Antecedents of Work Family

Journal of Organizational Behavior

J. Organiz. Behav. (2010)

Published online in Wiley InterScience

(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/job.695

* Correspondence to:11200 S.W. 8th Stree

Copyright # 2010

Antecedents of work–family conflict:A meta-analytic review

JESSE S. MICHEL1*, LINDSEY M. KOTRBA2,

JACQUELINE K. MITCHELSON3,

MALISSA A. CLARK4 AND BORIS B. BALTES4

1Department of Psychology, Florida International University, Miami, Florida, U.S.A.2Denison Consulting, Ann Arbor, Michigan, U.S.A.3Department of Psychology, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama, U.S.A.4Department of Psychology, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, U.S.A.

Summary This study provides and meta-analytically examines an organizing framework and theoreticalmodel of work–family conflict. Results, based on 1080 correlations from 178 samples, indicatethat work role stressors (job stressors, role conflict, role ambiguity, role overload, timedemands), work role involvement (job involvement, work interest/centrality), work socialsupport (organizational support, supervisor support, coworker support), work characteristics(task variety, job autonomy, family friendly organization), and personality (internal locus ofcontrol, negative affect/neuroticism) are antecedents of work-to-family conflict (WFC); whilefamily role stressors (family stressors, role conflict, role ambiguity, role overload, timedemands, parental demands, number of children/dependents), family social support (familysupport, spousal support), family characteristics (family climate), and personality (internallocus of control, negative affect/neuroticism) are antecedents of family-to-work conflict(FWC). In addition to hypothesized results, a revised model based on study findings indicatesthat work role stressors (job stressors, role conflict, role ambiguity, role overload) and worksocial support (organizational support, supervisor support, coworker support) are predictors ofFWC; while family role stressors (family stressors, role conflict, role ambiguity, role over-load), family involvement (family interest/centrality), family social support (family support,spousal support), and family characteristics (family climate) are predictors of WFC. Copyright# 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Introduction

For most individuals the two most dominant life domains are work and family. Partially due to an

increase in dual-earner households and non-traditional gender roles, and partially to an increase in the

number of hours individuals work (Bond, Galinsky, & Swanberg, 1998; Greenhaus, Callanan, &

Godshalk, 2000), juggling the domains of work and family has become a part of everyday life for

Jesse S. Michel, Department of Psychology, Florida International University, University Park, DM 256,t, Miami, FL 33199, U.S.A. E-mail: [email protected]

John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received 11 April 2007Revised 15 February 2010

Accepted 17 February 2010

J. S. MICHEL ET AL.

millions of adults. Accordingly, research investigating the relationship between work and family has

steadily increased over the past few decades (Bond et al., 1998; Eby, Casper, Lockwood, Bordeaux, &

Brinley, 2005). Much of this research has focused on the conflict between the two domains, primarily

demonstrating this conflict to have harmful effects on important individual outcomes such as

depression, hypertension, and substance abuse (Burke & Greenglass, 1999; Frone, 2000; Frone,

Russell, & Cooper, 1997), and important organizational outcomes such as absenteeism, affective

organizational commitment, and turnover intentions (Greenhaus, Parasuraman, & Collins, 2001;

Kossek & Ozeki, 1998). Subsequently, this research has led to increased initiatives among employers,

as well as public policy initiatives, aimed toward reducing the conflict between work and family

domains (Greenhaus & Parasuraman, 1999). Accordingly, it is important to have a clear understanding

of the variables that cause work–family conflict in order to provide direction for research and

application.

The purpose of this study is to provide a quantitative review of the antecedents of work–family

conflict that: (a) Provides a theoretically sound model of work–family conflict and its antecedents; (b)

disentangles work and family domain variables into the categories of role stressors (e.g., role

ambiguity, role overload), role involvement (e.g., job involvement, work interest/centrality), social

support (e.g., supervisor support, coworker support), and work/family characteristics (e.g., schedule

flexibility, family friendly organization), and provides a fine grained analyses of these variables (e.g.,

five forms of work stressors, eight forms of family stressors); (c) distinguishes the direct effects of

personality, including both internal locus of control and negative affect/ neuroticism, from the

moderating demographic variables of marital status, parental status, and gender; and (d) tests the

hypotheses made in our theoretically derived model with an accumulation of the most recent work–

family research.

Though a very informative quantitative review of work–nonwork conflict and its antecedents

currently exists (see Byron, 2005), the present paper differs in several important ways. First, while

Byron’s review includes an assortment of work–nonwork or work–life conflict measures (cf. Kreiner,

2006; Rice, Frone, & McFarlin, 1992), we only include measures of work–family conflict. This is an

important distinction as individuals have multiple roles outside of their family such as leisure roles,

community roles, or religious roles (Frone, 2003). As a result, the construct of work–nonwork conflict

is a much broader construct than the narrower work–family conflict construct. Generally, it would be

expected that family domain antecedents would have stronger relationships with work–family conflict

than work–nonwork conflict due to an underlying commonality, i.e., family (cf. Huffman, Youngcourt,

Payne, & Castro, 2008). For example, family stressors such as family role overload and parental

demands, along with supportive antecedents such as spousal support and family climate, should have

larger effect size magnitudes with work–family conflict than work–nonwork conflict as these are

family-specific antecedents. Thus a broader work–nonwork conflict construct may actually obscure

relationships that occur on a more specific level (cf. Tett, Steele, & Beauregard, 2003; Tett &

Christiansen, 2007). Accordingly, this meta-analysis examines these relationships between antecedents

and work–family conflict at a more specific level.

Second, we provide greater conceptual and empirical clarity on the work and family domain

categories of role stressors, role involvement, social support, and work/family characteristics. For

example, while Byron examined the variable of job stress as a grouped variable (i.e., job stress, role

stress, role conflict, role ambiguity, role overload, and psychological demands), we disentangled job

stressors into the theoretically derived facets of work role conflict, work role ambiguity, work role

overload, and work time demands (cf. Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, & Rosenthal, 1964; Katz & Kahn,

1978). As such, this paper addresses Byron’s call for researchers ‘‘to attend to more finely grained

variables that may more fully capture employees’ likelihood of experiencing work–family conflict’’

(p. 169).

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. (2010)

DOI: 10.1002/job

ANTECEDENTS OF WORK–FAMILY CONFLICT

Third, we examine the direct effects of personality, including both internal locus of control and

negative affect/neuroticism, within our model. In doing so, this work provides the first meta-analytic

test of personality traits within the work–family literature and helps answer the recent call for greater

examination of personality in regards to work and family relationships (Eby et al., 2005; Friede &

Ryan, 2005; Michel & Clark, 2009).

Finally, we update the field on the vast amount of research conducted since Byron’s (2005) review.

While the work of Byron included studies published between 1987 and 2002, this review includes

studies published between 1987 and 2008. While this may be seen as a minor distinction, it is important

to note as there has been a recent explosion of work–family literature within Organizational Behavior

and other related disciplines in the past few years. In fact, over 54 percent of the studies included in this

20þ year review were published post-Byron. Given this dramatic increase of work–family conflict

research, it is imperative that recent studies are systematically and empirically reviewed to assess

current thought on the topic. Consequently, this review provides greater clarity on recent work and

family relationships above and beyond that of Byron.

What is Work–Family Conflict?

Work–family conflict is commonly defined as ‘‘a form of inter-role conflict in which the role pressures

from the work and family domains are mutually incompatible in some respect’’ (Greenhaus & Beutell,

1985: p. 77; see also Kahn et al., 1964). Further delineation of the contemporary work–family conflict

construct reveals two primary characteristics. First, these role pressures are directional and produce

negative effects from one domain to the other (Frone, Russell, & Cooper, 1992). Thus, researchers and

theorists have recently focused on the degree to which participation in the family role is made more

difficult from participation in the work role—termed work-to-family conflict (WFC), and the degree to

which participation in the work role is made more difficult from participation in the family role—

termed family-to-work conflict (FWC). Recent meta-analytic research has shown differential patterns

with outcome variables, along with incremental variance over one another, providing support for the

distinction between WFC and FWC (see Mesmer-Magnus & Viswesvaran, 2005). Second, work–

family conflict is generally seen as time-based, strain-based, and behavior-based (Greenhaus & Beutell,

1985): Time-based conflict occurs when time or attention allocated to one domain, such as work

schedule inflexibility and work or family time demands, hinders role performance in the other domain;

strain-based conflict occurs when increased stress or tension in one domain, such as role ambiguity or

role overload, hinders role performance in the other domain; and behavior-based conflict occurs when

behaviors transferred from one domain, such as behavioral habits and role expectations, hinders role

performance in the other domain. In general, empirical evidence has supported the time-based, strain-

based, and behavior-based categorization of the work–family conflict construct (e.g., Bruck, Allen, &

Spector, 2002; Frone et al., 1997).

Theory and Hypotheses

In this section, we link work–family conflict to its antecedents through primary work–family linkage

theories (cf. Edwards & Rothbard, 2000; Zedeck, 1992). Our organizing framework and theoretical

model is displayed in Figure 1. A summary of included constructs and definitions is provided in Table 1.


DOI: 10.1002/job

Figure 1. Proposed model of work–family conflict

J. S. MICHEL ET AL.

Antecedents of work–family conflict

Role Stressors. Work and family stressors result from role pressures within each domain. Within the

stressor framework, role conflict, role ambiguity, and role overload are traditionally seen as the primary

sources of stress (Kahn et al., 1964): Role conflict refers to the extent to which an individual

experiences incompatible role pressures (Beehr, 1995; Kahn et al., 1964; Kopelman, Greenhaus, &


DOI: 10.1002/job

Table 1. Summary of included constructs and definitions

Construct Definitions

Work domainRole stressors

Job stressors Pooled (at the sample level) conflict, ambiguity, overload, and/or timedemands of the work domain

Used when the study did not report individual job stressorsWork role conflict The extent to which an individual experiences incompatible role

pressures within the work domainWork role ambiguity The lack of necessary information (specificity and predictability) about

duties, objectives, and responsibilities needed for a particular work–roleor the lack of work–role clarity

Work role overload The perception of having too many work–role tasks and not enough timeto do them

Work time demands Amount of time devoted to the work roleIncludes work time demands, hours worked, and hours spent in paidwork

Role involvementJob involvement Level of psychological involvement (attachment, connection) to the

work roleWork interest/centrality Perceived importance of work in one’s life; the degree to which the work

role is central in lifeIncludes work centrality/identity, work interest, and work importance

Social supportOrganizational support Amount of instrumental aid, emotional concern, informational, and/or

appraisal functions from the organizationSupervisor support Amount of instrumental aid, emotional concern, informational, and/or

appraisal functions from the immediate supervisorCoworker support Amount of instrumental aid, emotional concern, informational, and/or

appraisal functions from peers or coworkersWork characteristics

Organizational tenure Duration of placement within an organizationJob tenure Duration of placement on a particular jobType of job Categorization of jobs characteristics

Includes job and organizational level, job rank, job type (e.g., bluecollar vs. white collar), and self-employment

Current salary Employee’s current monetary compensationTask variety The extent to which a job requires an individual to perform a wide range

of tasksJob autonomy Degree of freedom available on the jobSchedule flexibility Flexible working hours

Includes schedule flexibility, flextime, telecommuting, and shift workFamily friendly organization Organizations that are sympathetic toward employee family-related

needsIncludes family supportive organization, work–family organizationalculture, number of organizational benefits offered, and dependantcare benefits/family supportive services

Family domainRole stressors

Family stressors Pooled (at the sample level) conflict, ambiguity, overload and/or timedemands of the family domain

Used when the study did not report individual family stressorsFamily role conflict The extent to which an individual experiences incompatible role

pressures within the family domain

(Continues)


DOI: 10.1002/job


Table 1. (Continued)

Construct Definitions

Family role ambiguity The lack of necessary information (specificity and predictability) aboutduties, objectives, and responsibilities needed for a particular family–role or the lack of family–role clarity

Family role overload The perception of having too many family–role tasks and not enoughtime to do them

Family time demands Amount of time devoted to the family roleIncludes family time demands and time spent in family work

Parental demands Demands on the parental roleIncludes number and age of children

Number of children/dependents Number of children (and other dependents) living at homeIncludes total number of children, number of children 18 or under,number of children 7 or under, number of children under 5, and totalnumber of other dependents

Age of children Age of childrenIncludes age of children and age of youngest child living at home

Role involvementFamily involvement Level of psychological involvement (attachment, connection) to the

family roleFamily interest/centrality Perceived importance of family in one’s life; the degree to which the

family role is central in lifeIncludes family centrality/identity, family commitment, and familyimportance

Social supportFamily support Amount of instrumental aid, emotional concern, informational, and/or

appraisal functions from the family unitSpousal support Amount of instrumental aid, emotional concern, informational, and/or

appraisal functions from the spouseFamily characteristics

Working spouse Status of spouse’s paid employmentIncludes working spouse, spouse hours worked, and spouse hoursworked per week

Family income Collective wage of the family unitFamily climate Extent to which the family unit is sympathetic toward members needs

Includes family climate for sharing, family climate for sacrifice(reverse coded), family climate, family cohesion, family adaptability

PersonalityInternal locus of control Extent to which individuals feel that outcomes are caused by the

individual or self (i.e., internal variables) as opposed to externalvariables such as chance

Includes locus of control, sense of control, and perceived controlNegative affect/neuroticism Extent to which individuals have higher levels of distress, anxiety, and

dissatisfaction; focusing primarily on unpleasant characteristics ofthemselves, others, and the world; represents an individual’s tendencyto experience psychological distress

J. S. MICHEL ET AL.

Connolly, 1983); role ambiguity refers to the lack of necessary information (specificity and

predictability) about duties, objectives, and responsibilities needed for a particular role or the lack of

role clarity (Beehr & Glazer, 2005; Cooper, Cooper, & Eaker, 1988; Kahn et al., 1964; Schuler, 1980);

and role overload refers to the perception of having too many role tasks and not enough time to do them

(Bacharach, Bamberger, & Conley, 1990; Caplan, Cobb, & French, 1975; Kahn, 1980). Though role


DOI: 10.1002/job


overload and role time demands are unique, role time demands are often seen as a precursor to role

overload; and therefore, are included as a subcomponent of role overload in our model. Depending on

the domain, time demands can be the actual time devoted to the role (work and family), or additional

demands of the role directly related to time demands (such as parental demands for the family

domain).1

Role conflict has been suggested as an antecedent of work–family conflict (Greenhaus & Beutell,

1985), and has been shown to be associated with higher levels of work–family conflict (e.g., Bedeian,

Burke, & Moffett, 1988; Greenhaus, Parasuraman, Granrose, Rabinowitz, & Beutell, 1989; Kopelman

et al., 1983). Greenhaus and Beutell (1985; see also Carlson, 1999) also suggest role ambiguity to be an

antecedent of work–family conflict. This notion was supported by Frone et al. (1992) who found family

role ambiguity to relate to FWC. Past research has suggested a relationship between role overload and

WFC (e.g., Frone et al., 1997). Similarly, work and family time demands have been demonstrated to be

positively related to work–family conflict (e.g., Frone et al., 1997). Past research has found that the

number of children individuals have impacts their ability to accommodate family responsibilities with

work demands (Bedeian et al., 1988; Kelly & Voydanoff, 1985). Additionally, younger children

typically require more care, and thus more resources, from their caregivers. In support of this notion,

parents with younger children at home report more conflict between work and family (Burke, Weir, &

DuWors, 1979) and have fewer time and energy resources (Grandey & Cropanzano, 1999).

