Journal of Vocational Behavior 34, 133-153 (1989)

Sources of Work-Family Conflict among

Two-Career Couples

JEFFREY H. GREENHAUS AND SAROJ PARASURAMAN

Drexel University

CHERLYN SKROMME GRANROSE

Temple University

SAMUEL RABINOWITZ

Rutgers University-Camden

AND

NICHOLAS J. BEUTELL

Seton Hall University

This study examined different types of work domain pressures as sources of

work-family conflict among two-career couples. Data gathered from a matched
sample of 119 men and 119 women who were partners in a two-career relationship
provided strong support for the influence of work role stressors on two forms
of work-family conflict, time-based conflict and strain-based conflict. The impact
of task characteristics and work salience on work-family conflict was somewhat
stronger for women than for men. In addition, there were significant interactions
between partners job involvement on mens level of time-based conflict and
between partners career priority on mens level of strain-based conflict. The
implications of the findings for additional research on work-family conflict were
discussed. 8 1989 Academic Press, Inc.

The emergence of the two-career relationship as a dominant lifestyle

in contemporary society represents one of the most significant social
changes in recent United States history. Citing data published by the

The authors thank Betsy Berwick and Monica Chaudhari for their contributions to data
entry and data analysis, respectively. Correspondence may be directed to Jeffrey H.
Greenhaus, Department of Management and Organizational Sciences, Drexel University,
Philadelphia, PA 19104.
133
OOOl-8791/89 $3.00
Copyright 0 1989 by Academic Press, Inc.
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
134 GREENHAUS ET AL.

Conference Board in 1985, Sekaran (1986) noted that the number of two-
career couples in the United States increased 267% to 3.3 million between
1960 and 1983. Furthermore, it is expected that the prevalence of two-
career relationships will continue to grow rapidly in the near future
(Sekaran, 1986).
Although there are many rewards and satisfactions associated with a
two-career lifestyle, members of two-career relationships are susceptible
to considerable pressure and stress arising from the interplay of their
own work/family roles and those of their partners (Gupta & Jenkins,
1985). The need to balance the demands of two careers with those of a
family relationship can create added stress for partners in two-career
relationships in the form of conflict between pressures stemming from
the work domain and those arising from the family domain (Hall & Hall,
1979; Sekaran, 1986). Since extensive work-family conflict has been
found to have adverse effects on individuals well-being (Jones & Butler,
1980; Kopelman, Greenhaus, & Connolly, 1983; Pleck, Staines, & Lang,
1980; Wiley, 1987), it becomes important to understand the factors that
generate high levels of conflict between work and family roles.
Greenhaus and Beutell (1985) defined work-family conflict as incom-
patible pressures arising simultaneously from the work and family roles.
Their review of the literature revealed three forms of work-family conflict:
(a) time-based conflict, in which the time devoted to one role makes it
difficult to participate in the other role; (b) strain-based conflict, in which
strain symptoms (e.g., fatigue, irritability) experienced within one role
intrude into the other role and interfere with participation in that role;
and (c) behavior-based conflict, in which specific behaviors required in
one role are incompatible with behavioral expectations within the other
role. While there is substantial empirical evidence indicating the prevalence
of time-based and strain-based conflict (for a review, see Greenhaus &
Beutell, 1985), behavior-based conflict is less well documented.
The present study examined two forms of work-family conflict ex-
perienced by members of two-career relationships, time-based conflict
and strain-based conflict. According to the conceptual model formulated
by Greenhaus and Beutell (1985), work-family conflict can arise from
pressures originating in the work domain and/or pressures originating in
the family domain, which affect an individuals time involvement or
strain. The present research focused on work (rather than family) pressures
in order to clarify and extend the prior research on work-related antecedents
of work-family conflict. In particular, the goals of the current study were
to (a) examine the impact of different types of work domain pressures
on work-family conflict; and (b) explore the interaction between partners
level of work salience on feelings of work-family conflict. Each of these
two goals is discussed more fully in the following sections.
 WORK-FAMILY CONFLICT 135

IMPACT OF WORK DOMAIN PRESSURES ON WORK-FAMILY

CONFLICT
Previous research suggests that four types of work domain pressures
may contribute to work-family conflict: (a) work role stressors; (b) task
characteristics; (c) work schedule characteristics; (d) work salience. Mul-
tiple indicators of each of the four types of work domain pressures were
examined.
Work role sfressors. The present study investigated the impact of role
conflict, role ambiguity, and role overload on work-family conflict. These
three work role stressors have been identified as pervasive across or-
ganizations and occupational groups, and have been shown to produce
strain symptoms such as tension, irritability, anxiety, and fatigue (Brief,
Schuler, & Van Sell, 1981; Jvancevich & Matteson, 1980). Work roles
that are conthctual, ambiguous, or overly taxing may also create increased
time demands within the work domain, which interfere with role re-
quirements in the family domain. Prior research has confirmed positive
relationships of role ambiguity (Jones & Butler, 1980), role conflict
(Greenhaus, Bedeian, & Mossholder, 1987; Jones & Butler, 1980), and
quantitative role overload (Burke, Weir, & DuWors, 1980) with work-
family conflict. Therefore, Hypothesis 1 predicts that each of the three
work role stressors, role conflict, role ambiguity, and role overload, will
be positively related to work-family conflict.
Task characteristics. The nature of the task in which an employee is
engaged as part of his or her work role is likely to produce pressures
that may interfere with family role demands. The present research examined
three specific task characteristics, variety, autonomy, and complexity,
which have been reported to be sources of stress (Brief et al., 1981).
Thus, Hypothesis 2 predicts that variety, autonomy, and complexity will
be associated with feelings of work-family conflict. Employees who work
on extremely repetitive tasks, that is, tasks low on variety, are likely to
experience high levels of stress (Brief et al., 1981) which may intrude
into the family domain, and produce conflict with family role demands
(Jones & Butler, 1980). Therefore, a negative relationship is posited
between variety and work-family conflict.
However, the effects of autonomy and complexity on work-family
conflict are less clearly predictable. On the one hand, it could be argued
that the increased individual control over work demands implied by high
autonomy would be associated with decreased stress (Parasuraman &
Alutto, 1984) and thereby lower work-family conflict. In a similar vein,
high levels of task complexity may reduce feelings of boredom and stress
and consequently decrease levels of work-family conflict. Jones and
Butlers (1980) finding of a negative relationship between task challenge
and work-family conflict is consistent with this line of reasoning. On
136 GREENHAUS ET AL.

