Sunteți pe pagina 1din 20

Journal of Vocational Behavior 74 (2009) 199218

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Vocational Behavior


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

A comparative test of work-family conict models and critical


examination of work-family linkages
Jesse S. Michel a,*, Jacqueline K. Mitchelson b, Lindsey M. Kotrba c,
James M. LeBreton d, Boris B. Baltes e
a

Florida International University, Department of Psychology, 11200 S.W. 8th Street, Miami, FL 33199, USA
Auburn University, Department of Psychology, Auburn, AL 36849, USA
c
Denison Consulting, Ann Arbor, MI 48104, USA
d
Purdue University, Department of Psychological Sciences, West Lafayette, ID 47907, USA
e
Wayne State University, Department of Psychology, Detroit, MI 48202, USA
b

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 14 November 2008
Available online 25 December 2008

Keywords:
Linking mechanisms
Meta-analysis
Segmentation
Work and family
Work-family conict
Work-family linkages
Work-family integration

a b s t r a c t
This paper is a comprehensive meta-analysis of over 20 years of work-family conict
research. A series of path analyses were conducted to compare and contrast existing
work-family conict models, as well as a new model we developed which integrates and
synthesizes current work-family theory and research. This new model accounted for 40%
of the variance in job satisfaction, 38% of the variance in family satisfaction, and 35% of
the variance in life satisfaction. In a critical examination of work-family linkages, a series
of analyses excluding work-family conict constructs and pathways resulted in a well-tting and more parsimonious model that still accounted for 39% of the variance in job satisfaction, 37% of the variance in family satisfaction, and 33% of the variance in life
satisfaction. Results indicate that direct effects drive work-family conict models while
indirect effects provide little incremental explanation in regards to satisfaction outcomes.
Published by Elsevier Inc.

1. Introduction
Of the numerous life domains individuals participate in, few, if any, are as comprehensive and prevalent as the work and
family domains. For example, recent US Census gures indicate that 75.9 percent of US adults aged 2064 are in the labor
force (81.9 percent of men, 70.0 percent of women; Clark & Weismantle, 2003), and 68.1 percent of US households are family
households (Simmons & ONeill, 2001). Further, work and family roles have recently been confounded by the increase of
dual-earner households, single-parent households, and other nontraditional gender roles; which, as a whole, have greatly
increased work and family demands for many individuals (Bond, Galinsky, & Swanberg, 1998; Duxbury & Higgins, 1991;
Greenhaus, Callanan, & Godshalk, 2000). As a result, scholars have produced a considerable body of theoretical (e.g., Edwards
& Rothbard, 2000; Greenhaus & Powell, 2006), empirical (e.g., Ilies, Schwind, Wagner, Johnson, DeRue, & Ilgen, 2007), and
review literature (e.g., Eby, Casper, Lockwood, Bordeaux, & Brinely, 2005; Kossek & Ozeki, 1998) on the intersection of work
and family life.
One of the most inuential papers in the area of work and family introduced a work-family conict model wherein workfamily conict mediates the effect of work (family) role conict and involvement on family (work) satisfaction (Frone, Russell, & Cooper 1992). While this model has received empirical support in a few primary studies (e.g., Aryee, Fields, &

* Corresponding author. Fax: +1 305 348 3879.


E-mail address: jmichel@u.edu (J.S. Michel).
0001-8791/$ - see front matter Published by Elsevier Inc.
doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2008.12.005

200

J.S. Michel et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 74 (2009) 199218

Luk, 1999), it has not been examined in a comprehensive way at a meta-analytic level. For example, Ford, Heinen, and Langkamer (2007) conducted a quantitative review of work-family conict, but they only examined components of the Frone et al.
(1992) model. Specically, the effects of work and family were examined as disparate models by separating the effect of
work on family satisfaction and the effect of family on job satisfaction, thus providing (1) the extent to which factors in
the work domain were related to satisfaction with family lifemediated by work interference with family conict (WIF),
and (2) the extent to which factors in the family domain were related to satisfaction with work lifemediated by family
interference with work conict (FIW).
One purpose of the current paper is to offer a comprehensive examination of the Frone et al. (1992) model in its entirety.
In doing so, we may better understand the complexity between work and family beyond the review of Ford and colleagues in
several ways. First, we examine work-family relationships previously unexamined. These include relationships between (a)
work and family antecedents, (b) WIF and FIW, and (c) satisfaction outcomes (cf. Frone et al., 1992). Second, we examine the
direct effects of (a) work antecedents to job satisfaction, and (b) family antecedents to family satisfaction (cf. Frone et al.,
1992). Third, we include the nal outcome of life satisfaction (cf. Frone et al., 1992). And forth, we provide a concurrent
examination of the Frone et al. model, versus multiple examinations of portions of the model, thus controlling for variable
interrelationships. As such, this quantitative review will extend the work of primary studies by examining the stability in our
results via meta-analytic path analysis (Viswesvaran & Ones, 1995), along with extending the work of Ford and colleagues in
several important ways.
An additional goal of this paper is to provide a series of path analyses on alternative work-family conict models to more
thoroughly explore the intersection of work and family life. We include several related models of work-family conict which,
similar to Frone et al. (1992), hypothesize that work-family conict plays an intermediary role linking various antecedents
(e.g., work social support) to various consequences (e.g., life satisfaction). The rst alternative model was proposed by Carlson and Kacmar (2000) which extends Frone and colleagues work through the inclusion of additional work and family stressors, specically role ambiguity and time demands. The second model, proposed by Carlson and Perrew (1999), views work
and family stressors as a partial mediator between work and family social support and involvement and work-family conict. Finally, we offer a new model which integrates and synthesizes existing work-family conict ndings. As such, this
study will test and evaluate a series of work-family conict models thus answering the call of Eby et al. (2005) for additional
testing of theoretical work-family modelsboth current models and the development of new models.
A nal goal of this paper is to critically examine and evaluate the state of the literature by dissecting the most saturated or
integrative model presented in this review in regards to the explanatory power of specic work-family linkages. Extending
the work of Michel and Hargis (2008), which found that direct effect or segmentation based linkages (e.g., work antecedents
to work outcomes) accounted for far more variance in outcome variables than indirect effect or conict based linkages (e.g.,
work antecedents to family outcomes via WIF), we seek to more completely examine the linkage mechanisms within our
model by examining nested work-family linkages within a complete integrative model (i.e., a single work-family model
of indirect and direct effects) versus separate quasi competing models (i.e., separate models of indirect effects and direct effects). Accordingly, in this paper we propose to (1) review and update primary structural models within the work-family
conict literature, (2) provide the rst meta-analytic test of each of these models, and (3) critically examine and evaluate
the explanatory power of model linkages (cf. Edwards & Rothbard, 2000).
In the following sections we provide a brief background of the work-family conict construct, review three primary workfamily conict models, propose a new model which integrates the core features from previous models and empirical literature, and describe the results of a meta-analytic and path analytic comparative test of extant models, our new integrative
theoretical model, and critical examination of work-family linkages.

2. The work-family conict construct


Research on work and family has sought to explain work-family conict from multiple theoretical approaches such as
boundary theory, compensation theory, ecological systems theory, social identity theory, and spillover theory, to name a
few. However, researchers generally state that role theory (Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, & Rosenthal, 1964; Katz & Kahn,
1978) has provided the broad theoretical umbrella for much of the work-family conict literature. Role theory implies that
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, coworker, spouse, father; Kahn et al., 1964). Role theory indicates that both work and family domains entail multiple roles where numerous demands are placed on the individual, often resulting in conict (e.g., interrole
conict; Kahn et al., 1964). Rooted in role theory, and derived from a scarcity hypothesis (xed amount of resources, such as
time and energy), conict theory posits that the work and family domains can be incompatible resulting from different
norms and requirements (Burke, 1986; Evans & Bartolome, 1984; Zedeck & Mosier, 1990); thus, increased role performance
in one domain (such as work) results in decreased role performance in the other domain (such as family). Consequently,
work-family conict is popularly dened as a form of interrole conict in which the role pressures from the work and family
domains are mutually incompatible in some respect (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985, p. 77).
Recent research has conceptualized work-family conict as a multidimensional construct with aspects of WIF (also
termed work-to-family) and FIW (also termed family-to-work; e.g., Gutek, Searle, & Klepa, 1991; Kelloway, Gottlieb, &
Barham, 1999; ODriscoll, Ilgen, & Hildreth, 1992; Williams & Alliger, 1994). Research has also shown that WIF and FIW have

J.S. Michel et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 74 (2009) 199218

201

unique relationships with work and family antecedents and outcomes (e.g., Anderson, Coffey, & Byerly, 2002; Byron, 2005;
Carlson & Kacmar, 2000; Frone et al., 1992; Grandey & Cropanzano, 1999; Kelloway et al., 1999; Kossek & Ozeki, 1998;
ODriscoll et al., 1992; Parasuraman, Purohit, Godshalk, & Beutell, 1996), and provide incremental variance over one another
(see Mesmer-Magnus & Viswesvaran, 2005).
3. Work-family conict as a mediator
As work-family conict has been a dominant construct within the work-family literature, a number of structural models
have been advanced. However, most theoretical models contain three core components: (1) a set of work and family domain
antecedents; (2) a combination of work domain, family domain, and life outcomes; and (3) a mediating work-family conict
construct. It is this conguration that we refer to as full-range models. We should note that we are using the terms mediation and partial mediation in reference to the original authors conceptions. However, these terms imply causal relationships and the conditions for causal inference are quite strong (James, Muliak, & Brett, 1982). While we would prefer phrases
like exerts a direct effect or exerts an indirect effect, and we use these terms in our integrative model, we use the original
authors terminology in reference to their models.
Before reviewing the work-family conict models, a brief review of the variables contained in these models is appropriate.
Pertaining to the selection of model variables, we use the previous work of full-range work-family conict models to guide
our study (Carlson & Kacmar, 2000; Carlson & Perrew, 1999; Frone et al., 1992). Due to space considerations, we do not
elaborate on the theoretical underpinnings of each variable, as these specications were articulated in the articles that originally introduced the models being tested in this study. For a review, readers are directed to Carlson and Kacmar (2000), Carlson and Perrew (1999), and Frone et al. (1992).
3.1. Conceptual denitions of model variables
In addition to the mediating WIF and FIW variables, each of the models incorporate some or all of the following antecedent variables: work social support (family social support) refers to instrumental aid, emotional concern, informational, and
appraisal functions of others in the work (family) domain that serve to heighten ones feelings of self-importance (Carlson &
Perrew, 1999; House, 1981; Matsui, Ohsawa, & Onglatco, 1995); work involvement (family involvement) refers to the level
of psychological and cognitive preoccupation with, engagement in, and immersion in ones work (family) role (Diefendorff,
Brown, Kamin, & Lord, 2002; Frone, 2003; Greenhaus & Parasuraman, 1999; Kanungo, 1982; Yogev & Brett, 1985); work role
conict (family role conict) refers to the extent to which an individual experiences incompatible role pressures within the
work (family) domain (Bacharach, Bamberger, & Conley, 1990; Beehr, 1995; Kahn et al., 1964; Katz & Kahn, 1978; Kopelman,
Greenhaus, & Connolly, 1983); work time demands (family time demands) refers to time devoted to the work (family) role
(e.g., Carlson & Frone, 2003; Frone, Yardley, & Markel, 1997; Judge, Boudreau, & Bretz, 1994; Kirchmeyer, 1992; Major, Klein,
& Ehrhart, 2002), often confused with work role overload (family role overload; e.g., Carlson & Kacmar, 2000; Carlson & Perrew, 1999), which is the perception of having too many work role (family role) tasks and not enough time to do them (Bacharach et al., 1990; Caplan, Cobb, & French, 1975; French & Caplan, 1973; Kahn, 1980); and work role ambiguity (family role
ambiguity) refers to the lack of necessary information (specicity and predictability) about duties, objectives, and responsibilities needed for a particular work role (family role) or the lack of work role (family role) clarity (Beehr & Glazer, 2005;
Cooper, Cooper, & Eaker, 1988; Elloy & Smith, 2003; Gupta & Jenkins, 1985; Kahn et al., 1964; Peterson et al., 1995; Schuler,
1980; Usita, Hall, & Davis, 2004).
In addition to these antecedents, each of the identied models incorporate some or all of the following outcome variables:
job satisfaction (family satisfaction) refers to the degree to which an individual is satised (positive feelings, emotional experience) with the work (family) aspects of their life (Cranny, Smith, & Stone, 1992; Hopkins, 1983; Locke, 1976; Smith, Kendall, & Hulin, 1969); and life satisfaction refers to the degree to which an individual is satised (positive feelings, emotional
experience) with their general quality of life (Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Grifn, 1985; Rice, McFarlin, Hunt, & Near, 1985).
3.2. Model 1: A parsimonious stressor and involvement model (Frone et al., 1992)
The Frone et al. (1992) model was the rst highly cited structural model theorizing separate WIF and FIW constructs as a
mediating component between work and family domain antecedents, and work domain, family domain, and life outcomes.
More specically, this model conceptualizes WIF and FIW as mediating components between job stressors (measured as
work pressure, lack of autonomy, and work role ambiguity), job involvement, family stressors (measured as parental workload and child misbehavior), and family involvement, and the outcomes of job distress, family distress, and depression (measured as reverse scored job satisfaction, family satisfaction, and life satisfaction). In a study to test the cross-cultural
generalizability of this model, Aryee et al. (1999) utilized a slightly adapted version which replaced the antecedents of
job and family stressors (work pressure, lack of autonomy, and work-role ambiguity; parental workload and child misbehavior) with job and family conicts (work role conict and family role conict).
While Frone et al. (1997) provide and test a version of this model, the Frone et al. (1997) model was not included in the
following review because it does not meet our criteria for a full-range model. For example, in this 1997 model, outcomes

