Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 16

An Examination of Gender Differences in Work-Family Conflict

ALLYSON K. MCELWAIN and KAREN KORABIK, University of Guelph HAZEL M. ROSIN, York University

Abstract The present study developed and tested an integrative model of the work-family interface. This model was applied separately to male and female subsamples to assess mean gender differences and gender differences in the links between the variables. Analyses were based on existing questionnaire data from 320 participants who were full-time professional employees of Canadian organizations. Gender differences were found in the relationship between family demands and family interference with work, while the results for family interference with work and job satisfaction, and family satisfaction and life satisfaction were equivocal. These results generally provide support for previous research indicating that an asymmetry continues to exist between men and women in their work and family roles. The limitations and practical implications of these findings are discussed. Rsum Dans le cadre de la prsente tude, nous avons labor et mis lessai un modle dintgration de la relation entre le travail et la famille. Ce modle a t appliqu sparment aux sous-chantillons dhommes et de femmes de manire valuer la moyenne des diffrences entre les sexes ainsi que les diffrences entre les sexes en fonction des variables. Les analyses sappuyaient sur les donnes dun questionnaire auxquels avaient rpondu 320 participants, des employs professionnels travaillant plein temps dans des organisations canadiennes. Nous avons observ des diffrences entre les sexes en ce qui a trait au lien entre les exigences familiales et linterfrence de la famille dans le travail, tandis que les rsultats obtenus en ce qui a trait linterfrence de la famille dans le travail et la satisfaction professionnelle, la satisfaction familiale et la satisfaction personnelle taient ambigus. En rgle gnrale, ces rsultats viennent appuyer les conclusions dune prcdente recherche, qui indiquait quil existe encore une asymtrie entre les rles jous par les hommes et les femmes au travail et dans la famille. Les limites et les questions dordre pratique issues de ces conclusions sont abordes.

Managing work and family responsibilities is an increasing problem in todays society due in part to the changing roles of men and women in both the workplace and at home. Not only are women now more likely to work outside the home, but it is now more common for men to fulfill more responsibilities within the home (Duxbury, Higgins, & Lee, 1994; Lero, 2003). This increase in dual-earner couples has led to modifications in the traditional roles and responsibilities men and women fulfill. Although it has been shown that an accumulation of social roles has positive outcomes (Sieber, 1974), fulfilling many roles can also have a negative impact (Cooke & Rousseau, 1984). Existing research suggests that the outcomes are most concerning when there are heavy responsibilities in both the work and family domain (Williams, Suls, Alliger, Learner, & Wan, 1991). Work-family conflict (WFC) is a type of interrole stress (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985) that results from the incompatible demands that arise in the work and family domains. Much research has demonstrated that WFC can have important effects on both the quality of work and family life. The intention of this study was to examine the role gender plays in the WFC process.1 Because men and women may perceive and react to WFC differently, the aim was to conduct a more complete investigation of gender differences than has been conducted in the past (e.g., Duxbury & Higgins, 1991). Specifically, there were three purposes of the current study: 1) to empirically test an integrative model of WFC using a prospective design; 2) to assess whether there were mean gender differences in domain-specific demands, conflict, and satisfaction; and 3) to apply the general model to subsamples of men and women to examine gender differences in the pattern of relationships among the vari1 The term gender was used to indicate differences arising from culture or experience, rather than from biology (Korabik, Baril, & Watson, 1993). It should be noted, however, that gender was operationalized in terms of biological sex rather than being measured directly.

Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 2005, 37:4, 283-298

284 McElwain, Korabik, and Rosin

Figure 1. Hypothesized model of the work-family interface.

ables. Previous research has relied on cross-sectional designs, limiting the extent to which causal inferences can be drawn from the data. Insight into the nature and extent of gender differences in WFC can facilitate the development of interventions aimed specifically at men and at women to foster healthier organizations. Examination of gender differences might broaden interest in family-supportive policy, especially if the policies show benefits for both sexes. Work Interfering with Family and Family Interfering with Work Recently, it has been recognized that research examining the relationship between work and family requires a comprehensive, bi-directional approach (Frone, Russell, & Cooper, 1992a). Because it is believed that WFC may originate in either the work or the family domain, Gutek, Searle, and Klepa (1991) have made the distinction between work interference with family (WIF) and family interference with work (FIW). Much of the research in this area has since shown that WIF and FIW have unique work- and family-related antecedents and outcomes (e.g., Frone et al., 1992a). Although measures of WIF and FIW are strongly correlated, participants frequently report more WIF than FIW (Frone, 2002), which may be a result of work demands being easier to quantify than family demands (Gutek et al., 1991). Further, family boundaries may be more permeable to work demands than are work boundaries to family demands (Frone, Russell, & Cooper, 1992b). Not only is it easier to reduce the number of hours spent on family responsibilities, but they also tend to be more flexible than work responsibilities (Duxbury & Higgins, 2002).

Research Purpose 1 The first purpose of this study was to empirically test an integrative model of WFC. Frone, Yardley, and Markels (1997) model of the W-F interface is the most integrative model to date (Frone, 2002). According to this model, both WIF and FIW are predicted by three types of within-domain demands (distress, overload, and time commitment), as well as by domain-specific social support. Moreover, Frone and associates research (1992a, 1997) suggests that WIF and FIW have unique role-related outcomes. Specifically, WIF has been related to family dissatisfaction, whereas FIW is predictive of work dissatisfaction (Frone et al., 1997; ODriscoll, Ilgen, & Hildreth, 1992). Based on this, a conceptual model was developed to guide the present research (see Figure 1). The most notable addition to the Frone et al. (1997) model is that negative family outcomes and negative work outcomes are shown to lead to negative life outcomes based on the work of Aryee, Fields, and Luk (1999). This model was tested in the current study. Antecedents Job demands. When individuals allocate time to fulfill the responsibilities of one role, they have less time available to meet the demands of another role (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). Thus, it has been found that the more hours one spends on work-related activities, the higher the level of WIF the individual will experience (Gutek et al., 1991). Further, research has demonstrated that interrole conflict is likely to increase as the demands from either the work role or the family role increase (e.g., Beutell & Greenhaus, 1983; Cooke & Rousseau, 1984). Based on these findings, and the work of Frone et al. (1992a, 1997) and

Gender and Work-Family Conflict 285 Aryee et al. (1999), the following hypothesis was put forth:
H1: Higher job demands will be associated with higher WIF.