the other hand, it is possible that jobs high in autonomy and complexity
are likely to entail greater responsibility and work pressures, and the
resulting strain may heighten the level of work-family conflict experienced.
This notion is consistent with prior findings of positive relationships
between work-family conflict and task autonomy (Jones & Butler, 1980)
as well as psychological work demands (Pleck et al., 1980). Because of
these uncertainties and the absence of extensive prior research, it is
predicted that task autonomy and task complexity will be related to
work-family conflict, but the direction of these relationships is uncertain.
Work schedule characteristics. Two work schedule characteristics were
examined in this study: work schedule inflexibility and work-related travel.
Work schedule characteristics have been identified as potential structural
sources of interference between work and family domains (Quinn &
Staines, 1978) and thus capable of generating increased work-family conflict
(Pleck et al., 1980). The more inflexible an employees work schedule,
the less freedom he or she will have to meet the demands of the family
role and therefore the higher the level of work-family conflict (Herman
& Gyllstrom, 1977; Keith & Schafer, 1980; Pleck et al., 1980). It is also
reasonable to expect that employees who travel extensively will experience
high levels of work-family conflict (Greenhaus & Kopelman, 1981). Ex-
tensive work-related travel not only leaves fewer hours to attend to family
role responsibilities but also may produce considerable stress and fatigue.
Therefore, Hypothesis 3 predicts that work schedule inflexibility and
work-related travel will be positively related to work-family conflict.
Work salience. Work role stressors, task characteristics, and work
schedule characteristics may be described as organizationally generated
stressors. However, independent of the pressures experienced due to
characteristics of the job, the role, and the work schedule, the salience
or importance of the work role to a two-career partner may also contribute
to conflict between work and family roles. Moen (1985) suggested that
the absorptiveness of jobs, and ones emotional involvement in ones
occupation or career represented a potential source of intrusion of work
into the family domain. Therefore, Hypothesis 4 predicts a positive re-
lationship between work salience and work-family conflict.
Two facets of an employees work salience, his or her level of job
involvement and the priority attached to his or her career, were examined
in the present study. Highly job-involved employees, who are preoccupied
with their jobs and are concerned about achieving success in the work
domain, are likely to devote increased effort and energy to the work
role, thereby experiencing increased work-related stress and work-family
conflict. Evidence of this self-induced pressure is provided in two recent
studies (Frone & Rice, 1987; Wiley, 1987) which reported positive re-
lationships between job involvement and work-family conflict.
A second facet of employees work salience is the priority they place
 WORK-FAMILY CONFLICT 137

on their own careers as compared to their partners careers. Employees

who attach a higher priority to their own careers are likely to feel pressure
to be successful and satisfied in their career pursuits. This internal pressure
may induce them to devote increased time and effort to the work role,
which in turn may render them susceptible to stress within the work
domain. Although no prior research has directly examined the relative
salience of two partners careers, Greenhaus and Kopelman (1981) did
find a positive relationship between the salience employees attach to
their own work role and the degree of work-family conflict they experience.
In the present study, it is predicted that the priority an employee places
on his or her own career relative to that of his or her partner will be
positively related to feelings of work-family conflict.
In summary, the present study examined the relationships between
four types of work domain pressures and two forms of work-family
conflict. Although several previous investigations have examined rela-
tionships between work-related variables and work-family conflict, the
present study sought to extend the literature in a number of respects.
First, the inclusion of a wide variety of work pressures within the same
study facilitates assessment of the unique variance in work-family conflict
explained by each type of work pressure. Second, the present study
focused on sources of work-family conflict specifically among two-career
couples, whereas prior research has devoted limited attention to this
increasingly important group of employees. Third, since the present study
examined both time-based conflict and strain-based conflict, it is possible
to determine whether given work pressures have different effects on
these two forms of work-family conflict. Finally, by studying both partners
in two-career relationships, the present research can determine whether
the sources of work-family conflict are similar or different for men and
women within a two-career relationship.
INTERACTION OF PARTNERS WORK SALIENCE ON WORK-FAMILY
CONFLICT
In addition to the pressures in their own work roles, work-family
conflict experienced by members of a dual-career relationship may be
influenced by the interaction of their own work roles with those of their
partners (Gupta & Jenkins, 1985). The present research examined the
interaction between partners levels of work salience on work-family
conflict. It is suggested that an employee whose partner displays a high
level of work salience is likely to experience intensified family pressures.
The reasoning is that a partner who is strongly work oriented is likely
to devote considerable time, effort, and energy to the work role, and as
such may have less time, energy, or inclination to participate extensively
in the family domain. If each partner in a relationship is highly work
oriented, then pressures on a partner will intensify in both the work
138 GREENHAUS ET AL.

domain (from ones own level of work salience) and in the family domain
(from ones partners level of work salience).
Prior research provides limited and indirect support for these assertions.
For example, Hall and Hall (1979) suggested that couples in which both
partners are career oriented are likely to experience high levels of stress,
especially if family and home are also valued. In a similar vein, Bailyn
(1970) found that couples satisfaction with their marriage was lowest
when husbands and wives were both strongly career oriented. Young
and Willmott (1973) found that dual-career parents who were highly
committed to their work experienced frequent conflict in relation to their
family responsibilities. Greenhaus and Kopelman (1981) reported that
men experienced more intense work-family conflict when their wives
held managerial or professional jobs, which presumably require a high
level of career commitment, than when their wives held nonmanagerial
or nonprofessional positions.
Hypothesis 5, which proposes that an employees work salience will
interact with the partners work salience to influence the level of work-
family conflict, is suggested as an exploratory hypothesis. Although it
is possible that two partners with high levels of work salience may
understand each others career needs and protect one another from intense
conflict (Beutell & Greenhaus, 1982), most of the evidence seems to
suggest that the impact of high levels of work orientation of both partners
will be to intensify the family role pressures they place on each other
and thereby the level of work-family conflict experienced by each partner.

