第1期), 1-25頁. doi:10.6147/JHRM.2015.1501.01
童惠玲, 郭美吟, & 李德治. (2012). 組織支持與員工工作結果之關係⎯⎯ 權力距離與公平敏感度之調節效果. 組織與管理, 第5卷(第1期). doi:10.6792/OM.201202.0001