The linkage between role stressors and work–family conflict can be explained through role theory

and resource drain theory. Role theory implies that (1) work and family roles result from the

expectations of others, and what is believed to be appropriate behavior for a particular position (e.g.,

subordinate, spouse), and (2) both work and family domains entail multiple roles where numerous

demands are placed on the individual (Kahn et al., 1964). In an attempt to meet various work and family

role expectations, many individuals succumb to role pressures. When role pressures within the role

stressor framework are encountered (conflict, ambiguity, overload, and time demands), resource drain

is likely. Resource drain theory views resources such as time, attention, and energy (physical and

psychological) as finite (Edwards & Rothbard, 2000; Small & Riley, 1990; Staines, 1980; Tenbrunsel,

Brett, Maoz, Stroh, & Reilly, 1995); thus, role stressors that occur in each domain subtract from the

finite resources available to the individual. Both role theory and resource drain theory imply a positive

relationship between role stressors and work–family conflict. For example, ambiguity in the work role

requires greater psychological expenditures to meet the expectations of that role, resulting in a decrease

in available resources for family role demands. Assuming an individual has a limited amount of

immediate expendable physical and psychological resources, increased role stressors in one domain

will result in greater cross-domain conflict. Therefore, we hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 1a: Stressors in the work domain are positively related to WFC.

Hypothesis 1b: Stressors in the family domain are positively related to FWC.

Role involvement

Work and family involvement refer to the level of psychological attachment or connection to the work

and family roles (Frone, 2003; Greenhaus & Parasuraman, 1999; Kanungo, 1982; Yogev & Brett,

1985). Individuals high in role involvement possess a cognitive preoccupation with a particular role.

1Time demands could be included in the role involvement category (cf. Edwards & Rothbard, 2000); however, within a theoreticalmeta-framework, we feel that time demands better represent the perceived overload of a role, as time demands likely engenderperceived overload. Likewise, though number of children/dependents and age of children could be included in the familycharacteristics category, we feel that parental demands better represent the perceived overload of the family role, as previousresearch has indicated (e.g., Bedeian, Burke, & Moffett, 1988; Major, Klein, & Ehrhart, 2002; Parasuraman & Simmers, 2001).


DOI: 10.1002/job

J. S. MICHEL ET AL.

Like role involvement, role interest or centrality revolves around the importance or identity an

individual attaches to a role (Paullay, Alliger, & Stone-Romero, 1994). Individuals high in role

interest or centrality view that role as an important and central component of their lives (Hirschfeld

& Feild, 2000). Role involvement is conceptualized as an antecedent of work–family conflict as

high levels of psychological involvement in a particular role may make it difficult to engage in

activities of a competing role (Adams, King, & King, 1996; Frone et al., 1992; Greenhaus &

Parasuraman, 1999).

The linkage between role involvement and work–family conflict can be explained through role

theory, resource drain theory, and compensation theory. As implied by role theory, individuals may

become psychologically involved in their work and family roles while attempting to meet the role

expectations of each domain. However, if dissatisfaction in either role is encountered, individuals may

adjust (i.e., compensate) their time, attention, and energy. Compensation theory posits an inverse

relationship between the work and family domains, where dissatisfaction in one domain is offset

through satisfaction in the other domain (Edwards & Rothbard, 2000; Zedeck, 1992); stated

alternatively, dissatisfaction in one domain—such as family, is counterbalanced through greater role

involvement in another domain—such as work. Role theory, resource drain theory, and compensation

theory all imply a positive relationship between role involvement and work–family conflict. For

example, if general satisfaction is lacking in the family domain, an individual will compensate through

greater role involvement in the work domain. This increased work involvement will subtract limited

physical and psychological time, attention, and energy, resulting in greater cross-domain conflict.

Therefore, we hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 2a: Involvement in the work domain is positively related to WFC.

Hypothesis 2b: Involvement in the family domain is positively related to FWC.

Social support

Social support refers to instrumental aid, emotional concern, informational, and appraisal functions of

others that serve to heighten one’s feelings of self-importance (Carlson & Perrewe, 1999; House, 1981;

Matsui, Ohsawa, & Onglatco, 1995). Social support in the work domain may come from several

sources such as coworkers, the immediate supervisor, and the organization itself; meanwhile, social

support in the family domain may come from the spouse and/or the family as a whole. Several

researchers view social support as an important antecedent to work–family conflict (Frone et al., 1997;

Glass & Estes, 1997; Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985; Greenhaus & Parasuraman, 1999). For example,

Galinsky (1994) found that workers in unsupportive work environments experienced more negative

family consequences.

The linkage between social support and work–family conflict can be explained through role theory

and resource drain theory. As implied by role theory, an individual has multiple demands and

expectations within the work and family domains. Social support experienced in either domain should

lead to a reduction of the time, attention, and energy needed to perform that role. Both role theory and

resource drain theory imply an inverse relationship between social support and work–family conflict.

For example, if spousal support is experienced in the family domain, demands within that domain will

be met more effectively (e.g., adjustment of role expectations, assisted role performance).

Subsequently, the individual should experience a reduction of role pressures within the family

domain, and maintenance of limited physical and psychological time, attention, and energy. Therefore,

increased social support in one domain will result in a reduction of cross-domain conflict. Accordingly,

we hypothesize the following:


DOI: 10.1002/job

2Wa fafamanddetteccondem

Co


Hypothesis 3a: Support in the work domain is negatively related to WFC.

Hypothesis 3b: Support in the family domain is negatively related to FWC.

Work/family characteristics

Work and family characteristics consist of the properties within each domain that impact role

performance (Hackman & Oldham, 1976; Morgenson & Campion, 2003). Within the literature, there

tends to be some variability on what is a work/family characteristic versus a demographic or

background characteristic. For example, a recent monograph by Eby et al. (2005) refers to family

income and number of children as family characteristics, while others have referred to these same

variables as background characteristics (e.g., Stoeva, Chiu, & Greenhaus, 2002). Likewise, while Eby

et al. refer to salary as a characteristic of the job, others have referred to this same variable as a

demographic characteristic (e.g., Keene & Quadagno, 2004). We define work and family characteristics

as variables that are generally determined by parties other than the target within the work and family

domains, respectively. Within the work domain, these consist of such variables as the duration of a role

(job and organizational tenure), the characteristics of a role (type of job, job autonomy, task variety, and

salary), and the organizational impact on the role (alternative work schedules and the extent to which

the organization is family responsive). Within the family domain, these consist of the general structure

and characteristics of the spouse (working spouse) and family roles (family income and family

climate).2

While different, work and family characteristics are conceptualized as antecedents of work–family

conflict for the same reason; they impact role performance and subsequently impact role pressures. On

the work domain side, work characteristics can be further grouped into three areas. First are time based

work characteristics. Here organizational and job tenure are thought to lead to greater flexibility. For

many jobs lower tenure employees may be required to work night shifts or weekends while more

tenured employees are not (Lambert, Hogan, & Barton, 2004). As such, organizational and job tenure

are believed to lead to lower levels of WFC. Second are differences in workplace policy that stem from

differences in the nature of the job. Here we believe type of job, current salary, and task variety will all

lead to higher levels of WFC. Higher status jobs require increased responsibility and thus elicit more

stress and greater difficulty balancing work and family; however, it could also be that higher status jobs

tend to allow for more flexibility and greater control and thus allow one more opportunity to attend to

family responsibilities (e.g., Archbold, 1983). While both of these explanations seem rational, the

negative effects of stress should be both more salient and proximal than the option to utilize flexibility

and control. In the current study, type of job includes the variables of organizational level, job type,

rank, self-employment, and job level (see Table 1). Similarly, higher salary should indicate greater job

responsibility, producing more stress, and thus greater WFC; however, it could also be that a higher

salary may provide individuals with the opportunity to hire additional help in handling their work and

family responsibilities. Again, while both of these explanations seem plausible, the negative effects of

stress should be both more salient and proximal than the option to utilize employed help. Regarding

task variety, though not a role stressor, a job with high task variety requires an employee to perform a

hile marital and parental status could be argued to be caused or influenced heavily by the spouse, and therefore be classified asmily characteristic, these variables are not generally determined by the spouse or other family members (cf. working spouse,ily climate). Similarly, an argument could be made for employee income as a demographic characteristic, but the work roleemploying organization have a heavy influence on this variable. Finally, it could be argued that an individual ultimately

ermines his/her job tenure, marital status, and other work, family, and demographic characteristics. While this may behnically correct (cf. individual free will), our classification of work and family characteristics is an attempt to bestceptualize these variables given (1) our theoretical model (e.g., operationalization of number of children as a parentaland), and (2) primary influences on each model variable (e.g., operationalization of family climate as a family characteristic).

pyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. (2010)

DOI: 10.1002/job

J. S. MICHEL ET AL.

wide range of tasks and is therefore believed to lead to higher WFC. A third and final set of work

characteristic antecedents revolve around the level of control over one’s work. Here we believe job

autonomy, schedule flexibility, and family friendly organization will all reduce perceptions of WFC.

Job autonomy suggests that having freedom in regards to your job and its responsibilities can lessen the

extent to which work conflicts with the demands of family. Research has in fact supported a negative

relationship between job autonomy and WFC (e.g., Aryee, 1992; Parasuraman, Purohit, & Godshalk,

1996). Meanwhile, schedule flexibility and family friendly organization are often suggested as

antecedents of WFC (e.g., Glass & Estes, 1997; Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985; Greenhaus &

Parasuraman, 1999). It is believed that family friendly policies should ease the burden of balancing

work and family, and indeed these variables have been linked to lower levels of WFC (e.g., Hammer,

Allen, & Grigsby, 1997). On the family domain side, working spouse and family income are both

thought to lead to higher levels of FWC. As a member of a dual-career couple, employees with a

working spouse, often indicated by a higher family salary, should have greater family role pressures

thus increasing their FWC. Meanwhile, family climate is believed to reduce perceptions of FWC

through a more cohesive and supportive family network (cf. family social support).

The linkage between work/family characteristics and work–family conflict can be explained through

role theory, resource drain theory, and conflict theory. From the perspective of role and resource drain

theories, characteristics of the job (e.g., tenure, type of job, job autonomy, task variety), and family

(e.g., dual-career couple) impact expectations for the work/family roles and role performance.

Consequently, one’s limited pool of time, attention, and energy can be affected. For example, higher

tenure should produce greater flexibility thus allowing for better utilization of limited resources and

subsequently reducing perceptions of WFC. Conflict theory posits that the work and family domains

are incompatible resulting from different norms and requirements (Burke, 1986; Evans & Bartolome,

1984; Zedeck, 1992). From a conflict theory perspective, characteristics of the job (e.g., alternative

work schedules, the extent to which the organization is family responsive) and family (e.g., family

climate) should impact potential cross-domain conflict. For example, an organization that offers

alternative work schedules should reduce WFC by providing a work environment that is more

compatible with family domain pressures (Baltes, Briggs, Huff, Wright, & Heuman, 1999). Since some

of these variables should influence work–family conflict positively, and others negatively, we

hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 4a: Work characteristics are related to WFC.

Hypothesis 4b: Family characteristics are related to FWC.

Personality

Personality refers to dynamic mental structures and coordinated mental processes that determine

individuals’ emotional and behavioral adjustments to their environments (Allport, 1937; James &

Mazerolle, 2002; Millon, 1990). Though we would like to examine multiple components of personality

(e.g., Five-Factor Model), within the work–family literature, only internal locus of control and negative

affectivity/neuroticism have received enough empirical attention to allow meta-analytic examination

(e.g., Bruck & Allen, 2003; Grzywacz & Marks, 2000; Stoeva et al., 2002). Internal locus of control is

generally defined as the extent to which an individual feels outcomes are caused by the individual or

self (internal variables), as opposed to external variables such as chance (Rotter, 1966). This variable is

hypothesized as an antecedent of work–family conflict since internal locus of control has often been

shown to relate to work and life stress and also directly to work–family conflict (Noor, 2002). More

specifically, this research suggests high perceived control to negatively relate to work–family conflict


DOI: 10.1002/job


(e.g., Clark, 2002; Duxbury, Higgins, & Lee, 1994; Noor, 2002). Meanwhile, negative affectivity and

neuroticism are typically defined as (higher) levels of trait-based psychological distress, anxiety, and

general dissatisfaction (Costa & McCrae, 1992; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988). Generally, negative

affect is ‘‘commonly seen as a facet of neuroticism’’ (Judge, Higgins, Thoresen, & Barrick, 1999: p.

625), and has been included in meta-analyses examining the personality factor of neuroticism (e.g.,

Judge & Ilies, 2002). Both negative affect (Carlson, 1999) and neuroticism (Rantanen, Pulkkinen, &

Kinnunen, 2005) have been suggested as antecedents of work–family conflict because they are likely to

have a large impact on how individuals perceive both life and work situations.

The linkage between personality and work–family conflict can be explained through congruence

theory. Congruence theory posits that similarity between work and family (e.g., satisfaction in work,

satisfaction in family) is generated by a third variable (e.g., positive affect); that is, a third variable acts

as a common cause (Edwards & Rothbard, 2000; Morf, 1989; Zedeck, 1992). General cognitive–

affective and behavioral propensities, such as internal locus of control and negative affectivity/

neuroticism, may serve as this third variable and dually influence one’s perception of work–family

conflict. Accordingly, individuals high in internal locus of control should feel greater control over the

interplay between their work and family domains, while individuals high in negative affectivity/

neuroticism should feel greater psychological distress, anxiety, and dissatisfaction across work–family

situations. Therefore, we hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 5: Internal locus of control is negatively related to WFC and FWC.

Hypothesis 6: Negative affect/neuroticism is positively related to WFC and FWC.

Moderators of the work and family domain and work–family conflict relationship

We propose that demographic variables have significant impact on the relationships between (1) work

domain antecedents and WFC, and (2) family domain antecedents and FWC. Marital status, parental

status, and gender are the demographic characteristics we chose to include in this investigation. These

variables are common in the work–family literature, but more importantly, previous research and

theory provides strong empirical and conceptual rationale for their role as moderators. We should note,

however, that recent work–family research has highlighted the distinction between participant sex and

gender role orientation (Livingston & Judge, 2008). Gender role orientation has been defined as ‘‘the

degree to which one identifies with the traditional conceptions (i.e., expectations) of his or her gender

role’’ (Livingston & Judge, 2008: p. 208). As the vast majority of the work–family conflict literature

examines participant sex versus gender role orientation, this meta-analysis will focus on participant sex

(male/female) as our gender role proxy variable (which will be referred to as ‘‘gender’’).

In regards to marital and parental status, individuals who are married and/or have children are often

suggested to have more family role responsibilities. Accordingly, when confronted with antecedents

such as work time demands or other work domain stressors, such individuals should be more likely to

see these antecedents as conflicting with their family lives than individuals who are single and/or

without parental responsibilities (Ford, Heinen, & Langkamer, 2007). Likewise, when individuals who

are married or have children receive social support, they should benefit from this support more than

individuals who are not married or have no children. This general belief is so common in the work–

family literature that these demographic characteristics (marital and parental status) are often used as

sample inclusion criteria, or are otherwise controlled for in work–family studies (e.g., Frye & Breaugh,

2004; Grandey, Cordeiro, & Crouter, 2005; Hammer, Neal, Newsom, Brockwood, & Colton, 2005;


DOI: 10.1002/job

J. S. MICHEL ET AL.

Young, Baltes, & Pratt, 2007), based on the assumption that work–family dynamics are fundamentally

different for those who are married and have children.

