European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 17, Number 1 (2010)

Dual Earners and Balance in Their Family and Work Life:

Findings from Pakistan

Naheed Abrar
Chairperson Social Work Department, Federal Urdu University Science, Arts & Technology
Abdul Haq Campus, Karachi, Pakistan
Email: drnaheedabrar@gmail.com

Arsalan Mujahid Ghouri

PHD Candidate, Institute of Business & Technology (BIZTEK)
Email: arsalan.ghouri@ymail.com

Abstract
In this globalize world, parent are searching for equitable life between their family and
work roles. This study explored the insight aspects and difficulties of dual earner’s family
and work life. Two thousand two hundred (2,200) questionnaires were distributed in 12
organizations of Karachi, Pakistan. The key findings of this study exposed the individual’s
family and work role identity and value principles are the cause of role tenancy choices and
decisions made by dual-earner parents. Gender based parental role identities are evenly
account a work role identity or salient parental. Dual earners’ experience the concerns and
rewards of work and family role accumulation. Family role participation rewards and
conflicts arose for mothers and fathers with their family related life. Balancing work and
family, their related issues and concerns are important for dual earners, regardless of their
occupational field. Dual-earner parents also experience the interrole conflict and overload,
which hurt their work or family domain. It makes intricacy to fulfill one’s role in response
to fulfilling other role successfully.

Introduction
Human life is associated with different aspects, like human activities, behaviors, roles, people etc.
Participation in life’s many domains is facilitated by the occupation of distinct social roles, thereby
defining an individual’s identity as a complex amalgam of many social roles (Ornstein & Isabella,
1993). Some roles are suggested to have more meaning and significance attached to them compared
with others (Bielby, 1992) like man describe himself as an HR manager, father, husband, son, brother,
golfer etc. In these roles the most essential role of a human is to build and support the family especially
in Pakistan environment. Kelly & Kelly (1994) illustrated that adult men and women cite their family
as the most central life interest. Since the 1960s, the family division of labor has changed markedly in
at least one respect. In the majority of married couples of the 1990s, husbands are no longer the sole
breadwinners (Wilkie, 1991). It is uncertain whether couples find shared breadwinning satisfying,
particularly because there has been little change in wives' responsibility for family domestic work
(Wilkie et al, 1998). Family builds intimate relationships which join social networks.
The domain of work is the complement ingredient of any family. In other words paid work is
the reason of family existence. Probert (1989) explained that paid work is considered a central life
domain, more or less work is neither good nor bad. Moreover Le & Miller (2000) affirmed that lack of
work due to unwanted unemployment is associated with social problems and economical disadvantage.
Some commentators have declared that effectively balancing work and family responsibilities
is, or will become, the central challenge in the lives of most people in modern society (Milkie &
28
 European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 17, Number 1 (2010)

Peltola, 1999). Even when both spouses are employed full-time, wives continue to perform the
majority of household tasks, an inequity which has sparked considerable interest on the part of family
scholars (Berk, 1985). So this study was conducted to understanding the relationship between these
two variables or primary life domain, employed mothers and fathers and their family commitments,
responsibility and role.