202

J.S. Michel et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 74 (2009) 199218

have a recursive effect on work-family conict (e.g., WIF to Family Dissatisfaction to FIW). Further, we chose to examine the
slightly modied Aryee et al. (1999) version of the Frone et al. (1992) model as it provides greater variable overlap with recent conict models at the operational level, thus allowing for greater condence in our inferences of model adequacy across
the structural models being compared in this multi model test.
3.3. Model 2: An expanded stressor model (Carlson & Kacmar, 2000)
The Carlson and Kacmar (2000) model conceptualizes WIF and FIW as mediating components between work role ambiguity,
work role conict, work time demands (measured as work role overload), job involvement, family involvement, family time
demands (measured as family role overload), family role conict, and family role ambiguity, and the outcomes of job satisfaction, family satisfaction, and life satisfaction. Unique to this model is the inclusion of domain role ambiguity and time demands.
3.4. Model 3: A partial mediating stressor model (Carlson & Perrew, 1999)
In the original Carlson and Perrew (1999) model, WIF and FIW were combined to make a unidimensional work-family
conict construct. In our adapted version, and consistent with previous research (e.g., Carlson, Kacmar, & Williams, 2000),
work-family conict is conceptualized as two separate WIF (leading to family outcomes) and FIW (leading to work outcomes) constructs. Thus, in our adapted model, WIF and FIW are mediating components between work social support, work
involvement, work role conict, work time demands (measured as work role overload), work role ambiguity, family social
support, family involvement, family role conict, family time demands (measured as family role overload), and family role
ambiguity, and the outcomes of job satisfaction and family satisfaction. Further, this model posits the partial mediation of
work role conict, work time demands, and work role ambiguity between work social support and work involvement, and
WIF and job satisfaction on the work domain side; along with the partial mediation of family role conict, family time demands, and family role ambiguity between family social support and family involvement, and FIW and family satisfaction on
the family domain side. Unique to this model is the inclusion of domain social support, the partial mediation of domain role
conict, time demands, and role ambiguity, along with the exclusion of life satisfaction.
3.5. Model 4: Development of an integrative work-family conict model
Based on current work-family research, we provide a model in Fig. 1 that integrates the literature. This integrative model
is founded on what we refer to as three forms or types of quasi linking mechanisms (cf. Edwards & Rothbard, 2000). We refer
to these as quasi linking mechanisms and classify them by effect (e.g., indirect effect, direct effect) as each revolves around
the interplay of work and family, yet could be explained or partially explained by a number of theoretical approaches, such
as work-family conict or segmentation (see Ashforth, Kreiner, & Fugate, 2000; Edwards & Rothbard, 2000).
3.5.1. Indirect effect linkages
Work-family conict posits that work and family antecedents lead to WIF and FIW, which then leads to family and work
consequences. These linkages are represented by pathways 12 for WIF (work antecedents to WIF to family outcomes) and
34 for FIW (family antecedents to FIW to work outcomes). These indirect effects are the core feature of work-family conict
Work Antecedents
-Work Social Support
-Work Involvement
-Work Role Conflict
-Work Time Demands
-Work Role Ambiguity

Work Outcomes

11

-Job Satisfaction

1
7

16

5
WIF

9
14

13

15

Life Outcomes
-Life Satisfaction

10
FIW

6
8

17

3
Family Antecedents
-Family Social Support
-Family Involvement
-Family Role Conflict
-Family Time Demands
-Family Role Ambiguity

Family Outcomes
-Family Satisfaction

12

Fig. 1. Integrative work-family conict model (Model 4).

J.S. Michel et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 74 (2009) 199218

203

models (e.g., Carlson & Kacmar, 2000; Carlson & Perrew, 1999; Frone et al., 1992), and are the sole linkages tested by the
Ford et al. (2007) meta-analytic path analysis. Empirical support for these relationships has been modest. For example, in a
series of meta-analytic multiple regressions, Ford et al. found that work antecedents and WIF accounted for approximately
7% of the variance in family satisfaction, while family antecedents and FIW accounted for approximately 7% of the variance in
job satisfaction.
A second series of work-family conict linkages revolve around empirical ndings that have yet to be included in models
of work-family conict. These linkages are represented by pathways 5 (work antecedents to FIW), 6 (family antecedents to
WIF), 7 (WIF to job satisfaction), and 8 (FIW to family satisfaction). Empirical support for these relationships has been consistent. For example, based on meta-analytic data, job stress is an antecedent of FIW (rc = .29, k = 19; Byron, 2005) and job
satisfaction is an outcome of WIF (r = .24, k = 8; Allen, Herst, Bruck, & Sutton, 2000).
A nal set of work-family conict linkages involve the prediction of life satisfaction by WIF and FIW. These linkages are
represented by pathways 9 (from WIF) and 10 (from FIW). These pathways are based on the previous work of Frone et al. and
have received modest support.
3.5.2. Direct effect linkages
In addition to indirect effect linkages (e.g., work antecedents to family outcomes via WIF), our integrative model also includes direct effect linkages (e.g., work antecedents to work outcomes), which are typically included in conict models (e.g.,
Carlson & Kacmar, 2000; Carlson & Perrew, 1999; Frone et al., 1992). These are represented by pathways 11 (work antecedents to work outcomes) and 12 (family antecedents to family outcomes). As much of the literature on organizational behavior focuses on direct effect linkages (e.g., Hackman & Oldham, 1976), they have receive extensive support (e.g., Michel &
Hargis, 2008).
3.5.3. Construct level cross-domain effects
The nal set of linkages in our integrative model represents the relationships between work and family that fall outside of
indirect and direct effect linkages. These consist of relationships between (1) work and family antecedentslinkage 13, (2)
WIF and FIWlinkage 14, and (3) satisfaction outcomeslinkages 1517. In essence, these linkages account for a similarity
between the work and family roles and are based on the previous work-family models previously reviewed (e.g., Carlson &
Kacmar, 2000; Frone et al., 1992).
4. Study purpose
The purpose of this study is to provide a series of meta-analytic path analyses on the previously reviewed work-family
conict models to better understand the complex interplay between work and family life. Specically, we propose to test
and evaluate the parsimonious stressor and involvement model presented by Frone et al. (1992; Model 1), the expanded
stressor model presented by Carlson and Kacmar (2000; Model 2), and the partial mediating stressor model presented by
Carlson and Perrew (1999; Model 3), in addition to a new integrative model developed for this study (Model 4). Though
Models 13 each found support in primary studies, meta-analytic path analysis enables us to examine how well these structural models actually generalize across a comprehensive meta-analytic data set of observed validities. Likewise, this study
will provide the rst examination of our new integrative model. Though each of these models shares the characteristics
of a full-range model, they have subtle yet signicant differences. As such, we hope to better understand these similarities
and differences with this research, as model adequacy will be evaluated on model t, parameter estimates, and variance explained in the outcome variables.
In addition, we propose to critically examine and evaluate the state of the literature by scrutinizing our integrative model
as it is (1) based on current work-family theory and empirical ndings, and (2) incorporates all of the linkages held by the
previous models reviewed. This examination extends previous literature on work-family linking mechanisms (see Michel &
Hargis, 2008), where direct effect models (e.g., work antecedents to work outcomes) accounted for far more variance in outcome variables than indirect effect models (e.g., work antecedents to family outcomes via WIF), by examining linkages within a single theoretical model, therefore allowing us to determine the explanatory power of model linkages by determining
where the variance explained in outcomes occurs. In doing so, we hope to better determine the theoretical and empirical
forces underlying models of work and family.

5. Methods
5.1. Literature search
The search for studies was conducted in two stages. In the rst stage, computer-based literature searches were conducted
on the databases of ABI/INFORM and PsychINFO (including Dissertation Abstracts). Keyword searches were conducted on the
following terms: work family conict in conjunction with job satisfaction, family satisfaction, life satisfaction, work social support/organizational support, family social support/social support, work involvement/job involvement, family involvement, work
role conict, family role conict, work time demands, family time demands, work role ambiguity, and family role ambiguity. All

204

J.S. Michel et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 74 (2009) 199218

electronic searches were limited to post-1985 material since directional WIF and FIW were rst introduced by Greenhaus
and Beutell (1985). Manual cross-referencing was also used to ensure relevant studies missed in the electronic searches were
considered for inclusion. This second stage consisted of a manual cross-referencing of studies included in relevant qualitative
and quantitative reviews (e.g., Allen et al., 2000; Byron, 2005; Eby et al., 2005; Kossek & Ozeki, 1998), and related journal
special issues (e.g., Journal of Vocational Behavior: Special Issue on Work and Family Balance, 1997; Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology: Special Issue on Relationship Between Work and Family Life, 1999; International Journal of Stress Management:
Special Issue on Work and Personal Life Integration, 2004).
5.2. Inclusion criteria
Studies were included if they included a measure of WIF and/or FIW and included two or more variables theorized in the
structural models of interest. When relevant articles published within the past seven years (the required duration to retain
data per APA guidelines) were located, and data were not provided, the corresponding author was contacted to obtain missing data. When identical datasets were reported in multiple studies, the most recent study was included. When portions of
data from the same sample were reported in more than one publication or study, unique bivariate relationships and bivariate
relationships with the larger sample size were included. This process yielded a total of 211 studies with 263 samples and
2060 effect sizes that were included in the current meta-analysis.
5.3. Coding of studies
Of the studies that met the inclusion criteria, 60 articles were randomly chosen for three subject matter experts (SME) to
code. The average percent agreement between all three SME was 93.30%. After coding procedures, the SME resolved all issues
and discrepancies until absolute agreement was reached for the 15 constructs included in the identied structural models.
As outlined in Table 1, a nal coding scheme was developed and the remaining samples were coded based on these criteria.
Whenever additional judgment calls were required (i.e., any issue outside the information provided in Table 1), the studies in
question were placed aside and discussed by the three SME until absolute agreement was reached and all coding issues were
resolved.
5.4. Computation of effect sizes
Since one of our research goals were to critically examine work-family linkages and determine the utility of the workfamily conict construct, we chose to use observed versus psychometrically corrected validity coefcients in our analyses.
Accordingly, sample size weighted correlation estimates were conducted via the meta-analytic techniques of Hedges and

Table 1
Summary of Included Measures.
Construct

Measures included

WIF
FIW
Work social support

All forms of WIF (e.g., self developed; Frone et al., 1992; Gutek et al., 1991; Kopelman et al., 1983)
All forms of FIW (e.g., self developed; Burley, 1990; Frone et al., 1992; Gutek et al., 1991)
Coworker social support, emotional/informational/instrumental support from work, group cohesiveness, lack of personal support
at work/nonsupport (rev.), leader/managerial support, level of work group support, mentor supportiveness, perceived
organizational support, psychosocial support, supervisor support (e.g., self developed; Beehr, King, & King, 1990; Eisenberger,
Huntington, Hutchison, & Sowa, 1986; Shinn, Wong, Simko, & Ortiz-Torres, 1989)
Job involvement, work identity, work involvement (e.g., self developed; Kanungo, 1982; Lodahl & Kejnar, 1965; Quinn & Staines,
1979)
Work role conict (e.g., self developed; Caplan, Cobb, French, Harrison, & Pinneau, 1980; Kahn et al., 1964; Kopelman et al., 1983;
Rizzo, House, & Lirtzman, 1970)
Number of hours spent on paid work activities, time commitment to work (e.g., self developed)
Work role ambiguity (e.g., self developed; Caplan et al., 1980; Kahn et al., 1964; Rizzo et al., 1970)
Domestic support, emotional/informational/instrumental support from family, family cohesion, family and friends support, lack of
spousal support (rev.), spousal support (e.g., self developed; Caplan, Cobb, French, Harrison, & Pinneau, 1975; King, Mattimore,
King, & Adams, 1995; Procidano & Heller, 1983)
Family identity, family involvement (e.g., self developed; adapted job involvement measures; Amatea, Cross, Clark, & Bobby, 1986;
Yogev & Brett, 1985)
Family role conict (e.g., self developed; adapted work-role conict measures; Kopelman et al., 1983; Nye & MacDougall, 1959)
Age of youngest child, number of children living at home, number of hours spend on family activities, parental (time) demands,
time commitment to family (e.g., self developed; Bedeian, Burke, & Moffett, 1988)
Family role ambiguity (e.g., adapted work role ambiguity measures)

Work involvement
Work role conict
Work time demands
Work role ambiguity
Family social
support
Family involvement
Family role conict
Family time
demands
Family role
ambiguity
Job satisfaction
Family satisfaction
Life satisfaction

Business dissatisfaction (rev.), job satisfaction, quality of work life, work satisfaction (e.g., self developed;Hackman & Oldham,
1975; Quinn & Staines, 1979; Smith et al., 1969)
Family satisfaction, home satisfaction, marital satisfaction/adjustment, parenting satisfaction, quality of family life, relationship
satisfaction/agreement (e.g., self developed; Spanier, 1976; Staines & Pleck, 1984)
Life satisfaction, quality of life (e.g., self developed; Diener et al., 1985; Quinn & Shepard, 1974; Quinn & Staines, 1979)

J.S. Michel et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 74 (2009) 199218