Regarding gender, though some research has not found gender differences for work–family conflict

(e.g., Eagle, Miles, & Icenogle, 1997), there are several studies that support the role of gender as a

moderator. For example, previous research has suggested work to be more central to the identity of

men, and family to more central to the identity of women (Cinamon & Rich, 2002); thus it is reasonable

to expect the role involvement—work–family conflict relationship to differ by gender. In support of

this, other researchers have found work involvement to be a stronger predictor of work–family conflict

for women and family involvement to be a stronger predictor for men (Duxbury & Higgins, 1991).

Similarly, Gutek, Searle, and Klepa (1991) found hours worked to relate to WFC for women, but not for

men. In general, gender is often positioned as a moderator as men and women are believed to

experience and react to proposed antecedents differently, and previous research has found support for

this assertion.

The modeling of moderating demographic variables within a work/family antecedent and work–

family conflict context (cf. Voydanoff, 2002) can be explained through role theory. As previously

reviewed, role theory posits that roles develop from the expectation of others and what is believed to be

appropriate behavior for a particular position. From these expectations, role theory suggests that

demographic differences will result in incongruent role expectations, role pressures, and subsequent

role performance. Returning to gender as an illustrative example, though gender roles are beginning to

converge, women are still thought to assume the majority of family responsibilities despite their

increasing work domain roles. As a result of these differential role expectations and pressures, gender

should moderate the relationship between family domain role stressors and involvement to FWC such

that these relationships are stronger for women than men. Accordingly, we propose that demographic

variables will have significant impact on the relationships between work domain antecedents and WFC

and family domain antecedents and FWC. Thus, in accordance with role theory, we provide the

following:

Hypothesis 7: The demographic variables of marital status, parental status, and gender moderate the

relationships between (a) work domain antecedents and WFC, and (b) family domain antecedents

and FWC.

Method

Literature search and inclusion criteria

The search for studies examining antecedents of work–family conflict was performed in two stages. In

the first stage, computer-based literature searches were conducted on the databases of ABI/INFORM,

ERIC, and PsycINFO/Dissertation Abstracts. Keyword search terms included work family conflict in

conjunction with 129 search terms representing the variables in our model. In the second stage, manual

cross-referencing was done with recent qualitative and quantitative review articles (Byron, 2005; Eby

et al., 2005; Ford et al., 2007).

Studies were included if they fulfilled three requirements: (1) The study included a measure of WFC

and/or FWC, (2) the study included a variable we conceptualized as an antecedent in our model, and (3)

zero-order correlations were reported. If a study met our first two criteria but did not report data, the first

author was contacted to obtain missing data. Additionally, it is important to note that several studies


DOI: 10.1002/job


utilized the same sample. Under these circumstances, only unique relationships from each study were

included in the analyses in order to assure that the assumption of independence was not violated. In

total, 142 studies containing 178 samples met our inclusion requirements. These studies reported a total

of 1080 effect sizes that were used in our analyses.3 A summary of studies and sample characteristics

can be provided by the corresponding author upon request.

Coding of antecedents and moderators

Absolute agreement on the coding of antecedent variables was determined with an Intraclass

Correlation Coefficient (ICC) of 0.84, p< 0.001. The ICC was determined on antecedent coding

agreement between judges (first three authors). Any discrepancies in coding were discussed by the

judges until consensus was reached, resulting in absolute agreement.

Moderators were analyzed as continuous variables; however, we adapted post hoc coding schemes

for each sample characteristic that best utilized the information reported in primary studies as many

reported continuous data categorically. Thus given primary data limitations, we coded continuous

moderators categorically in order to include as many primary studies and as much information as

possible. Though this attenuation of the moderator variables results in a loss of statistical power, it also

results in a more representative sample of studies for analyses. Accordingly, marital status was coded as

the percent age of sample participants who were married or living with partner; we coded this data into

one of six categories ranging from 1¼ 20 percent or less currently married or living with partner to

6¼ 100 percent currently married or living with partner. Parental status was coded as the percent age of

the study sample with children; we coded this data into one of six categories ranging from 1¼ 20

percent or less parents to 6¼ 100 percent parents. Gender was coded as the percent age of female

participants within the sample; we coded this data into one of 12 categories ranging from 1¼ 0 percent

female to 12¼ 100 percent female.

Meta-analytic method

We used Hunter and Schmidt’s (2004) random-effect meta-analysis technique as assumptions in

random-effects models generally fit the goals of meta-analyses more appropriately than fixed-effects

models (Field, 2001; Geyskens, Krishnan, Steenkamp, & Cunha, 2009; Kisamore & Brannick, 2008;

Schmidt, Oh, & Hayes, 2008). Sample size weighted mean observed correlations as well as the

reliability-corrected mean correlations were computed. Mean sample size weighted correlations were

corrected for unreliability based on artifact distributions from primary study data. Specifically, we

corrected psychological or attitudinal variables (e.g., job stress, WFC) for unreliability with alpha value

(a) distributions reported in the primary studies; however, some self-reported variables such as time

demands (e.g., work time demands) and other non-psychological measures (e.g., number of children/

dependents) were not disattenuated because they are assumed to be measured without error (i.e., perfect

3In total, we have 142 studies in our review; Byron (2005) had 61 studies. Thus, this study is not a replication, it is an extension. Assuch, we have 105 studies that are unique to this study. Thirty-seven studies in this review were also included in Byron’s review;however, 24 studies in her review are not included in the current work. Reasons for our exclusion of these studies includedifferences in antecedents examined (e.g., demographic variables; e.g., Adams & Jex, 1999; Gignac, Kelloway, & Gottlieb,1996), unanimous agreement between the first three authors that the study did not include a measure of WFC or FWC (e.g., work-nonwork conflict; e.g., Klitzman, House, Israel, & Mero, 1990; O’Driscoll, Ilgen, & Hildreth, 1992), and the use of aggregatedlongitudinal data (e.g., Williams & Alliger, 1994). Quantitatively, the overlap between meta-analyses (i.e., studies included ineach) was 22.29 percent .


DOI: 10.1002/job

J. S. MICHEL ET AL.

reliability; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002; Sparks, Cooper, Fried, & Shirom, 1997). When multiple

correlations were available for a single antecedent and WFC/FWC relationship (e.g., three forms of

schedule flexibility), we combined these into a composite variable prior to meta-analytic examination

(Hunter & Schmidt, 2004). We also examined our data for outliers; effect sizes were converted to z-

scores and extreme values (þ/�3.29) were deemed outliers. Of the 1080 effect sizes reported in this

meta-analysis, 12 values were deemed outliers at the p< 0.001 level. Analyses were run with and

without the identified outliers, resulting in no significant differences; therefore, all outliers were

included. Finally, the associated standard deviations of the reliability-corrected mean correlations were

examined for potential moderating influences as well as used in computing the 80 percent credibility

interval around the (true) correlation.

In regards to moderator analysis, some researchers have used a minimum of 20 (e.g., Rhoades &

Eisenberger, 2002) or 15 studies (e.g., Ng & Feldman, 2008) with the necessary information for tests of

moderation. In order to investigate more hypothesized relationships, we used 10 studies as our cutoff.

To test for the moderating role of marital status, parental status, and gender, we took the percent age of

each demographic moderator in each sample as a proxy independent variable. Not all studies clearly

reported the marital status, parental status, and gender compositions of the sample (e.g., study reported

percent female as categorical data), which reduced our ability to test for moderated relationships.

Specifically, this resulted in (1) a subgroup analysis of moderator effects as some studies omitted this

information entirely, and (2) a post hoc categorical coding scheme that allowed us to retain as many

samples as possible (see earlier review of moderator coding). To further ensure our moderator analyses

were based on a representative subgroup of studies we used a minimum cutoff of 70 percent sample

retention. In examining our moderators, we used the percent age of marital status, parental status, or

gender as an independent variable in the prediction of Fisher’s z-transformed corrected correlation

coefficients for the relationship of interest using weighted least-squares multiple regression (cf. Ng,

Eby, Sorensen, & Feldman, 2005; Ng & Feldman, 2008). Accordingly, if the independent variable is a

significant predictor of the correlation coefficients, this suggests that the strength of the relationship

between the hypothesized antecedent and WFC/FWC construct differs based on that moderator. This

technique of testing for moderators in meta-analyses has been found to be more reliable and robust than

other methods (Steel & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2002).

Results

Results are reported in Table 2 (relationships with WFC) and Table 3 (relationships with FWC). In

general, we base our discussion of results on Cohen’s (1988) classification of correlation magnitudes

(i.e., >0.50¼ large,>0.30¼moderate, and >0.10¼ small). In this discussion we refer to our corrected

correlations. While this magnitude distinction is admittedly arbitrary, we feel that a cut-off should be

used, thus we refer to meaningful relationships as those that have an effect size magnitude of r> 0.10.

Hypothesized antecedent relationships

Hypotheses 1a and 1b predicted role stressors within the work and family domains would be positively

related to WFC and FWC. Results support both hypotheses. Global job stressors (r¼ 0.50) and work

role overload (r¼ 0.55) both had large relationships with WFC, work role conflict (r¼ 0.41) and work

time demands (r¼ 0.30) both had moderate relationships with WFC, while work role ambiguity


DOI: 10.1002/job

Table 2. Effects of work domain, family domain, and personality antecedents on WFC

Antecedents k N r r 80% CV SD r % Variance


Job stressors 19 6354 0.42 0.50 0.26 0.74 0.189 8.91Work role conflict 19 5324 0.34 0.41 0.28 0.53 0.098 36.13Work role ambiguity 20 5344 0.17 0.20 �0.10 0.50 0.236 8.82Work role overload 29 9830 0.45 0.55 0.38 0.73 0.136 21.15Work time demands 81 39 944 0.27 0.30 0.17 0.42 0.096 20.72

Role involvementJob involvement 34 8913 0.11 0.13 �0.08 0.35 0.168 17.74Work interest/centrality 4 699 0.11 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.000 100.00

Social supportOrganizational support 11 3386 �0.25 �0.30 �0.47 �0.12 0.135 18.30Supervisor support 31 11 960 �0.19 �0.22 �0.37 �0.07 0.118 19.99Coworker support 15 6179 �0.21 �0.25 �0.46 �0.05 0.162 11.93

Work characteristicsOrganizational tenure 20 6013 �0.03 �0.03 �0.13 0.07 0.080 38.61Job tenure 6 1989 �0.02 �0.02 �0.15 0.11 0.101 25.12Type of job 14 11 233 0.02 0.02 �0.11 0.14 0.098 13.13Current salary 8 3518 0.08 0.09 �0.02 0.20 0.085 28.86Task variety 6 905 0.12 0.17 0.07 0.26 0.071 70.55Job autonomy 16 13 421 �0.09 �0.11 �0.25 0.02 0.107 13.47Schedule flexibility 31 13 045 �0.07 �0.09 �0.33 0.15 0.188 8.81Family friendly organization 16 6952 �0.10 �0.11 �0.35 0.13 0.185 8.05


Family stressors 6 2913 0.28 0.35 0.23 0.47 0.096 31.28Family role conflict 6 2008 0.25 0.30 0.22 0.38 0.063 51.02Family role ambiguity 6 2008 0.15 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.000 100.00Family role overload 6 1692 0.20 0.24 0.07 0.42 0.137 20.61Family time demands 22 9248 0.05 0.06 �0.08 0.19 0.105 20.19Parental demands 12 2890 0.05 0.06 �0.04 0.16 0.079 43.21Number of children/dependents 66 27 753 0.07 0.07 �0.03 0.18 0.084 29.03Age of children 15 7159 �0.03 �0.04 �0.20 0.13 0.126 13.97

Role involvementFamily involvement 21 6513 0.02 0.02 �0.07 0.12 0.072 48.22Family interest/centrality 6 1453 �0.07 �0.10 �0.25 0.05 0.117 32.67

Social supportFamily support 19 5314 �0.15 �0.17 �0.30 �0.04 0.099 32.31Spousal support 16 4365 �0.08 �0.10 �0.15 �0.04 0.044 72.97

Family characteristicsWorking spouse 8 1912 0.04 0.05 0.01 0.09 0.031 84.93Family income 9 7092 0.08 0.09 0.06 0.12 0.022 76.92Family climate 5 5099 �0.28 �0.36 �0.51 �0.20 0.119 11.56

PersonalityInternal locus of control 9 7609 �0.15 �0.21 �0.38 �0.04 0.136 12.79Negative affect/neuroticism 15 4595 0.31 0.38 0.23 0.52 0.113 24.35

Note: Higher values indicate higher levels of the construct. Type of Job: Low¼ lower rank/level, high¼ higher rank/level.k, number of samples; N, number of participants; r, sample size weighted mean observed validity; r, r corrected for unreliability;CV, credibility interval; SD r, standard deviation of r; % Variance, the percentage of variance in effect sizes that was accountedfor by statistical artifacts and sampling error.


DOI: 10.1002/job


Table 3. Effects of work domain, family domain, and personality antecedents on FWC

Antecedents k N r r 80% CV SD r % Variance


Job stressors 8 3506 0.19 0.24 0.07 0.40 0.129 17.88Work role conflict 11 3266 0.21 0.25 0.14 0.36 0.084 39.36Work role ambiguity 12 4065 0.13 0.16 �0.07 0.39 0.180 11.60Work role overload 17 5255 0.20 0.26 0.10 0.42 0.127 25.42Work time demands 57 25 277 0.06 0.07 �0.08 0.23 0.121 16.34

Role involvementJob involvement 21 5790 0.02 0.02 �0.13 0.17 0.117 31.94Work interest/centrality 2 461 0.02 0.03 �0.11 0.16 0.104 30.82

Social supportOrganizational support 9 2752 �0.11 �0.14 �0.24 �0.04 0.078 43.00Supervisor support 25 10 726 �0.09 �0.11 �0.20 �0.02 0.070 40.79Coworker support 13 6107 �0.11 �0.14 �0.27 �0.00 0.104 21.91

Work characteristicsOrganizational tenure 11 4542 �0.01 �0.01 �0.05 0.04 0.036 69.68Job tenure 6 5265 �0.05 �0.06 �0.08 �0.03 0.022 74.97Type of job 9 5879 0.07 0.08 �0.06 0.21 0.107 14.24Current salary 5 2037 �0.06 �0.07 �0.07 �0.07 0.000 100.00Task variety 1 113 �0.04 — — — — —Job autonomy 10 8033 �0.02 �0.03 �0.17 �0.12 0.111 13.83Schedule flexibility 19 7099 0.05 0.06 �0.05 0.18 0.088 37.22Family friendly organization 13 6059 �0.08 �0.09 �0.26 0.07 0.126 16.93


Family stressors 4 1694 0.30 0.40 0.22 0.57 0.136 20.18Family role conflict 6 2008 0.29 0.36 0.27 0.45 0.068 46.22Family role ambiguity 6 2008 0.22 0.28 0.13 0.43 0.115 25.31Family role overload 6 1800 0.28 0.35 0.21 0.48 0.105 29.98Family time demands 21 9046 0.13 0.15 0.07 0.24 0.066 40.75Parental demands 9 1432 0.19 0.22 0.18 0.27 0.036 85.66Number of children/dependents 46 17 894 0.12 0.13 �0.03 0.30 0.126 16.99Age of children 14 5173 0.02 0.02 �0.25 0.29 0.209 70.68

Role involvementFamily involvement 17 5053 �0.00 �0.00 �0.10 0.09 0.074 49.70Family interest/centrality 5 1099 �0.05 �0.06 �0.06 �0.06 0.000 100.00

Social supportFamily support 21 7413 �0.09 �0.11 �0.38 0.16 0.211 8.21Spousal support 15 4011 �0.14 �0.16 �0.34 0.01 0.137 21.51

Family characteristicsWorking spouse 5 1220 0.07 0.08 0.00 0.16 0.061 59.06Family income 10 7444 �0.01 �0.01 �0.02 0.01 0.012 92.46Family climate 2 810 �0.13 �0.18 �0.18 �0.18 0.000 100.00

PersonalityInternal locus of control 7 7148 �0.13 �0.19 �0.40 0.03 0.169 6.72Negative affect/neuroticism 10 3418 0.27 0.33 0.22 0.46 0.087 34.03

Note: Higher values indicate higher levels of the construct. Type of Job: Low¼ lower rank/level, high¼ higher rank/level.k, number of samples; N, number of participants; r, sample size weighted mean observed validity; r, r corrected for unreliability;CV, credibility interval; SD r, standard deviation of r; % Variance, the percentage of variance in effect sizes that was accountedfor by statistical artifacts and sampling error.