Literature Review
According to Perry-Jenkins et al (2000) the family and work research field emerged as a distinct area
of interest in 1970s. Since then the work and family research field has burgeoned into an extensive area
of study with the publication of an overwhelming volume of literature devoted to analyzing the work
and family relationship (Zedeck & Mosier, 1990).
According to Burke (1987), dual earner couples are a predominantly interesting and vivid union
of work and family roles. They perform three jobs (two markets and one family) with the same two
adult resources as the traditional breadwinner family (Piotrkowski & Hughes, 1993). In this scenario
they face many difficult situation and time in multiple social roles, Gilbert & Rachlin (1987) explained
this scenario that dual earner couples countenance with many challenges as they try to integrate and
balance the multiple social roles occupied by both adults. But Goode (1960) argued that total
commitment and conformity to one role reduces the amount of time and energy available for
investment in other role because of finite support of energy available for each day. Further Goode
marked that therefore, individuals attempting to meet all of the responsibilities of their multiple social
roles are likely to experience role strain and conflict. Goode concluded that this strain is normal
because “the individual’s total role obligations are over demanding”. Katz & Kahn (1978) define roles
conflicts and their related problems that role conflict develops when fulfilling the expectations and
demands of one role is incompatible with, or makes compliance with, the pressures and expectations of
other roles more difficult. These role conflicts often reason to disturb the one of the two different roles.
Burke and Weir (1981) found that occupational demands were significantly related to negative
experiences in the participants’ non-work lives.
Burke et al. (1980) discover in their early research that discovered that husbands’ reports of
increased occupational demands were significantly related to spousal reports of decreased marital and
life satisfaction, lower levels of social participation, and increased negative feeling states and
psychosomatic symptoms. The results of these problems often hurt the employed men and women and
their family conflict with negative personal outcomes such as anxiety, depression and psychological
distress (Burke et al., 1980; Coverman, 1989; Frone et al, 1997) life dissatisfaction (Aryee, 1992;
Bedeian et al, 1988; poor physical health (Frone et al., 1997), lower quality family life (Anderson-
Kulman & Paludi, 1986; Higgins et al, 1992). Similarly, the presence of work/family conflict also
linked with harmful outcomes for the organization, like absenteeism, job dissatisfaction, lower
productivity, staff turnover, increased tardiness (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985; Goff et al, 1990; Pleck,
1985). Moreover, Boston-area two-earner couples in which both spouses work full-time, they find that
respondents have warm and loving relationships with their children, satisfaction in their marriage and
parent-ing, and more stability in their incomes due to the buffering that two jobs provides in an
uncertain economy (cf. Schwartz, 1994).
For reducing the work family role conflict the Rapoport & Rapoport, (1980) suggested the
availability of quality social support resources, the individual’s personal coping ability and the level of
support offered to employed parents through family-friendly workplace policies and strategies. Ray
and Miller (1994) suggested that it is possible that the development and maintenance of a support
network may be inherently stressful, or that the experience of stress may lead people to mobilize their
support resources but if their support sources are ineffective in helping to change the situation it may
do little to help reduce the impact of the stressors. Although certain stress related work family issues
confronting dual-earner couples have received considerable research attention ( e.g., work-family
conflict), others, such as what happens when she earns more than he earns, have not. There is
29
European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 17, Number 1 (2010)

considerable interest within both sociology and psychology in the relationship between earnings and
such outcomes as marital quality, satisfaction, power, and disruption within couples (Brennan et al,
2001). Greenhaus and Parasuraman (1987) described problem-focused strategies as being used either
within the work or family domains. For example in the work domain the role occupant may seek to
change performance expectations or levels of responsibility, while in the family domain the role
occupant may source outside help for domestic or childcare tasks, or derive a more effective division of
labor. Greenhaus (1988) has suggested that a number of family orientated personnel policies are in use
in modern organizations, such as childcare support, parental leave, flexible work schedules, flexible
modes of work attendance such as telecommuting, employee counseling, and relocation benefits to
name a few. Juggling family work and paid work may increase the risk of role overload and stress for
both men and women, which may, in turn, negatively affect parental functioning (Belsky, 1984;
Deater-Deckard & Scarr, 1996; Patterson, 1986).

Methodology
In this study the heterogeneous group of parents was involved in data collection process from a large
heterogeneous group of parents who were the part of multiple social roles of work and family to find
the answer of the research question ‘What are the work and family role participation experiences of
dual- earner parents who are living in a couple spousal relationship and how they balance their work
and family roles and responsibilities and commitments? All of the respondents were living in dual-
earner couple families. The data were collected using standardized psychometrically stable pencil-and-
paper research instruments, to be analyzed systematically using both descriptive and inferential
statistical techniques. All respondents were affianced in paid employment outside of the home and
were primary care providers their child or children and living in a spousal relationship as the tradition
of Pakistan. Two thousand two hundred (2,200) questionnaires which were completely confidential and
anonymous with the personal identity of the respondents and unknown by the principal researcher were
distributed in 12 organizations of Karachi, Pakistan. The respondents were selected on random basis by
concern departments’ head. All communication was done to higher authorities of concerning
companies before the dispatch of the questionnaires. A total of 492 completed questionnaires were
returned, representing an overall response rate of 22.37%. Covering letter was enclosed to every
questionnaire and encouraged to participate to those who met the research selection. Potential
respondents were appealed that to present the second questionnaire to their spouse if applicable.
The variables used in the study were