METHOD
Sample and Procedure
The data examined in this paper were gathered as part of a larger
study of work and family issues facing two-career couples. In this study,
a two-career relationship was defined as a relationship in which each
partner is a member of the workforce and in which the partners share
a common residence. This is a broader and more inclusive definition
than that used historically, in which the term dual-career has been
applied primarily to relationships involving high levels of commitment
and developmental progression within the work role for both partners
(Gupta & Jenkins, 1985; Rapoport & Rapoport, 1971). The recent literature,
however, views a career more broadly as a pattern of work-related ex-
periences that spans the course of a persons life (Greenhaus, 1987).
Therefore, a persons work experiences need not be highly involving,
upwardly mobile, or professional in nature to be considered a career
(Greenhaus, 1987; Hall, 1976; Van Maanen & Schein, 1977). The definition
of a two-career relationship adopted in the present study is consistent
with this emerging and expanded concept of a career.
 WORK-FAMILY CONFLICT 139

The present sample consisted of a matched set of 119 men and 119
women who were partners in a two-career relationship. The vast majority
of the participants were recruited in graduate business classes at four
east coast universities. In each class, the broad goal of the research
project was introduced and the following criteria for participation were
described: (a) the participant had to be married or living with a partner;
(b) each partner had to be employed for at least 20 h per week; and (c)
each partner had to be willing to complete a comprehensive survey. A
small number of participants were referred to the researchers from students
enrolled in the classes. In all cases, interested persons were given two
copies of an anonymous survey with matching codes for each partner,
and placed in separate envelopes. The partners were instructed to complete
the surveys independently and to return the completed surveys to the
researchers in sealed envelopes.
Of the 119 couples who completed the survey, 106 were married and
13 were unmarried but sharing a common residence at the time of the
study. Forty of the 119 couples (34%) had children. Ninety-nine percent
of the men and 91% of the women worked 30 h or more per week, and
nearly 90% of the men and 80% of the women worked 40 h or more per
week. Approximately 90% of the respondents were college graduates,
and 65% were either pursuing or already possessed a graduate or profes-
sional degree.
A majority of the men and women in the sample were employed in
business-related occupations. The most popular career fields represented
in the sample were marketing/sales (l%), administration and management
(15%), computers and information systems (12%), education (lo%), ac-
counting (8%), health care (S%), and engineering (8%). The only career
field for which a significant gender difference was observed was engineering,
which was represented by a higher percentage of men (13%) than women
(2%). The samples modal annual salary range was $25,000-$34,900. The
age of the respondents ranged from 23 years to 61 years (it4 = 32.64;
SD = 7.65). Job tenure and organizational tenure displayed identical
ranges (less than 1 year to 30 years), although average job tenure (M =
3.84; SD = 4.02) was predictably shorter than average organizational
tenure (M = 5.04; SD = 4.74). In summary, the sample can be char-
acterized as a group of highly educated men and women largely employed
full-time in a wide variety of business and professional career fields.
Measures
Work role stressors. Role conflict and role ambiguity were assessed
by Rizzo, House, and Lirtzmans (1970) measure of role stress. The role
conflict scale contained eight items (e.g., I work under incompatible
policies and guidelines), and the role ambiguity scale consisted of six
items (e.g., I know what my responsibilities are; reverse scored). Role
140 GREENHAUS ET AL.

TABLE I
Descriptive Data on Major Study Variables for Men and Women
Women

Variable SD a Mean SD a

1. Age 33.43 8.02 - 31.80 7.20 -

2. Education 3.80 1.08 - 3.67 1.07 -
3. Job tenure 4.43 4.72 - 3.27* 3.08 -
4. Job involvement 2.57 .76 .80 2.33** .68 .75
5. Career priorityb 3.65 .84 - 2.24** .98 -
6. Autonomy 3.71 .86 .85 3.57 .80 .77
7. Complexity 3.80 .73 .65 3.53* .69 .61
8. Variety 3.18 .91 .56 2.94* .83 .54
9. Schedule inflexibility 2.60 .77 .56 2.86** .7s .48
10. Travel 2.12 1.25 - 1.52*+ .83 -
11. Role conflict 2.84 .74 .85 2.60* .72 .86
12. Role ambiguity 2.34 .90 .74 2.34 .68 .84
13. Role overload 3.58 .71 .7s 3.41 .8S .83
14. Time-based conflict 2.84 .76 .72 2.60* .90 .82
15. Strain-based conflict 2.76 .66 .72 2.80 .72 .72

Note. Due to missing data for some variables N ranges from 115 to 119.
a See text for coding of education.
b The higher the score, the greater the perceived priority of the respondents career
compared to the partners career.
* Means for men and women are significantly different at p < .05.
** Means for men and women are significantly different at p < .Ol.