Family demands. Time commitments in the family sphere have also been associated with increased levels of WFC (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). Time spent on family responsibilities has been shown to relate to FIW, such that the more hours one spends on familyrelated activities, the higher the level of FIW the individual experiences (Gutek et al., 1991). Family-related sources of time-based conflict are experienced more by married couples than those who are single (Herman & Gyllstrom, 1977); parents experience more conflict than nonparents (Netemeyer, Boles, & McMurrian, 1996); and parents of younger children experience more conflict than parents of older children (Pleck, Staines, & Lang, 1980). Similarly, as ones obligations toward the family grow (through marriage or the arrival of children), interrole conflict will also increase (Gutek et al., 1991). These arguments, as well as the findings of Frone and colleagues (1992a, 1997) and Aryee et al. (1999), gave rise to the following hypothesis:
H2: Higher family demands will be associated with higher FIW.

faction (Frone et al., 1997) because satisfaction with ones family role is undermined by the frequent inability to participate fully in the family due to work role responsibilities. Some research has indicated that WIF is not related to family satisfaction (Frone et al., 1997), or that WIF is related to family distress only among blue collar workers (Frone et al., 1992a). However, in most previous research, WIF was negatively related to family satisfaction (e.g., ODriscoll et al., 1992). Based on this, the following hypothesis was put forth:
H4: Higher WIF will be associated with lower family satisfaction.

Outcomes of WIF and FIW Work domain. Kossek and Ozeki (1998) conducted a meta analysis that found that WIF was more likely to lead to lowered job satisfaction than to lowered family satisfaction. However, the meta analysis did not include the work of Frone and colleagues (1992), which suggests that the demands and responsibilities associated with one role frequently interfere with the enactment of a second role. They argue that the relationship between WIF and job satisfaction that has been found in previous studies is not a direct relationship, but rather is mediated by the frequency of FIW. Other research has since found similar results (e.g., Aryee et al., 1999). This is because high levels of FIW imply that family demands are interfering with ones ability to accomplish tasks related to the individuals work role (ODriscoll et al., 1992). Therefore the following hypothesis was tested:
H3: Higher FIW will be associated with lower job satisfaction.

Life domain. Some researchers consider job and family satisfaction to be components of life satisfaction (Near, Smith, Rice, & Hunt, 1983), while others regard them as causes of life satisfaction (Judge & Watanabe, 1993). Although some research has found negative correlations between WIF and FIW and life satisfaction (Netemeyer et al., 1996), it is now believed that WIF and FIW are related to life satisfaction through family satisfaction and job satisfaction, respectively (e.g., Aryee et al., 1999; Bedeian, Burke, & Moffet, 1988). These studies found that individuals with high levels of job satisfaction or family satisfaction also have high levels of life satisfaction. Life satisfaction was viewed as being composed of several aspects of satisfaction, and therefore positive satisfaction levels in the work and family domains should contribute to higher life satisfaction (Kopelman, Greenhaus, & Connolly, 1983). It was therefore expected that:
H5a: Higher family satisfaction will be associated with higher life satisfaction. H5b: Higher job satisfaction will be associated with higher life satisfaction.

Family domain. It has been postulated that high levels of WIF will lead to lower levels of family satis-

Research Purpose 2 The second purpose of this study was to examine mean gender differences in various aspects of the WF interface. The few studies that exist (e.g., Duxbury & Higgins, 1991; Frone et al., 1992a) have been unsystematic and had mixed findings (Voydanoff, 2002) because global WFC measures or measures that confound WIF and FIW are frequently used (e.g., Bedeian et al., 1988; Duxbury & Higgins, 1991). This is an important limitation because research suggests that WIF and FIW have unique role-related antecedents and outcomes (Frone et al., 1992a). Because WFC consists of the two areas of life that have traditionally

286 McElwain, Korabik, and Rosin

been gender-specific, gender differences are theoretically important because it can be expected that men and women will perceive and react to WIF and FIW differently. Although there is some disagreement about the gender differences that exist with respect to work and family, the rational view of WFC has received the most support (e.g., Gutek et al., 1991). The rational view of WFC posits that the amount of conflict an individual perceives increases in proportion to the amount of time spent on work or family roles (e.g., Greenhaus, Bedeian, & Mossholder, 1987; Keith & Schafer, 1980). Therefore, the more time individuals spend fulfilling responsibilities arising from their work role, the more WIF they will experience, and the more time spent fulfilling family responsibilities, the higher the levels of FIW. Further, these roles may have asymmetrical permeability, meaning that social norms require women to deal primarily with family issues, even when it interferes with their employment (Pleck, 1977). On the other hand, social norms dictate that men should deal with work matters, even at the expense of their family. These findings suggest that either W-F models operate differently for men and women, or that separate models may apply. Support for either of these conclusions would provide a potential explanation for the contradictory findings in the W-F research. Gender and role demands. Although gender roles have been changing, traditional perceptions of responsibility within the work and family spheres are still being maintained. Loscocco (1997) found that men, unlike women, perceive long hours at work as a way to establish themselves as hard workers. Further, Fredriksen-Goldsen and Scharlach (2001) suggested that women continue to take a more active role as caregivers than men, regardless of familial responsibilities being more balanced between men and women. The rational view of gender differences predicts that men will spend more hours at work, while women will devote more hours to family activities. Gutek et al. (1991), however, found that women tended to devote more hours to family activities, but that the hours devoted to work activities were identical for men and women. They suggested that because both the men and women in their sample were working at full-time jobs, the hours expected at work were similar. Other researchers also have found this lack of gender difference with respect to hours worked per week when work status (i.e., part time vs. full time) distinctions are made (Huffman, Payne, & Castro, 2003). Based on these findings, in the present investigation of full-time employed professionals, it is

expected that men and women will have similar mean scores on work demands. But, it was hypothesized that:
H6: Women will have higher mean scores than men on family demands.

Gender and WFC. The impact of gender on WFC is another aspect of the literature where many uncertainties exist. Some research has found no gender differences in WFC (Frone et al., 1992a; Kinnunen & Mauno, 1998). However, Gutek and associates (1991) found that women experienced more WIF than men, even when working identical hours, but that there were no sex differences in regard to FIW. In contrast, Duxbury et al. (1994) found that women experienced more WIF and FIW than men. Lastly, Fu and Shaffer (2001) found that women experienced greater levels of FIW, but men experienced greater levels of WIF. Despite changes both within the work and family sphere, gender differences are still expected to exist due to the differing social roles men and women perform. These gender differences can be understood given that men and women continue to experience substantially different demands on their time, especially in the family domain (Gutek et al., 1991). Based on the rational view of gender differences (Gutek et al., 1991) and Plecks (1977) notion of asymmetrical permeability, the following hypotheses have been made:
H7a: Men will have higher mean scores than women on WIF. H7b: Women will have higher mean scores than men on FIW.