Independent Variables
Life role salience scales. Amatea et al. (1986) developed the Life Role Salience Scales (LRSS) to
measure the attitude towards role involvement in work and family of men and women. The instrument
contains scales divided into four major life roles, occupational, parental, marital, and home-care. All
role of life is measured with two subscales designed to judge the conceptually discrete dimensions of
role reward value and role commitment. The role value dimension assesses the personal importance or
value attributed by the respondent to the particular role, and the role commitment dimension
determines the level of commitment of personal time and energy resources that the respondent is
willing to provide to perform the role (Burke, 1994). Each role analyzed on five point Likert type scale
ranging from (1) strongly disagree 2) disagree 3) neither agree or disagree 4) agree 5) strongly agree.
Cronbach alpha reliability coefficients this questionnaire were .81 for work involvement (commitment
role value and occupational), and .86 for parental involvement (commitment role value and parental
role value).
Role stressors. Work role stress defined as the extent to which a person experiences incompatible role
pressures within the work domain (Kopelman et al, 1983). This variable was determined with an eight-
item self-report questionnaire developed by Cooket et al (1981). This quantify assumed at a seven
30
 European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 17, Number 1 (2010)

point Likert scale with 1) strongly disagree 2) disagree 3) disagree slightly 4) neither agree nor
disagree 5) agree slightly 6) agree 7) strongly agree responses. A Cronbach alpha of these questions
were .82 and .75 calculated for the work role stressors scale and the work role stressors scale
respectively.
Family Role Stress defined as the extent in which a person experiences incompatible role in
family domain from different pressures. Family role stressors adopts a seven point Likert type scale
format 1) strongly disagree 2) disagree 3) disagree slightly 4) neither agree nor disagree 5) agree
slightly 6) agree 7) strongly agree. Measurement of Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient showed in
the current study was .84.

Dependent Variables
Childcare Arrangements. The present study asked parents to nominate the type or types of childcare
arrangements that they regularly accessed for their dependent children. Lechner & Creedon (1994)
considered it as important factor in family and work related research. In Pakistan perspective, parents
dedicated their intentions and life for their children assistance. They judge on their 7 response scales of
1) very easy 2) easy 3) slightly easy 4) Not at all easy or difficult 5) slightly difficult 6) difficult 7)
very difficult and 1) very unhappy 2) happy 3) little unhappy 4) not at all unhappy or happy 5) little
happy 6) happy 7) very happy.

Coping. The Dual Employed Coping Scale (DECS) was developed by Skinner & McCubbin (1987) for
spouses to identify and measure coping behaviors in managing work and family roles. Each role
investigated on five point Likert type scale ranging from (1) strongly disagree 2) disagree 3) neither
agree or disagree 4) agree 5) strongly agree. The Cronbach alpha reliability of DECS instrument was
.79.

Emotional Exhaustion. Burnout is a psychological syndrome referring to a state emotional exhaustion

and cynicism caused by excessive psychological and emotional demands (Maslach & Jackson, 1981).
The Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) which created by Maslach & Jackson (1981), was used to
assess the frequency with the target potential audience in the current study showed experiencing the
affective answer of burnout in relation to their job. The emotional exhaustion subscale contains nine
items scored using the following seven point scale, 0) never, 1) a few times a year or less, 2) once a
month or less, 3) a few times a month, 4) once a week, 5) a few times a week, and 6) every day. The
internal consistency of the MBI’s emotional exhaustion subscale was .83 on Cronbach’s alpha
reliability coefficient.