205

Olkin (1985). Johnsons (1993) DSTAT was used to convert the study statistics into effect sizes adjusted for sample size. Since
the product-moment correlation (r) possesses some undesirable statistical properties (Alexander, Scozzaro, & Borodkin,
1989; Rosenthal, 1994), and the unbiased estimator of effect size (d) possesses many desirable properties (Hedges, 1982;
Hedges & Olkin, 1985), the unbiased estimator of effect size (d) was used to provide meta-analytic mean weighted effect
sizes. Though each sample correlation was converted to an unbiased estimator of effect size (d) for meta-analytic analysis,
nal estimates were converted back to the product-moment correlations (r) for path analyses.
5.5. Outlier analysis
Outliers can signicantly distort meta-analytic results (Hedges & Olkin, 1985), and this problem can be compounded with
meta-analytic path analysis. Accordingly, two approaches to identify and address potential outliers were employed. First,
within each cell of the meta-analytic correlation matrix, effect sizes were converted to z-scores and extreme values
(2.58) were deemed outliers. This procedure yielded 26 of the 2060 effect sizes as statistical outliers at the p = .01 level.
Second, we employed a visual inspection of the data (Hedges & Olkin, 1985). This process yielded three effect sizes that were
deemed outliers. Based on these two approaches, 29 of the 2060 effect sizes or 1.41% of the data were deemed potential outliers. All analyses were conducted with and without the identied outliers. Results were near identical for model t indices
and parameter estimates. Accordingly, due to space considerations, only analyses with outliers excluded are reported. The
full correlation matrix with the outliers included may be obtained from the corresponding author.
5.6. Path analyses and model evaluation
Path analysis of the meta-analytic correlation matrix was conducted in LISREL 8.80 (Jreskog & Srbom, 1993). All latent
constructs were treated as single item indicators. As with previous meta-analytic path analyses (e.g., Brown & Peterson,
1993; Chen, Casper, & Cortina, 2001; Ford et al. 2007; Hom, Caranikas-Walker, Prussia, & Griffeth, 1992; Michel & Hargis,
2008), all models were tested utilizing the maximum likelihood estimation method and the harmonic mean. To provide a
comprehensive examination of model t, a variety of t indices were chosen based on type of t index (e.g., absolute versus
incremental) and recommendations within the structural equation modeling literature (e.g., Bentler & Bonett, 1980; Hoelter,
1983; Hu & Bentler, 1995; Hu & Bentler, 1999; Jreskog & Srbom, 1993; Marsh, Hau, & Wen, 2004). Specically, the Goodness-of-t Index (GFI), Normed Fit Index (NFI), Comparative Fit Index (CFI), and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation
(RMSEA) were used to assess model t or model mist. In addition to these indices, the Normal Theory Weighted Least
Squares Chi-Square (v2) statistic and the Critical N (CN) were evaluated. Finally, to compare the series of non-nested models
in the current study, the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) was also evaluated.

6. Results
Our meta-analytic correlation matrix is presented in Table 2. Ninety-ve percent condence intervals indicate that
85.44% of the meta-analytic correlations were signicantly signicant. However, given the study purpose, we focus on model
t, parameter estimates, and variance explained in outcomes versus bivariate relationships.
6.1. Model t and parameter estimates of work-family conict models
Model 1 (parsimonious stressor and involvement model) was supported with overall t statistics suggesting very good
model t: v2(13) = 179.57, CN = 323.94, GFI = .98, NFI = .96, CFI = .96, RMSEA = .08, and AIC = 243.57 (see Table 3). In addition
to model t, it is appropriate to examine pathway magnitudes to better interpret a model, thus we provide parameter estimates in Fig. 2. Work role conict was a signicant predictor of WIF (pathway = .33) and job satisfaction (pathway = .40),
and family role conict was a signicant predictor of FIW (pathway = .21) and family satisfaction (pathway = .41). Work
involvement and family involvement had small effects on WIF (pathway = .08) and FIW (pathway = .00), but moderate effects on job satisfaction (pathway = .30) and family satisfaction (pathway = .21). These results suggest that work and family
may be best conceptualized as predictors of same domain satisfaction versus work-family conict. WIF and FIW seem to
have a small to moderate reciprocal relationship (pathways of .20 and .17), but have relatively low prediction on satisfaction
outcomes (ranging from .01 to .13). Finally, job satisfaction (pathway = .34) and family satisfaction (pathway = .37) each
had a moderately high relationship with life satisfaction.
Model 2 (expanded stressor model) was supported with overall t statistics suggesting very good model t:
v2(28) = 383.08, CN = 266.03, GFI = .97, NFI = .95, CFI = .95, RMSEA = .08, and AIC = 509.08 (see Table 3). Parameter estimates
are displayed in Fig. 3. As more variables and pathways were added to this model, work role conict remained a signicant
predictor of WIF (pathway = .26) and job satisfaction (pathway = .26), and family role conict remained a signicant predictor of FIW (pathway = .16) and family satisfaction (pathway = .38). Similarly, work involvement and family involvement
continued to have small effects on WIF (pathway = .03) and FIW (pathway = .02), but moderate effects on job satisfaction
(pathway = .27) and family satisfaction (pathway = .20). WIF and FIW continued to have a small to moderate reciprocal relationship, yet magnitudes changed signicantly (.17.26 for FIW to WIF, .20.09 for WIF to FIW). Likewise, relationships from

206

J.S. Michel et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 74 (2009) 199218

Table 2
Meta-analytic correlation matrix of model variables.
Variable

WIF

WIF
k
n

FIW

WSS

WI

WRC

WTD

WRA

FSS

FI

FRC

FTD

FRA

JS

FS

FIW
k
n

.39*
121
47,305

WSS
k
n

.23*
55
21,255

.09*
37
13,424

WI
k
n

.08*
40
10,944

.01
28
8434

.15*
22
5621

WRC
k
n

.36*
24
5933

.20*
11
3628

.36*
6
1413

.00
11
2703

WTD
k
n

.26*
64
28,507

.02*
51
18,549

.04*
25
11,098

.24*
21
5953

.15*
5
1572

WRA
k
n

.24*
19
5585

.19*
13
4731

.24*
9
3183

.07*
10
3257

.49*
18
4613

.11*
8
2915

FSS
k
n

.13*
38
14,171

.17*
29
7732

.17*
39
12,314

.02*
21
5611

.05*
5
1550

.03*
20
9871

.06*
6
1999

FI
k
N

.01
24
7708

.01
22
6970

.05*
12
3573

.12*
34
9876

.04*
7
2220

.02
12
3839

.00
5
2325

.14*
16
3905

FRC
k
n

.24*
9
2817

.26*
4
2056

.03
2
575

.07*
5
1502

.29*
12
2771

.01
2
1248

.11*
4
1294

.35*
2
575

.04*
5
1502

FTD
k
n

.03*
68
26,196

.08*
56
20,607

.01
16
5891

.06*
19
5238

.05*
4
1411

.01*
48
17,034

.01
7
2763

.02
21
4386

.05*
13
3581

.25*
2
1248

FRA
k
n

.17*
3
1069

.25*
3
1069

.06*
2
575

.07*
2
808

.16*
4
1294

.18
1
261

.33*
4
1294

.29*
2
575

.13*
2
808

.28*
4
1294

.21
1
261

JS
k
n

.25*
85
29,587

.15*
60
21,523

.43*
39
15,397

.30*
33
8592

.41*
24
5766

.03*
30
12,186

.45*
14
4089

.18*
28
10,648

.02
18
5417

.14*
11
2524

.02*
29
9453

.05*
3
1069

FS
k
n

.21*
45
14,504

.23*
30
10,808

.13*
13
3854

.07*
15
4465

.12*
14
3429

.03*
13
5050

.13*
5
1616

.48*
16
4102

.24*
17
4765

.45*
11
2524

.00
16
5851

.35*
3
1069

.19*
44
13,741

LS
k
n

.30*
35
9162

.20*
24
6657

.32*
4
963

.02
10
2320

.31*
11
2375

.04*
9
2696

.26*
4
1392

.19*
7
1472

.07*
11
2700

.29*
9
1809

.00
11
3240

.24*
2
808

.44*
37
9476

.46*
26
6832

LS

Note: WIF, work interference with family conict; FIW, family interference with work conict; WSS, work social support; WI, work involvement; WRC, work
role conict; WTD, work time demands; WRA, work role ambiguity; FSS, family social support; FI, family involvement; FRC, family role conict; FTD, family
time demands; FRA, family role ambiguity; JS, job satisfaction; FS, family satisfaction; LS, life satisfaction; k, number of samples; n, number of participants.
*
p < .05

work-family conict and satisfaction outcomes remained constant (ranging from .05 to .09), as did job satisfaction (pathway = .37) and family satisfaction (pathway = .39) to life satisfaction. Unique to this model was the inclusion of ambiguity
and time demands variables. Work role ambiguity had a moderate relationship to job satisfaction (pathway = .30) but
low relationship to WIF (pathway = .05). Inverse to this was the role of work time demands, which was moderately related
to WIF (pathway = .20) but not job satisfaction (pathway = .04). On the family side, much different results were found as family role ambiguity was moderately related to both FIW (pathway = .21) and family satisfaction (pathway = .19), while family time demands had small effects on FIW (pathway = .08) and family satisfaction (pathway = .05).
Model 3 (partial mediating stressor model) was not supported with overall t statistics suggesting inadequate model t:
v2(49) = 920.03, CN = 160.26, GFI = .94, NFI = .87, CFI = .88, RMSEA = .09, and AIC = 1,032.03 (see Table 3). Accordingly, examination of parameter estimates could provide misleading results and are not included.

207

J.S. Michel et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 74 (2009) 199218


Table 3
Model t indices from primary path analyses.
Model

df

v2

CN

GFI

NFI

CFI

RMSEA

Model 1
Parsimonious stressor and involvement model

13

179.57

323.94

.98

.96

.96

.08

243.57

Model 2
Expanded stressor model

28

383.08

266.03

.97

.95

.95

.08

509.08

Model 3
Partial mediating stressor model

49

920.03

160.26

.94

.87

.88

.09

1032.03

Model 4a
Integrative work-family conict model

20

272.42

287.81

.98

.97

.97

.08

472.42

Model 4b
Direct effects only model

20

312.83

250.39

.98

.96

.96

.08

454.83

AIC

Note: df, degrees of freedom; v , normal theory weighted least squares chi-square; CN, critical N; GFI, goodness-of-t index; NFI, normed t index; CFI,
comparative t index; RMSEA, root mean square error of approximation; AIC, Akaikes information criterion. N = 2119.

.30 (.02)

Work Role
Conflict

-.40 (.02)

Job
Satisfaction

.33 (.02)

Work
Involvement

.08 (.02)

-.13 (.02)

.20 (.05)

.17 (.05)

Family
Involvement

.34 (.02)

-.06 (.02)

WIF

Life
Satisfaction

.11 (.02)

-.01 (.02)

-.00 (.02)

FIW
-.10 (.02)

.37 (.02)

.21 (.02)

Family Role
Conflict

-.41 (.02)

Family
Satisfaction

.21 (.02)

Intercorrelations Among Exogenous Variables


WRC
WI
FI
WRC
WI
.00 (.02)
FI
.04 (.02)
-.12 (.02)
FRC
.29 (.02)
.07 (.02)
-.04 (.02)
Note: WRC = Work role conflict, WI = Work involveme nt, FI = Family involvement, FRC = Family role conflict.

FRC

Fig. 2. Parsimonious stressor and involvement model with path coefcients (Model 1). Note: values in parentheses are standard errors for the path
coefcient. Variance explained in outcome variables: job satisfaction = 26%, family satisfaction = 25%, life satisfaction = 34%. N = 2119.