DOI: 10.1002/job

J. S. MICHEL ET AL.


(r¼ 0.20) had a small relationship with WFC. Meanwhile, global family stressors (r¼ 0.40), family

role conflict (r¼ 0.36), and family role overload (r¼ 0.35) all had moderate relationships with FWC,

while family role ambiguity (r¼ 0.28), family time demands (r¼ 0.15), parental demands (r¼ 0.22),

and number of children/dependents (r¼ 0.13) all had small relationships with FWC. A surprising

finding for these hypotheses was that age of children was not a strong predictor of work–family conflict.

Given previous theoretical and empirical support (e.g., Byron, 2005), it was expected that this

relationship with FWC would have been much stronger, and in the opposite (i.e., negative) direction.

Overall, these results suggest that as role stressors in the work domain increase, WFC also increases;

likewise, as role stressors in the family domain increase, FWC also increases.

Hypotheses 2a and 2b predicted role involvement within the work and family domains would be

positively related to WFC and FWC. Results support Hypothesis 2a only. Specifically, both job

involvement (r¼ 0.13) and work interest/centrality (r¼ 0.13) had small relationships with WFC.

However, it is important to note that the finding for job involvement should be a much more robust

finding than that for work interest/centrality given the number of studies examined for each (k¼ 34 vs.

k¼ 4). Overall, these results suggest that as role involvement in the work domain increases, WFC also

increases.

Hypotheses 3a and 3b predicted social support within the work and family domains would be

negatively related to WFC and FWC. Results support both hypotheses. Organizational support

(r¼�0.30) had a moderate negative relationship with WFC, while supervisor support (r¼�0.22) and

coworker support (r¼�0.25) both had small negative relationships with WFC. Meanwhile, both

family support (r¼�0.11) and spousal support (r¼�0.16) had small negative relationships with

FWC. Overall, these results suggest that as social support in the work role increases, WFC decreases;

similarly, as social support in the family domain increases, FWC decreases.

Hypotheses 4a and 4b predicted work and family characteristics would be related to WFC and FWC.

Results partially support both hypotheses. Specifically, task variety (r¼ 0.17) had a small positive

relationship with WFC, while job autonomy (r¼�0.11) and family friendly organization (r¼�0.11)

both had small negative relationships with WFC. Meanwhile, family climate (r¼�0.18) had a small

negative relationship with FWC. Overall, these results suggest that as task variety increases, so does

WFC; as job autonomy and family friendly organization increase, WFC decreases; and as family

climate increases, FWC decreases.

Finally, Hypothesis 5 predicted internal locus of control would be negatively related to WFC and

FWC, while Hypothesis 6 predicted negative affectivity/neuroticism would be positively related to

WFC and FWC. Results support both hypotheses. Internal locus of control, where higher scores reflect

an internal orientation, had small relationships with both WFC (r¼�0.21) and FWC (r¼�0.19),

while negative affectivity/neuroticism had moderate relationships with both WFC (r¼ 0.38) and FWC

(r¼ 0.33). Collectively, these results suggest that the personality traits of internal locus of control and

negative affectivity/neuroticism have significant predictive roles in the perceptions of both WFC and

FWC.

Non-hypothesized antecedent relationships

In addition to our hypothesized relationships, we found some unanticipated yet meaningful findings

that fall outside of the traditional work–family conflict framework (i.e., work antecedents to WFC,

family antecedents to FWC). A primary finding was that role stressors tend to be related to both forms

of work–family conflict. Though typically smaller in magnitude than our relationships stemming from

Hypotheses 1a and 1b, we found consistent stressor effects. On the work side, global job stressors

(r¼ 0.24), work role conflict (r¼ 0.25), work role ambiguity (r¼ 0.16), and work role overload


DOI: 10.1002/job

J. S. MICHEL ET AL.

(r¼ 0.26) all had small relationships with FWC. Likewise, on the family side, global family stressors

(r¼ 0.35), family role conflict (r¼ 0.30), family role ambiguity (r¼ 0.19), and family role overload

(r¼ 0.24) all had moderate to small relationships with WFC. These findings could suggest several

work–family relationships. For example, it is possible that work and family role stressors are highly

salient and pervasive phenomena that permeate both WFC and FWC. Another explanation is that

perceptions of stressors and conflict have a common underlying theme (i.e., negative feelings and

emotions), thus overlapping within a construct space and producing moderate to small effect sizes. A

final related potential explanation could be that negative affect drives these perceptions (cf. Judge, Ilies,

& Scott, 2006; Michel & Clark, 2009), thus individuals high in negative affect report both higher

stressors and work–family conflict than those low in negative affect. This is particularly interesting as

time demands had relatively low non-traditional cross-over effects (r¼ 0.06–0.07), while role conflict,

role ambiguity, and role overload had relatively high non-traditional cross-over effects (r¼ 0.16–0.30),

suggesting that it is not physical stressors themselves (i.e., time demands) but the perceptions of

stressors (e.g., perceptions of overload).

Another unanticipated finding was that family interest/centrality, work and family social support,

and family climate had small to moderate non-hypothesized relationships. On the work side, though

smaller in magnitude than our relationships stemming from Hypotheses 3a, organizational support

(r¼�0.14), supervisor support (r¼�0.11), and coworker support (r¼�0.14) all had small

relationships with FWC. Meanwhile, on the family side, and with similar or larger magnitudes than our

relationships stemming from Hypotheses 2b, 3b, and 4b, family interest/centrality (r¼�0.10), family

support (r¼�0.17), spousal support (r¼�0.10), and family climate (r¼�0.36) all had small to

moderate relationships with WFC. Interestingly, this family climate relationship was actually twice the

magnitude of our coinciding FWC finding from Hypothesis 4b. Post hoc, these findings seem logical as

organizations and coworkers who are supportive, and particularly ‘‘family supportive,’’ probably

engender less FWC as they are more understanding and tolerant of an employee’s family life within the

work domain. Likewise, as an employee has family members who are more socially supportive and

provide a more understanding family culture, so should negative cross-over effects of WFC be reduced

as they too should be more understanding and tolerant of one’s work life. Collectively, future research

and theoretical attention should be devoted to these unanticipated findings.

Hypothesized moderation effects

In the reporting of moderator effects, we only report results with 10 or more samples (k), with a loss of

no more than 30 percent of the original samples, to ensure our inferences come from relatively stable

meta-analytic results. Though family income met this criterion, examination of credibility intervals and

variance explained by statistical artifacts and sampling error suggests moderators are not present, and

therefore was not included in our moderator analysis. Overall, average number of studies retained for

moderator analysis was 92.44 percent.

Table 4 reports the results for Hypothesis 7a, in which marital status, parental status, and gender were

examined as potential moderators of our hypothesized work domain and WFC relationships. Results

partially support this hypothesis. We found seven of these relationships to be impacted by at least one of

the theoretically driven moderators investigated in this study; nine moderation effects in total. For work

role stressors, we found three significant findings, all in the unexpected direction. First, the global job

stressors and WFC relationship was moderated by parental status sample characteristics. The

moderating role of parental status was negative, such that as the percent of sample participants who are

parents increases, the global job stressors and WFC relationship is less positive. This finding suggests

that nonparents experience greater WFC from global job stressors than parents. Second, the work role


DOI: 10.1002/job

Table 4. Moderating effects of demographic variables on hypothesized work domain antecedents and WFC

WFC

Marital status Parental status Gender

kt k bRegression

F-value k bRegression


F-value

Job stressors 19 18 0.10 0.17 15 �0.56 6.04� 19 �0.30 1.71Work role conflict 19 18 0.33 1.94 16 0.36 2.08 19 �0.26 1.22Work role ambiguity 20 19 �0.30 1.66 17 �0.30 1.53 20 �0.45 4.43�

Work role overload 29 28 �0.12 0.40 26 �0.01 0.00 29 �0.19 1.02Work time demands 81 69 �0.26 4.86� 69 �0.20 2.72 77 �0.14 1.60Job involvement 34 33 0.17 0.88 33 �0.05 0.07 34 0.04 0.04Organizational support 11 10 �0.30 0.79 10 �0.13 0.15 11 �0.11 0.10Supervisor support 31 28 0.11 0.30 29 �0.01 0.01 30 0.08 0.20Coworker support 15 11 0.87 28.28�� 12 0.69 9.10� 13 0.42 2.36Organizational tenure 20 18 �0.03 0.02 17 0.00 0.00 20 0.07 0.08Type of job 14 14 �0.03 0.01 13 0.09 0.08 14 �0.21 0.53Job autonomy 16 12 �0.50 3.35 12 �0.43 2.25 16 �0.57 6.64�

Schedule flexibility 31 27 0.39 4.41� 25 0.57 10.92�� 29 0.17 0.79Family friendly organization 16 13 0.41 2.17 13 0.55 4.85� 14 0.29 1.08

Note: kt, number of samples cumulated; k, number of samples in regression analysis; b, standardized beta weight for moderator.Marital status was coded as percentage of sample participants who were married or living with partner, with values ranging from1¼ 20% or less currently married or living with partner to 6¼ 100% currently married or living with partner. Parental status wascoded as percentage of the study sample with children, with values ranging from 1¼ 20% or less parents to 6¼ 100% parents.Gender was coded as percentage of female participants within the sample, with values ranging from 1¼ 0% female to 12¼ 100%female.�p< 0.05; ��p< 0.01.


ambiguity and WFC relationship was moderated by gender sample characteristics. The moderating role

of gender was negative, such that as the percent of sample participants who are female increases, the

work role ambiguity and WFC relationship is less positive. This finding suggests that males experience

greater WFC from work role ambiguity than females. And third, the work time demands and WFC

relationship was moderated by marital status sample characteristics. The moderating role of marital

status was negative indicating that the work time demands and WFC relationship is less positive as the

sample contains more individuals who are married. This finding suggests that nonmarried individuals

experience greater WFC from work time demands than married individuals.

We also found several significant relationships for work social support and work characteristics.

First, the coworker support and WFC relationship was moderated by both marital status and parental

status sample characteristics. The moderating role of both marital status and parental status was

positive, such that as the percent of sample participants who are married or are parents increases, the

coworker support and WFC relationship is more negative. These findings suggest that individuals who

are married or parents experience a greater reduction in WFC from coworker support than individuals

who are nonmarried or nonparents. Similarly, the schedule flexibility and WFC relationship was

moderated by both marital status and parental status sample characteristics. The moderating role of

both marital status and parental status was positive, such that as the percent of sample participants who

are married or are parents increases, the schedule flexibility and WFC relationship is more negative.

These findings suggest that individuals who are married or parents experience a greater reduction in

WFC from schedule flexibility than individuals who are nonmarried or nonparents. The family friendly

organization and WFC relationship was moderated by parental status sample characteristics. The

moderating role of parental status was positive, such that as the percent of sample participants who are

parents increases, the family friendly organization and WFC relationship is more negative. These


DOI: 10.1002/job

Table 5. Moderating effects of demographic variables on hypothesized family domain antecedents and FWC

FWC

Marital status Parental status Gender

kt k bRegression



F-value

Family time demands 21 19 �0.32 1.93 19 �0.57 8.19� 21 0.38 3.19Number of children/dependents

46 46 0.20 1.91 43 �0.24 2.46 46 �0.13 0.73

Age of children 14 14 0.09 0.11 13 �0.50 3.63 14 0.34 1.62Family involvement 17 17 0.44 3.50 17 0.28 1.31 16 �0.17 0.44Family support 21 21 0.17 0.55 21 0.25 1.25 20 0.00 0.00Spouse support 15 14 �0.17 0.36 13 �0.11 0.14 15 0.18 0.43

Note: kt, number of samples cumulated; k, number of samples in regression analysis; b, standardized beta weight for moderator.Marital status was coded as percentage of sample participants who were married or living with partner, with values ranging from1¼ 20% or less currently married or living with partner to 6¼ 100% currently married or living with partner. Parental status wascoded as percentage of the study sample with children, with values ranging from 1¼ 20% or less parents to 6¼ 100% parents.Gender was coded as percentage of female participants within the sample, with values ranging from 1¼ 0% female to 12¼ 100%female.�p< 0.05.

J. S. MICHEL ET AL.

findings suggest that individuals who are parents experience a greater reduction in WFC from a family

friendly organization than individuals who are nonparents. Finally, gender had a significant and

negative moderating effect on the job autonomy and WFC relationship, which was in the unexpected

direction. The negative moderating effect indicates that the job autonomy and WFC relationship

becomes less negative as more females are included in the sample. This finding suggests that males

experience a greater reduction in WFC from job autonomy than females.

Table 5 reports the results of Hypothesis 7b, in which marital status, parental status, and gender were

examined as potential moderators of our hypothesized family domain and FWC relationships. Results

do not support this hypothesis. Of these sample demographics, only parental status was found to be a

significant moderator, and this relationship was in the unexpected direction. Parental status had a

significant and negative moderating effect on the family time demands and FWC relationship, such that

this relationship becomes less positive as more parents are included in the sample. This finding suggests

that nonparents experience greater FWC from family time demands than parents.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to provide a comprehensive meta-analytic examination of work–family

conflict and its antecedents. Given our findings, we present a slightly modified version of our model in

Figure 2. As displayed, antecedents in bold font represent variables that were predictors of both WFC

and FWC, antecedents in regular font represent variables that were predictors of same domain conflict

only (work predictor of WFC, family predictor of FWC), and antecedents in italic font represent

variables that were predictors of other domain conflict only (family predictor of WFC). Collectively,

our hypothesized results suggest: (1) Work role stressors (global job stressors, work role conflict, work

role ambiguity, work role overload, and work time demands), work role involvement (job involvement

and work interest/centrality), work social support (organizational support, supervisor support, and

coworker support), and work characteristics (task variety, job autonomy, and family friendly


DOI: 10.1002/job

Figure 2. Final meta-analytic model of work–family conflict.Note: Antecedents in bold font are predictors of both WFC and FWC; antecedents in regular font are predictorsof the hypothesized relationship only; antecedents in italic font are predictors of the non-hypothesizedrelationship only. Dotted lines represent non-hypothesized relationships. Corrected correlations are reported.

a¼ see Tables 4 and 5 for direction and magnitude of moderation effects


organization) are predictors of WFC; (2) family role stressors (global family stressors, family role

conflict, family role ambiguity, family role overload, family time demands, parental demands, and

number of children/dependents), family social support (family support and spousal support), and

family characteristics (family climate) are predictors of FWC; (3) internal locus of control and negative

affect/neuroticism predict both WFC and FWC; and (4) demographic variables (marital status, parental

status, and gender) are significant and meaningful moderators of many work domain/WFC and family

domain/FWC relationships. We also found some unanticipated findings. These findings suggest: (1)

Work role stressors (global job stressors, work role conflict, work role ambiguity, and work role

overload) and work social support (organizational support, supervisor support, and coworker support)

are related to FWC; and (2) family role stressors (global family stressors, family role conflict, family

role ambiguity, and family role overload), family role involvement (family interest/centrality), family


DOI: 10.1002/job

J. S. MICHEL ET AL.

social support (family support and spousal support), and family characteristics (family climate) are

related to WFC.