Gender and outcomes associated with the W-F interface. To date, there is a paucity of research assessing gender differences on the outcomes associated with experiences of the W-F interface. Bedeian et al. (1988) found no significant differences between women and men on mean levels of job satisfaction, marital satisfaction, and life satisfaction. Further research indicates that gender differences in job satisfaction disappear when variables such as job status, tenure, and education are held constant (Smith & Plant, 1982). Based on these findings, it was expected that where men and women were similar in occupation and status, they would have similar levels of family satisfaction, job satisfaction, and life satisfaction. Research Purpose 3 The third purpose of this study was to apply the

Gender and Work-Family Conflict 287 general model to subsamples of men and women and examine gender differences in the path coefficients to examine possible differences in the pattern of relationships among variables. In addition to the paucity of research assessing gender differences on variables within the W-F interface, few studies have examined gender differences in the relationships between different aspects of the W-F interface (e.g., Duxbury & Higgins, 1991; MacEwen & Barling, 1994). This is an important avenue of research in the work-life literature because an understanding of how the antecedents and outcomes are related could aid in comprehending the nature of WFC and in addressing unmet needs to reduce conflict and its negative consequences. Gender and WFC. It is believed that women are more likely to experience family demands intruding on their work roles due to the traditional gender-based division of labour. At the same time, men will be more likely to have work demands interfering in the family domain (Pleck, 1984; Voydanoff, 1988). These findings have been attributed to differences in societal expectations and behavioural norms for men and women. Further, in a study of military personnel, Huffman et al. (2003) found that time demands (as measured by the numbers of hours worked) were significantly and positively related to WFC for men, but not women. Therefore, the following hypotheses were tested:
H8a: The relationship between work demands and WIF will be stronger for men than for women. H8b: The relationship between family demands and FIW will be stronger for women than for men. H9a: The relationship between WIF and family satisfaction will be stronger for women, such that women will be more likely than men to experience lower levels of family satisfaction due to higher levels of WIF. H9b: The relationship between FIW and job satisfaction will be stronger for men, such that men will be more likely than women to experience lower levels of job satisfaction due to higher levels of FIW.

The relationship between domain-specific satisfaction and life satisfaction has been assessed in previous research, but very little attention has been given to gender differences. Duxbury and Higgins (1991) assessed the relationship between life satisfaction and quality of work and family life, but were unable to make a priori hypotheses. The rational view of gender does not posit any predictions about the relationship between work and family satisfaction and general life satisfaction. Therefore, in the present study, this relationship will be assessed in an exploratory manner and research questions rather than specific hypotheses will be posed.
Q1a: Are there gender differences in the relationship between work satisfaction and life satisfaction? Q1b: Are there gender differences in the relationship between family satisfaction and life satisfaction?

Gender and outcomes associated with the W-F interface. Duxbury and Higgins (1991) assessed gender differences in the path coefficients between WFC and role outcomes. Their study assessed the quality of workand family-life, stating that domain-specific satisfaction is an important component of both spheres. Their findings suggested that men tend to experience lower levels of quality of family life due to high levels of WFC, whereas women experience lower levels of quality of work life due to high levels of WFC. Contrary to their findings, the rational view of gender differences and Plecks (1977) asymmetrical permeability suggest that womens family satisfaction should be lowered when work spills over into the family domain, and job satisfaction should be lowered for men when family responsibilities spill over into the work domain. These arguments gave rise to the following hypotheses:

The Current Study Although the current study considers issues tested in prior investigations, this research expands the literature in a number of important ways. First, this study adds to the literature by examining both mean gender differences on the variables of interest and the path coefficients between separate male and female models. Second, only professionals were included in the study, thereby reducing the heterogeneity of the sample, which is important since some research has shown differences in WFC between white collar and blue collar workers (e.g., Frone et al., 1992a). An exclusively professional sample allowed a more homogeneous group, while still providing a comparison group for future studies that test different populations of workers. Third, data used for this investigation were taken over a 20-month period. Past W-F research has almost exclusively utilized cross-sectional designs (e.g., Duxbury & Higgins, 1991; Frone et al., 1997). By contrast, in the present study, role demands were assessed at Time 1, WIF and FIW were taken at Time 2, and all forms of satisfaction (family, work, and life)

288 McElwain, Korabik, and Rosin

were measured at Time 3. Individuals who experienced major changes in life events were eliminated after all three waves. The separate administrations in this study are important as results and inferences drawn from cross-sectional research are epistemologically limited. Method Participants and Procedure Data were collected during a larger three-wave Canadian study on work characteristics and attitudes. Surveys were mailed to 2,707 professionals. The participants were identified via the Human Resource departments of their organizations (banking and telecommunication), professional associations (accounting), and university alumni groups (engineering). Data were collected over a 20-month period via mailed questionnaires. Survey 1 assessed demographic characteristics and also included measures of work and family demands. Survey 2 assessed the participants levels of WIF and FIW, and Survey 3 included scales measuring family, job, and life satisfaction. Of the 2,707 participants who were originally mailed the survey, 1,611 individuals responded, resulting in a 60% response rate. Further, there were 478 respondents who met the following criteria for selection into the study: a) completed all three waves of the survey, b) were married, and c) had no significant life change either in their work or family situations during the 20-month period. Participants were then separated by gender (300 men and 178 women) and matched based on two demographic variables (level within the organization and type of industry). After removing those who had undergone a change in employer and those participants who were working part-time, a final sample of 160 men and 160 women was chosen. The age of participants ranged from 26 to 62 ( M = 39.76; SD = 7.72). On average, these participants had been working in their profession for 17.37 years (SD = 8.3). Further, a breakdown of participants according to occupation revealed that 20.9% were employed in the banking industry, 34.4% worked in accounting, 30.3% were employed in telecommunications, and 14.4% worked in engineering. Results from an ANOVA indicated that there were no significant differences between these groups. Sixty-nine percent of participants had spouses working full-time, and 11.9% had dependent care responsibilities. Twenty-five percent had at least one child under the age of five living at home. Measures The scales used to measure the variables of inter-