Model 4 (integrative work-family conict model) was supported with overall t statistics suggesting excellent model t:

v2(20) = 272.42, CN = 287.81, GFI = .98, NFI = .97, CFI = .97, RMSEA = .08, and AIC = 472.42 (see Table 3). Due to the complexity of this model, parameter estimates are provided in Table 4 versus a gure. As more variables and pathways were added to
this model, work role conict remained a signicant predictor of WIF (pathway = .20) and job satisfaction (pathway = .16),
and family role conict remained a signicant predictor of FIW (pathway = .13) and family satisfaction (pathway = .28).
Work involvement and family involvement continue to have small effects on WIF (pathway = .05) and FIW (pathway = .02),
but moderate effects on job satisfaction (pathway = .24) and family satisfaction (pathway = .16). Work role ambiguity continued to have a moderate relationship to job satisfaction (pathway = .28) but low relationship to WIF (pathway = .06),
while work time demands was moderately related to WIF (pathway = .20) but not job satisfaction (pathway = .06). On the
family side, family role ambiguity was moderately related to both FIW (pathway = .19) and family satisfaction (path-

208

J.S. Michel et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 74 (2009) 199218

Work Role
Ambiguity

Job
Satisfaction

-.30 (.02)
.05 (.02)
-.26 (.02)

Work Role
Conflict

.04 (.02)
.27 (.02)

.26 (.02)

-.05 (.02)
.37 (.02)

Work Time
Demands

.20 (.02)

WIF
.03 (.02)

Work
Involvement

.26 (.04)

Family
Involvement

Life
Satisfaction

.09 (.05)

.02 (.02)

FIW
Family Time
Demands

.08 (.02)
.39 (.02)
-.09 (.02)

.16 (.02)

.20 (.02)

Family Role
Conflict

.05 (.02)
-.38 (.02)
.21 (.02)

Family Role
Ambiguity

-.19 (.02)

Family
Satisfaction

Intercorrelations Among Exogenous Variables


WRA
WRC
WTD
WI
FI
FTD
FRC
FRA
WRA
WRC
.49 (.02)
WTD
.11 (.02)
.15 (.02)
WI
-.07 (.02)
.00 (.02)
.24 (.02)
FI
.00 (.02)
.04 (.02)
-.02 (.02)
-.12 (.02)
FTD
-.01 (.02)
-.05 (.02)
-.01 (.02)
-.06 (.02)
.05 (.02)
FRC
.11 (.02)
.29 (.02)
.01 (.02)
.07 (.02)
-.04 (.02)
.25 (.02)
FRA
.33 (.02)
.16 (.02)
.18 (.02)
.07 (.02)
-.13 (.02)
-.21 (.02)
.28 (.02)
Note: WRA = Work role ambiguity, WRC = Work role conflict, WTD = Work time demands, WI = Work involvement, FI = Family
involvement, FTD = Family time demands, FRC = Family role conflict, FRA = Family role ambiguity.
Fig. 3. Expanded stressor model with path coefcients (Model 2). Note: values in parentheses are standard errors for the path coefcient. Variance
explained in outcome variables: job satisfaction = 33%, family satisfaction = 30%, life satisfaction = 32%. N = 2119.

way = .14), while family time demands had small effects on FIW (pathway = .09) and family satisfaction (pathway = .04).
The linage between WIF and FIW was high (.27), but again the pathways to satisfaction were low (ranging from .01 to
.13). Finally, relationships from job satisfaction (pathway = .37) and family satisfaction (pathway = .39) to life satisfaction
remained constant. Unique to this model was the inclusion of social support as a predictor of work-family conict and satisfaction. Work social support had a small relationship to WIF (pathway = .13) and a moderate relationship to job satisfaction (pathway = .25); similarly, family social support had a small relationship to FIW (pathway = .06) and a moderate
relationship to family satisfaction (pathway = .29). Most of the additional indirect effect pathways in this model were significant yet small. The greatest support for these linkages, besides model t, were the results for work and family role conict;
specically, the added pathways from work role conict to FIW (pathway = .10) and family role conict to WIF (pathway = .14). Finally, there was moderate evidence for construct level cross-domain effects as many of the work domain
and family domain constructs covaried (e.g., .33 for role ambiguity).
6.2. Variance explained in satisfaction outcomes by work-family conict models
Each of the well tting models accounted for a large portion of variance in outcome variables. Model 1 (parsimonious
stressor and involvement model) explained 26% of the variance in job satisfaction, 25% of the variance in family satisfaction,
and 34% of the variance in life satisfaction. As more predictor variables were added to Model 2 (expanded stressor model),
variance explained in job satisfaction increased to 33%, variance explained in family satisfaction increased to 30%, but variance explained in life satisfaction decreased to 32% due to the elimination of WIF and FIW direct effects. Model 4 (integra-

209

J.S. Michel et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 74 (2009) 199218


Table 4
Parameter estimates for the integrative work-family conict model (Model 4).
Parameter estimates
Intercorrelations among exogenous variables
WSS
WSS
WI
WRC
WTD
WRA
FSS
FI
FRC
FTD
FRA

WI

WRC

WTD

.15
(.02)
.36
(.02)
.04
(.02)

.00
(.02)
.24
(.02)

.15
(.02)

.24
(.02)
.17
(.02)
.05
(.02)
.03
(.02)
.01
(.02)
.06
(.02)

.07
(.02)
.02
(.02)
.12
(.02)
.07
(.02)
.06
(.02)
.07
(.02)

.49
(.02)
.05
(.02)
.04
(.02)
.29
(.02)
.05
(.02)
.16
(.02)

.11
(.02)
.03
(.02)
.02
(.02)
.01
(.02)
.01
(.02)
.18
(.02)

Work-family spillover
WRA

FSS

FI

FRC

FTD

FRA

Satisfaction spillover (correlation


relationship)
JS
FS
JS

FS

.06

(.01)
Conict spillover (correlation
relationship)

.06
(.02)
.00
(.02)
.11
(.02)
.01
(.02)
.33
(.02)

WIF

.14
(.02)
.35
(.02)
.02
(.02)
.29
(.02)

.04
(.02)
.05
(.02)
.13
(.02)

.25
(.02)
.28
(.02)

.21
(.02)

FI
.03
(.02)
.02
(.02)

FRC
.14
(.02)
.13
(.03)

FTD
.01
(.02)
.09
(.02)

FRA
.03
(.02)
.19
(.02)

FIW

WIF

FIW

.27
(.02)

WIF

FIW

JS

FS

.10
(.02)
.07
(.02)
.13
(.02)

.01
(.02)
.05
(.02)
.01
(.02)

.34
(.02)

.37
(.02)

Path estimates (direction of pathway is represented by column to row)


WIF
FIW
JS

WSS
.13
(.02)
.02
(.02)
.25
(.02)

WI
.05
(.02)
.01
(.02)
.24
(.02)

WRC
.20
(.03)
.10
(.03)
.16
(.02)

WTD
.20
(.02)
.04
(.02)
.06
(.02)

FS
LS

WRA
.06
(.02)
.06
(.03)
.28
(.02)

FSS
.04
(.02)
.06
(.02)

.29
(.02)

.16
(.02)

.28
(.02)

.04
(.02)

.14
(.02)

Note: WIF, work interference with family conict; FIW, family interference with work conict; WSS, work social support; WI, work involvement; WRC, work
role conict; WTD, work time demands; WRA, work role ambiguity; FSS, family social support; FI, family involvement; FRC, family role conict; FTD, family
time demands; FRA, family role ambiguity; JS, job satisfaction; FS, family satisfaction; LS, life satisfaction. Values in parentheses are standard errors for the
path coefcient. Variance explained in outcome variables: job satisfaction = 40%, family satisfaction = 38%, life satisfaction = 35%. N = 2119.

tive work-family conict model) explained 40% of the variance in job satisfaction, 38% of the variance in family satisfaction,
and 35% of the variance in life satisfaction. Collectively, these results suggest that Models 1, 2, and 4, provide incremental
explanation in the prediction of satisfaction outcomes.
6.3. Explanatory power of model linkages
To provide a more critical examination of work-family conict models, we systematically analyzed nested models or linkages within our integrative framework. In isolation, the indirect effects of linkage 2 (WIF) explained 4% of the variance in
family satisfaction while linkage 4 (FIW) explained 2% of the variance in job satisfaction. Though not traditionally modeled
in work-family conict models, our additional linkage 7 (WIF) explained 6% of the variance in job satisfaction while linkage 8
(FIW) explained 5% of the variance in family satisfaction. The nal WIF and FIW linkages 9 and 10 were both modest predictors of life satisfaction accounting for 9% and 4%. Turning to direct effect linkages, we found that linkage 11 (work antecedents) explained 39% of the variance in job satisfaction while linkage 12 (family antecedents) explained 38% of the
variance in family satisfaction.
To determine the utility of the work-family conict construct, in regards to structural models predicting satisfaction outcomes, we examined our integrative model with and without WIF, FIW, and pathways 110, and 14, thus removing all workfamily conict variables and pathways. Model t without these variables and pathways was nearly identical to the full workfamily conict model: v2(20) = 312.83, CN = 250.39, GFI = .98, NFI = .96, CFI = .96, RMSEA = .08, and AIC = 454.83. In addition,
the remaining pathway estimates remained highly stable with no more than .02 differences in magnitudes between models
with and without work-family conict constructs and pathways. Further, variance explained in job satisfaction reduced from
40% to 39%, variance explained in family satisfaction reduced from 38% to 37%, and variance explained in life satisfaction
reduced from 35% to 33%. Collectively, these results suggest that work-family conict and corresponding indirect effect link-

210

J.S. Michel et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 74 (2009) 199218

ages (see Edwards & Rothbard, 2000; Michel & Hargis, 2008) possess small incremental explication in the prediction of satisfaction outcomes.

7. Discussion
This study examined the complex interplay between work and family through a conict theory perspective. Our results
suggest that Model 1 (the parsimonious stressor and involvement model), Model 2 (the expanded stressor model), and Model 4 (the integrative work-family conict model) are generalizable to our meta-analytic correlation matrix, while Model 3
(the partial mediating stressor model) was not generalizable. Consistent path analytic ndings across models suggest the
following: (1) work role conict and work time demands are primary predictors of WIF, while work social support, work
involvement, work role conict, and work role ambiguity are primary predictors of job satisfaction; (2) family role conict
and family role ambiguity are primary predictors of FIW, while family social support, family involvement, family role conict, and family role ambiguity are primary predictors of family satisfaction; (3) work antecedents are related to FIW and
family antecedents are related to WIF, but these relations are small; (4) there tends to be cross-domain spillover among constructs (e.g., role ambiguity, work-family conict); (5) WIF and FIW have low relationships with satisfaction outcomes; and
(6) job satisfaction and family satisfaction are strong predictors of life satisfaction.
We also critically examined our integrative work-family conict model (Model 4) in regards to explanatory power of specic work-family linkages (cf. Edwards & Rothbard, 2000; Michel & Hargis, 2008). At the core of work-family conict models
are what we have referred to as indirect effects. In isolation, work and family antecedents had small indirect effects on family
and work satisfaction outcomes via WIF and FIW (24% explained variance). This is surprising considering the signicant,
though modest, bivariate results supporting these linkages (e.g., Kossek & Ozeki, 1998). In addition, we found that WIF
and FIW were actually better predictors of same domain satisfaction than cross-domain satisfaction (56% explained variance). This was highly unexpected as WIF and FIW explain greater variance in the satisfaction outcomes that they should
not explain, theoretically, then the satisfaction outcomes that they should explain (e.g., WIF is a better predictor of job satisfaction at 6% explained variance than family satisfaction at 2% explained variance). In regards to direct effects, results indicate that work and family domain antecedents are strong predictors of same domain satisfaction (3839% explained
variance). Further, when examined as a complete interface, indirect effects had an incremental predictive explanation of a
mere 12% explained variance in satisfaction outcomes. These ndings suggest that when taking into account direct effect
linkages, indirect effect linkages of work-family conict possess little incremental explanatory power in regards to satisfaction outcomes.
7.1. Contributions to theory and practice
There are several implications from this study based on specic parameter estimates. For example, family time demands
(hours worked, number of children, and age of youngest child) had a low impact on FIW (pathways of .08 for the stressor/
involvement based Model 2 and .04 for integrative Model 4). This is an important implication as employees with family demands, particularly working mothers, often experience inequality within organizations (e.g., Bagilhole, 2006; Bo, 2006). Further, researchers have suggested that these family demands are directly responsible for feelings of FIW and gender
differences in the workforce (e.g., Keene & Reynolds, 2005). Our results, however, indicate that family time demands have
very little impact on work rolesas indicated by FIW. This nding has potential impact on the quest for equality in the work
place in regards to family and gender roles, as traditional perceptions of family time demands being a job cost may be in
question. Another interesting nding is the relationship between social support and role conict; specically, work social
support and work role conict ( .36 in integrative Model 4), and family social support and family role conict (-.35 in integrative Model 4). Should the causal mechanisms of these relationships be determined, organizations may benet by potentially increasing work social support in an effort to decrease work role conict. This logic may extend to the family domain as
well. According to the pathways presented here, from work role conict to job satisfaction (pathway of .16 in integrative
Model 4) and from family role conict to family satisfaction (pathway of .28 in integrative Model 4), role conict has
important implications to the outcomes of satisfaction considered in this study.
Though the results of do not strongly support the work-family conict construct in regards to satisfaction outcomes, this
study does provided clarication on the relationships between work and family, particularly in regards to the additive value
of different work-family variables and model linkages. In doing so, this study answered the call of Eby et al. (2005) for additional model testing and development by documenting nontrivial differences between existing models and through the integration of current theory and empirical ndings in the culmination and examination of our integrative work-family conict
model (Model 4). In particular, we found that the model structure and variable inclusion of Model 1 (parsimonious stressor
and involvement model) and Model 2 (expanded stressor model) t the data well and were predictive, and each model provided incremental explanation. Likewise, our integrative work-family conict model (Model 4) sheds further light on the
complex interrelationships between work and family. Our ndings also extend the work of Ford et al. (2007), where indirect
effects accounted for 7% of the variance in job satisfaction and 7% of the variance in family satisfaction independently, by
accounting for 40% of the variance in job satisfaction, 38% of the variance in family satisfaction, and 35% of the variance
in life satisfaction concurrently (see integrative work-family conict model). It is important to note that this variance ac-

J.S. Michel et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 74 (2009) 199218

