Personality and Individual Differences 46 (2009) 520524

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Work, family and personality: A study of workfamily conict

Angel Blanch *, Anton Aluja
Department of Pedagogy and Psychology, Faculty of Education Science, University of Lleida, Avda de lEstudi General, 4 25001 Lleida (Catalonia), Spain
Institute of Biomedical Research (IRB Lleida), Spain

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 29 July 2008
Received in revised form 24 November 2008
Accepted 3 December 2008
Available online 13 January 2009
Keywords:
Workfamily conict
Personality

a b s t r a c t
Workfamily conict (WFC) has become an important construct in the study of individual differences at
work, although the research focusing on the interaction of situational with individual differences variables has been scarce. The present study was devised to analyze the interaction between work and family
situational variables, with individual dispositions measured by the alternative big ve personality model
in the prediction of WFC. Regression analyses indicated that work demand, work and family support, and
neuroticism were the most predictive variables of work interference with family (WIF) and family interference with work (FIW). Besides, it was found that impulsive sensation seeking moderated the association of children age at home with FIW. The overall outcomes in the present study are somehow analogous
to the results reported in the few research works carried out to date in the eld, and might represent a
consistent pattern of situation  person interactions.
2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Workfamily conict (WFC) has become an important dimension in the study of individual differences at work. This concept
has been dened as a form of inter-role conict in which the role
pressures from work and family are mutually incompatible, identifying at least three types of WFC: time, strain and behaviour based
conict (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). Two main directions are generally considered in WFC research: work interfering with family
(WIF), and family interfering with work (FIW) (Frone, Russell, &
Cooper, 1992). Part of the increasing relevance of WFC research,
has probably been due to the fair body of evidence indicating that
both WFC directions are signicantly associated with a number of
stress and health related consequences (Allen, Herst, Bruck, & Sutton, 2000; Jansen, Kant, Kristensen, & Nijhuis, 2003). Moreover, recent meta-analytic reviews have reported that antecedent work
variables such as job involvement, job stress, or work support were
more related to WIF, and antecedent family variables such as family stress, or family support were more related to FIW (Byron,
2005; Ford, Heinen, & Langkamer, 2007).
Despite the large amount of research works devoted to WFC in
the past 20 years (Eby, Casper, Lockwood, Bordeaux, & Brinley,
2005), there has been a paucity of studies on the interplay of personality dimensions, with a few notable exceptions. For instance,

* Corresponding author. Address: Department of Pedagogy and Psychology,

Faculty of Education Science, University of Lleida, Avda de lEstudi General, 4 25001
Lleida (Catalonia), Spain. Tel.: +34 973706529; fax: +34 973706505.
E-mail address: ablanch@pip.udl.cat (A. Blanch).
0191-8869/$ - see front matter 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2008.12.004

negative affectivity and to a lesser extent Type A behaviour, have

been consistently related with WFC (Carlson, 1999; Wayne, Musisca, & Fleeson, 2004). In regard to the big ve personality model,
neuroticism has been shown to be consistently related to WFC,
whereas signicant negative associations between agreeableness
and conscientiousness with WIF and FIW have also been recently
reported (Bruck & Allen, 2003; Wayne et al., 2004). Furthermore,
only a few research works have studied interaction effects between
WFC and dispositions. Aryee, Luk, Leung, and Lo (1999) reported
that emotion-focussed coping buffered the association between
FIW and job satisfaction. Moreover, Kinnunen, Vermulst, Gerris,
and Mkikangas (2003) found that emotional stability moderated
the relationship between WIF and job exhaustion, and that agreeableness moderated the association between FIW and marital satisfaction. In a more recent study, Cunningham and De la Rosa
(2008) reported a signicant interaction of proactive personality
with FIW in the prediction of life satisfaction.
The interplay of work and family with individual dispositions
has been considered as an important area of research to better
understand the specic promoting and/or inhibiting patterns of
WIF and FIW (Edwards & Rothbard, 2000). For instance, Eby et al.
(2005) considered the relative lack of studies on individual differences as an important gap in WFC research. Furthermore, Bruck
and Allen (2003) suggested studying the combination of dispositional and situational variables in the prediction of WFC. However,
the previous studies involving interactions of situation and personality dimensions have analyzed WFC  personality interactions in
the prediction of job satisfaction (Aryee et al., 1999), life satisfaction (Cunningham & De la Rosa, 2008), and well-being (Kinnunen
et al., 2003). As far as we know, there are no studies addressing