est were taken from the literature or were adapted from existing sources. Demographic information. Single-item questions were used to assess variables such as age, gender, level within the organization, length of tenure, size of company, and spouse/partners employment status. Demands. Job demands were assessed with six items from the job demands scale (Rosin & Korabik, 1991). This scale measured the frequency with which the respondent engaged in several work-related behaviours (e.g., staying late at work). The response scale ranged from 1 (very infrequently) to 5 (very frequently), with higher scores indicating higher levels of job demands. Work hours were assessed with a single-item question asking respondents how many hours, on average, they worked per week. These two measures were combined to form a composite for job demands. Family demands were assessed using a composite of kinship responsibilities (Tingey, Kiger, & Riley, 1996), rather than using time spent in family activities. This was used because time spent in family activities has been a problematic measure in the past. It is believed that this difficulty may stem from the fact that it is easier to accurately estimate the number of hours spent in paid work than spent in family activities (Gutek et al., 1991). This composite was calculated by providing the participants with one unit for each child living at home, one additional unit added for each of these children who was preschool age (under five), and one additional point if the participant provided care to dependents other than their children (elderly parents, dependent siblings, etc.). Higher scores indicated higher levels of family demands. Similar composites have been used successfully in previous research (e.g., Fu & Schaffer, 2001; Rothausen, 1999). Work-family conflict. WIF was assessed using a fouritem measure created by Gutek et al. (1991) based on the work of Kopelman et al. (1983). Four items, paralleling the WIF items, were developed by Burley (1989, as cited in Gutek et al., 1991) to assess FIW . The response options ranged from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5), with higher scores indicating a higher level of work interfering with family. Satisfaction. Job satisfaction was examined using a five-item facet-free scale developed by Quinn and Staines (1979). Scores on this measure ranged from 5 to 25, with higher scores indicating higher levels of satisfaction with employment.

Gender and Work-Family Conflict 289


TABLE 1 Means, Standard Deviations, Internal Consistency Coefficients, and Intercorrelations for Study Variables Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 b 1. Work Demands (Time 1) .71 0.11 3.73 -.09 .29** -.01 -.02 -.10 .03 2. Family Demands (Time 1) 3. Work Interfering with Family (Time 2) 4. Family Interfering with Work (Time 2) 5. Job Satisfaction (Time 3) 6. Family Satisfaction (Time 3) .85a .87 .79 .81 .76 1.86 13.04 7.50 18.23 12.20 1.62 3.83 2.79 5.31 2.29 .03 .13* .23** .03 -.25** -.20** -.03 -.01

-.16** -.26** -.19** -.25** .13* .44** .56**

7. Life Satisfaction (Time 3) .77 -0.08b 3.12 *p < .05; **p < .01; aEstimated reliability for single-item measure (Jreskog & Srbom, 1993); bMean and standard deviation for the standardized measures.

Family satisfaction was measured using a threeitem scale developed by Kopelman et al. (1983) that assessed the respondents level of satisfaction with their roles and responsibilities within their family. Participants rated their responses from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5), and higher scores indicated higher levels of satisfaction with the participants family. Life satisfaction was assessed by combining two measures that examined life satisfaction (Cooke & Rousseau, 1984) and self-satisfaction (Thompson, Kopelman, & Schriesheim, 1992). Higher scores indicated higher life satisfaction. Results Research Purpose 1 The means, standard deviations, and zero-order correlations among the study variables are presented in Table 1. Assumptions. Three variables (FIW, family satisfaction, and family demands) were nonnormally distributed. After transformations were attempted, the result showed appreciable improvements in the normality of the distributions in two variables. 2 Specifically, FIW was improved by a square root transformation and family satisfaction was improved by a reverse square root transformation. The family demands composite was not appreciably improved by the transformation and because this variable was expected to be nonnormally distributed, the variable was not transformed (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001).
2 Based on the recommendations of Tabachnick and Fidell (2001), it was decided to use the transformed data in this study.

Unless otherwise specified, the following results refer to the transformed data for FIW and family satisfaction. Twelve multivariate outliers and one univariate outlier were detected and deleted (p < .001) and missing data were replaced with the mean of the measure. It was decided to combine several measures to create stronger indicators. First, the initial reliability analysis of the complete six-item scale for job demands found the internal consistency reliability to be marginally unacceptable ( = .62). Deletion of one item resulted in a somewhat improved reliability ( = .68). Further, a work demands measure was created by standardizing the scores on the job demands scale and the hours of work question. The internal consistency coefficient for the new measure was acceptable ( = .71). This method was also used to create a general life satisfaction measure consisting of the life satisfaction and self-satisfaction scales. The internal consistency coefficient for the new general life satisfaction measure was alpha = .77. Finally, as the family demands measure was a composite, the internal consistency could not be calculated and the value was estimated ( = .85) (Jreskog & Srbom, 1993). Model estimation. The model was assessed through observed variable path analysis using AMOS (Arbuckle, 1999), which was chosen for several reasons. When the model is overidentified, the estimates of path coefficients are similar for both multiple regression and path analysis. However, because path analysis examines the relationships for each endogenous variable simultaneously, the chance of a Type I error is reduced. Further, path analysis provides several indices that allow for the assessment of overall

290 McElwain, Korabik, and Rosin

Figure 2. Standardized beta weights for general model of the work-family interface. *p < .05; **p < .001.

fit to the model, while also correcting for the biasing effects of error (Kline, 1998). One of the advantages of observed variable path analysis is the ability of the procedure to account for the biasing effects of measurement. However, due to the use of observed variables, an identification problem arises because it is not possible to estimate both a unique and common factor loading, as well as the variance for one construct using only one indicator. Therefore, to correct for this problem with identification, the variable error variance was fixed to equal the variance of the scale score multiplied by the product of one minus the reliability of the scale score for each indicator (Bollen, 1989). In addition to examining the fit of the model, the individual parameter estimates within the model were assessed. This allows the assessment of fit for specific aspects of the model, as opposed to the model as a whole. This examination of the individual parameter estimates was used to test Hypotheses 1, 2, 3, 4, 5a, and 5b. The overall fit for the model was acceptable. The 2 was 66.44 with 15 degrees of freedom, p < .001. This finding is not surprising as this test is very sensitive to sample size. The goodness-of-fit index (GFI) was equal to .95, the adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI) was .90, and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) was .10, showing acceptable fit. However, the comparative fit index (CFI) was