Family adaptability and cohesion evaluation scales III. The Family Adaptability and Cohesion
Evaluation Scales (FACES) self-report inventory (Olson et al, 1985) was designed by Olson and his
colleagues. Family version of the instrument was used for all of the participants in the current study.
Five point scale ranging from (1) almost never, (2) once in a while, (3) sometimes, (4) frequently, and
(5) almost always was used in FACES. Cronbach alpha reliability coefficients for the two FACES III
scales were .76 for cohesion and .72 for adaptability.

Family-Friendly HR Policies. According to Schermerhorn, Jr., (2002) that, family friendly HR policies
and practices has potential and could be important to assist employed parents to condense the difficulty
in balancing their multiple role commitments. Rating scale was used to asked respondents were
ranging from 1) not at all helpful, 2) little helpful, 4) satisfactory helpful 4) helpful (5) very helpful.

Interrole conflict. Interrole conflict occurs when fulfilling the role expectations in one role makes
compliance with role expectations in another other role more difficult (Katz & Kahn, 1978).
Participants were requested to rate 1) strongly disagree 2) disagree 3) disagree slightly 4) neither agree
31
European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 17, Number 1 (2010)

nor disagree 5) agree slightly 6) agree 7) strongly agree responses. Cronbach alpha reliability
coefficients of .89 for the work-family conflict (WFC) scale and .85 for the family-work conflict
(FWC) scale.

Interrole enhancement. Sieber’s (1974) affirmed that interrole enhancement is role expansion that
focuses on the rewards or privileges associated with the accumulation of multiple social roles. 1) very
true, 2) true 3) neither true or not true 4) not true 5) not true at all. The Cronbach alpha reliability
coefficient of .84 calculated for the adjusted measure of work and family enhancement.

Propensity to leave. The intention of the participants to leave their current employer is considered an
important construct because it is an immediate precursor to an individual’s choice to leave their job
(Boles et al, 1997). The response measure adopts a seven point Likert scale with ranging from 1)
strongly disagree 2) disagree 3) disagree slightly 4) neither agree nor disagree 5) agree slightly 6)
agree 7) strongly agree with Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient of .86.

Job Satisfaction. Job satisfaction is frequently defined as an individual's positive or negative evaluation
of their work and work environment (O'Reilly, 1991). The measure is attain by a seven point Likert
scale with replies ranging from 1) strongly disagree 2) disagree 3) disagree slightly 4) neither agree
nor disagree 5) agree slightly 6) agree 7) strongly agree. Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient
calculated in this study was .78.
Family Satisfaction stated by Kinnunen & Mauno (1998) are family related affect and their
influence on life. Kopelman et al (1987) three-item General Job Satisfaction scale family satisfaction
questionnaire employed and seven point Likert scale was used 1) strongly disagree 2) disagree 3)
disagree slightly 4) neither agree nor disagree 5) agree slightly 6) agree 7) strongly agree amid with
.85 Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient.

Social support. Social support is multifaceted concept supporting three main subsidiary
conceptualizations, perceived social support, social embedded ness, and enacted social support (Pierce
et al., 1996).
Perceived Social Support is a prominent concept characterized by an adequate support would
be available if it was needed (Barrera, 1986). Respondents specified their responses with a seven point
Likert scale ranging 1) strongly disagree 2) disagree 3) disagree slightly 4) neither agree nor disagree
5) agree slightly 6) agree 7) with .89 overall Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient.
Social Embedded ness refers to the network of connections that individuals have to significant
others within their social environment (Barrera, 1986). Sarason et al (1988) Social Support
Questionnaire was employed to attain the results. Users responses took on Likart rating scale ranging
from 1) very dissatisfied to 6) very satisfied. The calculated overall Cronbach alpha reliability
coefficient was .82.
Enacted Social Support is conceptualized as the actions that others perform when they render
social support or assistance (Barrera, 1986). Enacted social support was assessed using Vaux, et al’s
(1987) Socially Support Behaviors (SS-B) scale was utilize in questionnaire. A Cronbach alpha
estimate of internal consistency was .86 in the study.