A. Blanch, A. Aluja / Personality and Individual Differences 46 (2009) 520524

the interaction of situation and person considering WFC as the outcome variable. From our viewpoint, this constitutes an important
neglected eld to advance in WFC research.
This study was designed to analyze interaction effects between
work and family situational variables with individual personality
dimensions in the prediction of WFC. The alternative big ve personality model was explored, instead of focussing on already studied personality traits in WFC research. This personality model was
drawn from the research about the psychobiological basis of temperament and personality, and encompasses ve dimensions:
Impulsive sensation seeking, neuroticismanxiety, aggression
hostility, activity and sociability, derived from factor analyses of
several personality questionnaires (Aluja, Garca, & Garca, 2003;
Zuckerman, Kuhlman, Joireman, Teta, & Kraft, 1993). Impulsive
sensation seeking is characterized by the need of seeking new
experiences, with low levels in this trait indicating a higher degree
of adaptation, and the unlikelihood of becoming bored at work or
at home. Neuroticismanxiety portrays low emotional stability
and distress, whereas lower levels in this trait would be related
with a lower vulnerability to frustration, and a stronger resistance
to changes in behaviour due to emotional shifts. Aggressionhostility depicts an antagonistic attitude towards others, with a higher
level of adaptation and affection at lower levels of the trait. Activity
reects high levels of energy and liveliness, and an inability to relax. Finally, sociability describes a will to be with others, and
involvement in collective activities (Zuckerman, 2005). On the
other hand, work and family situation variables such as stress
(i.e. job demand and control, children at home) and support (i.e.
supervisor, co-worker, family) have been considered as the most
consistent antecedents of WIF and FIW (Byron, 2005; Ford et al.,
2007), therefore, a tentative link could be hypothesized between
these situational variables with the alternative big ve model dispositions. Due to the intrinsic nature of these individual dispositions in regard to interpersonal situations, it is hypothesized that
neuroticismanxiety, aggressionhostility, and sociability will
show signicant interactions with support variables in either WIF
or FIW, whereas there will be no interactions with more environmental-like variables such as job demand and/or control. The potential interactions of impulsive sensation-seeking and activity
were also explored.

2. Method
2.1. Participants and procedure
Participants completed self-report questionnaires that had been
distributed by trained interviewers at administration, management, technical and education services job posts in private and
public companies. After a couple of weeks, questionnaires were
collected at each individuals job place. For this research, only
questionnaires from married or co-habiting individuals were considered, with available data from 412 female, and 282 male fulltime workers (N = 694). Over 85% of participants had at least two
school children at home, and worked approximately 40 h per week.
The study complied with the approval of the ethical commission of
our University.
2.2. Measures
2.2.1. Demographic factors
Age, gender, occupation experience and education were included as control variables. Age and experience were measured
in years. Gender was coded 0 for female and 1 for male. Education
was measured with one item asking the top education level attained ranging from 1 (elementary school) to 6 (doctoral studies).