.82, which is below the accepted value of .90, indicating that the fit of the model could be improved. Parameter estimates. Hypothesized relationships were assessed using parameter estimates from the model. A path model with the standardized parameter estimates is presented in Figure 2. As shown, all six of the model parameters were significant in the expected direction. As predicted, work demands were positively related to WIF, H1: = .29, p < .001 and family demands were positively related to FIW, H2: = .13, p < .05. In turn, WIF was negatively related to family satisfaction, H4: = -.16, p < .01, whereas FIW was negatively related to job satisfaction, H3: = -.20, p < .001. Further, as predicted in Hypotheses 5a and 5b, respectively, general life satisfaction was predicted by both family satisfaction, = .52, p < .001, and job satisfaction, = .38, p < .001. Research Purpose 2 To assess whether there were mean gender differences on the variables of interest, a MANOVA was conducted using gender as the independent variable and all the study variables as dependent variables. This analysis was used to test Hypotheses 6a, 7a, and 7b. The means, standard deviations, and zero-order correlations for men and women are presented in Table 2.

Gender and Work-Family Conflict 291


TABLE 2 Means, Standard Deviations, Internal Consistency Coefficients, and Intercorrelations Men and Women Men Women Variable M SD M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1. Work Demandsa -0.04 3.80 .72 -0.07 3.72 .69 . -.23** .25** -.14 -.03 -.19* -.00 2. Family Demandsb 3. WIF 4. FIW 5. Job Satisfaction 6. Family Satisfaction 2.03 12.07 7.41 18.42 12.26 1.56 3.69 2.69 5.29 2.15 .85 .86 .79 .81 .77 1.69 14.02 7.60 18.05 12.14 1.67 3.73 2.89 5.34 2.43 .85 .87 .81 .81 .77 .05 .38** .13 -.06 .00 . .08 -.03 .00 .07 .05 . .27** -.14 -.16* .29** .20* . -.29** -.22** .04 -.36** -.12 . .08 -.12 -.16* -.17* .17* . -.12 -.25** -.22** .48** .55**

7. Life Satisfactiona -0.03 3.12 .77 -0.12 3.11 .78 .06 .10 -.23** -.28** .39** .57** . Note. Correlations for the male sample are on the lower triangle and correlations for the female sample are on the upper triangle. *p < .05; **p < .01; aMean and standard deviation for standardized measure; bEstimated reliability for single-item measure (Jreskog & Srbom, 1993).

The results from the MANOVA showed a statistically significant difference between men and women on the combined dependent variables: F(7, 312) = 5.4, p < .001; Wilks Lambda = .89; partial eta squared = .11. To control for the increase in the family-wise Type I error, a Bonferroni correction was used, and the significance level was adjusted to p = .007. Because family demands violated the assumption of equality of variance, a more conservative alpha level (p = .003) was used (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). As expected, no significant difference was found between men and women on their level of work demands. Contrary to Hypothesis 6, there were no significant gender differences on family demands. A significant gender difference was obtained for WIF; however, the direction of the effect was opposite to expectation. In particular, women were more likely to experience higher levels of WIF than men, F(1, 318) = 22.1, p < .007. Therefore, Hypothesis 7a also was not supported. Further, Hypothesis 7b was not supported as no significant difference was found between men and women on their levels of FIW, p > .007. Consistent with expectations, no significant gender difference was found on level of family satisfaction, even though women experienced higher levels of WIF. Moreover, men and women did not differ significantly on their level of job satisfaction or on their level of general life satisfaction. Research Purpose 3 Model estimation. Observed variable path analysis was used to test the fit of the previously developed

general model for men and for women separately. Table 3 shows the fit indices for the two subsamples. The overall fit for both models was acceptable; however, it is interesting to note that the fit of the male model was slightly better than that for the female model, as indicated by higher scores on the GFI, AGFI, and CFI, and the lower levels on the 2 significance test and the RMSEA. For the male model, the 2 was significant, which was expected given the large sample size. The GFI, AGFI, and RMSEA indicate good fit. The CFI, however, is slightly below the accepted value of .90. For the female model, the 2 was once again significant. The GFI and RMSEA indicate good fit; however, the CFI and AGFI are both below the accepted value of .90. Parameter estimates for men. The standardized parameter estimates for the male model are presented in Figure 3. Using the hypotheses developed for the general model as a guide, five of the six parameter estimates were significant in the expected direction. Although job demands were positively related to WIF, = .38, p < .001, family demands were not significantly related to FIW, = -.03, p > .05. WIF was negatively related to family satisfaction, = -.16, p < .05, while FIW was negatively related to job satisfaction, = -.29, p < .001. Finally, general life satisfaction was predicted by both family satisfaction, = .55, p < .001, and job satisfaction, = .35, p < .001. Parameter estimates for women. The standardized parameter estimates for the female model are pre-

292 McElwain, Korabik, and Rosin


TABLE 3 Fit Indices for Male and Female Subsamples Model 2 df N GFI AGFI CFI RMSEA Men 30.89* 15 160 .95 .91 .89 .08 Women 63.87* 15 160 .91 .83 .72 .14 Note. GFI = goodness-of-fit index; AGFI = adjusted goodness-of-fit index; CFI = comparative fit index; RMSEA = root means square error of approximation. *p < .001.

Figure 3. Standardized beta weights for men. *p < .05; **p < .001.

sented in Figure 4. Five of the six parameter estimates were significant in the hypothesized direction. WIF was predicted by work demands, = .25, p < .01, and FIW was predicted by family demands, = .29, p > .001. In turn, although WIF was negatively related to family satisfaction, = -.16, p < .05, FIW was not significantly related to job satisfaction, = -.12, p > .05. General life satisfaction was predicted by both family satisfaction, = .50, p < .001 and job satisfaction, = .41, p < .001. Research Purpose 3 Next, the path coefficients of the male and female models were compared to one another using an unpaired t-test (Cohen & Cohen, 1975). It was decid-

ed to utilize t-tests to examine the differences in the path coefficients in order to allow for a comparison to the work of Duxbury and Higgins (1991). A more conservative p value of .01 was used to indicate significance for the gender differences in the paths in this model to account for the fact that the model was not being tested as a whole (Duxbury & Higgins, 1991). The results provided evidence for Hypotheses 8a and 8b, 9a and 9b, and Research Questions 1a and 1b. Contrary to Hypothesis 8a, there were no significant gender differences in the relationship between work demands and WIF , p > .01. Hypothesis 8b, which stated that the relationship between family demands and FIW would be stronger for women than for men, was supported. Specifically, high fami-