Date Results & Interpretation

Family adaptability and cohesion evaluation scales III. Table 5.1 showing the results, these results
extracted from the ‘principal components extraction’ with varimax rotation. This extraction was
performed on the 20 items of the FACES III scale with the sample of 492 employed parents. The
questionnaire items loaded onto two components accounting for 29.56% of the cumulative variance.
The variables are ordered and grouped according to item number to facilitate interpretation.

32
 European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 17, Number 1 (2010)

Table 5.1: FACES III Rotated factor item loadings, Communalities (hｲ), Eigenvalues, Cronbach’s alphas and
Percentages of variance for Principal

FACES III Questionnaire item number and component label Compound

1 2 h2
Cohesion
1. Family members ask each other for help .56 .33 .43
3. We approve of each other’s friends. .53 -.09 .34
5. We like to do things with just our immediate family. .45 .13 .21
7. Family members feel closer to other family members than to people outside the family. .57 -.15 .26
9. Family members like to spend free time with each other. .66 .05 .59
11. Family members feel very close to each other. .56 .19 .32
13. When our family gets together for activities, everybody is present. .76 .12 .59
15. We can easily think of things to do together as a family. .33 -.07 .22
17. Family members consult other family members on their decisions. .73 .06 .64
19. Family togetherness is very important. .87 .09 .54

FACES III Questionnaire item number and component label Compound

1 2 h2
Adaptibility
2. In solving problems, the children’s suggestions are followed. 12 .58 .47
4. Children have a say in their discipline. -.12 .46 .31
6. Different persons act as leaders in our family. .15 .61 .53
8. Our family changes its way of handling tasks. -.09 .47 .33
10. Parents and children discuss punishment together. -.07 .42 .31
12. The children make the decisions in our family. .16 .47 .21
14. Rules change in our family. .08 .51 .22
16.We shift household responsibilities from person to person. -.04 .48 .32
18. It is hard to identify the leader(s) in our family. .22 .61 .47
20. It is hard to tell who does which household chores. .11 .41 .49

Eigenvalues 3.7 2.9

Variance (%) 15.01 14.55
Cronbach’s alpha .76 .72

Life role salience scales. Principal components extraction with varimax rotation was executed
on the twenty items of the LRSS subscales which divided into two parts ‘occupational role
involvement’ and ‘parental role involvement’. The two-component solution accounted for 48.67% of
the cumulative variance. Table 5.2 shows the loadings of variables on components, communalities,
Cronbach’s alphas and the percentages of variance.

33
European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 17, Number 1 (2010)
Table 5.2: LRSS Rotated factor item loadings, Communalities (h2), Eigenvalues, Cronbach’s alphas and
Percentages of variance variance for Principal Components Extraction with Varimax Rotation.

LRSS Questionnaire item number and component label Compound

1 2 h2
Occupational Role Involvement
1. Having work/a career that is interesting and exciting to me is my most important life goal. .76 -.28 .27
2. I expect my job/career to give me more real satisfaction than anything else I do. .58 .23 .21
3. Building a name and reputation for myself through work/a career is not one of my life goals. .62 -.06 .22
4. It is important to me that I have a job/career in which I can achieve something of importance. .64 .03 .43
5. It is important to me to feel successful in my work/career. .57 .23 .30
6. I want to work, but I do not want to have a demanding career. .34 .12 .27
7. I expect to make as many sacrifices as are necessary in order to advance in my work/career. .56 -.08 .22
8. I value being involved in a career and expect to devote the time and effort needed to develop .85 .37 .61
it.
9. I expect to devote a significant amount of my time to building my career and developing the .64 -.09 .20
skills necessary to advance in my career.
10. I expect to devote whatever time and energy it takes to move up in my job/career field. .55 .41 .49
LRSS Questionnaire item number and component label Compound
1 2 h2
Parental Role Involvement
11. Although parenthood requires many sacrifices, the love and enjoyment of children of one’s -.09 -64 .44
own are worth it all.
12. If I chose not to have children, I would regret it. than anything else I do. .08 .77 .56
13. It is important to me to feel I am (will be) an effective parent. -.10 .64 .32
14. The whole idea of having children and raising them is not attractive to me. .11 .46 .12
15. My life would be empty if I never had children. -.03 .66 .38
16. It is important to me to have time for myself and my own development rather than have -.07 .46 .31
children and be responsible for their care.
17. I expect to devote a significant amount of my time and energy to the rearing of children of .21 .78 .42
my own.
18. I expect to be very involved in the day-to-day matters of rearing my children. -.04 .57 .21
19. Becoming involved in the day-to-day details of rearing children involves costs in other -.09 .42 .19
areas of my life which I am unwilling to make.
20. I do not expect to be very involved in child rearing. .10 .64 .45