Some of the more interesting findings from this meta-analysis revolve around role stressors,

personality, and the moderator findings of the role stressors and work–family conflict relationships.

Regarding role stressors, work–family researchers have repeatedly noted the importance of both work

and family stressors as antecedents of work–family conflict (e.g., Carlson & Perrewe, 1999; Greenhaus

& Beutell, 1985; Parasuraman, Greenhaus & Granrose, 1992; Van Sell, Brief, & Schuler, 1981);

however, there has been much ambiguity revolving around the types of work and family stressors and

the subsequent impact on work–family conflict (e.g., Michel, Mitchelson, Pichler, & Cullen, 2010).

Our results reduce this ambiguity and clearly show differential impact of specific work and family

domain stressors on WFC and FWC. Though each of these stressors have unique magnitudes in relation

to work–family conflict, there are several trends across these relationships. For example, role ambiguity

was consistently a much weaker predictor of work–family conflict than global stressors, role overload,

and role conflict. Similarly, psychological stressors (e.g., role ambiguity, role overload) were better

predictors of overall work–family conflict (i.e., both WFC and FWC) than non-psychological stressors

(e.g., time demands, number of children), while non-psychological stressors were better predictors of

same domain work–family conflict.

Regarding personality, there has been a recent call for greater examination of personality variables

within the work–family literature (see Eby et al., 2005; Friede & Ryan, 2005; Michel & Clark, 2009).

This study provides the first meta-analytic examination of personality and work–family conflict. More

specifically, we examined the direct effects of both internal locus of control and negative affect/

neuroticism on WFC and FWC. Our results indicated that both personality variables were significant

predictors of both forms of work–family conflict. Further, negative affectivity/neuroticism was one of

the strongest predictors of work–family conflict, second only to various domain stressors.

Consequently, these results suggest a significant amount of variance in work–family conflict, and

potentially other work–family constructs, is disposition-based.

Regarding the moderator findings of the role stressors and work–family conflict relationships, and

contrary to our hypotheses, our results support a potential buffering effect where role stressor–WFC

relationships were weaker for samples that consisted of more married, parent, and female participants.

Post hoc, it seems that incorporating additional roles into one’s life (e.g., marital roles, parental roles),

and thus increasing self-complexity, may provide a protective buffer for role stressors’ negative

influence on work–family conflict. Self-complexity refers to both the number of self-aspects, including

roles, behaviors, traits, and similar category memberships, as well as the degree of distinction or

independence between these aspects of the self (Linville, 1985, 1987; see Koch & Shepperd, 2004 for a

review). For example, a woman high in self-complexity would perceive herself as having many roles

that are seen as separate and potentially non-overlapping such as mother, wife, employee, friend, and

daughter. Recent research, however, suggests that the number of self-aspects drives the buffering

effects more so than the degree of non-overlap (Brown & Rafaeli, 2007; Rothermund & Meiniger,

2004). Regardless, according to theory, having high self-complexity (i.e., more roles) prevents stressors

or stressful events from one domain spreading or spilling over into other self-aspects or roles; thus

protecting the overall positive self-view of the individual (Linville, 1987). For example, Dixon and

Baumeister (1991) found that those high in self-complexity respond to failure in one self-aspect (i.e.,

verbal intelligence) by focusing on and persisting in tasks relevant to other independent self-aspects

(i.e., personal goals). Our results suggest that a similar buffering effect could explain the effects of our

moderator variables. For example, though global job stressors was highly positively related to WFC,

this relationship was weaker for samples that consisted of more parents. Accordingly, self-complexity

would suggest that individuals who possess more roles (e.g., parents), and thus greater self-complexity,

would have a reduction in this stressor–strain relationship.


DOI: 10.1002/job


Byron (2005): Comparisons and contributions

While the general structure of our revised model and Byron’s (2005) model are similar, primary

differences revolve around three critical aspects: Level of clarity regarding work and family

antecedents, inclusion of personality variables, and the placement of variables within models (e.g.,

direct vs. interaction effect). As this work is an extension of Byron’s, a comparison between reviews

should be offered.

A primary contribution of this review is the added conceptual and empirical clarity of role stressors,

role involvement, social support, and work/family characteristics in regards to WFC and FWC. For

example, while Byron (2005) examined role stressors, we disentangled role stressors into the

theoretically derived facets of role conflict, role ambiguity, and role overload (cf. Katz & Kahn, 1978).

From this disentanglement, we can see that the estimates Byron reported for job stress and WFC

(r¼ 0.48) and family stress and FWC (r¼ 0.47) are missing the theoretical facets of role conflict

(r¼ 0.41 for work; r¼ 0.36 for family), role ambiguity (r¼ 0.20 for work; r¼ 0.28 for family), and

role overload (r¼ 0.55 for work; r¼ 0.35 for family), for example. While Byron did report work role

overload for WFC (r¼ 0.65) and FWC (r¼ 0.40), the other relationships reported above are novel to

this review. Accordingly, we now see that work and family role ambiguity is a much weaker predictor

of WFC and FWC than other role stressors. Likewise, while Byron reports work support and WFC

(r¼�0.19) and family support and FWC (r¼�0.17) relationships, we again see that social support is

multifaceted with aspects of organizational support (r¼�0.30), supervisor support (r¼�0.22), and

coworker support (r¼�0.25) on the work side and family social support (r¼�0.11) and spousal

support (r¼�0.16) on the family side. This is another novel contribution of the current review. Finally,

we extend Byron’s review with the addition of seven work characteristics; of these, task variety

(r¼ 0.17) job autonomy (r¼�0.11) and family friendly organization (r¼�0.11) were all predictive

of WFC.

In total, our finer grained analysis provides 13 additional or refined work domain predictors of WFC

(work role conflict, work role ambiguity, work interest/centrality, organizational support, supervisor

support, coworker support, organizational tenure, job tenure, type of job, current salary, task variety,

job autonomy, and family friendly organization) and seven additional or refined family domain

predictors of FWC (family role conflict, family role ambiguity, family role overload, parental demands,

family interest/centrality, spousal support, family climate). These additional variables are also provided

for our unhypothesized, yet often significant and meaningful, work domain to FWC and family domain

to WFC relationships. As such, this paper addresses Byron’s call for researchers ‘‘to attend to more

finely grained variables that may more fully capture employees’ likelihood of experiencing work–

family conflict,’’ and does so at a meta-analytic level (p. 169).

Several of these discrepancies seem particularly noteworthy due to the magnitude of the difference.

On the work side, work role overload had discrepancies with WFC (r¼ 0.55, current study; r¼ 0.65,

Byron) and FWC (r¼ 0.26, current study; r¼ 0.40, Byron), while schedule flexibility had

discrepancies with WFC (r¼�0.09, current study; r¼�0.30, Byron) and FWC (r¼ 0.06, current

study; r¼�0.17, Byron). Meanwhile, on the family side, age of children had discrepancies with FWC

(r¼ 0.02, current study; r¼�0.22, Byron) and WFC (r¼�0.04, current study; r¼�0.17, Byron).

There are several potential explanations for these discrepancies. One would be the operationalization

of constructs and subsequent studies included in each review. For example, in regards to work–family

conflict, we only included measures of work–family conflict as the construct of work–nonwork or

work–life conflict is far more inclusive (e.g., leisure roles, community roles; Frone, 2003). While we

expected that family domain antecedents would have stronger relationships with work–family conflict

than work–nonwork conflict due to the underlying family commonality (cf. Huffman, Youngcort,

Payne, & Castro, 2008), this may not have been the case. In fact, we found one relationship, age of


DOI: 10.1002/job

J. S. MICHEL ET AL.

children and FWC (r¼ 0.02), which was unexpectedly smaller and in the opposite direction than that in

Byron (r¼�0.22). However, this relationship found by Byron could have been captured in our

operationalization of the parental demands variable (r¼ 0.22), as younger children often require

greater parental demands. Regardless, we feel that the methodological and conceptual clarity of meta-

analytically examined variables is paramount (cf. Burke & Landis, 2003), and feel confident in our

decision to exclude non-family oriented measures and provide more detailed coding of antecedents

(e.g., multiple sources of social support such as organization, supervisor, or coworker).

A related potential explanation for these discrepancies revolves around the number of studies and

subsequent stability of the effect size estimates. Specifically, many of these discrepancies could be

explained through the addition of effect sizes, as the modified fail–safe N (MFN) in Byron’s (2005)

estimates were often exceeded in the current review. For example, Byron’s MFN for work role overload

was 5 for WFC and 4 for FWC. Our review exceeded these with an additional 19 effect sizes for WFC

(29 vs. 10) and an additional 7 effect sizes for FWC (17 vs. 10). Likewise, Byron’s MFN for schedule

flexibility was 2 for WFC and 4 for FWC. Again, our review exceeded these with an additional 23 effect

sizes for WFC (31 vs. 8) and an additional 11 effect sizes for FWC (19 vs. 8). Overall, Byron’s MFN

was exceeded in our review five times for WFC (job involvement, work time demands, schedule

flexibility, work role overload, and number of children/dependents) and six times for FWC (job

involvement, schedule flexibility, work role overload, family involvement, family time demands, and

number of children/dependents), suggesting that some discrepancies may be due to the addition of

effect sizes.

Another primary contribution of this review is the added conceptual and empirical clarity of

personality in relation to work–family conflict, as this study provides the first meta-analytic

examination of internal locus of control and negative affect/neuroticism in regards to WFC and FWC.

Our results indicate that internal locus of control had relationships of r¼�0.21 and r¼�0.19 with

WFC and FWC, while negative affectivity/neuroticism had relationships of r¼ 0.38 and 0.33 with

WFC and FWC. Accordingly, these results suggest that these personality traits of internal locus of

control and negative affectivity/neuroticism have small and moderate predictive roles in the

perceptions of work–family conflict. As such, this work provides a contribution above and beyond that

of Byron (2005) by providing the first meta-analytic test of personality traits within the work–family

literature and helps answer the recent call for greater examination of personality in regards to work and

family relationships (Eby et al., 2005; Friede & Ryan, 2005; Michel & Clark, 2009).

Finally, this review and Byron’s (2005) differ in regards to the examination of demographic

variables. First, while Byron examined the percent of sample with parents and women as moderators,

we supplemented her research with marital status. Second, we examined our moderator variables on

finer grained relationships (e.g., five forms of job stressors, three forms of work support). And third, as

we had a much larger sample of studies to examine (142 studies vs. 61 studies; 105 studies unique to

this review), we were able to further clarify under what circumstances WFC and FWC are perceived

(e.g., when schedule flexibility is not provided for employees who are married or parents).

General contributions and practical implications

The current work contributes to the work–family conflict literature and impacts the field in at least three

ways. First, this work provides, tests, and subsequently revises a meta-framework that was developed

from multiple work–family linkages, incorporates core work, family, and personality antecedents, and

examines demographic variables as moderators. In doing so, the current work integrates and applies

many seminal works within the literature into a coherent framework (e.g., Edwards & Rothbard, 2000;

Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985; Kahn et al., 1964; Kopelman et al., 1983; Zedeck, 1992).


DOI: 10.1002/job


Second, while there have been previous meta-analyses within the work–family conflict literature,

none have been as exhaustive as the current work. While comprehensiveness by itself is not a

contribution, this did allow for a finer grained analysis of the constructs within the study, along with

additional moderator analyses. For example, while Byron (2005) included a work domain variable of

support, she found that work support had a relationship with WFC of r¼�0.19. However, given the

comprehensiveness of the current work, we were able to disentangle the work social support construct

and determine its relationship to WFC at facet levels: Organizational support (r¼�0.30), supervisor

support (r¼�0.22), and coworker support (r¼�0.25). Likewise, though Byron reported job stress

and WFC (r¼ 0.48) and family stress and FWC (r¼ 0.47) relationships, we were able to further

explore the theoretical facets of role conflict (r¼ 0.41 for work domain to WFC; r¼ 0.36 for family

domain to FWC), role ambiguity (r¼ 0.20 for work domain to WFC; r¼ 0.28 for family domain to

FWC), and role overload (r¼ 0.55 for work domain to WFC; r¼ 0.35 for family domain to FWC). In

doing so, the current work answers Byron’s call by providing a meta-analytic examination of finer

grained variables that provide greater clarity of work–family conflict antecedents.

And third, with this better understanding of work–family conflict and its antecedents,

implementation of these findings can progress. For example, many of the variables in our model

are potentially under the control of the individual, the partner in the relationship, peers or coworkers,

the organization, the immediate supervisor, or various laws and regulations. Thus, the findings herein

could be used for, or in the goal of, reduction of work–family conflict at multiple levels. For example,

job stressors are important antecedents of WFC and FWC. Organizations that are interested in reducing

the extent to which their employees’ work lives conflict with their family lives, and visa versa, would

particularly benefit from focusing on reducing work role conflict, work role ambiguity, and work role

overload. In other words, employers can likely reduce employee WFC and FWC by ensuring job duties

and responsibilities are clear and compatible, while also ensuring that the number of tasks in which

employees are responsible for are reasonable. Similarly, our moderator variables revealed some

interesting results with practical implications. For example, our findings suggest that schedule

flexibility benefited those who were of married/partnered or parental status. These findings could also

be used in the goal to reduce perceptions of employee WFC.

Study limitations and future research

One of the most common typologies in the work–family conflict literature recognizes three forms of

conflict: Time-based, strain-based, and behavior-based conflict (Carlson, 1999; Greenhaus & Beutell,

1985; Stephens & Sommer, 1996). Unfortunately, our data only included four studies that provided data

independently for time, strain, and/or behavior based conflict. When factoring in the number of

variables we examine, along with the few studies that include one or more forms of this conflict, there

simply was not sufficient data to meta-analytically examine. Thus, we were forced to average effect

sizes across these facets of work–family conflict. Future research should further examine Greenhaus

and Beutell’s (1985) trichotomization of time, strain, and behavior based work–family conflict. This is

important for theoretical clarification of each form of work–family conflict. For example, resource

drain theory should be an important component of time and strain based work–family conflict, but

conflict theory should be an important component of behavior based work–family conflict (cf. Edwards

& Rothbard, 2000). Further examination of these work–family components should shed light on the

validity of extant theoretical models within the work–family literature. Further, increased examination

of these forms of conflict at the primary level need to be executed so secondary research synthesis can

be conducted.