521

2.2.2. Work variables

Three job characteristics were evaluated with the Job Content
Questionnaire (Karasek, 1985; Karasek et al., 1998): (a) job demand (9 items, a = .72): measures the degree of psychological
work-load (I have sufcient time to nish the work.); (b) job control
(9 items, a = .83): assesses the degree of skill utilization and available decision making (My job requires me to learn new things); and
(c) work support (11 items, a = .87): taps useful social interaction
at the job place (The people I work with are friendly). Items were answered on a four-point Likert type scale, from 1 (strongly disagree)
to 4 (strongly agree).
2.2.3. Family variables
Number of children at home, mean age of children living at
home, and family support were considered as family contextual
variables. Family support was measured with the 18 item Family
Support Inventory for Workers (King, Mattimore, King, & Adams,
1995; Martnez-Prez & Osca Segovia, 2002). It reects the familys
support to the employees work, willingness to listen, talk, and
general indications of care and concern (When Im having a difcult
week at my job, my family members try to do more of the work around
the house). Questions were answered on a 5-point scale from 1
(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), with higher scores indicating higher levels of emotional family support (a = .86).
2.2.4. Personality variables
Five personality dimensions were assessed with a 50-item short
version of the ZuckermanKuhlman Personality Questionnaire
(Aluja et al., 2006): (1) Impulsive Sensation Seeking (ImpSS): describes lack of planning and seeking of new experiences, change
and novelty (a = .77); (2) NeuroticismAnxiety (NAnx): describes
lack of emotional stability, distress, and lack of self-condence
(a = .77); (3) AggressionHostility (AggHost): reects a predisposition to express verbal aggression, coarse or even antisocial
behaviour (a = .70); (4) Activity (Act): describes a high level of individual energy, and a preference for an active life with challenging
activities (a = .76); (5) Sociability (Sy): this scale describes a preference for being with others, as opposed to solitary activities
(a = .70). All scales were composed of 10 items and were answered
on a truefalse format.
2.2.5. Workfamily conict
Workfamily conict (WFC) was measured with the two veitem scales used in the studies by Gutek, Searle, and Klepa
(1991), Frone et al. (1992), and Carlson and Perrew (1999). The
rst scale taps the interference of work with family (WIF, a = .80)
(After work, I come home too tired to do some of the things I would
like to do), whereas FIW (a = .71) measured the degree of interference of family with work (My family life often interferes with my
responsibilities at work). The scale was answered on a seven-point
scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree), with higher
scores indicating high levels of WFC in either direction.
2.3. Data analyses
Data were analyzed with hierarchical moderated regression
with WIF and FIW as dependent variables. Independent variables
were centred before introducing them into the regression models
(Aiken & West, 1991). For each dependent variable, ve steps of
explanatory variables were progressively entered into a regression
model: (1) demographic; (2) work; (3) family; (4) personality variables; and (5) interaction of work and/or family variable with each
personality dimension. Demographic factors were entered rst to
control for their effects. Work, family and personality variables
were entered to assess main effects. Finally, one interaction term
was entered at a time in step 5: situational variable (work or

Coded 0 = female, 1 = male; WD = work demand; WC = work control; WS = work support; FS = family support; Imp-SS = impulsive sensation-seeking; NAnx = neuroticismanxiety; AggHost = aggressionhostility;
Act = activity; Sy = sociability; WIF = work interference with family; FIW = family interference with work. Alpha reliabilities are shown in the main diagonal.
*
p < 0.05.
**
p < 0.01.
***
p < 0.001.

.80
.28***
.70
.11**
02

.17***
.09*
.06
.08*
.17***
.05
.08*
.10**
.05
.10*
.05
.08*
.18***
.02
.02

.21***
06
.01
.10**
.44***
.54***
10**
.15***
01
.04
.10*
18***
.03
.02

.23***
.05
.21***
.17***
.25***
.05
.02
.06
02
.09*
.06
.08*
.02

.72
.11**
.06
.10**
.07
.00
.11**
.11**
.09*
.10**
10**
.26***
.08*

.83
.02
.01
.03
.13***
.08*
.13***
04
.15***
.12***
.07
09*

.87
.01
.05
.15***
.10**
.13***
14***
09*
.15***
.22***
.10*

.74***
.15***
15***
.08*
04
.03
13***
.04
.05

.16***
.15***
.06
02
.11**
15***
.05
.01

.86
02
.12**
.12***
02
.15***
.11**
.27***

.77
.06
.25***
.24***
.18***
.09*
.03

.77
.36***
.08*
.17***
.22***
.12***

.70
.09*
.05
.10**
.06

.76
.02
.13***
02

16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4

.19***
.68***
.23***
.04
02
.08*
.63***
.79***
.16***
.20***
.03
.01
.09*
.23***
.04
.00