Gender and Work-Family Conflict 293

Figure 4. Standardized beta weights for women. *p < .05; **p < .001.

ly demands were more likely to lead to increased FIW for women than for men t(318) = -4.50, p<.01. Conversely, Hypothesis 9a was not supported. There was no gender difference in the path from WIF to family satisfaction, p > .01. Hypothesis 9b stated that FIW would be a more significant predictor of job satisfaction for men, and this relationship was supported, t(318) = -8.47, p < .01. Research Question 1 referred to the gender difference in the path from job satisfaction to general life satisfaction. There was no gender difference found, p > .01. However, the relationship between family satisfaction and general life satisfaction was stronger for men than for women, t (318) = 3.66, p < .01.3 Discussion Research Purpose 1 The first objective of the current study was to evaluate an integrative model of the W-F interface using prospective data. Specifically, in this model: a) work demands and family demands were seen as antecedents to WIF and FIW, respectively; b) family and job satisfaction were seen as outcomes of WIF and FIW, respectively; and c) general life satisfaction was viewed as an outcome of both job and family satisfaction. The results of the path analysis were supportive of the proposed model. All six relationships

were significant in the hypothesized direction, and the overall fit of the model was acceptable. These results are consistent with previous research (Aryee et al., 1999; Frone et al., 1992a). However, while previous studies have found support for these relationships, few studies have assessed both the antecedents and outcomes of WIF and FIW over several months (e.g., Huffman et al., 2003). The results of this study indicate that the variables assessed at Time 1 had important links to those assessed at Time 2, and those assessed at Time 2 had
3 A test for model invariance could also have been conducted in this situation. The multisample analysis has the advantage of comparing the models simultaneously for gender differences. Both methods indicated that the model fit well for males and females (although running the models separately indicated that the model fit better for males than for females); however, when comparing the individual paths, the two methods produced somewhat different results because the t-tests assesses one path at a time, while the multisample analysis assesses the paths simultaneously. The multisample analysis produced only two results that were different than the t-tests: a) the t-test showed that men were more likely than women to experience lower levels of job satisfaction due to high levels of FIW while this relationship did not reach significance in the multi-sample analysis, and b) the relationship between family satisfaction and general life satisfaction was stronger for men than for women in the ttest but not the multisample analysis.

294 McElwain, Korabik, and Rosin

links with variables assessed at Time 3, which speaks to the duration of the negative outcomes of WFC. However, many of the relationships found in the current study are weaker than those observed by other researchers. This may be a result of the prospective nature of the data. Because the majority of W-F literature has used cross-sectional designs, common method variance may have inflated the magnitude of the results. Research Purpose 2 The second aim of this study was to examine mean gender differences on variables related to the W-F interface. First, consistent with the rational view of gender differences and the fact that all participants were working full-time, there was no significant difference in work demands for men and women. This finding is interesting because past research on the level of work demands has shown inconsistencies, possibly from differences in methodology. Many studies that have examined gender differences in the W-F interface have failed to match men and women on important variables (Duxbury & Higgins, 1991; Huffman et al., 2003). It is therefore possible that the gender differences in work demands found in the past have been due to the type and level of job men and women hold. Research has consistently shown that, on average, women tend to hold lower level jobs and work fewer hours when compared to men. This lack of matching may further affect past examinations of gender differences in WFC, as it has been suggested that job type will affect the ability to balance work and family demands. Specifically, managers and professionals are more likely to hold occupations that afford more flexibility and personal control over their work (e.g., Duxbury et al., 1994; ONeil & Greenberger, 1994). As the women in the current study were all full-time employees and were matched with men on type of industry and level within the organization, it is not surprising that they experienced similar levels of demands from their jobs. Contrary to expectations, there were no significant differences between men and women on their levels of family demands. This inconsistency with previous research could be attributed to the method of measuring family demands used in this study. Family demands were assessed using a composite as a proxy for family demands because with more children and dependents, family demands were expected to increase. We employed this measure instead of one based on the number of hours spent on family responsibilities, as research has shown that participants are often unable to reliably report hours spent on family tasks. However, it may be the case that in

our study, the men and women had equivalent numbers of children and other dependents, and yet differed on the extent of their involvement in family caregiving activities. Thus, our findings may have been more consistent with past research had we measured hours spent on family activities or examined responsibility for various tasks. In future studies, conducting a latent variable analysis using the family demands composite with other measures of family demands may help prevent this threat to the internal validity of the family demands composite. The finding that women were more likely to experience higher levels of WIF than men and that there were no significant differences found between men and women on their levels of FIW were also contrary to expectations. However, Gutek et al. (1991) also found women reported higher levels of WIF than men, despite spending equivalent amounts of time in paid work. It may be that because the family role has traditionally been more important to women, they may see their work role as a larger imposition than men do, and therefore experience greater levels of WIF than their male counterparts. Further, if women have more responsibility for family tasks than men do, then they might experience more WIF because they have more family activities for work to interfere with. This explanation, however, cannot be used to explain the lack of gender differences found for FIW. Although this finding is contrary to expectations, it is interesting to note that Gutek et al. (1991) also found that men and women did not have different levels of FIW. This finding contradicts the rational view of gender roles, providing an avenue for future research. Finally, as expected, there were no gender differences found on family satisfaction, job satisfaction, or life satisfaction. This indicates that despite women reporting more WIF than men, their levels of satisfaction with their family, job, and life were similar. Research Purpose 3 The third purpose of this study was to test the general model of the W-F interface separately for men and women, comparing path coefficients to examine gender differences in how WFC is related to its antecedents and outcomes. Although previous studies have shown gender differences in mean scores on a range of variables relating to the W-F interface (e.g., Eagle, Miles, & Icenogle, 1997; Gutek et al., 1991), few studies have examined gender differences in the relationships between variables (e.g., Duxbury & Higgins, 1991). The results of the present research indicated that the overall fit of the models for men and women were acceptable, although the model fit better for men than for women.