overload was measured with four items (e.g., There is a great deal to
be done on my job) adapted from Caplan, Cobb, French, Harrison,
and Finneau (1975). Responses to all conflict, ambiguity, and overload
items were made on a five-point scale anchored by strongly agree and
strongly disagree. As with all other multi-item scales used in this research,
responses to items within a scale were averaged such that high scores
reflect high values on the particular variable. Means, standard deviations,
and (Ycoefficients for all scales are shown in Table 1, and intercorrelations
among study variables are presented in Table 2.
Task characteristics. Task autonomy, complexity, and variety were
measured with items previously used by Farasuraman and Alutto (1981).
The autonomy scale contained four items (e.g., How often do you find
that you have freedom to adopt your own approach to the job?); the
measure of complexity consisted of three items (e.g., How complicated
is the work that you do?); and the variety scale was composed of two
items (e.g., To what extend does your job consist of routine or repetitive
activities?; reverse scored). Responses to all task characteristic items
were made on a five-point scale with varying anchors depending upon
the wording of the specific items. As Table 1 indicates, the reliability
 TABLE 2
Matrix of Intercorrelations among Study Variables for Men and Women

I 2 3 4 5 6 I 8 9 IO II I2 I3 14 I5

Demographics
1. Age - IO 32** -09 -16 08 -06 -04 00 -10 -04 00 -24** -II -II
2. Education 06 - -18* 15 21** 06 35** -31** -1t3* 05 01 l8* 04 IO I5
3. Job tenure 65** -04 - 15 I6 II 03 -II 06 03 -03 -23** 04 -06 01
Work salience
4. Job involvement 18* 07 06 - 26** 25** 33** I7 01 15 -06 -02 23* 33** 37**
5. Career priority 16 12 -03 18 - 06 22* 19* -16 I4 -06 -09 I8 -01 05
Task characteristics P
6. Autonomy 13 -09 -02 44** -05 - 10 24** -36** 02 -34** -26** -22% -22* -02 7
7. Complexity 16 34** 01 42** I6 25** - 21* -01 22* II -04 37** 30** 35** s
8. Variety -05 20* - I6 45** 02 49* 45** - -21* 32** -25*+ I8 02 12 12 2
Work schedule
9. Inflexibility -05 -04 09 -10 -06 --a** -19 -22* - -21* 31** 10 2l* I6 I3 8
IO. Travel 19 15 -07 00 26** 13 20* I3 -24** - -07 05 20* 20* I6 3
Role stressors c
11. Role ambiguity -02 - 14 -13 -12 03 -33** -10 -32** II 26** - 40* 09 24** 30 2
12. Role conflict -08 - I4 -23* -12 01 -28** -04 -04 16 IO 40** - -10 IO 19**
13. Role overload -17 -08 -25** 07 10 -04 l9* 04 14 -10 23** -02 - 49** 41**
Work-family conflict
14. Time-based conflict - 10 -08 -17 02 08 -14 08 -02 IO -01 I6 30** 42** - 73**
15. Strain-based conflict -04 -04 -18 -05 06 -2l* 03 -06 I6 IO 35** 38** 35** 67** -

Note. Decimals are omitted; correlations above the diagonal are for women and those below the diagonal are for men.
,* p < .05.
** p < .Ol.
142 GREENHAUS ET AL.

estimates for the complexity and variety scales were somewhat low.
Nevertheless, the significant correlates (see Table 2) of complexity (au-
tonomy, job involvement, role overload, and travel demands) and variety
(autonomy, role ambiguity, and travel demands) represent a meaningful
pattern of relationships that provide some confidence regarding the validity
of the complexity and variety scales.
Work salience. Job involvement was assessed by four items from Lodahl
and Kejners (1965) job involvement scale (e.g., The most important
things that happen to me involve my job) that were supported in Lawler
and Halls (1970) factor analytic study ofjob attitudes. Each job involvement
item required a response on a five-point scale anchored by strongly agree
and strongly disagree. The career priority item, written for this study,
asked participants to consider the relative priority of each career (theirs
and their partners) regarding such issues as relocation and accommodation
to work demands. Responses to the career priority item were made on
a five-point scale anchored by my career has a much higher priority
than my spouses career and my spouses career has a much higher
priority than my career. The higher the score on the career priority
item the greater the perceived priority of the respondents career compared
to the partners career. Although the career priority variable was measured
by only one item, it did demonstrate conceptually meaningful relationships
with task complexity and variety among women, and with job involvement
and travel among men, suggesting the potential utility of the item.
Work schedule characteristics. All work schedule characteristic items
were written expressly for this study. Work schedule inflexibility was
measured by two items, each measured on a four-point scale (e.g., How
flexible is your work schedule; i.e., to what extent can you make ad-
justments concerning the time you go to work and the time you leave
work?; reverse scored). Although the internal consistency of the in-
flexibility scale was rather low, its predictable negative correlation with
task autonomy for both women and men provides some evidence for the
validity of the scale. Work-related travel was assessed by one item (To
what extent does your job involve out-of-town travel?) to which responses
were made on a five-point scale (from almost none to a great deal).
Again, although the travel variable was assessed by only one item, several
of its correlates (task complexity for men and women, career priority
and role overload for men, and task variety for women) make conceptual
sense and argue for the usefulness of the travel item.
Work-family conflict. Time-based conflict was initially measured by
six items (e.g., My work takes up time that Id like to spend with my
family) developed by Kopelman et al. (1983). However, two of the six
items were deleted because item analyses revealed that the elimination
of these items would substantially increase the LYcoefficient. Strain-based
conflict was measured by six items (e.g., The demands of my job make
 WORK-FAMILY CONFLICT 143

it difficult to be relaxed all the time at home) taken from Kopelman et

al. (1983). Responses to all work-family conflict items were made on a
five-point scale anchored by strongly agree and strongly disagree.
Demographic variables. Age, job function, job tenure, and organizational
tenure were each measured by single, open-ended items. Education was
assessed by one closed-ended item with five response categories: high
school graduate, some college, college graduate, some graduate or profes-
sional school, and graduate or professional degree. The annual salary
item contained seven response categories ranging from less than $15,000
to $65,000 or more.