3
2
1

9.46

8.96
1.29
3.63
5.97
5.70
1.07
5.71
7.40
2.73
2.48
2.51
2.68
2.42
6.97
4.21
39.06

12.01
3.46
8.04
37.78
20.98
1.08
8.10
44.15
4.48
3.09
4.14
4.95
5.04
17.07
8.83
1. Age
2. Gendera
3. Experience
4. Education
5. WD
6. WC
7. WS
8. Children
9. Children Age
10. FS
11. Imp-SS
12. NAnx
13. AggHost
14. Act
15. Sy
16. WIF
17. FIW

SD
M
Variable

Table 1
Descriptive statistics and correlation coefcients of study variables (Alpha reliabilities are shown in the main diagonal).

.71

A. Blanch, A. Aluja / Personality and Individual Differences 46 (2009) 520524

17

522

family)  personality variable to test for interaction effects. Power

analysis was performed for signicant interaction terms at the .05
and .01 alpha-levels in accordance with the procedures outlined by
Cohen (1988). The power computations were performed with R2
computer software (Steiger & Fouladi, 1992).
3. Results
Table 1 shows means, standard deviations, correlation coefcients and reliabilities of study variables. Correlation coefcients
with WIF and FIW indicated no relationship of demographic factors
but for education ( .08, p < .05). There was a consistent association
of work demand and support with WIF (.26, and .22, p < .001),
and to a lesser extent of the three work variables with FIW (.08,
.09, and 10, p < .05). Family support was more strongly related
to FIW .27, p < .001) than to WIF ( .11, p < .01). All personality
variables were related with WIF: Impulsive sensation seeking
(.09, p < .05), neuroticismanxiety (.22, p < .001), aggressionhostility (.10, p < .01), activity (.13, p < .001) and sociability ( .11,
p < .01), whereas only neuroticism (.12, p < .001) was related with
FIW. There was also a consistent association between WIF and FIW
(.28, p < .001). Alpha internal consistency reliabilities were acceptable, ranging from .70 to .87.
Table 2 shows unstandardized regression coefcients and coefcients of determination (R2) increments at each variable input.
Signicant main effects in the prediction of WIF were found for
work experience (.16, p < .001), work demand (.52, p < .001), work
support .21, p < .001), family support ( .09, p < .05), and neuroticism (.52, p < .001), with a coefcient of determination R2 = .18. On
the other hand, signicant main effects in the prediction of FIW
were found for work demand (.18, p < .01), work control ( .09,
p < .05), work support ( 10, p < .05), and family support (.14,
p < .001), with a coefcient of determination R2 = .12. There was a
signicant interaction in the prediction of FIW: children
age  impulsive sensation seeking, whereas there were three signicant interactions in the prediction of WIF: family support  neuroticismanxiety, work support  aggressionhostility,
and family support  aggressionhostility. However after running
a Bonferroni correction, only the children age  impulsive sensation seeking interaction was signicant (0.05 alpha level/4 interactions = 0.0125; Holland & DiPonzio Copenhaver, 1988).
The children age  impulsive sensation seeking interaction plot
and simple slope analysis are shown in Fig. 1 and Table 3 (Aiken &
West, 1991). The simple slope analysis shows the relationship of
children age with FIW at different levels of impulsive sensation
seeking (from 1 to 1 standard deviation). There was a signicant
negative association of children age with FIW for individuals
reporting a low level in impulsive sensation seeking ( 25,
p < .01), and no association at higher levels of impulsive sensation
seeking. Power analyses at .05 and .01 alphas indicated enough
power to detect the interaction, whereas condence intervals provided a range of values that might include the R2 of the estimated
model.
4. Discussion
The ndings in this study contribute to an unexplored area in
WFC research: the interaction of work and family variables with
personality dimensions in the prediction of WFC. In accordance
with past theoretical work, these outcomes might be viewed as
supplying useful information in regard to the specication of different conditions under which WIF and FIW mechanisms occur
(Edwards & Rothbard, 2000). Impulsive sensation seeking moderated the association between age of children at home and FIW,
although the family support  neuroticismanxiety, and work