DOI: 10.1002/job

J. S. MICHEL ET AL.

Similarly, the hindrance/challenge stressor framework is a recent contribution to the stressor

(LePine, LePine, & Jackson, 2004; LePine, Podsakoff, & LePine, 2005) and work–family (LePine,

LePine, & Saul, 2007) literatures. This framework posits that work stressors are differentially related to

work outcomes, such that challenge-related stressors are positively related to desirable outcomes and

hindrance-related stressors are negatively related to desirable outcomes. Unfortunately, much of the

hindrance/challenge construct occurs at the item level (Cavanaugh, Boswell, Roehling, & Boudreau,

2000), thus stressor measures included in this meta-analysis contain both hindrance and challenge

items, resulting in our inability to partition each form of stress. We should note, however, that the

majority of the antecedent variables we examined could be classified as hindrance stressors (e.g., work

role conflict, job stressors), thus providing additional support and clarity on a portion of this novel

framework. Given the importance of this emerging framework, we suggest further studies of this

framework at the primary level so secondary research synthesis can be conducted.

Our results provide moderate support for the personality variable of internal locus of control and

strong support for the personality variable of negative affect/neuroticism; thus, we highly encourage

the examination of personality within the work–family interface. Our findings provide preliminary

support for potential relationships between work–family conflict and Core Self-Evaluations and the

Five Factor Model. More specifically, internal locus of control has been conceptualized as a component

of Core Self-Evaluations (e.g., Judge, Bono, Erez, & Locke, 2005); likewise, neuroticism is one of the

five factors within the Five Factor Model of personality. Future research should further explore these

relationships. In addition, while we have preliminary support for these relationships, examination of

personality within the work–family domain could explore the impact explicit social reputations and

implicit social cognitions (Bing, LeBreton, Davison, Migetz, & James, 2007; Bing, Stewart, Davison,

Green, McIntyre, & James, 2007; Hogan, 1991; James & Mazerolle, 2002), along with more

dysfunctional personality traits (Buss & Perry, 1992; Paulhus & Williams, 2002), have on work–family

conflict. In addition, personality based research could also expand beyond the work–family conflict

literature and examine personality influences on other forms of work–family interactions. For example,

it could be that some personality variables (e.g., negative affect) have significant direct effects on work–

family conflict, while others (e.g., positive affect, proactivity) have significant direct effects on other

forms of work–family interactions such as enrichment and facilitation. Despite the fact that personality

variables seem to be a promising component in the prediction of work–family constructs, personality

variables have received less attention than other antecedents. For example, our literature review

included relatively few studies on internal locus of control (k¼ 9, WFC; k¼ 7, FWC) and negative

affect/neuroticism (k¼ 15, WFC; k¼ 10, FWC). In comparison, role stressors have received far more

empirical examination (up to k¼ 81 for WFC; up to k¼ 57 for FWC). As such, the stability of our meta-

analytic bivariate relationships is variable, where larger k (e.g., role stressor variable estimates) should

represent more robust effect size approximations than smaller k (e.g., personality variable estimates).

Nonetheless, based on this study, future research on personality variables within the work–family

interface should prove fruitful.

Finally, we suggest meta-analytic path analysis of holistic models of work and family. Though the

present work examined the antecedents of work–family conflict (see also Byron, 2005), previous work

has examined the consequences of work–family conflict (Allen, Herst, Bruck, & Sutton, 2000; Kossek

& Ozeki, 1998), and the recent works of Ford et al. (2007), Michel and Hargis (2008), and Michel,

Mitchelson, Kotrba, LeBreton, and Baltes (2009) examined cross-domain relationships of work and

family, we suggest the meta-analytic examination of holistic work–family models (e.g., Frone et al.,

1997) to provide greater clarity of work–family conflict and its antecedents and outcomes at an

incremental multivariate level (cf. Michel et al., 2009). Further, such examination could expand beyond

the work–family conflict literature and examine other forms of work–family interactions such as

enrichment, facilitation, and balance for a more complete understanding of work and family.


DOI: 10.1002/job


Conclusions

It was the intention of the current work to integrate the work–family conflict literature and provide a

meta-framework with both theoretical and meta-analytic support. The quantitative review resulted in

strong empirical support for our revised model and the constructs of WFC and FWC, which were

supported by various theories linking work and family—including role theory, resource drain theory,

compensation theory, and congruence theory. Major contributions revolve around the importance of

role stressors and personality variables in regards to perceptions of work–family conflict, while

multiple roles may buffer harmful stressor effects on work–family conflict.

Author biographies

Jesse S. Michel is an Assistant Professor in the Psychology Department at Florida International

University. His research interests include dynamics between work and family, personality and

behavioral stability, and leadership and abusive supervision.

Lindsey M. Kotrba is the Director of Research and Development at Denison Consulting. Her research

interests include job satisfaction, work and family balance, organizational culture and leadership.

Jacqueline K. Mitchelson is an Assistant Professor in the Psychology Department at Auburn

University. Her research interests include leadership and organizational culture, work–family conflict,

and individual differences.

Malissa A. Clark is a doctoral student in the Psychology Department at Wayne State University. Her

research interests include emotions in the workplace, work–family conflict, counterproductive work

behaviors, and occupational health psychology.

Boris B. Baltes is an Associate Professor in the Psychology Department at Wayne State University. His

research interests include age and workplace issues, biases in performance appraisal, and work–family

balance.

References

�References marked with an asterisk are included in the meta-analysis.Adams, G. A., & Jex, S. M. (1999). Relationships between time management, control, work-family conflict, and

strain. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 4, 72–77.�Adams, G. A., King, L. A., & King, D. W. (1996). Relationship of job and family involvement, family social

support, and work-family conflict with job and life satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 411–420.Allen, T. D., Herst, D. E. L., Bruck, C. S., & Sutton, M. (2000). Consequences associated with work-to-family

conflict: A review and agenda for future research. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 278–308.Allport, G. W. (1937). Personality: A psychological interpretation. New York: Holt.�Anderson, S. E., Coffey, B. S., & Byerly, R. T. (2002). Formal organizational initiatives and informal workplace

practices: Links to work-family conflict and job-related outcomes. Journal of Management, 28, 787–810.�Andreassi, J. K., & Thompson, C. A. (2007). Dispositional and situational sources of control: Relative impact on

work-family conflict and positive spillover. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22, 722–740.Archbold, P. G. (1983). Impact of parental-caring on women. Family Relations, 32, 39–45.


DOI: 10.1002/job

J. S. MICHEL ET AL.

�Aryee, S. (1992). Antecedents and outcomes of work-family conflict among married professional women:Evidence from Singapore. Human Relations, 45, 813–837.

�Aryee, S., Fields, D., & Luk, V. (1999). A cross-cultural test of a model of the work-family interface. Journal ofManagement, 25, 491–511.

�Aryee, S., Luk, V., Leung, A., & Lo, S. (1999). Role stressors, interrole conflict, and well-being: The moderatinginfluence of spousal support and coping behaviors among employed parents in Hong Kong. Journal ofVocational Behavior, 54, 259–278.

�Aycan, Z., & Eskin, M. (2005). Relative contributions of childcare, spousal support, and organizational support inreducing work-family conflict for men and women: The case of Turkey. Sex Roles, 53, 453–471.

Bacharach, S. B., Bamberger, P., & Conley, S. (1990). Work processes, role conflict, and role overload: The case ofnurses and engineers in the public sector. Work and Occupations, 17, 199–228.

Baltes, B. B., Briggs, T. E., Huff, J. W., Wright, J. A., & Heuman, G. A. (1999). Flexible and compressed workweekschedules: A Meta-analysis of their effects on work-related criteria. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 496–513.

�Baltes, B. B., & Heydens-Gahir, H. (2003). Reduction of work-family conflict through the use of selection,optimization, and compensation behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 1005–1018.

�Bedeian, A. G., Burke, B. G., & Moffett, R. G. (1988). Outcomes of work-family conflict among married male andfemale professionals. Journal of Management, 14, 475–491.

Beehr, T. A. (1995). Psychological stress in the workplace. London: Routledge.Beehr, T. A., & Glazer, A. (2005). Organizational role stress. In J. Barling, E. K. Kelloway, & M. R. Frone (Eds.),

Handbook of work stress (pp. 7–33). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.�Behson, S. J. (2002a). Coping with family-to-work conflict: The role of informal work accommodations to family.

Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 7, 324–341.�Behson, S. J. (2002b). Which dominates? The relative importance of work-family organizational support and

general organizational context on employee outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 53–72.�Bernas, K. H., & Major, D. A. (2000). Contributors to stress resistance: Testing a model of women’s work-family

conflict. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 24, 170–178.�Beutell, N. J., & Wittig-Berman, U. (1999). Predictors of work-family conflict and satisfaction with family, job,

career, and life. Psychological Reports, 85, 893–903.Bing, M. N., LeBreton, J. M., Davison, H. K., Migetz, D. Z., & James, L. R. (2007). Integrating implicit and

explicit social cognitions for enhanced personality assessment: A general framework for choosing measurementand statistical methods. Organizational Research Methods, 10, 346–389.

Bing, M. N., Stewart, S. M., Davison, H. K., Green, P. D., McIntyre, M. D., & James, L. R. (2007). An integrativetypology of personality assessment for aggression: Implications for predicting counterproductive workplacebehavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 722–744.

�Blau, G. (1995). Influence of group lateness on individual lateness: A cross-level examination. Academy ofManagement Journal, 38, 1483–1496.

�Boles, J. S., & Babin, B. J. (1996). On the front lines: Stress, conflict, and the customer service provider. Journal ofBusiness Research, 37, 41–50.

�Boles, J. S., Johnston, M. W., & Hair, J. F. (1997). Role stress, work-family conflict and emotional exhaustion:Inter-relationships and effects on some work-related consequences. The Journal of Personal Selling and SalesManagement, 17, 17–28.

Bond, J. T., Galinsky, E., & Swanberg, J. E. (1998). The 1997 national study of the changing workforce. New York:Families and Work Institute.

�Bolino, M. C., & Turnley, W. H. (2005). The personal costs of citizenship behavior: The relationship betweenindividual initiative and role overload, job stress, and work-family conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90,740–748.

�Boyar, S. L., Carr, J. C., Mosley, D. C., & Carson, C.M., (2007). The development and validation of scores onperceived work and family demand scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 67, 100–115.

�Boyar, S. L., Maertz, C. P., Jr., Pearson, A. W., & Keough, S. (2003). Work-family conflict: A model of linkagesbetween work and family domain variables and turnover intentions. Journal of Managerial Issues, 15, 175–190.

�Boyar, S. L., & Mosley, D. C. (2007). The relationship between core self-evaluations and work and familysatisfaction: The mediating role of work-family conflict and facilitation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 71,265–281.

�Britt, T. W., & Dawson, C. R. (2005). Predicting work-family conflict from workload, job attitudes, groupattributes, and health: A longitudinal study. Military Psychology, 17, 203–227.


DOI: 10.1002/job


�Brough, P. (2005). A comparative investigation of the predictors of work-related psychological well-being withinpolice, fire and ambulance workers. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 34, 127–134.

�Brough, P., & Kelling, A. (2002). Women, work & well-being family-work conflict. New Zealand Journal ofPsychology, 31, 29–38.

�Brough, P., O’Driscoll, M. P., & Kalliath, T. J. (2005). The ability of ’family friendly’ organizational resources topredict work-family conflict and job and family satisfaction. Stress & Health, 21, 223–234.

Brown, G. & Rafaeli, E. (2007). Components of self-complexity as buffers for depressed mood. Journal ofCognitive Psychotherapy, 21, 308–331.

�Bruck, C. S. (2003). Theoretical antecedents to work-family conflict: A comprehensive approach. UnpublishedDissertation. University of South Florida, Tampa, FL.

�Bruck, C. S., & Allen, T. D. (2003). The relationship between big five personality traits, negative affectivity, typeA behavior, and work-family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63, 457–472.

�Bruck, C. S., Allen, T. D., & Spector, P. E. (2002). The relationship between work-family conflict and jobsatisfaction: A finer grained analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 60, 336–353.

Burke, R. J. (1986). Occupational and life stress and the family: Conceptual frameworks and research findings.International Review of Applied Psychology, 35, 347–369.

�Burke, R. J. (1988). Some antecedents and consequences of work/family conflict. Journal of Social Behavior &Personality Special Issue: Work and family: Theory, Research, and Applications, 3, 287–302.

�Burke, R. J. (1998). Work and non-work stressors and well-being among police officers: The role of coping.Anxiety, Stress, and Coping: An International Journal, 11, 345–362.

Burke, R. J., & Greenglass, E. R. (1999). Work-family conflict, spouse support, and nurse-staff well-being duringorganizational restructuring. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 4, 327–336.

�Burke, R. J., & Greenglass, E. R. (2001). Hospital restructuring stressors, work-family concerns and psycho-logical well-being among nursing staff. Community, Work & Family, 4, 49–62.

Burke, R. J., & Landis, R. S. (2003). Methodological and conceptual challenges in conducting and interpretingmeta-analyses. In K. Murphy (Ed.), Validity generalization: A critical review (pp. 287–309). Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.

Burke, R. J., Weir, T., & DuWors, R. E. (1979). Type A behavior of administrators and wives’ reports of maritalsatisfaction and well-being. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 57–65.

Buss, A. H., & Perry, M. (1992). The Aggression Questionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63,452–459.

�Butler, A. B., Grzywacz, J. G., Bass, B. L., & Linney, K. D. (2005). Extending the demands-control model: A dailydiary study of job characteristics, work-family conflict and work-family facilitation. Journal of Occupationaland Organizational Psychology, 78, 155–169.

Byron, K. (2005). A meta-analytic review of work-family conflict and its antecedents. Journal of VocationalBehavior, 67, 169–198.

Caplan, R. D., Cobb, S., & French, J. R. (1975). Relationships of cessation of smoking with job stress, personality,and social support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 211–219.

�Carbone, D. J. (1992). The effects of career stage and family stage on human service employees coping with work-family conflict. Unpublished Dissertation. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.

Carlson, D. S. (1999). Personality and role variables as predictors of three forms of work-family conflict. Journal ofVocational Behavior, 55(2), 236–253.

�Carlson, D. S., & Kacmar, K. M. (2000). Work-family conflict in the organization: Do life role values make adifference? Journal of Management, 26, 1031–1054.

Carlson, D. S., & Perrewe, P. L. (1999). The role of social support in the stressor-strain relationship: Anexamination of work-family conflict. Journal of Management, 25, 513–540.

�Casper, W. J., Martin, J. A., Buffardi, L. C., & Erdwins, C. J. (2002). Work-family conflict, perceivedorganizational support, and organizational commitment among employed mothers. Journal of OccupationalHealth Psychology, 7, 99–108.

Cavanaugh, M. A., Boswell, W. R., Roehling, M. V., & Boudreau, J. W. (2000). An empirical examination of self-report work stress among U.S. managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 65–74.

�Cinamon, R. G., & Rich, Y. (2002). Profiles of attribution of importance to life roles and their implications for thework-family conflict. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 49, 212–220.

�Cinamon, R. G., & Rich, Y. (2005). Work-family conflict among female teachers. Teaching and TeacherEducation, 21, 365–378.

�Cinamon, R. G., Rich, Y., & Westman, M. (2007). Teachers’ occupation-specific work–family conflict. TheCareer Development Quarterly, 55, 249–261.


DOI: 10.1002/job

J. S. MICHEL ET AL.

�Cinamon, R. G., Weisel, A., & Tzuk, K. (2007). Work-family conflict within the family: Crossover effects,perceived parent-child interaction quality, parental self-efficacy, and life role attributions. Journal of CareerDevelopment, 34, 79–100.