Data Analyses
The analyses were conducted in several stages. A one-way analysis
of variance (ANOVA) was performed on all of the study variables to
determine if there were any differences between men and women in the
sample on any of the measures. In order to examine gender differences
in the sources of work-family conflict, all further analyses were conducted
separately for men and women. Zero-order correlations were calculated
for all measures for men and women respectively to assess the general
pattern of relationships among the study variables.
Hierarchical multiple regression analyses were performed to test the
first four hypotheses, which proposed relationships between the work
pressure variables and work-family conflict. In order to avoid confounding
of the results due to correlations of background characteristics of re-
spondents with the independent and dependent measures, three key de-
mographic variables were selected as controls: age, education, and job
tenure. The demographic variables and each of the four sets of work
pressure variables were entered into the regression equations hierarchically
in their assumed order of priority. It appeared reasonable to assume that
individual difference characteristics of two-career partners (demographics
and work salience) would logically precede organizational variables (task
characteristics, work schedule characteristics, and role stressors) in in-
fluencing work-family conflict. Among the organizational variables, task
characteristics and work schedules were entered before work role stressors,
on the assumption that the latter may arise from characteristics of the
person, the task, and/or the work schedule.
Thus, each indicator of work-family conflict (time-based conflict and
strain-based conflict) was first regressed on the three demographic variables
(age, education, and job tenure) entered as a block. The two indicators
of work salience (job involvement and career priority) were entered in
the second step of the analyses, the three indicators of task characteristics
(autonomy, complexity, and variety) were entered in the third step, and
the two work schedule characteristics (iexibility and travel) were entered
144 GREENHAUS ET AL.

in the fourth step. The three work role stressors (conflict, ambiguity,
and overload) were entered in the fifth and final step of the analyses.
The increment in R2 associated with each block of work pressure
variables was examined to determine the unique contribution of that
variable set to the two forms of work-family conflict. The standardized
regression coefficients (ps) were used to assess the individual effect of
each variable on time-based conflict and strain-based conflict.
Hypothesis 5 proposed an interaction between partners work salience
on work-family conflict. Moderated multiple regression analyses were
performed to examine the predicted interaction. Since there were two
indicators of each partners work salience, job involvement and career
priority, this hypothesis was tested separately for each aspect of work
salience.
In the first series of analyses, an indicator of work-family conflict was
regressed on the three demographic controls, the respondents job in-
volvement, the partners job involvement, and the respondent job in-
volvement by partner job involvement product term. In the second series
of analyses, an indicator of work-family conflict was regressed on the
three demographic controls, the respondents career priority, the partners
career priority, and the respondent career priority by partner career
priority product term. The regression coefficients of the product terms
were examined to detect the presence of interactions, and subgroup plots
were used to examine the form of the significant interactions.
RESULTS
Table 1 presents descriptive information on the study variables, and
also indicates gender differences in variable means based on the results
of the ANOVA. Although no gender difference was observed for strain-
based conflict, men reported experiencing higher levels of time-based
conflict than women. Moreover, compared to the women, the men had
longer job tenure, and reported higher levels of job involvement, task
complexity, task variety, and role conflict. The men in the sample also
traveled more extensively, had more control over their work schedules,
and placed a higher priority on their own careers compared to their
partners. To determine whether the gender difference in time-based conflict
would persist after controlling for these variables, an analysis of covariance
was conducted with gender as the independent variable, time-based conflict
as the dependent variable, and the eight previously mentioned variables
showing gender differences as covariates. The analyses revealed that the
gender difference in time-based conflict disappeared [F( 1, 210) = 1.83,
p = .I81 when these additional variables were controlled.
Table 2 shows the intercorrelations among the study variables for men
and women. Note that time-based conflict and strain-based conflict were
strongly intercorrelated for both men (Y = .67) and women (r = .73).
 WORK-FAMILY CONFLICT 145

TABLE 3
Results of Multiple Regression Analysis for Time-Based Conflict

Men (N = 108) Women (N = 106)

Independent
variable B R= AR' P RZ AR2
Controls
Age .13 -.06
Education -.I3 .12
Job tenure - .21* 36 - .05 .02
Work salience
Job involvement .02 .40***b
Career priority .08 36 .oo .19 .w** .16***
Task characteristics
Autonomy -.I9 - .35***
Complexity .19 .23*
Variety .06 .lI .0.5 -.09 .33*** .15***
Work schedule
Inflexibility .Ol .I2
Travel .I2 .I3 .02 .08 .34*** .Ol
Role stressors
Role ambiguity .33** - .02
Role conflict -.12 .17
Role overload .39*** .27** .14*** .38*** .47*** .13***

/3 weights for men and women are significantly different at .05 level.
p weights for men and women are significantly different at .Ol level.
* p < .05.
** p < .Ol.
*** p < .OOl.

Nevertheless, the percentage of shared variance (2) was less than 50%
for men and 53% for women, suggesting that the two measures of work-
family conflict are not redundant.
Table 3 presents the results of the hierarchical regression analyses
predicting time-based conflict for men and women. Among the men, job
tenure was the only demographic variable significantly related to time-
based conflict (/I3 = - .27, p < .05). Of the four types of work pressures
examined, role stressors were the only significant source of time-based
conflict for men (AR* = .14, p < .OOl). Within this category, role ambiguity
(p = .33, p < .Ol) and role overload (p = .39, p < .OOl) were the
principal stressors. In contrast, for women partners in two-career rela-
tionships, work salience (AR* = .16, p < .OOl), task characteristics (AR*
= .15, p < .OOl), and role stressors (M?* = .13, p < Ml) made ap-
proximately equal contributions to time-based conflict. Table 3 shows
that high levels of time-based conflict experienced by women were at-
tributable to high job involvement (/3 = .40, p < .OOl), low levels of
146 GREENHAUS ET AL.