523

A. Blanch, A. Aluja / Personality and Individual Differences 46 (2009) 520524

Table 2
Moderated regression analysis with WIF and FIW as dependent variables.
Predictor

WIF

Table 3
Simple slope and power analysis for the children age  ImpSS interaction.
Personality + 1SD

FIW
2

Children age  Imp-SS

.25**
17
09
01
.07

1
0.5

.00
.00
.02**

9.03***
.02
.00
10

.00
.00
.02

0
0.5
1

29
.52***
.06
21***

.02
.10***
.10
.13***

13
.18**
.09*
.10*

.02
.04*
.05*
.07*

Power analyses

Power

Effect size

R2 CI

a = .05
a = .01

1.00
1.00

.20
.20

(.10, .20)
(.08, .22)

Children at home
Children age
FS

.41
.00
.09*

.13
.13
.14*

.38
.09
.14***

.07
.08
.12***

Imp-SS
NAnx
AggHost
Act
Sy

.06
.52***
06
.13
10

.14
.18***
.18
.18
.18

.02
.10
.02
.07
.00

.12
.13
.13
.13
.13

Children age  Imp-SS

K
Age
Gendera
Work experience

16.34***
.11
.44
.16

Education
WD
WC
WS

.06***

.17***

FS  NAnx

.03

.19

WS x AggHost

.03*

.20*

FS  AggHost

.03*

.20*

Note: Unstandardized regression coefcients belong to the step at which the variable initially entered the equation.
a
Coded 0 = female, 1 = male; WD = work demand; WC = work control;
WS = work support; FS = family support; Imp-SS = impulsive sensation-seeking; N
Anx = neuroticismanxiety;
AggHost = aggressionhostility;
Act = activity;
Sy = sociability; WIF = Work interference with family; FIW = Family interference
with work. Alpha reliabilities are shown in the main diagonal.
*
p < 0.05.
**
p < 0.01.
***
p < 0.001.

16

ImpSS
14

High

FIW predicted value

Low

12

10

4
2
-10

10

20

Children Age
Fig. 1. Children age  ImpSS interaction in the prediction of FIW.

and family support  aggressionhostility interactions were non

signicant after Bonferroni corrections. As expected, there were
no interactions with either job demand and/or control.
The number of children and younger children at home are obviously related to the hours employed parents must devote to their
family chores, and could contribute to increments in WIF and
FIW levels (Byron, 2005). In this study, only children age was asso-

Note: Personality 1SD = range of standard deviations in the personality variable.

Power analyses at two alpha levels (.05 and .01). R2 CI = R2 condence interval.
**
p < 0.01.

ciated with FIW, although at low impulsive sensation seeking levels. The children age  impulsive sensation seeking interaction
found here could be explained because people with low levels of
impulsive sensation seeking had better planning and organizational skills, therefore, these individuals experienced a lower degree of FIW in regard to child care and attention, especially when
children were older. In addition to the work load, the increasing
complexity of the demands imposed by older children might require more efcient organizational and planning skills, thus, low
sensation seeking parents might be in a better position to accommodate children and job demands and consequently, to reduce
their FIW levels. This explanation is consistent with the fact that
impulsive sensation seeking has been negatively associated with
conscientiousness (Zuckerman et al., 1993), whereas the planning
and organizational capabilities of conscientious individuals have
been suggested to prevent the occurrence of FIW (Bruck & Allen,
2003; Wayne et al., 2004).
Support from work and family have been considered as buffering antecedents of WIF and FIW, respectively (Byron, 2005; Ford
et al., 2007). In this study, signicant main effects of support were
also found in this direction. Work support was more strongly associated with WIF, and family support was more strongly associated
with FIW. The notion that family support ameliorates WIF for individuals with a low level of neuroticismanxiety (i.e. higher emotional stability) match past ndings indicating positive
associations between WIF, job exhaustion and depression at low
levels of emotional stability, suggesting better coping skills of emotionally stable individuals (Kinnunen et al., 2003). Furthermore,
aggressionhostility has been negatively associated with the big
ve factor of agreeableness (Zuckerman et al., 1993), which was
also shown to be a signicant moderator in the association between FIW and marital satisfaction (Kinnunen et al., 2003). In addition, past research has suggested that people more prone to exhibit
cooperative, helping and polite behaviours could be more protected from WIF, because they would be in a better position to seek
for effective work and family supportive relationships (Bruck & Allen, 2003; Wayne et al., 2004). In the present study however, the
interactions found between both types of support, work and family, with neuroticismanxiety and aggression hostility in the prediction of WIF were non signicant after performing Bonferroni
corrections.
As far as we know, no research to date has explored the interaction of work and family situation variables with personality dimensions to explain WFC. The ndings in the present study in regard to
impulsive sensation seeking, neuroticismanxiety, and aggressionhostility, which were measured in accordance with the alternative big ve personality model (Zuckerman, 2005), were
consistent with past research reporting signicant associations of
neuroticism, conscientiousness and agreeableness with WFC and
well-being (Bruck & Allen, 2003; Kinnunen et al., 2003; Wayne