�Clark, S. C. (2002). Employees’ sense of community, sense of control, and work/family conflict in NativeAmerican organizations. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 92–108.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.�Cohen, A., Granot-Shilovsky, L., & Yishai, Y. (2007). The relationship between personal, role, and organizational

variables and promotion to managerial positions in the Israeli educational system. Personnel Review, 36, 6–22.Cooper, C. L., Cooper, R. D., & Eaker, L. H. (1988). Living with stress. London: Penguin.Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Four ways five factors are basic. Personality and Individual Differences, 13,

653–665.�Cullen, J. C., & Hammer, L. B. (2007). Developing and testing a theoretical model linking work-family conflict to

employee safety. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12, 266–278.�Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2005). Spillover and crossover of exhaustion and life

satisfaction among dual-earner parents. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67, 266–289.Dixon, T. M., & Baumeister, R. F. (1991). Escaping the self: The moderating effect of self-complexity. Personality

and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 363–368.Duxbury, L. E., & Higgins, C. A. (1991). Gender differences in work-family conflict. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 76, 60–74.�Duxbury, L. E., Higgins, C. A., & Lee, C. M. (1994). Work^family conflict: A comparison by gender, family type

and perceived control. Journal of Family Issues, 15, 449–466.�Eagle, B. W. (1996). A construct validity study of bidirectional measures of work-family conflict. Unpublished

Dissertation. Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA.�Eagle, B. W., Icenogle, M. L., Maes, J. D., & Miles, E. W. (1998). The importance of employee demographic

profiles for understanding experiences of work-family interrole conflicts. Journal of Social Psychology, 138,690–709.

�Eagle, B. W., Miles, E. D., & Icenogle, M.L., (1997). Interrole conflicts and the permeability of work and familydomains: Are there gender differences? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50, 168–184.

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, 124–197.

Edwards, J. R., & Rothbard, N. P. (2000). Mechanisms linking work and family: Clarifying the relationshipbetween work and family constructs. Academy of Management Review, 25, 178–199.

Evans, P., & Bartolome, F. (1984). The changing pictures of the relationship between career and family. Journal ofOccupational Behavior, 5, 9–21.

Field, A. P. (2001). Meta-analysis of correlation coefficients: A Monte Carlo comparison of fixed- and random-effects methods. Psychological Bulletin, 6, 161–180.

�Filippo, C. L. (2003). The relationship of select demographic, psychological, and social support variables withwork-to-family and family-to-work conflict in medical students. Unpublished Dissertation. The University ofOklahoma, Norman, OK.

Ford, M. T., Heinen, B. A., & Langkamer, K. L. (2007). Work and family satisfaction and conflict: A meta-analysisof cross-domain relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 57–80.

�Fox, M. L., & Dwyer, D. J. (1999). An investigation of the effects of time and involvement in the relationshipbetween stressors and work-family conflict. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 4, 164–174.

Friede, A. & Ryan, A. M. (2005). The importance of the individual: How self-Evaluations influence the work-family interface. In E. E. Kossek and S. Lambert (Eds.). Work and life integration: Organizational, cultural, andindividual perspectives (pp. 193–209). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

�Frone, M. R. (2000). Work-family conflict and employee psychiatric disorders: The national comorbidity survey.Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 888–895.

Frone, M. R. (2003). Work-family balance. In J. C. Quick, & L. E. Tetrick (Eds.), Handbook of occupational healthpsychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

�Frone, M. R., Barnes, G. M., & Farrell, M. P. (1994). Relationship of work-family conflict to substance use amongemployed mothers: The role of negative affect. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 56, 1019–1030.

�Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Barnes, G. M. (1996). Work-family conflict, gender, and health-related outcomes:A study of employed parents in two community samples. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 1, 57–69.

�Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M. L. (1992). Antecedents and outcomes of work-family conflict: Testing amodel of the work-family interface. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 65–78.


DOI: 10.1002/job


Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M. L. (1997). Relation of work-family conflict to health outcomes: A four-year longitudinal study of employed parents. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 70, 325–335.

�Frone, M. R., & Yardley, J. K. (1996). Workplace family-supportive programmes: Predictors of employed parents’importance ratings. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 69, 351–366.

�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: Special issue on work and family balance, 50, 145–167.

�Frye, N. K., & Breaugh, J. A. (2004). Family-friendly policies, supervisor support, work-family conflict, family-work conflict, and satisfaction: A test of a conceptual model. Journal of Business and Psychology, 19, 197–220.

�Fu, C. K., & Shaffer, M. A. (2001). The tug of work and family: Direct and indirect domain-specific determinantsof work-family conflict. Personnel Review, 30, 502–522.

�Gaitley, N. J. (1996). The influence of social support and locus of control on the well-being of men and women inthe work-family domain. Unpublished Dissertation. Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA.

Galinsky, E. (1994). Families and work: The importance of the quality of the work environment. In S. L. Kagan, &B. Weissbourd (Eds.), Putting families first: America’s family support movement and the challenge of change.San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Geyskens, I., Krishnan, R., Steenkamp, J. E. M., & Cunha, P. V. (2009). A review and evaluation of meta-analysispractices in management research. Journal of Management, 35, 393–419.

Gignac, M. A. M., Kelloway, E. K., & Gottlieb, B. H. (1996). The impact of caregiving on employment: Amediational model of work-family conflict. Canadian Journal on Aging, 15, 525–542.

Glass, J. L., & Estes, S. B. (1997). The family responsive workplace. Annual Review of Sociology, 23, 289–313.�Golden, T. D. (2002). Telecommuting optimization: An investigation of influential factors during technology-

reliant interactions. Unpublished Dissertation. The University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT.�Golden, T. D. (2006). The role of relationships in understanding telecommuter satisfaction. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 27, 319–340.�Golden, T. D., Veiga, J. F., & Simsek, Z. (2006). Telecommuting’s differential impact on work-family conflict: Is

there no place like home? Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1340–1350.�Good, L. K., Sisler, G. F., & Gentry, J. W. (1988). Antecedents of turnover intentions among retail management

personnel. Journal of Retailing, 64, 295–314.�Gooler, L. E. (1996). Coping with work-family conflict: The role of organizational support. Unpublished

Dissertation. City University of New York, New York, NY.�Gordon, J. R., Whalen-Berry, K. S., & Hamilton, E. A. (2007). The relationship among work-family conflict and

enhancement, organizational work-family culture, and work outcomes for older working women. Journal ofOccupational Health Psychology, 12, 350–364.

�Grandey, A. A., Cordeiro, B. L., & Crouter, A. C. (2005). A longitudinal and multi-source test of the work-familyconflict and job satisfaction relationship. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78, 305–323.

�Grandey, A. A., Cordeiro, B. L., & Michael, J. H. (2007). Work-family supportiveness organizational perceptions:Important for the well-being of male blue-collar hourly workers? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 71, 460–478.

�Grandey, A. A., & Cropanzano, R. (1999). The conservation of resources model applied to work-family conflictand strain. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 350–370.

�Greenhaus, J. H., Bedian, A. G., & Mossholder, K. W. (1987). Work experiences, job performance, and feelings ofpersonal 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 ofManagement Review, 10, 76–88.

Greenhaus, J. H., Callanan, G. A., & Godshalk, V. M. (2000). Career management. Fort Worth: The Dryden Press.�Greenhaus, J. H., Collins, K. M., Singh, R., & Parasuraman, S. (1997). Work and family influences on departure

from public accounting. Journal of Vocational Behavior: Special Issue on Work and Family Balance, 50, 249–270.

Greenhaus, J. H., & Parasuraman, S. (1999). Research on work, family, and gender: Current status and futuredirections. In G. N. Powell (Ed.), Handbook of gender and work. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

�Greenhaus, J. H., Parasuraman, S., & Collins, K. M. (2001). Career involvement and family involvement asmoderators of relationships between work-family conflict and withdrawal from a profession. Journal ofOccupational Health Psychology, 6, 91–100.

�Greenhaus, J. H., Parasuraman, S., Granrose, C. S., Rabinowitz, S., & Beutell, N. J. (1989). Sources of work/family conflict among two-career couples. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 34, 133–153.


DOI: 10.1002/job

J. S. MICHEL ET AL.

�Grzywacz, J. G., Arcury, T. A., Marin, A., Carrillo, L., Burke, B., & Coates, M. L., et al. (2007). Work-familyconflict: Experiences and health implications among immigrant Latinos. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92,1119–1130.

�Grzywacz, J. G., & Bass, B. L. (2003). Work, family, and mental health: Testing different models of work-familyfit. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65, 248–261.

Grzywacz, J. G., & Marks, N. F. (2000). Reconceptualizing the work-family interface: An ecological perspectiveon the correlates of positive and negative spillover between work and family. Journal of Occupational HealthPsychology, 5, 111–126.

�Gutek, B. A., Searle, S., & Klepa, L. (1991). Rational versus gender role explanations for work/family conflict.Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 560–568.

�Haar, J. M. (2004). Work-family conflict and turnover intention: Exploring the moderation effects of perceivedwork-family support. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 33, 35–39.

Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. OrganizationalBehavior and Human Performance, 16, 250–279.

�Hammer, L. B., Neal, M. B., Newsom, J. T., Brockwood, K. J., & Colton, C. L. (2005). A longitudinal study of theeffects of dual-earner couples’ utilization of family-friendly workplace supports on work and family outcomes.Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 799–810.

�Hammer, L. B., Allen, E., & Grigsby, T. D. (1997). Work-family conflict in dual-earner couples: Within-individual and crossover effects of work and family. Journal of Vocational Behavior: Special Issue on Work andFamily Balance, 50, 185–203.

�Hammer, L. B., Bauer, T. N., & Grandey, A. A. (2003). Work-family conflict and work-related withdrawalbehaviors. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17, 419–436.

�Hammer, T. H., Saksvik, PØ., NytrØ, K., Torvatn, H., & Bayazit, M. (2004). Expanding the psychosocial workenvironment: Workplace norms and work-family conflict as correlates of stress and health. Journal ofOccupational Health Psychology, 9, 83–97.

�Hart, M. S., & Kelley, M. L. (2006). Fathers’ and mothers’ work and family issues as related to internalizing andexternalizing behavior of children attending day care. Journal of Family Issues, 27, 252–270.

�Higgins, C., Duxbury, L., & Lee, C. (1994). Impact of life-cycle stage and gender on the ability to balancework and family responsibilities. Family Relations: Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Studies, 43,144–150.

�Hill, E. J., Yang, C., Hawkins, A. J., & Ferris, M. (2004). A cross-cultural test of the work-family interface in 48countries. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 1300–1316.

Hirschfeld, R. R., & Feild, H. S. (2000). Work centrality and work alienation: Distinct aspects of a generalcommitment to work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 789–800.

Hogan, R. T. (1991). Personality and personality measurement. In M. D. Dunnette, & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Thehandbook of industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 2). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychol-ogists Press, Inc.

�Hogan, N. L., Lambert, E. G., Jenkins, M., & Wambold, S. (2006). The impact of occupational stressors oncorrectional staff organizational commitment: A preliminary study. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice,22, 44–62.

House, G. S. (1981). Work stress and social support. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.�Huang, Y. E. (2001). A model of antecedents of work-family conflict for dual-earner couples in the sandwiched

generation: A longitudinal study. Unpublished Dissertation. Portland State University, Portland, OR.Huffman, A. H., Youngcort, S. S., Payne, S. C., & Castro, C. A. (2008). The importance of construct breadth when

examining interrole conflict. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 68, 515–530.�Hughes, E. L., & Parkes, K. R. (2007). Work hours and well-being: The roles of work-time control and work-

family interference. Work & Stress, 21, 264–278.Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings

(2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.James, L. R., & Mazerolle, M. D. (2002). Personality in work organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications,

Inc.�Jex, S. M., & Elacqua, T. C. (1999). Time management as a moderator of relations between stressors and

employee strain. Work & Stress, 13, 182–191.�Johnson, A. F. (2003). Multiple-role self-efficacy and value attainment: Personal factors that mediate the

relationships between levels of work and family involvement and work-family conflict. Unpublished Disser-tation. University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS.


DOI: 10.1002/job


Judge, T., Bono, J., Erez, A., & Locke, E. (2005). Core self-evaluations and job and life satisfaction: The role ofself-concordance and goal attainment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 257–268.

�Judge, T. A., Boudreau, J. W., & Bretz, R. D. (1994). Job and life attitudes of male executives. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 79, 767–782.

�Judge, T. A., & Colquitt, J. A. (2004). Organizational justice and stress: The mediating role of work-familyconflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 395–404.

Judge, T. A., Higgins, C. A., Thoresen, C. J., & Barrick, M. R. (1999). The big five personality traits, general mentalability, and career success across the life span. Personnel Psychology, 52, 621–652.

Judge, T. A., & Ilies, R. (2002). Relationship of personality to performance motivation: A meta-analytic review.Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 797–807.

Judge, T. A., Ilies, R., & Scott, B. A. (2006). Work-family conflict and emotions: Effects at work and at home.Personnel Psychology, 59, 779–814.

Kahn, R. (1980). Conflict, ambiguity, and overload: Three elements in job stress. In D. Katz, & R. Kahn, &J. Adams (Eds.), The study of organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P., Snoek, J. D., & Rosenthal, R. A. (1964). Organizational stress. NewYork:Wiley.

Kanungo, R. N. (1982). Measurement of job and work involvement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 341–349.Katz, D., & Kahn, R. (1978). The social psychology of organizations. New York: Wiley.Keene, J. R., & Quadagno, J. (2004). Predictors of perceived work-family balance: Gender difference or gender

similarity? Sociological Perspectives, 47, 1–23.Kelly, R. F., & Voydanoff, P. (1985). Work/family role strain among employed parents. Family Relations, 34, 367–

374.�Kim, J. L. S., & Ling, C. S. (2001). Work-family conflict of women entrepreneurs in Singapore. Women in

Management Review, 16, 204–221.�Kinnunen, U., & Mauno, S. (1998). Antecedents and outcomes of work-family conflict among employed women

and men in Finland. Human Relations, 51, 157–177.�Kinnunen, U., Vermulst, A., Gerris, J., & Makikangas, A. (2003). Work-family conflict and its relations to well-

being: The role of personality as a moderating factor. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 1669–1683.

Kisamore, J. L., & Brannick, M. T. (2008). An illustration of the consequences of meta-analysis model choice.Organizational Research Methods, 11, 35–53.

Klitzman, S., House, J. S., Israel, B. A., & Mero, R. P. (1990). Work stress, nonwork stress, and health. Journal ofBehavioral Medicine, 13, 221–243.

Koch, E. J., & Shepperd, J. A. (2004). Is self-complexity linked to better coping? A review of the literature. Journalof Personality, 72, 727–760.

Kopelman, R. E., Greenhaus, J. H., & Connolly, T. F. (1983). A model of work, family, and interrole conflict: Aconstruct validation study. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 32, 198–215.

�Kopelman, R. E., Prottas, D. J., Thompson, C. A., & Jahn, E. W. (2006). A multilevel examination of work-lifepractices: Is more always better? Journal of Managerial Issues, 18, 232–253.

�Kossek, E. E., Colquitt, J. A., & Noe, R. A. (2001). Caregiving decisions, well-being, and performance: Theeffects of place and provider as a function of dependent type and work-family climates. Academy ofManagement Journal, 44, 29–44.

�Kossek, E. E., Lautsch, B. A., & Eaton, S. C. (2006). Telecommuting, control, and boundary management:Correlates of policy use and practice, job control, and work-family effectiveness. Journal of VocationalBehavior, 68, 347–367.

Kossek, E. E., & Ozeki, C. (1998). Work-family conflict. Policies, and the job-life satisfaction relationship: Areview and directions for organizational behavior-human resources research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83,139–149.