Eigenvalues 4.5 4.1

Variance (%) 24.40 24.27
Cronbach’s alpha .81 .86

Interrole conflict. Principal components extraction with varimax rotation was achieved on the
10 objects of the interrole conflict scales with the 492 respondents and this section was also divided
into two distinct forms of interrole conflict ‘family-to-work conflict’ and ‘work-to-family’ with the
cumulative variance of 57.95. The loadings of variables on components communalities, Cronbach’s
alphas and the percentages of variance are shown in table 5.3.

34
 European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 17, Number 1 (2010)
Table 5.3: Work to Family Conflict (WFC) and Family to Work Conflict (FWC) Scales Rotated factor item
loadings, Communalities (h2), Eigenvalues, Cronbach’s alphas and Percentages of variance for
Principal Components Extraction with Varimax Rotation.

WFC and FWC Questionnaire item number and component label Compound
1 2 h2
Work to family conflict
1. The demands of my work interfere with my home and family work .88 .07 .67
2. The amount of time my job takes up makes it difficult to fulfil my family responsibilities. .81 .25 .56
3. Things I want to do at home do not get done because of the demands my job puts on me. .76 .11 .52
4. My job produces strain that makes it difficult to fulfil my family duties. .85 .17 .45
5. Due to work related duties, I have to make changes to my plans for family activites. .79 .19 .55
Family to Work Conflict
6. The demands of my family or spouse/ partner interfere with work related activities. .09 .75 .55
7. I have to put off doing things at work because of demands on my time at home. .14 .81 .56
8. Things I want to do at work don’t get done because of family demands. .15 .82 .59
9. My home life interferes with my responsibilities at work such as getting to work on time, .18 .88 .47
accomplishing daily task, and working overtime.
10. Family related strain interferes with my ability to perform job related duties. .29 .70 .44

Eigenvalues 3.7 3.3

Variance (%) 29.25 28.70
Cronbach’s alpha .89 .85

Social support. Principal components extraction with varimax rotation was performed on the 20
items with the 492 participants. The questionnaire items which loaded on five components had the
78.43% cumulative variance. The detail information of variables of components, communalities,
Cronbach’s alphas and the percentages of variance are shown in Table 5.4.

Table 5.4: Perceptions of Social Support Scales Rotated Factor item loadings, Communalities (h2),
Eigenvalues, Cronbach’s alphas and Percentages of variance for Principle Components Extraction
with Varimax Rotation.

Social Support Questionnaire item number and component label Component

1 2 3 4 5 h2
Supervisor Social Support
1. My supervisor goes out of his/her way to make my life easier. .88 .12 .11 -.09 .07 .73
2. It is easy to talk with my supervisor. .82 .10 .08 -.10 .07 .73
3. My supervisor can be relied on when things get tough for me at work. .89 .05 .09 .11 .04 .81
4. My supervisor is willing to listen to my personal problems. .81 .09 .11 .14 .13 .72
Spousal Social Support
13. My Spouse/ partner goes out of his/her way to make my life easier. .11 .87 .19 .06 .15 .79
14. It is easy to talk with my spouse/partner. -.05 .75 .03 .11 .11 .64
15. My spouse/partner can be relied on when things gettough for me at work. .15 .82 -.06 .10 .09 .67
16. My spouse/partner is willing to listen to my personal problems. .20 .83 .18 .12 .08 .76
Friends Social Support
17. My friends go out of their way to make my life easier. .13 .08 .79 .07 .05 .69
18. It is easy to talk with my friends. -.09 .08 .78 .11 .14 .69
19. My friends can be relied on when things get tough forme at work. .19 .19 .88 .13 .16 .61
20. My friends are willing to listen to my personal problems. .07 .12 .87 .14 .15 .80
Family Social Support
9. My family goes out of their way to make my life easier. .08 -.08 .14 .82 .11 .64
10. It is easy to talk with my family. .14 .08 .02 .81 .12 .77
11. My family can be relied on when things get tough for me at work. .09 .19 .15 .78 .18 .66
12. My family are willing to listen to my personal problems. .19 .17 .11 .86 .21 .78
Co Workers Social Support
5. My co workers go out of their way to make my life easier. .14 .09 .04 .08 .88 .82