524

A. Blanch, A. Aluja / Personality and Individual Differences 46 (2009) 520524

et al., 2004). Factor analyses demonstrating the relationships between big ve and alternative big ve personality models showed
that impulsive sensation seeking loaded negatively in the conscientiousness factor, neuroticismanxiety loaded positively in the
neuroticism factor, and aggressionhostility loaded negatively in
the agreeableness factor (Zuckerman et al., 1993). However, we
disregarded the neuroticismanxiety and aggressionhostility
interactions because they were non signicant after running a Bonferroni correction. This issue should be explored in depth in future
studies because the probability of rejecting the tested hypotheses
could be in fact exceeding the assumed alpha levels and lead to
erroneous interpretations (Holland & DiPonzio Copenhaver,
1988). Furthermore, a reviewer noticed that showing the true
power to detect an interaction with accurate p-values would require regression models based on latent trait scores from a well-tting IRT model in order to reduce scaling bias and control for
spurious interactions. Nevertheless, most WFC research has relied
on regression techniques, with no Bonferroni or power analyses of
any kind. Thus, future WFC studies could perhaps consider these
alternatives to analyze hypothesized relationships.
It should also be noted that substantial gender differences have
been systematically found in WFC research (Duxbury & Higgins,
1991; Gutek et al., 1991; Kossek & Ozeki, 1998). As suggested in
the most exhaustive WFC research review to date (Eby et al.,
2005), gender is deeply embedded in WFC, constituting a key variable to fully understand this phenomenon. In this study we controlled for the effect of gender with no signicant relation on the
outcome variables. However, we feel that future studies should
conduct separate analyses for men and women, as merely controlling for gender might obscure true different relationships for men
and women. Moreover, a recurrent practical implication derived
from these outcomes is that organizations can improve the workfamily interface of their employees through supportive policies focussed in work and family sources of support (van Daalen, Willemsen, & Sanders, 2006). Despite the limitation imposed by the crosssectional nature of our data, the impulsive sensation-seeking  children age interaction might represent an additional indication of a stable and homogenous specic pattern between
situation and personality in this line of research. However, future
studies should attempt to replicate equivalent situation  person
interactive schemes before more conclusive explanations about
the role of personality in relation to WFC mechanisms.
References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting
interactions. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
Allen, T. D., Herst, D. E. L., Bruck, C. S., & Sutton, M. (2000). Consequences associated
with work-to-family conict: A review and agenda for future research. Journal
of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 278308.
Aluja, A., Garca, O., & Garca, L. (2003). Psychometric properties of the Zuckerman
Kuhlman personality questionnaire (ZKPQ-III-R): A study of a shortened form.
Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 10831097.
Aluja, A., Rossier, J., Garca, L. F., Angleitner, A., Kuhlman, M., & Zuckerman, M.
(2006). A cross-cultural shortened form of the ZKPQ (ZKPQ-50-cc) adapted to
English, French, German, and Spanish languages. Personality and Individual
Differences, 41, 619628.
Aryee, S., Luk, V., Leung, A., & Lo, S. (1999). Role stressors, interrole conict, and
well-being: The moderating inuence of spousal support and coping behaviors
among employed parents in Hong Kong. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54,
259278.