�Kowalski, K. B. (1998). A model of the antecedents and outcomes of work-family conflict as moderated by socialsupport. Unpublished Dissertation. University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI.

Kreiner, G. E. (2006). Consequences of work-home segmentation or integration: A person-environment fitperspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 485–507.

�Lambert, E. G., Hogan, N. L., & Barton, S. M. (2002). The impact of work-family conflict on correctional staff jobsatisfaction: An exploratory study. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 27, 35–52.

Lambert, E. G., Hogan, N. L., & Barton, S. M. (2004). The nature of work-family conflict among correctional staff:An exploratory examination. Criminal Justice Review, 29, 145–172.


DOI: 10.1002/job

J. S. MICHEL ET AL.

�Lapierre, L. M., & Allen, T. D. (2006). Work-supportive family, family-supportive supervision, use oforganizational benefits, and problem-focused coping: Implications for work-family conflict and employeewell-being. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11, 169–181.

LePine, J. A., LePine, M. A., & Jackson, C. L. (2004). Challenge and hindrance stress: Relationships withexhaustion, motivation to learn, and learning performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 883–891.

LePine, J. A., LePine, M. A., & Saul, J. R. (2007). Relationships among work and non-work challenge andhindrance stressors and non-work and work criteria: A model of cross-domain stressor effects. In P. Perrewe, &D. C. Ganster (Eds.), In Research in occupational stress and well being (Vol. 6, pp. 35–73). Oxford, UK: JAIPress.

LePine, J. A., Podsakoff, N. P., & LePine, M. A. (2005). A meta-analytic test of the challenge stressor – hindrancestressor framework: An explanation for inconsistent relationships among stressors and performance.

Linville, P. W. (1985). Self-complexity and affective extremity: Don’t put all of your eggs in one cognitive basket.Social Cognition, 3, 94–120.

Linville, P. W. (1987). Self-complexity as a cognitive buffer against stress-related illness and depression. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 52, 663–676.

�Little, L. M., Simmons, B. L., & Nelson, D. L. (2007). Health among leaders: Positive and negative affect,engagement and burnout, forgiveness and revenge. Journal of Management Studies, 44, 243–260.

Livingston, B. A., & Judge, T. A. (2008). Emotional responses to work-family conflict: An examination of genderrole orientation among working men and women. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 207–216.

�Lu, L., Kao, S. F., Chang, T. T., Wu, H. P., & Cooper, C. L. (2008). Work/family demands, work flexibility, work/family conflict, and their consequences at work: A national probability sample in Taiwan. International Journalof Stress Management, 15, 1–21.

�Luk, D. M., & Shaffer, M. A. (2005). Work and family domain stressors and support: Within- and cross-domaininfluences on work-family conflict. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78, 489–508.

�Lyness, K. S., & Thompson, D. E. (1997). Above the glass ceiling? A comparison of matched samples of femaleand male executives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 359–375.

�Major, V. S., Klein, K. J., & Ehrhart, M. G. (2002). Work time, work interference with family, and psychologicaldistress. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 427–436.

�Martins, L. L., Eddelston, K. A., & Veiga, J. F. (2002). Moderators of the relationship between work-familyconflict and career satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 399–409.

�Matsui, T., Ohsawa, T., & Onglatco, M. (1995). Work-family conflict and the stress-buffering effects of husbandsupport and coping behavior among Japanese married working women. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 47,178–192.

�Mauno, S., Kinnunen, U., & Pyykko, M. (2005). Does work-family conflict mediate the relationship betweenwork-family culture and self-reported distress? Evidence from five Finnish organizations. Journal of Occu-pational and Organizational Psychology, 78, 509–530.

�Mcelwain, A. K., Korabik, K., & Rosin, H. M. (2005). An examination of gender differences in work-familyconflict. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 37, 283–298.

Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., & Viswesvaran, C. (2005). Convergence between measures of work-to-family and family-to-work conflict: A meta-analytic examination. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67, 215–232.

Michel, J. S., & Clark, M. A. (2009). Has it been affect all along? A test of work-to-family and family-to-workmodels of conflict, enrichment, and satisfaction. Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 163–168.

Michel, J. S., & Hargis, M. B. (2008). Linking mechanisms of work-family conflict and segmentation. Journal ofVocational Behavior, 73, 509–522.

Michel, J. S., Mitchelson, J. K., Kotrba, L. M., LeBreton, J. M., & Baltes, B. B. (2009). A comparative test of work-family conflict models and critical examination of work-family linkages. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74,199–218.

Michel, J. S., Mitchelson, J. K., Pichler, S., & Cullen, K. L. (2010). Clarifying relationships among work andfamily social support, stressors, and work-family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76, 91–104.

�Miller, T. A. (2000). Work-life role integration: A construct validation study. Unpublished Dissertation. OldDominion University, Norfolk, VA.

Millon, T. (1990). Toward a new personology: An evolutionary model. Oxford, England: JohnWiley & Sons.�Montgomery, A. J., Panagopolou, E., & Benos, A. (2006). Work-family interference as a mediator between job

demands and job burnout among doctors. Stress & Health, 22, 203–212.Morf, M. (1989). The work/life dichotomy. Westport, CT: Quorum.


DOI: 10.1002/job


Morgenson, F. P., & Campion,.M.A., (2003). Work design. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.),Handbook of psychology (12, 423–452). NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

�Netemeyer, R. G., Boles, J. S., & McMurrian, R. (1996). Development and validation of work-family conflict andfamily-work conflict scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 400–410.

�Nielson, T. R., Carlson, D. S., & Lankau, M. J. (2001). The supportive mentor as a means of reducing work-familyconflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59, 364–381.

Ng, T. W. H., Eby, L. T., Sorensen, K. L., & Feldman, D. C. (2005). Predictors of objective and subjective careersuccess: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 58, 367–408.

Ng, T. W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2008). Long work hours: A social identity perspective on meta-analysis data.Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 853–880.

�Noor, N. M. (2002). Work-family conflict, locus of control, and women’s well-being: Tests of alternativepathways. Journal of Social Psychology, 142, 645–662.

�Noor, N. M. (2004). Work-family conflict, work- and family-role salience, and women’s well-being. Journal ofSocial Psychology, 144, 389–405.

O’Driscoll, 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, 272–279.

�O’Driscoll, M. P., Poelmans, S., Spector, P. E., Kalliath, T., Allen, T. D., Cooper, C. L., & Sanchez, J. I. (2003).Family-responsive interventions, perceived organizational and supervisor support, work-family conflict, andpsychological strain. International Journal of Stress Management, 10, 326–344.

�Pal, S., & Saksvik, P. O. (2008). Work-family conflict and psychosocial work environment stressors as predictorsof job stress in a cross-cultural study. International Journal of Stress Management, 15, 22–42.

Parasuraman, S., Greenhaus, J. H., & Granrose, C. S. (1992). Role stressors, social support, and well-being amongtwo-career couples. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 339–356.

�Parasuraman, S., Purohit, Y. S., & Godshalk, V. M. (1996). Work and family variables, entrepreneurial careersuccess and psychological well-being. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 48, 275–300.

Parasuraman, S., & Simmers, C. A. (2001). Type of employment, work-family conflict and well-being: acomparative study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 551–568.

�Parker, S. K., & Griffen, M. A. (2002). What is so bad about a little name-calling? Negative consequences ofgender harassment for overperformance demands and distress. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 7,195–210.

Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The dark triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism andpsychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 556–563.

Paullay, I. M., Alliger, G. M., & Stone-Romero, E. F. (1994). Construct validation of two instruments designed tomeasure job involvement and work centrality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 224–228.

�Perrewe, P. L., & Carlson, D. S. (2002). Do men and women benefit from social support equally? Results from afield examination within the work and family context. In D. L. Nelson, & R. J. Burke (Eds.), Gender, work stress,and health. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

�Premeaux, S. F., Adkins, C. L., & Mossholder, K. W. (2007). Balancing work and family: A field study of multi-dimensional, multi-role work-family conflict. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28, 705–727.

�Rantanen, J., Pulkkinen, L., & Kinnunen, U. (2005). The big five personality dimensions, work-family conflict,and psychological distress: A longitudinal view. Journal of Individual Differences, 26, 155–166.

�Rau, B. L., & Hyland, M. M. (2002). Role conflict and flexible work arrangements: The effects on applicantattraction. Personnel Psychology, 55, 111–136.

Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 87, 698–714.

Rice, R. W., Frone, M. R., & McFarlin, D. B. (1992). Work-nonwork conflict and the perceived quality of life.Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 155–168.

�Rogers, N. E. (1998). The role of marital status, family composition, role commitment, family support of career,and role conflict in women business owners’ success. Unpublished Dissertation. University of Cincinnati,Cincinnati, OH.

Rothermund, K., & Meiniger, C. (2004). Stress-buffering effects of self-complexity: Reduced affective spillover orself-regulatory processes? Self and Identity, 3, 263–281.

Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control reinforcement. PsychologicalMonographs: General & Applied, 80, 1–28.

Schmidt, F. L., Oh, I. S., & Hayes, T. L. (2008). Fixed versus random effects models in meta-analysis: Modelproperties and an empirical comparison of differences in results. British Journal of Mathematical and StatisticalPsychology, 62, 97–128.


DOI: 10.1002/job

J. S. MICHEL ET AL.

Schuler, R. S. (1980). Definition and conceptualization of stress in organizations. Organizational Behavior andHuman Performance, 25, 184–215.

�Shaffer, M. A., Harrison, D. A., Gilley, K. M., & Luk, D. M. (2001). Struggling for balance amid turbulence oninternational assignments: Work-family conflict, support and commitment. Journal of Management, 27, 99–121.

�Shockley, K. M., & Allen, T. D. (2007). When flexibility helps: Another look at the availability of flexible workarrangements and work-family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 71, 479–493.

Small, S. A., & Riley, D. (1990). Toward a multidimensional assessment of work spillover. Journal of Marriageand the Family, 52, 51–61.

�Smith, J., & Gardner, D. (2007). Factors affecting employee use of work-life balance initiatives. New ZealandJournal of Psychology, 36, 3–12.

Sparks, K., Cooper, G. L., Fried, Y., & Shirom, A. (1997). The effects of hours of work on health: A meta-analyticalreview. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 70, 391–408.

�Spector, P. E., Allen, T. D., Poelmans, S. A. Y., Lapierre, L. M., Cooper, C. L., & O’Driscoll, M., et al. (2007).Cross-national differences in relationships of work demands, job satisfaction, and turnover intentions with work-family conflict. Personnel Psychology, 60, 805–835.

Staines, G. (1980). Spillover versus compensation: A review of the literature of the relationships between work andnonwork. Human Relations, 33, 111–129.

Steel, P. D., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. (2002). Comparing meta-analytic moderator estimation techniques underrealistic conditions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 96–111.

�Stepanski, K. M. (2002). Work-family conflict theories: Integration and model development. Unpublisheddissertation. Wayne State University, Detroit, MI.

Stephens, G. K., & Sommer, S. M. (1996). The measurement of work to family conflict. Educational andPsychological Measurement, 56, 475–486.

�Stoeva, A. Z., Chiu, R. K., & Greenhaus, J. H. (2002). Negative affectivity, role stress, and work-family conflict.Journal of Vocational Behavior, 60, 1–16.

Stone-Romero, E. F., & Anderson, L. E. (1994). Relative power of moderated multiple regression and thecomparison of subgroup correlation coefficients for detecting moderating effects. Journal of Applied Psychol-ogy, 79, 354–359.

Tenbrunsel, A. E., Brett, J. M., Maoz, E., Stroh, L. K., & Reilly, A. H. (1995). Dynamic and static work-familyrelationships. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 63, 233–246.

�Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 178–190.Tett, R. P., & Christiansen, N. D. (2007). Personality tests at the crossroads: A response to Morgeson, Campion,

Dipboye, Hollenbeck, Murphy, and Schmitt (2007). Personnel Psychology, 60, 967–993.Tett, R. P., Steele, J. R., & Beauregard, R. S. (2003). Broad and narrow measures on both sides of the personality-

job performance relationship. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 335–356.�Thompson, C. A., Beauvais, L. L., & Lyness, K. S. (1999). When work-family benefits are not enough: The

influence of work-family culture on benefit utilization, organizational attachment, and work-family conflict.Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 392–415.

�Thompson, C. A., & Blau, G. (1993). Moving beyond traditional predictors of job involvement: Exploring theimpact of work-family conflict and overload. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 8, 635–646.

�van Daalen, G., Willemsen, T. M., & Sanders, K. (2006). Reducing work-family conflict through different sourcesof social support. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69, 462–476.

�van Rijswijk, K., Bekker, M. H. J., Rutte, C. G., & Croon, M. A. (2004). The relationships among part-time work,work-family interference, and well-being. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 9, 286–295.

Van Sell, M., Brief, A. P., & Schuler, R. S. (1981). Role conflict and role ambiguity: Integration of the literature anddirections for future research. Human Relations, 34, 43–71.

�van Steenbergen, E. F., Ellemers, N., & Mooijaart, A. (2007). How work and family can facilitate each other:Distinct types of work-family facilitation and outcomes for women and men. Journal of Occupational HealthPsychology, 12, 279–300.

�Vinokur, A. D., Pierce, P. F., & Buck, C. L. (1999). Work-family conflicts of women in the Air Force: Theirinfluence on mental health and functioning. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 865–878.

Voydanoff, P. (2002). Linkages between the work-family interface and work, family, and individual outcomes: Anintegrative model. Journal of Family Issues, 23, 138–164.

�Voydanoff, P. (2004a). Implications of work and community demands and resources for work-to-family conflictand facilitation. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 9, 275–285.

�Voydanoff, P. (2004b). The effects of work demands and resources on work-to-family conflict and facilitation.Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 398–412.


DOI: 10.1002/job


�Voydanoff, P. (2005). Consequences of boundary-spanning demands and resources for work-to-family conflictand perceived stress. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10, 491–503.

�Wadsworth, L. L. (2003). The application of role-identity salience to the study of social support and work-familyinteraction. Unpublished Dissertation. The University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT.

�Wallace, J. E. (1999). Work-to-nonwork conflict among married male and female lawyers. Journal of Organ-izational Behavior, 20, 797–816.

Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive andnegative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070.

�Wayne, J. H., Musisca, N., & Fleeson, W. (2004). Considering the role of personality in the work-familyexperience: Relationships of the big five to work-family conflict and facilitation. Journal of VocationalBehavior, 64, 108–130.

�Wiley, D. L. (1987). The relationship between work/nonwork role conflict and job-related outcomes: Someunanticipated findings. Journal of Management, 13, 467–472.

Williams, K., & Alliger, G. M. (1994). Role stressors, mood spillover, and perceptions of work-family conflict inemployed parents. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 837–868.

�Witt, L. A., & Carlson, D. S. (2006). The work-family interface and job performance: Moderating effects ofconscientiousness and perceived organizational support. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11, 343–357.

Yogev, S., & Brett, J. (1985). Patterns of work and family involvement among single- and dual-earner couples.Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 754–768.

Young, L. M., Baltes, B. B., & Pratt, A. K. (2007). Using selection, optimization, and compensation to reduce job/family stressors: Effective when it matters. Journal of Business and Psychology, 21, 511–539.

Zedeck, S. (1992). Introduction: Exploring the domain of work and family concerns. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), Work,families and organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.


DOI: 10.1002/job

Documents

Antecedents of Work Family