35
European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 17, Number 1 (2010)
6. It is easy to talk with my co workers. .10 .05 .11 .06 .87 .66
7. My co workers can be relied on when things get tough for me at work. -.11 .08 .14 .18 .85 .65
8. My co workers are willing to listen to my personal problems. .20 .19 .13 -.08 .81 78

Eigenvalues 3.8 3.2 3.1 3.6 3.3

Variance (%) 16.78 14.89 15.02 15.01 16.73
Cronbach’s alpha .91 .89 .86 .88 .82

In this study the age of the parent’s youngest child and their perception of the emotional climate
of their family are theoretically clustered to combine the family environment. The affect outcomes of
work, family and childcare satisfaction, intention to turnover, and emotional exhaustion are joined
together to prepare the dependent variable system of work and family affect. Availability of workplace
policies and practices, the size of the parents’ support network, and their use of personal coping
strategies are glued to make the dependent variable system of personal and workplace resources.
Parents’ perception of social support, their experience of socially supportive behaviors, and their
satisfaction with their social support network bonded together to figure personal and workplace
resources.
The significant correlation of age of the parent’s youngest child and their perception of the
emotional climate of their family is p<.01. Outcomes of work, family and childcare satisfaction,
intention to turnover, and emotional exhaustion significant correlations among these variables are
p<.05 and p<.01. Availability of workplace policies and practices, the size of the parents’ support
network, and their use of personal coping strategies are significantly correlated at the p<.01 and p<.05
levels. Parents’ perception of social support, their experience of socially supportive behaviors, and
their satisfaction with their social support network variables are significantly correlated at the p<.01
level.
Significant differences found in the results of the four MANOVA analyses in the dependent
work and family variable systems of family environment, work and family affect, workplace and
personal resources, and work and family social support (table. 5.5). In addition, a important verdict of
present study is that for dual-earner parents the experience of coalescing work and family role
relationships is not singularly negative.