Gender and Work-Family Conflict 295


WIF and FIW. Contrary to expectations, the relationship between work demands and WIF did not show any significant gender differences. It could be that men and women have been socialized to cope with stress in different ways, which would make their levels of WIF similar, even when they experience WIF differently. Conversely, a significant gender difference was found where women were more likely to experience high levels of FIW when they had high family demands. Mens levels of family demands, however, did not affect their levels of FIW. This finding is interesting as it may indicate that although men and women have similar family demands, women are still feeling as though they are primarily responsible for their family, and thus feel increased FIW. Conversely, it could indicate that men have been socialized to not let their family responsibilities interfere with their work.

isfaction. Interestingly, the results for the relationship between family satisfaction and general life satisfaction were equivocal. The multisample analysis showed no significant gender difference in the path between family satisfaction and general life satisfaction; however, the t-test indicated that family satisfaction was more likely to lead to general life satisfaction for men than for women. Limitations and Directions for Future Research The results from the present study should be considered in light of several limitations. First, although the study is less influenced by common method variance due to the large amount of time between administrations, the dependence on self-report measures could lead to a socially desirable response by the participants. Although it would have been beneficial to assess WFC at all three administration times, due to the constraints we had with respect to the amount of questions we could ask the participants, this was not feasible. Therefore, although this study was not truly predictive in that the best predictor of WFC at Time 2 would be prior levels of WFC at Time 1, this study still overcame the problem of common method variance that has occurred in much of the past research. Moreover, any major changes in both the work and family roles of participants were controlled for at all three times of administration. Second, this study focused on gender (i.e., men and women) rather than gender roles (e.g., mother or father) or gender role orientation (e.g., masculinity and femininity) (Huffman et al., 2003). This is an important consideration because although gender is based on culture and learned behaviour, it does not account for the potential differences of identity within each gender. It is possible that these different levels of identity may be better predictors of WFC than gender. Understanding the mechanisms underlying these differences provides an interesting avenue to examine in future research. Further, because many WF scales have yet to be tested to establish validity for both genders, many of the gender differences found in W-F research could be attributable to gender-bias in measurement. Third, the model put forth should be expanded to examine the W-F interface in more depth. There are many constructs that explain variance in WIF and FIW, and future research should assess more of them, and in a predictive manner. For example, although time spent in a role was examined in this study, research has also noted that the quality of the role as well as the type of role that the individual is fulfilling has an impact on the amount of conflict that is experienced (e.g., Cardenas, Major, & Bernas, 2004).

Satisfaction. Contrary to prediction, no significant gender differences were found for the relationship between WIF and family satisfaction. It was originally thought that this relationship would be stronger for women than for men, due to women viewing WIF as more of an imposition. However, research continually finds that WIF is a problem for both men and women, with both sexes experiencing more WIF than FIW (e.g., Frone et al., 1992b; Gutek et al., 1991) due to family boundaries being more permeable to work demands than the reverse (Frone et al., 1992b). In addition, this sample was composed of professionals who were likely working very long hours with heavy job demands. These conditions made it likely that work would interfere with family responsibilities for both the men and the women, negatively affecting the satisfaction with the quality of family life for both sexes. The relationship between FIW and job satisfaction was equivocal given that results for the t-test showed the relationship was significantly stronger for men than for women, whereas the relationship was nonsignificant for the multisample analysis. As mentioned earlier, multisample analyses and t-tests are two separate analyses, and therefore the results are not truly comparable. The benefit of the t-test method is that it assesses one path at a time, which allows the researcher to examine the fit of the model separately for men and women and also allowed us to make comparisons to the previous work conducted by Duxbury and Higgins (1991), while the advantage of the multisample analysis is that it assesses the paths simultaneously There was no gender difference found for the relationship between job satisfaction and general life sat-

296 McElwain, Korabik, and Rosin

Fourth, Frone et al. (1992a, 1997) have indicated a need to examine an indirect reciprocal relationship between WIF and FIW, which was not addressed in this study. Unfortunately, path analysis cannot handle these types of relationships, but perhaps future research could address this question. Further, the different facets of WIF and FIW can be addressed in future studies as there has yet to be an examination of WIF and FIW time-, strain-, and behaviour-based conflict with respect to gender. Finally, only professional employees were examined because previous research has found differences between white and blue collar workers (e.g., Frone et al., 1992a). However, this restricts the generalizability of the results. Future research should investigate a wider range of occupations. This is important because the type of job individuals occupy will affect their ability to balance work and family demands (e.g., Duxbury et al., 1994). Further, it would be interesting to include measures that assess the amount of assistance the participants receive. Individuals in higher paying positions may not only be given more flexibility when dealing with work and family needs but they often have more resources (Duxbury & Higgins, 2001). Conclusion This study developed an integrative model to assess gender differences in the W-F interface. Results were generally consistent with previous research, indicating an asymmetry between men and women in their work and family roles. Although recent research suggests that gender differences in the antecedents and outcomes of WFC are outdated (e.g., Barnett & Hyde, 2001), these data suggest that the redistribution of roles within work and family have yet to occur. Although attitudes and behaviours towards work and family responsibilities are changing, it is not at the pace in which the Canadian workforce is evolving. Given that the prevalence of WFC is expected to increase, this research is needed to develop programs, policies, and interventions for organizations that will best address the needs of their employees. Organizations should examine the work environment so women can pursue careers while allowing men to contribute more to their families development. Furthermore, implementing interventions will aid in building healthier organizations, and therefore improve the health and well-being of employees.
This research was supported by a grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada awarded to the second and third authors.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Karen Korabik, Department of Psychology, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, N1G 2W1 (Email: kkorabik@uoguelph.ca).

References Arbuckle, J. L. (1999). AMOS (Version 4.0) [Computer software]. Chicago, IL: SmallWaters Corporation. Aryee, S., Fields, D., & Luk, V. (1999). A cross-cultural test of a model of the work-family interface. Journal of Management, 25(4), 491-511. Barnett, R. C., & Hyde, J. S. (2001). Women, men, work and family: An expansionist theory. American Psychologist, 56, 781-796. Bedeian, A. G., Burke, B. G., & Moffet, R. G. (1988). Outcomes of work-family conflict among married male and female professionals. Journal of Management, 14(3), 475-491. Beutell, N. J., & Greenhaus, J. H. (1983). Integration of home and nonhome roles: Women's conflict and coping behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(1), 43- 48. Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables: Wiley series in probability and mathematical statistics. Applied probability and statistics section. Oxford, UK: John Wiley and Sons. Cardenas, R. A., Major, D. A., & Bernas, K. H. (2004). Exploring work and family distractions: Antecedents and outcomes. International Journal of Stress Management, 11(4), 346-365. Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1975). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Cooke, R. A., & Rouseau, D. M. (1984). Stress and strain from family roles and work-role expectations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(2), 252-260. Duxbury, L. E., & Higgins, C. A. (1991). Gender differences in work-family conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(1), 60-74. Duxbury, L. E., & Higgins, C. A. (2001). Work-life balance in the new millennium: Where are we? Where do we need to go? CPRN Discussion Paper No. W/12. Duxbury, L. E., & Higgins, C. A. (2002, March). The 2001 national work-life conflict study: Report one. Prepared for the Healthy Communities Division, Health Canada. Duxbury, L., Higgins, C., & Lee, C. (1994). Work-family conflict: A comparison by gender, family type, and perceived control. Journal of Family Issues, 15(3), 449466. Eagle, B. W., Miles, E. W., & Icenogle, M. L. (1997). Interrole conflicts and the permeability of work and family domains: Are there gender differences? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50, 168-184. Fredriksen-Goldsen, K. I., & Schlarlach, A. E. (2001).