211

counted for is not necessarily due to an increase in the number of predictors, but instead the modeling of direct effects traditionally found in work-family conict models.
However, an unexpected implication involves our results regarding the indirect effects of WIF and FIW on satisfaction
outcomes. Across the well-tting models, WIF and FIW had low magnitudes to satisfaction outcomes; in fact, these ndings
never exceed pathways of .13. Though these ndings differ from bivariate meta-analyses, i.e., our magnitudes are much
smaller, these models still possess signicant though small relationships from WIF and FIW to satisfaction outcomes while
controlling for various work and family domain antecedents, accounting for 12% of unique variance. As our results indicate
the presence of potential moderators, and this question is beyond the scope of the current study, it seems appropriate for
future research to better determine under what conditions that these linkages are strong (e.g., contextual factors; social cognitions). In addition, research could determine why WIF and FIW were more related to same domain satisfaction (e.g., WIF
and job satisfaction) than cross-domain satisfaction (e.g., WIF and family satisfaction) as WIF and FIW measures were explicitly developed to tap into cross-domain effects. This nding suggests that when expectations of interference from one domain are higher than expected, the satisfaction levels in that same domain are negatively impacted. Further research may
also consider that affect at home and affect at work (cf. Ilies, Schwind, & Wagner, in press; Ilies et al., 2007) may be an underlying and relatively unassessed component of these and other work-family linkages.
7.2. Potential limitations
Like most meta-analytic studies, methodological limitations are inevitable. For the current meta-analytic path analysis,
two potential limitations need mentioning. The stability of the meta-analytic bivariate relationships is variable. Since this
review investigated the interrelationships of 15 variables, a meta-analytic correlation matrix of 105 cells was generated.
These cells contain discrepancies in the stability of their estimation of the population parameters. For example, the WIF
and FIW relationship (k = 121, n = 47,305) should be a much more robust population approximation than the family role
ambiguity and work time demands (k = 1, n = 261) relationship. Though variability in parameter estimate stability is always
a weakness, this limitation should not be a major problem for the current study. For example, a recent meta-analytic path
analysis described as truly exemplary (see Bobko & Roth, 2003, p. 82) contained empty cells in 21% of the meta-analytic
matrix, while another 21% of the cells contained only one study. Considering the current work contains estimates for all 105
cells, while only two cells (2%) had one sample, the variability in population parameter estimate stability in the current
meta-analytic matrix is not inconsistent with that found in other, similar studies.
In addition, we used structural equation modeling with cross-sectional data to t a series of structural models. Several of
the models showed good t, however, this just means that these models are plausible explanations for the observed patterns
of covariance (James, Muliak, & Brett, 1982). Accordingly, other equally plausible models may exist that provide similar or
better t. Accordingly, future research should seek to establish if the general structure implied by these models are consistent with a truly causal model (this would entail collecting and structuring studies so as to best satisfy the requisite conditions for causal inference; cf. James et al., 1982).
8. Conclusions
We have reviewed, developed, tested, and critiqued multiple full-range work-family conict models and model linkages.
Each model was evaluated and compared on model t, parameter estimates, and variance explained in outcomes. The
embedded linkages within our integrative model were then critically examined through a series of path analyses. Results
indicated that direct effects drive these models and indirect effects provide only small amounts of incremental explanation
in satisfaction outcomes. Research should further explore the potential mechanisms linking work and family domains, both
indirect and direct, concurrently and in isolation.
References
Alexander, R. A., Scozzaro, M. J., & Borodkin, L. J. (1989). Statistical and empirical examination of the chi-square test for homogeneity of correlations in metaanalysis. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 329331.
Allen, T. D., Herst, D. E. L., Bruck, C. S., & Sutton, M. (2000). Consequences associated with work-to-family conict: A review and agenda for future research.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 278308.
Amatea, E. S., Cross, E. G., Clark, J. E., & Bobby, C. L. (1986). Assessing the work and family role expectations of career oriented men and women: The life role
salience scales. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48, 831838.
Anderson, S. E., Coffey, B. S., & Byerly, R. T. (2002). Formal organizational initiatives and informal workplace practices: Links to work-family conict and job
related outcomes. Journal of Management, 28, 787810.
Aryee, S., Fields, D., & Luk, V. (1999). A cross-cultural test of a model of the work-family interface. Journal of Management, 25, 491511.
Ashforth, B. E., Kreiner, G. E., & Fugate, M. (2000). All is a days work: Boundaries and micro role transitions. Academy of Management Review, 25, 472491.
Bacharach, S. B., Bamberger, P., & Conley, S. (1990). Work processes, role conict, and role overload: The case of nurses and engineers in the public sector.
Work and Occupations, 17, 199228.
Bagilhole, B. (2006). Family-friendly policies and equal opportunities: A contradiction in terms? British Journal of Guidance & Counseling, 34, 327343.
Bedeian, A. G., Burke, B. G., & Moffett, R. G. (1988). Outcomes of work-family conict among married male and female professionals. Journal of Management,
14, 475491.
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. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Beehr, T. A., King, L. A., & King, D. W. (1990). Social support and occupational stress: Talking to supervisors. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 36, 6181.

212

J.S. Michel et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 74 (2009) 199218

Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Signicance tests and goodness of t in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588606.
Bo, I. (2006). Working life and family life: Ambiguous communication at work. Community, Work & Family, 9, 123141.
Bobko, P., & Roth, P. L. (2003). Meta-analysis and validity generalization as research tools: Issues of sample bias and degrees of mis-specication. In K. R.
Murphy (Ed.), Validity generalization: A critical review. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Bond, J. T., Galinsky, E., Swanberg, J. E. (1998). The 1997 national study of the changing workplace. New York: Families and Work Institute.
Brown, S. P., & Peterson, R. A. (1993). Antecedents and consequences of salesperson job satisfaction: Meta-analysis and assessment of causal effects. Journal
of Marketing Research, 30, 6377.
Burke, R. J. (1986). Occupational and life stress and the family: Conceptual frameworks and research ndings. International Review of Applied Psychology, 35,
347369.
Burley, K. A. (1990). Work-family conict and marital adjustment in dual career couples: A comparison of three time models (Doctoral dissertation,
Claremont Graduate School, 1989). Dissertation Abstracts International, 50, 4803.
Byron, K. (2005). A meta-analytic review of work-family conict and its antecedents. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67, 169198.
Caplan, R. D., Cobb, S., & French, J. R. P. Jr., (1975). Relationships of cessation of smoking with job stress, personality, and social support. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 60, 211219.
Caplan, R. D., Cobb, S., French, J. R. P., Jr., Harrison, R. V., & Pinneau, S. R. Jr., (1975). Job demands and worker health: Main effects and occupational differences.
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Ofce.
Caplan, R. D., Cobb, S., French, J. R. P., Harrison, R. V., & Pinneau, S. R. Jr., (1980). Job demands and worker health: Main effects and occupational differences.
Research Report Series. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research.
Carlson, D. S., & Frone, M. R. (2003). Relation of behavioral and psychological involvement to a new four-factor conceptualization of work-family
interference. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17, 515535.
Carlson, D. S., & Kacmar, K. M. (2000). Work-family conict in the organization: Do life role values make a difference? Journal of Management, 26, 10311054.
Carlson, D. S., Kacmar, K. M., & Williams, L. J. (2000). Construction and initial validation of a multidimensional measure of work-family conict. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 56, 249276.
Carlson, D. S., & Perrew, P. L. (1999). The role of social support in the stressor-strain relationship: An examination of work-family conict. Journal of
Management, 25, 513540.
Chen, G., Casper, W. J., & Cortina, J. M. (2001). The roles of self-efcacy and task complexity in the relationships among cognitive ability, conscientiousness,
and work-related performance: A meta-analytic examination. Human Performance, 14, 209230.
Clark, S. L., & Weismantle, M. (2003). Employment Status: 2000. Census 2000 Brief, Series C2KBR-18.
Cooper, C. L., Cooper, R. D., & Eaker, L. H. (1988). Living with stress. London: Penguin.
Cranny, C. J., Smith, P. C., & Stone, E. F. (Eds.). (1992). Job Satisfaction: How people feel about their jobs and how it affects their performance. New York: Lexington
Books.
Diefendorff, J. M., Brown, D. J., Kamin, A. M., & Lord, R. G. (2002). Examining the roles of job involvement and work centrality in predicting organizational
citizenship behaviors and job performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 93108.
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Grifn, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 7175.
Duxbury, L. E., & Higgins, C. A. (1991). Gender differences in work-family conict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 6073.
Eby, L. T., Casper, W. J., Lockwood, A., Bordeaux, C., & Brinely, A. (2005). Work and family research in IO/OB: Content analysis and review of the literature
(19802002). Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 124197.
Edwards, J. R., & Rothbard, N. P. (2000). Mechanisms linking work and family: Clarifying the relationship between work and family constructs. Academy of
Management Review, 25, 178199.
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500507.
Elloy, D. F., & Smith, C. R. (2003). Patterns of stress, work-family conict, role conict, role ambiguity and overload among dual-career and single-career
couples: An Australian study. Cross Cultural Management, 10, 5566.
Evans, P., & Bartolome, F. (1984). The changing pictures of the relationship between career and family. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 5, 921.
Ford, M. T., Heinen, B. A., & Langkamer, K. L. (2007). Work and family satisfaction and conict: A meta-analysis of cross-domain relations. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 92, 5780.
French, J. R. P., & Caplan, R. D. (1973). Organizational stress and individual strain. In A. J. Marrow (Ed.), The failure of success. New York: AMACOM.
Frone, M. R. (2003). Work family balance. In J. C. Quick & L. E. Tetrick (Eds.), Handbook of occupational health psychology. Washington D.C.: American
Psychological Association.
Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M. L. (1992). Antecedents and outcomes of work-family conict: Testing a model of the work-family interface. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 77, 6578.
Frone, M. R., Yardley, J. K., & Markel, K. S. (1997). Developing and testing an integrative model of the work-family interface. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50,
145167.
Grandey, A. A., & Cropanzano, R. (1999). The conservation of resources model applied to work-family conict and strain. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54,
350370.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conict between work and family roles. Academy of Management Review, 10, 7688.
Greenhaus, J. H., Callanan, G. A., & Godshalk, V. M. (2000). Career management. Fort Worth: The Dryden Press.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Parasuraman, S. (1999). Research on work, family, and gender: Current status and future directions. In G. N. Powell (Ed.), Handbook of
gender and work. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Powell, G. N. (2006). When work and family are allies: A theory of work-family enrichment. Academy of Management Review,
31, 7292.
Gupta, N., & Jenkins, G. D. (1985). Dual-career couples: Stress, stressors, strains and strategies. In T. A. Beehr & R. S. Bhagat (Eds.), Human stress and cognition
in organizations: An integrated perspective. New York: Wiley.
Gutek, B. A., Searle, S., & Klepa, L. (1991). Rational versus gender role explanations for work-family conict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 560568.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 159170.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16,
250279.
Hedges, L. V. (1982). Estimation of effect size from a series of independent experiments. Psychological Bulletin, 92, 490499.
Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Hoelter, J. W. (1983). The analysis of covariance structures: Goodness-of-t indices. Sociological Methods & Research, 11, 325344.
Hopkins, A. H. (1983). Work and job satisfaction in the public sectors. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Allonheld.
Hom, P. W., Caranikas-Walker, F., Prussia, G. E., & Griffeth, R. W. (1992). A meta-analytical structural equations analysis of a model of employee turnover.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 890909.
House, G. S. (1981). Work stress and social support. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1995). Evaluating model t. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.). Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for t indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternative. Structural Equation
Modeling, 6, 155.
Ilies, R., Schwind, K. M., & Wagner, D. T. (in press). The spillover of daily job satisfaction onto employees family lives: The facilitating role of work-family
integration. Academy of Management Journal.

J.S. Michel et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 74 (2009) 199218