TABLE 4
Results of Multiple Regression Analysis for Strain-Based Conflict

Men 0 = IO81 Women (N = 106)

Independent
variable P R2 AR P R ilR
__-
Controls
Age .29* - .07
Education -.I3 .20*
Job tenure - .3?** .09* -.os .04
Work salience
Job involvement - .09 .41***h
Career priority .05 .I0 .Ol .I7 .20*** .16***
Task characteristics
Autonomy - .26* -.I3
Complexity .13 .26**
Variety .03 .l6* .06 -.Ol .27*** .07*
Work schedule
Inflexibility .21* .I8
Travel .19 .21** .05* .07 .29** .02
Role stressors
Role ambiguity .30** .I6
Role conflict .I2 .22*
Role overload .28** .35*** .14*** .34*** .43*** .14***

,6 weights for men and women are significantly different at .05 level.
b p weights for men and women are significantly different at .Ol level.
* p < .05.
** p < .Ol.
*** p < .OOl.

autonomy (p = - .35, p < .OOl), high levels of complexity (p = .23, p

< .05), and high role overload (/3 = .38, p < .OOl).
A more conservative way to gauge gender differences in the predictors
of conflict is to examine the significance of the differences between the
respective p weights for men and women. As Table 3 indicates, job
involvement was a stronger predictor of time-based conflict for women,
whereas role ambiguity was a stronger predictor of time-based conflict
for men. It is notable that neither of the work schedule characteristics
was associated with time-based conflict for men or women.
Table 4 presents the results of the hierarchical regression analyses
predicting strain-based conflict. Two demographic characteristics were
related to strain-based conflict among men: age (p = .29, p < .05) and
job tenure (/I = - .37, p < .Ol). Again, role stressors (AR* = .14, p -C
.OOl) made the most prominent contribution to the strain-based conflict
experienced by men, with role ambiguity (fl = .30, p < .Ol) and role
overload (p = .28, p < .Ol) emerging as the principal stressors. The
incremental effect of work schedule characteristics (AR2 = .05, p < .05)
 WORK-FAMILY CONFLICT 147

on strain-based conflict among men was primarily due to schedule in-

flexibility (p = .21, p < .05). It can also be seen that autonomy was
negatively related to strain-based conflict for men (p = - .26, p < .05).
The data in Table 4 reveal a different pattern of results for women.
Of the demographic variables, education was positively related to feelings
of strain-based conflict among women (/3 = .20, p < .05). Three types
of work pressures accounted for significant variation in levels of strain-
based conflict experienced by women: work salience (AR = .16, p <
.OOl), role stressors (AR2 = .14, p < .OOl), and task characteristics (AR2
= .07, p < .05). Within these three categories, significant individual
predictors of strain-based conflict for women were job involvement (p
= .41, p < .OOl), role overload (p = .34, p < .OOl), role conflict (p =
.22, p < .05), and complexity (p = .26, p < .Ol). Table 4 also indicates
several significant differences in the p weights for the men and the
women. Age and job tenure were stronger predictors of strain-based
conflict for men, whereas education and job involvement were stronger
predictors of strain-based conflict for women.
To summarize the results bearing on the first four hypotheses, there
was strong evidence linking work role stress to work-family conflict for
both women and men. In addition, the data provided partial support for
the predictions regarding task characteristics and work salience, each of
which explained a significant portion of the variance in work-family
conflict for women but not for men. Work schedule characteristics, on
the other hand, were generally unrelated to work-family conflict.
As noted earlier, moderated multiple regression analyses were conducted
to examine the interactions between partners work salience on work-
family conflict (Hypothesis 5). None of the interactions was significant
for the women. For the men, however, partners job involvement interacted
to predict mens level of time-based conflict (p = - 1.23, t = - 2.43,
p < .05), and partners career priority interacted to predict mens level
of strain-based conflict (/3 = .71, t = 2.32, p < .05).
Further analyses were conducted to determine the nature of the in-
teraction between the partners job involvement on mans time-based
conflict. The men were divided into those whose partners displayed high
levels of job involvement (the top one-third of the distribution) and those
whose partners displayed low levels of job involvement (the bottom third
of the distribution). Time-based conflict was then regressed on the three
demographics and the mans job involvement within each of the two
partner job involvement subgroups. The results of this analysis are il-
lustrated in Fig. 1. It can be seen a mans time-based conflict was lowest
when both the man and his partner displayed a high level of job involvement.
This finding was contrary to what was predicted in Hypothesis 5.
The same procedure was used to interpret the significant interaction
between partners career priority on mens strain-based conflict. In this
148 GREENHAUS ET AL.

5 -

Low Womens Job Involvement

Mens Time- 3
Based Conflict
24i 7 High Womens Job Involvement

1 _

I I I I I
1 2 3 4 5
Mens Job Involvement

FIG. 1. Interaction between partners job involvement on mens level of time-based

conflict.

case, the men were divided into those whose partners placed a high
priority on their own careers (top one-third) and those whose partners
placed a low priority on their own careers (bottom third). Strain-based
conflict was then regressed on the three demographics and the mans
career priority within each of the two partner career priority subgroups
(see Fig. 2). Consistent with Hypothesis 5, a mans strain-based conflict
was high when he and his partner both placed a higher priority on their
own career than on their partners career. Unexpectedly, however, a
mans strain-based conflict was also high when both partners placed a
lower priority on their own career than on their partners career.