Gender and Work-Family Conflict 297


Families and work. New directions in the twenty-first century. New York: Oxford University Press. Frone, M. R. (2002). Work-family balance. In J. C. Quick & L. E. Tetrick (Eds.), The handbook of occupational health psychology (pp. 143-163). Washington, DC: APA Press. Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M. L. (1992a). Antecedents and outcomes of work-family conflict: Testing a model of the work-family interface. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(1), 65-78. Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M. L. (1992b). Prevalence of work-family conflict: Are work and family boundaries asymmetrically permeable? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 723-729. Frone, M. R., Yardley, J. K., & Markel, K. S. (1997). Developing and testing an integrative model of the work-family interface. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50, 145-167. Fu, C. K., & Shaffer, M. A. (2001). The tug of work and family: Direct and indirect domain-specific determinants of work-family conflict. Personnel Review, 30(5), 502-522. Greenhaus, J. H., Bedeian, A. G., & Mossholder, K. W. (1987). Work experiences, job performance, and feelings of personal and family well-being. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31, 200-215. 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(4), 560-568. Herman, J. B., & Gyllstrom, K. K. (1977). Working men and women: Inter- and Intra-role conflict. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 1(4), 319-333. Huffman, A. H., Payne, S. C., & Castro, C. A. (2003). Time demands, work-family conflict and turnover: A comparison of men and women. Poster presented at the 17th annual convention of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Orlando, FL. Jreskog, K. C., & Srbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Judge, T. A., & Watanabe, S. (1993). Another look at the job satisfaction-life satisfaction relationship. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(6), 939-948. Keith, P., & Schafer, R. (1980). Role strain and depression in two-job families. Family Relations, 29, 483-488. Kinnunen, U., & Mauno, S. (1998). Antecedents and outcomes of work-family conflict among employed women and men in Finland. Human Relations, 51(2), 157-177. Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: The Guilford Press. Kopelman, R. E., Greenhaus, J. H., & Connolly, T. F. (1983). A model of work, family and interrole conflict: A construct validation study. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 32, 198-215. Korabik, K., Baril, G. L., & Watson, C. (1993). Managers conflict management style and leadership effectiveness: The moderating effects of gender. Sex Roles, 29, 407-422. Kossek, E. E., & Ozeki, C. (1998). Work-family conflict, policies, and the job-life satisfaction relationship: A review and directions for organizational behaviorhuman resources research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(2), 139-149. Lero, D. S. (2003). Dual-earner families. In M. Lynn (Ed.), Voices: Essays on Canadian families (2nd ed.). Toronto, ON: Nelson Thomson Learning. Loscocco, K. A. (1997). Work-family linkages among selfemployed women and men. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 50, 204-226. MacEwen, K. E., & Barling, J. (1994). Daily consequences of work interference with family and family interference with work. Work & Stress, 8(3), 244-254. Near, J. P., Smith, C. A., Rice, R. W., & Hunt, R. G. (1983). Job satisfaction and nonwork satisfaction as components of life satisfaction. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 13(2), 126-144. Netemeyer, R. G., Boles, J. S., & McMurrian, R. (1996). Development and validation of work-family conflict and family-work conflict scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(4), 400-410. ODriscoll, M. P., Ilgen, D. R., & Hildreth, K. (1992). Time devoted to job and off-job activities, interrole conflict, and affective experiences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(3), 272-279. ONeil, R., & Greenberger, E. (1994). Patterns of commitment to work and parenting: Implications for role strain. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 56, 101-118. Pleck, J. H. (1977). The work-family role system. Social Problems, 24, 417-428. Pleck, J. H. (1984). The work-family role system, work and family: Changing roles of men and women. In P. Voydanoff (Ed.), Work and family. Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield. Pleck, J. H., Staines, G. L., & Lang, L. (1980). Conflicts between work and family life. Monthly Labour Review, 103, 29-32. Rosin, H. M., & Korabik, K. (1991). Workplace variables, affective responses, and intention to leave among women managers. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 64, 317-330. Quinn, R. P., & Staines, G. L. (1979). The quality of employment survey. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research. Rothausen, T. J. (1999). 'Family' in organizational research: A review and comparison of definitions and

298 McElwain, Korabik, and Rosin


measures. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 20, 817836. Sieber, S. D. (1974). Toward a theory of role accumulation. American Sociological Review, 39, 567-578. Smith, D. B., & Plant, W. T. (1982). Sex differences in the job satisfaction of university professors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67(2), 249-251. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics: Fourth edition. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Thompson, C. A., Kopelman, R. E., & Schriesheim, C. A. (1992). Putting all ones eggs in the same basket: A comparison of commitment and satisfaction among self and organizationally employed men. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(5), 738-743. Tingey, H., Kiger, G., & Riley, P. J. (1996). Juggling multiple roles: Perceptions of working mothers. The Social Science Journal, 33(2), 183-191. Voydanoff, P. (1988). Work role characteristics, family structure demands, and work/family conflict. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50, 749-761. Voydanoff, P. (2002). Linkages between the work-family interface and work, family and individual outcomes: An integrative model. Journal of Family Issues, 23(1), 138-164. Williams, K. J., Suls, J., Alliger, G. M., Learner, S. M., & Wan, C. K. (1991). Multiple role juggling and daily mood states in working mothers: An experience sampling study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(5), 664674.

Received May 15, 2004 Revised November 30, 2004 Revised June 30, 2005 Accepted July 5, 2005