213

Ilies, R., Schwind, K. M., Wagner, D. T., Johnson, M. D., DeRue, D. S., & Ilgen, D. R. (2007). When can employees have a family life? The effects of daily
workload and affect on work-family conict and social behaviors at home. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 13681379.
James, L. R., Muliak, S. S., & Brett, J. M. (1982). Mediators, moderators, and tests for mediation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 307321.
Johnson, B. T. (1993). DSTAT 1.10: Software for the meta-analytic review of research literatures. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Jreskog, K. G., & Srbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Analysis of linear structural relationships by maximum likelihood, instrumental variables and least squares methods
(8th ed.). Mooresville, IN: Scientic Software.
Judge, T. A., Boudreau, J. W., & Bretz, R. D. (1994). Job and life attitudes of male executives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 767782.
Kahn, R. (1980). Conict, ambiguity, and overload: Three elements in job stress. In D. Katz, R. Kahn, & J. Adams (Eds.), The study of organizations
(pp. 418428). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P., Snoek, J. D., & Rosenthal, R. A. (1964). Organizational stress: studies in role conict and ambiguity. New York: Wiley.
Kanungo, R. N. (1982). Measurement of job and work involvement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 341349.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. (1978). The social psychology of organizations. New York: Wiley.
Keene, J. R., & Reynolds, J. R. (2005). The job costs of family demands: Gender differences in negative family-to-work spillover. Journal of Family Issues, 26,
275299.
Kelloway, R. W., Gottlieb, B. H., & Barham, L. (1999). The source, nature, and direction of work and family conict: A longitudinal investigation. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 4, 337346.
King, L. A., Mattimore, L. K., King, D. W., & Adams, G. A. (1995). Family support inventory for workers: A new measure of perceived social support for family
members. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 235258.
Kirchmeyer, C. (1992). Perceptions of nonwork-to-work spillover: Challenging the common view of conict-ridden domain relationships. Basic and Applied
Social Psychology, 13, 231249.
Kopelman, R., Greenhaus, J. H., & Connolly, T. F. (1983). A model of work, family, and interrole conict: A construct validation study. Organizational Behavior
and Human Performance, 32, 198215.
Kossek, E. E., & Ozeki, C. (1998). Work-family conict, policies, and the job-life satisfaction relationship: A review and directions for organizational behaviorhuman resources research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 139149.
Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 12971349).
Chicago: Rand-McNally.
Lodahl, T. M., & Kejnar, M. (1965). The denition and measurement of job involvement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 49, 2433.
Major, V. S., Klein, K. J., & Ehrhart, M. G. (2002). Work time, work interference with family, and psychological distress. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87,
427436.
Marsh, H. W., Hau, K., & Wen, Z. (2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for t indexes and
dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentlers (1999) ndings. Structural Equation Modeling, 11, 320341.
Matsui, T., Ohsawa, T., & Onglatco, M. I. (1995). Work-family conict and the stress-buffering effects of husband support and coping behavior among
Japanese married working women. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 47, 178192.
Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., & Viswesvaran, C. (2005). Convergence between measures of work-to-family and family-to-work conict: A meta-analytic
examination. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67, 215232.
Michel, J. S., & Hargis, M. B. (2008). Linking mechanisms of work-family conict and segmentation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73, 509522.
Nye, F., & MacDougall, E. (1959). The dependant variable in marital research. Pacic Sociological Review, 2, 6770.
ODriscoll, M. P., Ilgen, D. R., & Hildreth, K. (1992). Time devoted to job and off-job activities, interrole conict, and affective experiences. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 77, 272279.
Parasuraman, S., Purohit, Y. S., Godshalk, V. M., & Beutell, N. J. (1996). Work and family variables, entrepreneurial career success and psychological wellbeing. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 48, 275300.
Peterson, M. F., Smith, P. B., Akande, A., Ayestaran, S., Bochner, S., Callan, V., et al (1995). Role conict, ambiguity, and overload: A 21-nation study. Academy
of Management Journal, 38, 429452.
Procidano, M. E., & Heller, K. (1983). Measures of perceived social support from friends and from family: Three validation studies. American Journal of
Community Psychology, 11, 124.
Quinn, R. P., & Shepard, L. J. (1974). The 197273 quality of employment survey: Descriptive statistics, with comparison data from the 196970 survey of working
conditions. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research.
Quinn, R. P., & Staines, G. L. (1979). The 1977 quality of employment survey. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research.
Rice, R. W., McFarlin, D. B., Hunt, R. G., & Near, J. P. (1985). Organizational work and the perceived quality of life. Academy of Management Review, 10,
296310.
Rizzo, J. R., House, R. J., & Lirtzman, S. I. (1970). Role conict and ambiguity in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15, 150163.
Rosenthal, R. (1994). Statistically describing and combining studies. In H. Cooper & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 231244). New
York: Russell Sage.
Schuler, R. S. (1980). Denition and conceptualization of stress in organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 25, 184215.
Shinn, M., Wong, N. W., Simko, P. A., & Ortiz-Torres, B. (1989). Promoting the well-being of working parents: Coping, social support, and exible job
schedules. American Journal of Community Psychology, 17, 3155.
Simmons, T., & ONeill, G. (2001). Households and Families: 2000. Census 2000 Brief, Series C2KBR/01-8.
Smith, P. C., Kendall, L. M., & Hulin, C. L. (1969). The measurement of satisfaction in work and retirement: A strategy for the study of attitudes. Chicago: Rand
McNally.
Spanier, G. B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family,
38, 1528.
Staines, G. L., & Pleck, J. H. (1984). Nonstandard work schedules and family life. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 515523.
Usita, P. M., Hall, S. S., & Davis, J. C. (2004). Role ambiguity in family caregiving. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 23, 2039.
Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (1995). Theory testing: Combining psychometric meta-analysis and structural equations modeling. Personnel Psychology, 48,
865885.
Williams, K., & Alliger, G. M. (1994). Role stressors, mood spillover, and perceptions of work-family conict in employed parents. Academy of Management
Journal, 37, 837868.
Yogev, S., & Brett, J. (1985). Patterns of work and family involvement among single- and dual-earner couples. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 754768.
Zedeck, S., & Mosier, K. L. (1990). Work in the family and employing organization. American Psychologist, 45, 240251.

References marked with an asterisk indicate studies include in the meta-analysis.


*

Adams, G. A., & Jex, S. M. (1999). Relationships between time management, control, work-family conict, and strain. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 4, 7277.
*
Adams, G. A., King, L. A., & King, D. W. (1996). Relationship of job and family involvement, family social support, and work-family conict with job and life
satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 411420.
*
Allen, T. D. (2001). Family-supportive work environments: The role of organizational perceptions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 414435.
*
Anderson, S. E., Coffey, B. S., & Byerly, R. T. (2002). Formal organizational initiatives and informal workplace practices: Links to work-family conict and jobrelated outcomes. Journal of Management, 28, 787810.

214
*

J.S. Michel et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 74 (2009) 199218

Anderson-Kulman, R. E., & Paludi, M. A. (1986). Working mothers and the family context: Predicting positive coping. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 28,
241253.
*
Aryee, S. (1992). Antecedents and outcomes of work-family conict among married professional women: Evidence from Singapore. Human Relations, 45,
813837.
*
Aryee, S., Fields, D., & Luk, V. (1999). A cross-cultural test of a model of the work-family interface. Journal of Management, 25, 491511.
*
Aryee, S., & Luk, V. (1996). Work and nonwork inuences on the career satisfaction of dual-earner couples. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 49, 3852.
*
Aryee, S., Luk, V., Leung, A., & Lo, S. (1999). Role stressors, interrole conict, and well-being: The moderating inuence of spousal support and coping
behaviors among employed parents in Hong Kong. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 259278.
*
Aryee, S., Srinivas, E. S., & Tan, H. H. (2005). Rhythms of life: Antecedents and outcomes of work-family balance in employed parents. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 90, 132146.
*
Bacharach, S. B., Bamberger, P., & Conley, S. (1991). Work-home conict among nurses and engineers: Mediating the impact of role stress on burnout and
satisfaction at work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 12, 3953.
*
Baltes, B. B., & Heydens-Gahir, H. (2003). Reduction of work-family conict through the use of Selection, Optimization, and Compensation behaviors.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 10051018.
*
Barich, A. W. (1995). The moderating roles of coping and control on the experience of work-family conict (Doctoral dissertation, Southern Illinois
University, 1994). Dissertation Abstracts International, 56, 1691.
*
Barrah, J. L., Shultz, K. S., Baltes, B., & Stolz, H. E. (2004). Mens and womens eldercare-based work-family conict: Antecedents and work-related outcomes.
Fathering, 2, 305330.
*
Batt, R., & Valcour, P. M. (2003). Human resources practices as predictors of work-family outcomes and employee turnover. Industrial Relations, 42,
189220.
*
Beatty, C. A. (1996). The stress of managerial and professional women: Is the price too high? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 233251.
*
Bedeian, A. G., Burke, B. G., & Moffett, R. G. (1988). Outcomes of work-family conict among married male and female professionals. Journal of Management,
14, 475491.
*
Behson, S. J. (2002a). Coping with family-to-work conict: The role of informal work accommodations to family. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 7,
324341.
*
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, 5372.
*
Bernas, K. H., & Major, D. A. (2000). Contributors to stress resistance: Testing a model of womens work-family conict. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 24,
170178.
*
Beutell, N. J., & Wittig-Berman, U. (1999). Predictors of work-family conict and satisfaction with family, job, career, and life. Psychological Reports, 85,
893903.
*
Bhuian, S. N., Menguc, B., & Borsboom, R. (2005). Stressors and job outcomes in sales: A triphasic model versus a linear-quadratic-interactive model. Journal
of Business Research, 58, 141150.
*
Blau, G. (1995). Inuence of group lateness on individual lateness: A cross-level examination. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 14831496.
*
Block, B. L. (1995). An exploration of the relationships among work-family conict, relevant personality variables, and well-being (Doctoral dissertation,
The City University of New York, 1995). Dissertation Abstracts International, 56, 1729.
*
Bohle, P., & Tilley, A. J. (1998). Early experience of shiftwork: Inuences on attitudes. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 71, 6179.
*
Boles, J. S., & Babin, B. J. (1996). On the front lines: Stress, conict, and the customer service provider. Journal of Business Research, 37, 4150.
*
Boles, J. S., Howard, W. G., & Donofrio, H. H. (2001). An investigation into the inter-relationships of work-family conict, family-work conict and work
satisfaction. Journal of Managerial Issues, 13, 376390.
*
Boles, J. S., Wood, J. A., & Johnson, J. (2003). Interrelationships of role conict, role ambiguity, and work-family conict with different facets of job
satisfaction and the moderating effects of gender. The Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 23, 99113.
*
Bolino, M. C., & Turnley, W. H. (2005). The personal costs of citizenship behavior: The relationship between individual initiative and role overload, job
stress, and work-family conict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 740748.
*
Borovsky, D. M. (1999). Models and operationalizations of work-family conict: A comparative analysis and extension to organizational outcomes in a
sample of unionized workers. (Doctoral dissertation, Wayne State University, 1999). Dissertation Abstracts International, 59, 6507.
*
Boyar, S. L., Maertz, C. P., Jr., Pearson, A. W., & Keough, S. (2003). Work-family conict: A model of linkages between work and family domain variables and
turnover intentions. Journal of Managerial Issues, 15, 175190.
*
Brough, P., & Kelling, A. (2002). Women, work & well-being family-work conict. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 31, 2938.
*
Bruck, C. S. (2003). Theoretical antecedents to work-family conict: A comprehensive approach. (Masters thesis, University of South Florida, 2000)..
Dissertation Abstracts International, 64, 449.
*
Bruck, C. S., & Allen, T. D. (2003). The relationship between big ve personality traits, negative affectivity, type A behavior, and work-family conict. Journal
of Vocational Behavior, 63, 457472.
*
Bruck, C. S., Allen, T. D., & Spector, P. E. (2002). The relation between work-family conict and job satisfaction: A ner-grained analysis. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 60, 336353.
*
Buffardi, L. C., & Erdwins, C. J. (1997). Child-care satisfaction: Linkages to work attitudes, interrole conict, and maternal separation anxiety. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 2, 8496.
*
Burke, R. J. (1988). Some antecedents and consequences of work-family conict. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 3, 287302.
*
Burke, R. J., & Greenglass, E. R. (2001). Hospital restructuring stressors, work-family concerns and psychological well-being among nursing staff.
Community, Work and Family, 4, 4962.
*
Burley, K. A. (1990). Work-family conict and marital adjustment in dual career couples: A comparison of three time models (Doctoral dissertation,
Claremont Graduate School, 1989). Dissertation Abstracts International, 50, 4803.
*
Butler, A. B., Grzywacz, J. G., Bass, B. L., & Linney, K. D. (2005). Extending the demands-control model: A daily diary study of job characteristics, work-family
conict and work-family facilitation. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78, 155169.
*
Campbell, J. L., & Snow, B. M. (1992). Gender role conict and family environment as predictors of mens marital satisfaction. Journal of Family Psychology, 6,
8487.
*
Carbone, D. J. (1992). The effects of career stage and family stage on human service employees coping with work-family conict (Doctoral dissertation,
Cornell University, 1992). Dissertation Abstracts International, 52, 5555.
*
Carlson, D. S. (1999). Personality and role variables as predictors of three forms of work-family conict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 55, 236253.
*
Carlson, D. S., Derr, C. B., & Wadsworth, L. L. (2003). The effects of internal career orientation on multiple dimensions of work-family conict. Journal of
Family and Economic Issues, 24, 99116.
*
Carlson, D. S., & Frone, M. R. (2003). Relation of behavioral and psychological involvement to a new four-factor conceptualization of work-family
interference. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17, 515535.
*
Carlson, D. S., & Kacmar, K. M. (2000). Work-family conict in the organization: Do life role values make a difference? Journal of Management, 26,
10311054.
*
Carlson, D. S., & Perrew, P. L. (1999). The role of social support in the stressor-strain relationship: An examination of work-family conict. Journal of
Management, 25, 513540.
*
Carmeli, A. (2003). The relationship between emotional intelligence and work attitudes, behavior and outcomes: An examination among senior managers.
Journal of Managerial Psychology, 18, 788813.