Bruck, C. S., & Allen, T. D. (2003). The relationship between big ve personality
traits, negative affectivity, type A behavior, and work-family conict. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 63, 457472.
Byron, K. (2005). A meta-analytic review of workfamily conict and its
antecedents. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67, 169198.
Carlson, D. S. (1999). Personality and role variables as predictors of three forms of
workfamily conict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 55, 236253.
Carlson, D. S., & Perrew, P. L. (1999). The role of social support in the stressor
strain relationship: An examination of workfamily conict. Journal of
Management, 25(4), 513540.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Inc: New Jersey.
Cunningham, C. J. L., & De la Rosa, G. M. (2008). The interactive effects of proactive
personality and workfamily interference on well-being. Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, 13, 271282.
Duxbury, L. E., & Higgins, C. A. (1991). Gender differences in workfamily conict.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 1, 6074.
Eby, L. T., Casper, W. J., Lockwood, A., Bordeaux, C., & Brinley, A. (2005). Work and
family research in IO/OB: Content analysis and review of the literature (1980
2002). Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 124197.
Edwards, J. R., & Rothbard, N. P. (2000). Mechanisms linking work and family:
Clarifying the relationship between work and family constructs. Academy of
Management Review, 25, 178199.
Ford, M. T., Heinen, B. A., & Langkamer, K. L. (2007). Work and family satisfaction
and conict: A meta-analysis of cross-domain relations. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 92(1), 5780.
Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M. L. (1992). Antecedents and outcomes of work
family conict: Testing a model of the workfamily interface. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 77, 6575.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conict between work and family
roles. Academy of Management Review, 10, 7688.
Gutek, B., Searle, S., & Klepa, L. (1991). Rational versus gender role-explanation for
work-family conict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 560568.
Holland, B. S., & DiPonzio Copenhaver, M. (1988). Improved Bonferroni-type
multiple testing procedures. Psychological Bulletin, 104, 145149.
Jansen, N. W. H., Kant, I., Kristensen, T. S., & Nijhuis, F. J. N. (2003). Antecedents and
consequences of workfamily conict: A prospective cohort study. Journal of
Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 5, 479491.
Karasek, R. A. (1985). Job content questionnaire and users guide. University of
Southern California, Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering: Los
Angeles.
Karasek, R., Brisson, C., Kawakami, N., Houtman, I., Bongers, P., & Amick, B. (1998).
The job content questionnaire (JCQ): An instrument for internationally
comparative assessments of psychosocial job characteristics. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 3, 322355.
King, L. A., Mattimore, L. K., King, D. W., & Adams, G. A. (1995). Family support
inventory for workers: A new measure of perceived social support from family
members. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 235258.
Kinnunen, U., Vermulst, A., Gerris, J., & Mkikangas, A. (2003). Workfamily conict
and its relation to well-being: The role of personality as a moderating factor.
Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 16691683.
Kossek, E. E., & Ozeki, C. (1998). Workfamily conict, policies, and the job-life
satisfaction relationship: A review and directions for organizational behaviorhuman resources research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 139149.
Martnez-Prez, M. D., & Osca Segovia, A. (2002). Anlisis psicomtrico del
Inventario de Apoyo Familiar para Trabajadores [Psychometric analysis of the
family support inventory for workers]. Psicothema, 14, 310316.
Steiger, J. H., & Fouladi, R. T. (1992). R2: A computer program for interval estimation,
power calculation, and hypothesis testing for the squared multiple correlation.
Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 4, 581582.
van Daalen, G., Willemsen, T. M., & Sanders, K. (2006). Reducing workfamily
conict through different sources of social support. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 69, 462476.
Wayne, J. H., Musisca, N., & Fleeson, W. (2004). Considering the role of personality in
the workfamily experience. Relationships of the big ve to workfamily
conict and facilitation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64, 108130.
Zuckerman, M. (2005). Psychobiology of personality. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Zuckerman, M., Kuhlman, M. D., Joireman, J., Teta, P., & Kraft, M. (1993). A
comparison of three structural models for personality: The big three, the big
ve, and the alternative ve. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65,
757768.