High Womens Career Priority

Mens Strain- 3
Based Conflict Low Womens Career Priority
2

1 2 3 4 5
Mens Career Priority

FIG. 2. Interaction between partners career priority on mens level of strain-based

conflict.
 WORK-FAMILY CONFLICT 149

DISCUSSION
The present study provided a number of insights into the sources of
work-family conflict in two-career relationships. The average level of
work-family conflict was not particularly extensive for men or women,
perhaps reflecting the moderate levels of role stress, work salience, and
work schedule difficulties reported by the respondents. Moreover, the
impact of gender on work-family conflict was not substantial. Men and
women in the present sample reported similar levels of strain-based
conflict, and the gender difference in time-based conflict (which men
reported to be higher than women) disappeared when several demographic
and work role characteristics were statistically controlled. Perhaps, pre-
viously reported gender differences in work-family conflict (e.g., Keith
& Schafer, 1980; Pleck et al., 1980) can be attributed to gender differences
in unmeasured and/or uncontrolled variables reflecting partners relative
involvements in their work and family roles. Additional research is needed
to understand the dynamics of gender differences in work-family conflict
within two-career relationships.
There were both similarities and differences in the types of work
domain pressures associated with work-family conflict for men and women.
The data provided strong support for Hypothesis 1 concerning the influence
of work role stressors on work-family conflict. Work role stressors ac-
counted for a significant portion of the variance in time-based conflict
and strain-based conflict for both men and women, with role overload
the most consistent predictor of both forms of work-family conflict.
These results are generally consistent with previous findings (Greenhaus
et al., 1987; Burke et al., 1980; Pleck et al., 1980). However, it appears
that role ambiguity is a more potent source of work-family conflict for
men than for women. This finding may indicate that men experience
more stress than women in ambiguous situations, or that the stress produced
by role ambiguity intrudes more severely into the famly lives of men
than women. In this regard, it is interesting to note that the one prior
study that reported a positive relationship between role ambiguity and
work-family conflict (Jones & Butler, 1980) was conducted on a group
of male sailors.
The results of the present study supported Hypothesis 2, the relationship
between task characteristics and work-family conflict, more strongly for
women than for men. Among women (but not among men), task char-
acteristics explained significant portions of the variance in time-based
and strain-based conflict. In particular, task complexity was significantly
related to both forms of work-family conflict only for women. It is also
interesting to note that autonomy was negatively related to time-based
conflict for women but was negatively related to strain-based conflict for
men. Perhaps high levels of job freedom and discretion primarily enable
150 GREENHAUS ET AL.

women to control the pace and scheduling of their work tasks, thereby
reducing feelings of time-based conflict. For men, on the other hand,
the greater control of the work situation afforded by high levels of autonomy
may reduce feelings of powerlessness, irritability, and anxiety, thereby
lowering levels of strain-based conflict. Additional research should examine
gender differences in the meaning and implications of task autonomy,
especially as it relates to the management of the work-family interface.
The data regarding work schedule characteristics provided little support
for Hypothesis 3. Among women, work schedule characteristics did not
explain significant portions of the variance in either time-based or strain-
based conflict. Among men, characteristics of the work schedule (in
particular, work schedule inflexibility) were related only to strain-based
conflict. Although it is possible that the measures of travel and work
schedule inflexibility did not possess adequate construct validity, the two
work schedule characteristics, as indicated earlier, did demonstrate sig-
nificant relationships with other study variables in a conceptually meaningful
way. Certainly, future research requires the utilization of multi-item mea-
sures of work schedule characteristics that possess satisfactory psy-
chometric properties.
Hypothesis 4, the impact of work salience on work-family conflict,
was supported only among women. Not only did the block of two work
salience variables (job involvement and career priority) explain significant
portions of the variance in work-family conflict for women, but the
positive relationships between job involvement and both indicators of
work-family conflict were significantly stronger for women than for men.
Apparently highly job-involved women devote extensive time to work
and/or experience high levels of work-induced stress, both of which may
contribute to their work-family conflict. It is unclear why work salience
was unrelated to work-family conflict for men in this sample, since prior
samples in which this relationship was observed were either exclusively
male (Greenhaus & Kopelman, 1981) or included a sizeable number of
men (Frone & Rice, 1987; Wiley, 1987). The relationship between work
salience and work-family conflict appears to be more complex than
initially thought and clearly requires further examination.
Although a womans level of work salience was a strong predictor of
her feelings of work-family conflict, her partners level of work salience
did not interact with her own work salience to influence work-family
conflict. A womans work-family conflict, then, appears to be more
dependent on her involvement in her own job than on the pattern of
work involvements displayed by her and her partner. For the men, on
the other hand, the pattern of results was reversed. Although a mans
level of work salience was unrelated to his work-family conflict, the
combination of his work salience and his partners work salience did
predict his work-family conflict. Moreover, each indicator of work salience,
 WORK-FAMILY CONFLICT 151

job involvement and career priority, had a different effect on a mans

work-family conflict.
Men who displayed high levels of job involvement and whose partners
also exhibited high job involvement tended to experience relatively low
levels of time-based conflict, a finding that is both surprising and opposite
to what was predicted in Hypothesis 5. Perhaps, partners who are each
highly involved in their own job understand each others needs and
aspirations, provide support to each other, adjust their expectations re-
garding each others role involvements, and develop a system of mutual
accommodation (Beutell & Greenhaus, 1982).
However, relationships in which each person regards his or her own
career as having a greater priority than that of the partner seem to arouse
strain-based conflict in men. This suggests that men perceive such a
situation as competitive and therefore stressful. When each partner thinks
his or her own career is more important than the partners career, it is
possible that neither partner accommodates to the needs of the other
partner or to the needs of the family as a whole. Surprisingly, a mans
conflict was also high when both partners placed a relatively low priority
on their own careers. These relationships, in which each partner believes
the other partners career is more important than their own, may be
plagued by communication problems, disagreement on other fundamental
issues in the relationship, and/or feelings of inequity that ultimately
produce strain-based conflict in men. Further research is needed to shed
light on this process and, more generally, to determine why the interaction
of partners work salience is a source of work-family conflict for men
but not for women.
In summary, the present research has identified a number of work
domain pressures associated with work-family conflict in two-career
relationships, and has observed several gender differences in the sources
of work-family conflict. In addition to delineating the relative influence
of different types of work domain pressures on time-based and strain-
based conflict, the study provided new insights into crossover effects of
partners work salience on a mans work-family conflict, thus capturing
the dynamics of within-couple patterns of work orientation. Further re-
search is needed to determine the role of other partner variables (e.g.,
similarity of partners job or occupation, partners participation in family
domain activities, partner social support) in influencing the work-family
conflict experienced by men and women in two-career relationships.
Future research in a number of directions would be helpful in confirming
the findings of the current study, and in extending our understanding of
the nature and determinants of other forms of work-family conflict. First,
since members of the present sample were highly educated and generally
occupied managerial or professional positions, it is important to determine
whether the results of this study are generalizable to a more educationally
152 GREENHAUS ET AL