J.S. Michel et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 74 (2009) 199218


*

215

Casper, W. J., Martin, J. A., Buffardi, L. C., & Erdwins, C. J. (2002). Work-family conict, perceived organizational support, and organizational commitment
among employed mothers. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 7, 99108.
*
Chiu, R. K. (1998). Relationships among role conicts, role satisfactions and life satisfaction: Evidence from Hong Kong. Social Behavior and Personality, 26,
409414.
*
Chiu, R. K., Man, J. S. W., & Thayer, J. (1998). Effects of role conicts and role satisfactions on stress of three professions in Hong Kong: A path analysis
approach. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 13, 318333.
*
Cinamon, R. G., & Rich, Y. (2002). Proles of attribution of importance to life roles and their implications for the work-family conict. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 49, 212220.
*
Clark, S. C. (2002). Employees sense of community, sense of control, and work/family conict in Native American organizations. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 61, 92108.
*
Cohen, A., & Kirchmeyer, C. (1995). A multidimensional approach to the relation between organizational commitment and nonwork participation. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 46, 189202.
*
Cooke, R. A., & Rousseau, D. M. (1984). Stress and strain from family roles and work-role expectations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 252260.
*
Day, A. L. (1997). Conceptualizing work and family conict using an inter-role perspective: The importance of time, strain, and behavior (Doctoral
dissertation, The University of Waterloo, 1997). Dissertation Abstracts International, 58, 0445.
*
Diana, M. (1998). Work environment, career, and family inuences on the reenlistment intentions of army soldiers (Doctoral dissertation, George Mason
University, 1998). Dissertation Abstracts International, 59, 0446.
*
Dickson, C. E. (2004). The impact of family supportive policies and practices on perceived family discrimination (Doctoral dissertation, Alliant International
University, 2003). Dissertation Abstracts International, 64, 5261.
*
Duxbury, L. E., & Higgins, C. A. (1991). Gender differences in work-family conict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 6073.
*
Duxbury, L. E., Higgins, C. A., & Lee, C. (1994). Work-family conict: A comparison by gender, family type, and perceived control. Journal of Family Issues, 15,
449466.
*
Duxbury, L. E., Higgins, C. A., & Thomas, D. R. (1996). Work and family environments and the adoption of computer-supported supplemental work-at-home.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 49, 123.
*
Eagle, B. W. (1996). A construct validity study of bidirectional measures of work-family conict (Doctoral dissertation, Georgia State University, 1996).
Dissertation Abstracts International, 56, 4620.
*
Eagle, B. W., Icenogle, M. L., Maes, J. D., & Miles, E. W. (1998). The importance of employee demographic proles for understanding experiences of workfamily interrole conicts. Journal of Social Psychology, 138, 690709.
*
Eagle, B. W., Miles, E. W., & Icenogle, M. L. (1997). Interrole conicts and the permeability of work and family domains: Are there gender differences?
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50, 168184.
*
Erdwins, C. J., Buffardi, L. C., Casper, W. J., & OBrien, A. S. (2001). The relationship of womens role strain to social support, role satisfaction, and self-efcacy.
Family Relations, 50, 230238.
*
Filippo, C. L. (2003). The relationship of select demographic, psychological, and social support variables with work-to-family and family-to-work conict in
medical students (Doctoral dissertation, University of Oklahoma, 2003). Dissertation Abstracts International, 64, 1548.
*
Foust, M. H. S. (2002). An investigation of the antecedents of lateness behavior: The effects of attitudes, individual differences, and context (Doctoral
dissertation, University of Akron, 2002). Dissertation Abstracts International, 62, 3407.
*
Fox, M. L., & Dwyer, D. J. (1999). An investigation of the effects of time and involvement in the relationship between stressors and work-family conict.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 4, 164174.
*
Frone, M. R. (2000). Work-family conict and employee psychiatric disorders: The national comorbidity survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 888895.
*
Frone, M. R., Barnes, G. M., & Farrell, M. P. (1994). Relationship of work-family conict to substance use among employed mothers: The role of negative
affect. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 56, 10191030.
*
Frone, M. R., & Rice, R. W. (1987). Work-family conict: The effect of job and family involvement. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 8, 4553.
*
Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Barnes, G. M. (1996). Work-family conict, gender, and health-related outcomes: A study of employed parents in two
community samples. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 1, 5769.
*
Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M. L. (1992). Antecedents and outcomes of work-family conict: Testing a model of the work-family interface. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 77, 6578.
*
Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M. L. (1993). Relationship of work-family conict, gender, and alcohol expectancies to alcohol use/abuse. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 14, 545558.
*
Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M. L. (1994). Relationship between job and family satisfaction: Causal or noncausal covariation? Journal of Management,
20, 565579.
*
Frone, M. R., & Yardley, J. K. (1996). Workplace family-supportive programmes: Predictors of employed parents importance ratings. Journal of Occupational
and Organizational Psychology, 69, 351366.
*
Frone, M. R., Yardley, J. K., & Markel, K. S. (1997). Developing and testing an integrative model of the work-family interface. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
50, 145167.
*
Frye, N. K., & Breaugh, J. A. (2004). Family-friendly policies, supervisor support, work-family conict, family-work conict, and satisfaction: A test of a
conceptual model. Journal of Business and Psychology, 19, 197220.
*
Fu, C. K., & Shaffer, M. A. (2001). The tug of work and family: Direct and indirect domain-specic determinants of work-family conict. Personnel Review, 30,
502522.
*
Gaitley, N. J. (1996). The inuence of social support and locus of control on the well-being of men and women in the work-family domain (Doctoral
dissertation, Drexel University, 1996). Dissertation Abstracts International, 57, 1727.
*
Gignac, M. A. M., Kelloway, E. K., & Gottlieb, B. H. (1996). The impact of caregiving on employment: A mediational model of work-family conict. Canadian
Journal on Aging, 15, 525542.
*
Good, L. K., Sisler, G. F., & Gentry, J. W. (1988). Antecedents of turnover intentions among retail management personnel. Journal of Retailing, 64, 295314.
*
Gooler, L. E. (1996). Coping with work-family conict: The role of organizational support (Doctoral dissertation, The City University of New York, 1996).
Dissertation Abstracts International, 57, 3442.
*
Grandey, A. A., & Cropanzano, R. (1999). The conservation of resources model applied to work-family conict and strain. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54,
350370.
*
Grant-Vallone, E. J. (1998). Work and family conict: The importance of supportive work environments (Doctoral dissertation, The Claremont Graduate
University, 1998). Dissertation Abstracts International, 59, 1895.
*
Greenhaus, J. H., Bedeian, A. G., & Mossholder, K. W. (1987). Work experiences, job performance, and feelings of personal and family well-being. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 31, 200215.
*
Greenhaus, J. H., Collins, K. M., & Shaw, J. D. (2003). The relation between work-family balance and quality of life. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63,
510531.
*
Greenhaus, J. H., Parasuraman, S., & Collins, K. M. (2001). Career involvement and family involvement as moderators of relationships between work-family
conict and withdrawal from a profession. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6, 91100.
*
Greenhaus, J. H., Parasuraman, S., Granrose, C. S., Rabinowitz, S., & Beutell, N. J. (1989). Sources of work-family conict among two-career couples. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 34, 133153.
*
Grzywacz, J. G., & Bass, B. L. (2003). Work, family, and mental health: Testing different models of work-family t. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65,
248261.

216
*

J.S. Michel et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 74 (2009) 199218

Gudanowski, D. M. (1995). Sources of work-family conict and a three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment: A test of perceived
support as a moderator (Doctoral dissertation, Central Michigan University, 1995). Dissertation Abstracts International, 56, 2916.
*
Gutek, B. A., Searle, S., & Klepa, L. (1991). Rational versus gender role explanations for work-family conict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 560568.
*
Hammer, L. B., Allen, E., & Grigsby, T. D. (1997). Work-family conict in dual-earner couples: Within-individual and crossover effects of work and family.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50, 185203.
*
Hammer, L. B., Bauer, T. N., & Grandey, A. A. (2003). Work-family conict and work-related withdrawal behaviors. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17,
419436.
*
Hammer, L. B., Neal, M. B., Newsom, J. T., Brockwood, K. J., & Colton, C. L. (2005). A longitudinal study of the effects of dual-earner couples utilization of
family-friendly workplace supports on work and family outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 799810.
*
Hammer, T. H., Saksvik, P. ., Nytr, K., Torvatn, H., & Bayazit, M. (2004). Expanding the psychosocial work environment: Workplace norms and workfamily conict as correlates of stress and health. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 9, 8397.
*
Harr, J. M. (2004). Work-family conict and turnover intention: Exploring the moderation effects of perceived work-family support. New Zealand Journal of
Psychology, 33, 3539.
*
Hart, P. M. (1999). Predicting employee life satisfaction: A coherent model of personality, work, and nonwork experiences, and domain satisfactions. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 84, 564584.
*
Hayes, S. M. (2001). Work and family lives of African-American women: Conict or conuence? (Doctoral dissertation, Howard University, 2001).
Dissertation Abstracts International, 61, 4474.
*
Herst, D. E. L. (2004). Cross-cultural measurement invariance of work/family conict scales across English-speaking samples (Doctoral dissertation,
University of South Florida, 2003). Dissertation Abstracts International, 65, 2675.
*
Higgins, C. A., & Duxbury, L. E. (1992). Work-family conict: A comparison of dual-career and traditional-career men. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13,
389411.
*
Higgins, C. A., Duxbury, L. E., & Irving, R. H. (1992). Work-family conict in the dual-career family. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 51,
5175.
*
Higgins, C. A., Duxbury, L. E., & Lee, C. (1994). Impact of life-cycle stage and gender on the ability to balance work and family responsibilities. Family
Relations: Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Studies, 43, 144150.
*
Hill, E. J., Mrtinson, V., & Ferris, M. (2004). New-concept part-time employment as a work-family adaptive strategy for women professionals with small
children. Family Relations, 53, 282292.
*
Hill, E. J., Yang, C., Hawkins, A. J., & Ferris, M. (2004). A cross-cultural test of the work-family interface in 48 countries. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66,
13001316.
*
Honda-Howard, M., & Homma, M. (2001). Job satisfaction of Japanese career women and its inuence on turnover intention. Asian Journal of Social
Psychology, 4, 2338.
*
Huang, Y. H. (2001). A model of antecedents of work-family conict for dual earner couples in the sandwiched generation: A longitudinal study (Doctoral
dissertation, Portland State University, 2000). Dissertation Abstracts International, 62, 585.
*
Huang, Y. H., Hammer, L. B., Neal, M. B., & Parrin, N. A. (2004). The relationship between work-to-family conict and family-to-work conict: A longitudinal
study. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 25, 79100.
*
Hughes, D. L., Galinsky, E., & Morris, A. (1992). The effects of job characteristics on marital quality: Specifying linking mechanisms. Journal of Management
and the Family, 54, 3142.
*
Jex, S. M., & Elacqua, T. C. (1999). Time management as a moderator of relations between stressors and employee strain. Work and Stress, 13, 182191.
*
Johnson, A. F. (2003). Multiple-role self-efcacy and value attainment: Personal factors that mediate the relationships between levels of work and family
involvement and work-family conict (Doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas, 2003). Dissertation Abstracts International, 64, 1494.
*
Jones, A. P., & Butler, M. C. (1980). A role transition approach to the stresses of organizationally induced family role disruption. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 42, 367376.
*
Jones, K. B. (2001). Factors effecting job satisfaction among ordained Presbyterian clergy (Doctoral dissertation, University of South Dakota, 2001).
Dissertation Abstracts International, 61, 3887.
*
Judge, T. A., Boudreau, J. W., & Bretz, R. D. (1994). Job and life attitudes of male executives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 767782.
*
Judge, T. A., & Colquitt, J. A. (2004). Organizational justice and stress: The mediating role of work-family conict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 395404.
*
Katz, M. H., & Piotrkowski, C. S. (1983). Correlates of family role strain among employed black women. Family Relations, 32, 331339.
*
Kelloway, R. W., Gottlieb, B. H., & Barham, L. (1999). The source, nature, and direction of work and family conict: A longitudinal investigation. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 4, 337346.
*
Kenzelmann, R. M. (1992). The adjustment of working mothers in coping with work-family role conict (Doctoral dissertation, United States International
University, 1992). Dissertation Abstracts International, 53, 1683.
*
Kim, J. L. S., & Ling, C. S. (2001). Work-family conict of women entrepreneurs in Singapore. Women in Management Review, 16, 204221.
*
Kinnunen, U., & Mauno, S. (1998). Antecedents and outcomes of work-family conict among employed women and men in Finland. Human Relations, 51,
157177.
*
Kinnunen, U., Vermulst, A., Gerris, J., & Mkikangas (2003). Work-family conict and its relations to well-being: The role of personality as a moderating
factor. Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 16691683.
*
Kinnunen, U., Geurts, S., & Mauno, S. (2004). Work-to-family conict and its relationship with satisfaction and well-being: A one-year longitudinal study on
gender differences. Work and Stress, 18, 122.
*
Kirchmeyer, C. (1992). Perceptions of nonwork-to-work spillover: Challenging the common view of conict-ridden domain relationships. Basic and Applied
Social Psychology, 13, 231249.
*
Kirchmeyer, C., & Cohen, A. (1999). Different strategies for managing the work/non-work interface: A test for unique pathways to work outcomes. Work and
Stress, 13, 5973.
*
Kirrane, M., & Buckley, F. (2004). The inuence of support relationships on work-family conict: Differentiating emotional from instrumental support.
Equal Opportunities International, 23, 7896.
*
Klitzman, S., House, J. S., Israel, B. A., & Mero, R. P. (1990). Work stress, nonwork stress, and health. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 13, 221243.
*
Kossek, E. E., Colquitt, J. A., & Noe, R. A. (2001). Caregiving decisions, well-being, and performance: The effects of place and provider as a function of
dependent type and work-family climates. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 2944.
*
Kowalski, K. B. (1998). A model of the antecedents and outcomes of work-family conict as moderated by social support (Doctoral dissertation, University
of Rhode Island, 1997). Dissertation Abstracts International, 58, 3209.
*
Kreiner, G. E. (2002). On the edge of identity: Boundary conict and workplace t (Doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University, 2002). Dissertation
Abstracts International, 62, 4245.
*
Lambert, E. G., Hogan, N. L., & Barton, S. M. (2002). The impact of work-family conict on correctional staff job satisfaction: An exploratory study. American
Journal of Criminal Justice, 27, 3552.
*
Laster, K. M. (2002). An examination of the relationships between select psychological dimensions and work-to-family and family-to-work role conict in
men and women (Doctoral dissertation, University of Oklahoma, 2002). Dissertation Abstracts International, 63, 577.
*
Leach, M. F. (1997). Relationships between work and life attitudes of small business owners (Doctoral dissertation, Wayne State University, 1997).
Dissertation Abstracts International, 58, 1578.
*
Lee, S. C. (1993). The dimensionality of interrole conict (Doctoral dissertation, Kansas State University, 1993). Dissertation Abstracts International, 53, 6022.
*
Leiter, M. P., & Durup, M. J. (1996). Work, home, and in-between: A longitudinal study of spillover. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 32, 2947.