and occupationally diverse group of men and women. Although portions

of the present results were consistent with prior research on university
personnel (Herman & Gyllstrom, 1977), U.S. sailors (Jones & Butler,
1980), Canadian administrators (Burke et al., 1980), and a national cross-
section of employees (Pleck et al., 1980), additional research on a variety
of samples is required to test the boundaries of our conclusions.
Second, although the present research focused on the sources of time-
based and strain-based conflict, it is not clear whether similar work
domain pressures are associated with behavior-based conflict. Research
should be directed toward the development and validation of a measure
of behavior-based conflict so that its antecedents and consequences can
be determined. Finally, longitudinal research would be helpful in distin-
guishing the short-term and long-term effects of work domain pressures
on family life, and in understanding more thoroughly the pattern of causal
linkages between work and nonwork involvements.

REFERENCES
Bailyn, L. (1970). Career and family orientations of husbands and wives in relation to
marital happiness. Human Relations, 23, 97-113.
Beutell, N. J., & Greenhaus, J. H. (1982). Interrole conflict among married women: The
influence of husband and wife characteristics on conflict and coping behavior. Journal
of Vocational Behavior, 21, 99-l 10.
Brief, A. P., Schuler, R. S., & Van Sell, M. (1981). Managing job stress. Boston: Little,
Brown.
Burke, R. J., Weir, T., & DuWors, R. E. (1980). Work demands on administrators and
spouse well-being. Human Relations, 33, 253-278.
Caplan, R. D., Cobb, S., French, J. R. P., Harrison, R. V., & Pinneau, S. R. (1975). Job
demands and worker health: Main effects and occupational differences. Washington,
DC: Department of Health, Education and Welfare.
Frone, M. R., & Rice, R. W. (1987). Work-family conflict: The effect of job and family
involvement. Journal of Occupational Behaviour, 8, 45-53.
Greenhaus, J. H. (1987). Career management. Hinsdale, IL: Dryden.
Greenhaus, J. H., Bedeian, A. G., & Mossholder, K. W. (1987). Work experiences, job
performance, and feelings of personal and family well-being. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 31, 200-215.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family
roles. Academy of Management Review, 10, 76-88.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Kopelman, R. E. (1981). Conflict between work and nonwork roles:
Implications for the career planning process. Human Resource Planning, 4(l), I-IO.
Gupta, N., & Jenkins, G. D. (1985). Dual-career couples: Stress, stressors. strain, and
strategies. In T. A. Beehr & R. S. Bhagat (Eds.), Human stress and cognition in
organizations: An integrated perspective (pp. 141-175). New York: Wiley-Interscience.
Hall, D. T. (1976). Careers in organizations. Pacific Palisades, CA: Goodyear.
Hall, F. S., & Hall, D. T. (1979). The two-career couple. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Herman, J. B., & Gyllstrom, K. K. (1977). Working men and women: Inter- and intra-
role conflict. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 1, 319-333.
Ivancevich, J. M., & Matteson, M. T. (1980). Stress and work. Glenview. IL: Scott,
Foresman.
Jones, A. P., & Butler, M. C. (1980). A role transition approach to the stresses of or-
 WORK-FAMILY CONFLICT 153

ganizationally-induced family role disruption. Journal of Marriage and the Family,

42, 367-376.
Keith, P. M., & Schafer, R. B. (1980). Role strain and depression in two-job families.
Family Relations, 29, 483-488.
Kopelman, R. E., Greenhaus, J. H., & Connolly, T. F. (1983). A model of work, family,
and interrole conthct: A construct validation study. Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, 32, 198-215.
Lawler, E. E., & Hall, D. T. (1970). Relationship of job characteristics to job involvement,
satisfaction, and intrinsic motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 54, 305-312.
Lodahl, T., & Kejner, M. (1%5). The definition and measurement of job involvement.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 49, 24-33.
Moen, P. (1985). The two-provider family: Problems and potentials. In B. C. Miller & D.
H. Olson (Eds.), Family studies review yearbook (Vol. 3, pp. 397-427). Beverly Hills,
CA: Sage Publications.
Parasuraman, S., & Alutto, J. A. (1981). An examination of the organizational antecedents
of stressors at work. Academy of Management Journal, 24, 48-67.
Parasuraman, S., & Alutto, J. A. (1984). Sources and outcomes of stress in organizational
settings: Toward the development of a structural model. Academy of Munngement
Journal, 27, 330-350. s
Pleck, J. H., Staines, G. L., & Lang, L. (1980). Conflicts between work and family life.
Monthly Labor Review, 103(3), 29-32.
Quinn, R. P., & Staines, G. L. (1978). The 1977 Quality of Employment Survey. Ann
Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.
Rapoport, R., & Rapoport, R. N. (1971). Dual careerfamilies. Middlesex, England: Penguin
Books.
Rizzo, J. R., House, R. J., & Lirtzman, S. I. (1970). Role conflict and ambiguity in complex
organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15, 150-163.
Schein, E. H. (1978). Career dynamics: Matching individual and organizational needs.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Sekaran, U. (1986). Dual-career families. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Van Maanen, J., & Schein, E. H. (1977). Career development. In J. R. Hackman & J. L.
Suttle (Eds.), Improving life at work: Behavioral science approaches to organizational
change (pp. 30-95). Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear.
Wiley, D. L. (1987). The relationship between work/nonwork role conflict and job-related
outcomes: Some unanticipated findings. Journal of Management, 13, 467-472.
Young, M., & Willmott, P. (1973). The symmetrical family. New York: Pantheon Books.

Received: May 5, 1988