J.S. Michel et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 74 (2009) 199218


*

217

Loerch, K. J. (1988). A study of the relationships among family domain antecedents, role pressure, and work/family conict (Doctoral dissertation,
University of Tennessee, 1988). Dissertation Abstracts International, 48, 3440.
*
Loerch, K. J., Russell, J. E. A., & Rush, M. C. (1989). The relationships among family domain variables and work-family conict for men and women. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 35, 288308.
*
Lottes, A. A. (2001). The mediating effects of dual earner coping skills between interrole conict and family and child functioning (Doctoral dissertation,
University of Texas - Austin, 2001). Dissertation Abstracts International, 62, 1628.
*
Luk Mui, D. (2002). An investigation of work-family conict: A cross-cultural comparison (Doctoral dissertation, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, 2001).
Dissertation Abstracts International, 62, 3470.
*
Lyness, K. S., & Thompson, D. E. (1997). Above the glass ceiling? A comparison of matched samples of female and male executives. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 82, 359375.
*
MacEwen, K. E., & Barling, J. (1994). Daily consequences of work interference with family and family interference with work. Work and Stress, 8, 244254.
*
Major, V. S., Klein, K. J., & Ehrhart, M. G. (2002). Work time, work interference with family, and psychological distress. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87,
427436.
*
Mallard, A. G. C., & Lance, C. E. (1998). Development and evaluation of a parent-employee interrole conict scale. Social Indicators Research, 45, 343370.
*
Martin, J. A. (1999). The interaction of work, family, and personal domains: Dealing with multiple role demands (Doctoral dissertation, George Mason
University, 1999). Dissertation Abstracts International, 60, 1338.
*
Mathieson, K. M. (2003). Work-to-family conict, social support, and psychological well-being (Doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University, 2002).
Dissertation Abstracts International, 63, 4490.
*
Matsui, T., Ohsawa, T., & Onglatco, M. I. (1995). Work-family conict and the stress-buffering effects of husband support and coping behavior among
Japanese married working women. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 47, 178192.
*
Matthews, L. S., Conger, R. D., & Wickrama, K. A. S. (1996). Work-family conict and marital quality: Mediating processes. Social Psychology Quarterly, 59,
6279.
*
Mauno, S., & Kinnunen, U. (1999). The effects of job stressors on marital satisfaction in Finnish dual-earner couples. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20,
879895.
*
Meyer, J. A. (1997). Examining workplace exibility across work and family domains (Doctoral dissertation, University of Tulsa, 1997). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 57, 5375.
*
Miller, T. A. (2000). Work-life role integration: A construct validation study (Doctoral dissertation, Old Dominion University, 2000). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 61, 1120.
*
Mirrashidi, T. (1999). Integrating work and family: Stress, social support and well-being among ethnically diverse working women (Doctoral dissertation,
California School of Professional Psychology, 1999). Dissertation Abstracts International, 60, 2355.
*
Muse, L. A. (2002). The implications of work-life benets for employee work-family conict and job attitudes and behaviors (Doctoral dissertation, Auburn
University, 2002). Dissertation Abstracts International, 63, 2305.
*
Netemeyer, R. G., Boles, J. S., & McMurrian, R. (1996). Development and validation of work-family conict and family-work conict scales. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 81, 400410.
*
Netemeyer, R. G., Maxham, J. G., III, & Pullig, C. (2005). Conicts in the work-family interface: Links to job stress, customer service employee performance,
and customer purchase intent. Journal of Marketing, 69, 130143.
*
Nielson, T. R., Carlson, D. S., & Lankau, M. J. (2001). The supportive mentor as a means of reducing work-family conict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59,
364381.
*
Nissly, J. A., Mor Barak, M. E., & Levin, A. (2005). Stress, social support, and workers intentions to leave their jobs in public child welfare. Administration in
Social Work, 29, 79100.
*
Noor, N. M. (2002a). The moderating effect of spouse support on the relationship between work variables and womens work-family conict. Psychologia:
An International Journal of Psychology in the Orient, 45, 1223.
*
Noor, N. M. (2002b). Work-family conict, locus of control, and womens ell-being: Tests of alternative pathways. Journal of Social Psychology, 142, 645662.
*
Noor, N. M. (2004). Work-family conict, work- and family-role salience, and womens well-being. Journal of Social Psychology, 144, 389405.
*
OBrien, A. S. (2001). Does the disposition of working parents impact control perceptions and satisfaction with life and job? (Doctoral dissertation, George
Mason University, 2001). Dissertation Abstracts International, 62, 1127.
*
ODriscoll, M. P., Brough, P., & Kalliath, T. J. (2004). Work/family conict, psychological well-being, satisfaction and social support: A longitudinal study in
New Zealand. Equal Opportunities International, 23, 3656.
*
ODriscoll, M. P., Ilgen, D. R., & Hildreth, K. (1992). Time devoted to job and off-job activities, interrole conict, and affective experiences. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 77, 272279.
*
ODriscoll, M. P., Poelmans, S., Spector, P. E., Kalliath, T., Allen, T. D., Cooper, C. L., et al (2003). Family-responsive interventions, perceived organizational and
supervisor support, work-family conict, and psychological strain. International Journal of Stress Management, 10, 326344.
*
Parasuraman, S., Greenhaus, J. H., & Granrose, C. (1992). Role stressors, social support, and well-being among two-career couples. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 13, 339356.
*
Parasuraman, S., Greenhaus, J. H., Rabinowitz, S., Bedeian, A. G., & Mossholder, K. W. (1989). Work and family variables as mediators of the relationship
between wives employment and husbands well-being. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 185201.
*
Parasuraman, S., Purohit, Y. S., Godshalk, V. M., & Beutell, N. J. (1996). Work and family variables, entrepreneurial career success and psychological wellbeing. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 48, 275300.
*
Parasuraman, S., & Simmers, C. A. (2001). Type of employment, work-family conict and well-being: A comparative study. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 22, 551568.
*
Parker, S. K., & Grifn, M. A. (2002). What is so bad about a little name-calling? Negative consequences of gender harassment for overperformance demands
and distress. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 7, 195210.
*
Perrew, P. L., & Carlson, D. S. (2002). Do men and women benet from social support equally? Results from a eld 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.
*
Perrew, P. L., Hochwarter, W. A., & Kiewitz, C. (1999). Value attainment: An explanation for the negative effects of work-family conict on job and life
satisfaction. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 4, 318326.
*
Posig, M. (1995). Work-family conict claried: Utilitarian versus social identity approach to role investment (Doctoral dissertation, Depaul University,
1995). Dissertation Abstracts International, 55, 5112.
*
Posig, M., & Kickul, J. (2004). Work-role expectations and work family conict: Gender differences in emotional exhaustion. Women in Management Review,
19, 373386.
*
Rankin, B. W. (2004). Work, family, and role strain experienced by women of different social classes (Doctoral dissertation, George Mason University, 2004).
Dissertation Abstracts International, 65, 2646.
*
Rau, B. L., & Hyland, M. M. (2002). Role conict and exible work arrangements: The effects on applicant attraction. Personnel Psychology, 55, 111136.
*
Reeve, C. L., Rogelberg, S. G., Spitzmller, C., & DiGiacomo, N. (2005). The caring-killing paradox: Euthanasia-related strain among animal-shelter workers.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35, 119143.
*
Reiber, J. U. (1999). Personality and coping as predictors of job outcomes in the work environment (Doctoral dissertation, Wayne State University, 1999).
Dissertation Abstracts International, 60, 0400.
*
Rice, R. W., Frone, M. R., & McFarlin, D. B. (1992). Work-nonwork conict and the perceived quality of life. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13,
155168.

218
*

J.S. Michel et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 74 (2009) 199218

Rogers, N. E. (1998). The role of marital status, family composition, role commitment, family support of career, and role conict in women business owners
success (Doctoral dissertation, University of Cincinnati, 1998). Dissertation Abstracts International, 59, 0460.
*
Rotondo, D. M., Carlson, D. S., & Kincaid, J. F. (2003). Coping with multiple dimensions of work-family conict. Personnel Review, 32, 275296.
*
Schieman, S., & Taylor, J. (2001). Statuses, roles, and the sense of mattering. Sociological Perspectives, 44, 469484.
*
Shaffer, M. A., Harrison, D. A., Gilley, K. M., & Luk, D. M. (2001). Struggling for balance amid turbulence on international assignments: Work-family conict,
support and commitment. Journal of Management, 27, 99121.
*
Shannon, H. S., Woodward, C. A., Cunningham, C. E., McIntosh, J., Lendrum, B., Brown, J., et al (2001). Changes in general health and musculoskeletal
outcomes in the workforce of a hospital undergoing rapid change: A longitudinal study. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6, 314.
*
Shih, J. S. (2000). The effects of job level and supervisor gender on female employees experiences of supervisor support, supervisor-employee
communication, role stress, psychological strain, and job satisfaction (Doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, 2000). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 61, 1683.
*
Smyrnios, K. X., Romano, C. A., Tanewski, G. A., Karofsky, P. I., Millen, R., & Yilmaz, M. R. (2003). Work-family conict: A study of American and Australian
family businesses. Family Business Review, 16, 3551.
*
Staines, G. L., Pottick, K. J., & Fudge, D. A. (1986). Wives employment and husbands attitudes toward work and life. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71,
118128.
*
Stepanski, K. M. (2003). Work-family conict theories: Integration and model development (Doctoral dissertation, Wayne State University, 2002).
Dissertation Abstracts International, 63, 5559.
*
Stewart, C. L. (1990). Job stress, burnout and work-family conict Doctoral dissertation, University of California, 1990). Dissertation Abstracts International,
51, 2676.
*
Stewart, W., & Barling, J. (1996). Fathers work experiences effect childrens behaviors via job-related affect and parenting behaviors. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 17, 221232.
*
Stoeva, A. Z., Chiu, R. K., & Greenhaus, J. H. (2002). Negative affectivity, role stress, and work-family conict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 60, 116.
*
Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 178190.
*
Thomas, L. T., & Ganster, D. C. (1995). Impact of family-supportive work variables on work-family conict and strain: A control perspective. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 80, 615.
*
Thomas, W. M. (1993). A proposed model of work/family conict and work/family stress (Doctoral dissertation, Georgia State University, 1992). Dissertation
Abstracts International, 53, 3824.
*
Thompson, C. A., & Blau, G. (1993). Moving beyond traditional predictors of job involvement: Exploring the impact of work-family conict and overload.
Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 8, 635646.
*
Thompson, C. A., Beauvais, L. L., & Lyness, K. S. (1999). When work-family benets are not enough: The inuence of work-family culture on benet
utilization, organizational attachment, and work-family conict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 392415.
*
Thompson, C. A., Jahn, E. W., Kopelman, R. E., & Prottas, D. J. (2004). Perceived organizational family support: A longitudinal and multilevel analysis. Journal
of Managerial Issues, 16, 545565.
*
Treistman, D. L. (2005). Work-family conict and life satisfaction in female graduate students: Testing mediating and moderating hypotheses (Doctoral
dissertation, University of Maryland, 2004). Dissertation Abstracts International, 65, 3730.
*
Vinokur, A. D., Pierce, P. F., & Buck, C. L. (1999). Work-family conicts of women in the Air Force: Their inuence on mental health and functioning. Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 20, 865878.
*
Voydanoff, P. (2004a). Implications of work and community demands and resources for work-to-family conict and facilitation. Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, 9, 275285.
*
Voydanoff, P. (2004b). The effects of work demands and resources on work-to-family conict and facilitation. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 398412.
*
Wadsworth, L. L. (1995). The application of role-identity salience to the study of social support and work-family interaction (Doctoral dissertation, The
University of Utah, 2003). Dissertation Abstracts International, 64, 219.
*
Wallace, J. E. (1997). Its about time: A study of hours worked and work spillover among law rm lawyers. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50, 227248.
*
Wallace, J. E. (1999). Work-to-nonwork conict among married male and female lawyers. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 797816.
*
Wang, P., Lawler, J. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Shi, K. (2004). Work-family conict and job withdrawal intentions: The moderating effect of cultural differences.
International Journal of Stress Management, 11, 392412.
*
Wayne, J. H., Musisca, N., & Fleeson, W. (2004). Considering the role of personality in the work-family experience: Relationships of the big ve to workfamily conict and facilitation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64, 108130.
*
Wells, L. G. (1996). Causal models of work-family conict from family and organizational perspectives (Doctoral dissertation, Old Dominion University,
1996). Dissertation Abstracts International, 57, 3443.
*
Wiley, D. L. (1987). The relationship between work-nonwork role conict and job-related outcomes: Some unanticipated ndings. Journal of Management,
13, 467472.
*
Wright, M. L. C. (2004). A feminist empowerment view of role strain in women faculty: The impact of role conict, workplace gender bias, and selected
coping variables (Doctoral dissertation, University of Kentucky, 2004). Dissertation Abstracts International, 65, 1042.
*
Yang, N., Chen, C. C., Choi, J., & Zou, Y. (2000). Sources of work-family conict: A Sino-U.S. comparison of the effects of work and family demands. Academy of
Management Journal, 43, 113123.
*
Yardley, J. K. (1995). The relationships of work-family conict with work outcomes: A test of a model (Doctoral dissertation, State University of New York at
Buffalo, 1995). Dissertation Abstracts International, 55, 5113.
*
Yeh, M. C. (1991). The impact of job characteristics, work-family conict, and coping on anxiety and depression in employed women (Doctoral dissertation,
Boston University, 1990). Dissertation Abstracts International, 51, 2361.
*
Zahrly, J., & Tosi, H. (1989). The differential effect of organizational induction process on early work role adjustment. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 10,
5974.