36
 European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 17, Number 1 (2010)

Table 5.5: Correlation Matrix

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
1. Gender 1.00
2. Age 0.163** 1.00
3.Occupation 0.272** -0.22 1.00
4. Industry -0.292** 0.10 -0.389** 1.00
5. Education 0.06 0.111 -0.491** 0.306** 1.00
6. Mode Employ 0..299** 0.198** 0.19 -0.07 0.23 1.00
7. Youngest child 0.005 0.587** 0.036 - 0.099* -0.139* 0.138* 1.00
8. No. children 0.047 0.005 -0.12 0.075 -0.09 -0.05 -0.09 1.00
9. Adaptability -0.279** -0.12 -0.17 0.199** -0.09 -0.389** -0.179** 0.09 1.00
10. Cohesion -0.123 0.187** -0.19 0.066 0.086* -0.192** 0.301** 0.015 0.194** 1.00
11. Family sat -0.211* -0.031 -0.314** 0.221** 0.290** 0.039 -0.21 0.019 0.321** -0.04 1.00
12. Job sat -0.081 -0.02 -0.141* 0.111 -0.02 -0.159* -0.07 0.058 0.488** 0.075 0.256** 1.00
13. W/F Enhance 0.155** -0.04 0.162** -0.2 -0.081 -0.48* -0.06 0.053 -0.06 0.166** -0.611** -0.098* 1.00
14. Turnover 0.044 -0.11 0.165* -0.131* -0.185** -0.04 -0.02 -0.09 -0.02 0.031 -0.291** -0.05 0.219** 1.00
15. Work Involv -0.02 -0.09 -0.21 -0.07 0.096 -0.301** -0.162* 0.144* 0.441** 0.167* 0.235** 0.414** 0.067 -0.236** 1.00
16. Parent Involv 0.228** 0.311** -0.08 0.032 0.244** 0.453** 0.333** -0.08 -0.370** 0.055 0.156* 0.367** -0.355* -0.66 -0.387** 1.00
17. W/F Conflict 0.032 - 0.055 -0.11 0.042 0.077 0.322** -0.05 -0.07 -0.44 -0.06 -0.23 -0.5 0.055 -0.17 -0.37 0.421** 1.00
18. Coping -0.43 -0.19 -0.193** -0.21 0.201** -0.10 -0.11 0.013 0.156** 0.144* 0.225** 0.032 -0.47 -0.19 0.092 0.076 0.003 1.00
19. Social Supp. behaviours 0.126* -0.07 -0.315** 0.091 0.08 -0.233** -0.02 0.056 0.477** -0.010 0.255** 0.444** -0.16 -0.327** 0.372** -0.33 -0.33 0.133** 1.00
20. Perception of Social -0.1 0.047 0.023 -0.02 -0.02 -0.26 0.162** -0.07 0.311** 0.05 0.131* 0.455** -0.06 -0.06 0.222** -0.21 -0.24 0.065 0.299** 1.00
Support
21. Fam stressors 0.123 0.062 -0.06 0.171* 0.198* 0.321** -0.09 -0.06 -0.44 -0.15 -0.08 -0.39 -0.23 -0.11 -0.211** 0.301** 0.512** 0.187** -0.224** -0.133** 1.00
22. Work stressors -0.09 -0.06 0.125 -0.08 -0.04 0.244** 0.045 -0.15 -0.65 -0.10 -0.18 -0.81 -0.08 0.028 -0.269** 0.232** ** 0.433* 0.133* -0.310** -0.343** -0.311** 1.00
23. Burnout -0.10 -0.03 0.171** 0.032 -0.07 0.243** 0.19 -0.21 -0.299** 0.056 -0.43 -0.58 0.145** 0.067 -0.177** 0.221** 0.436** 0.077 -0.241** -0.22 0.355** 0.333** 1.00
24. SSQ6-N -0.13 0.114 -0.08 0.049 0.077 -0.22 0.009 -0.09 0.377** -0.2 0.204** 0.456** -0.11 -0.33 0.215** -0.22 -0.18 0.144** 0.410** 0.244** -0.233* -0.222** -0.12 1.00
25. SSQ6-S -0.03 -0.15 -0.08 -0.1 0.201* -0.31 -0.09 0.154* 0.390** 0.166 0.184** 0.467** -0.11 -0.10 0.302** -0.301** -0.260** 0.158* 0.477** 0.499** -0.21 -0.399** -0.355** 0.271**

37
European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 17, Number 1 (2010)

Conclusion
Present study revealed that that an individual’s family and work role identity and value principles
causative to the role tenancy choices and decisions made by dual-earner parents. Furthermore the
results of this research present the confirmation to propose that presented family and work role
accumulation research that adopts showed that role demand focus is deficient unaccompanied for
illumination the complex interrelationship between the central life domains of family and work. This
study also illustrated that why accumulating family and work roles can be difficult and conflictual or
beneficial and rewarding because of role identity and role value principles’ complex relationship.
This research results suggested that gender based parental role identities are evenly account a
work role identity or salient parental. Same is the case with the dual earners’ experience the concerns
and rewards of work and family role accumulation. Family role participation rewards and conflicts
arose for mothers and fathers with their family related life. Balancing work and family, their related
issues and concerns are important for dual earners, regardless of their occupational field.
This research also explored the attachment with meanings and values with work and family are
critical for elucidation the work and family role accumulation experiences.. In addition, parents’
perceptions of conflicting associations and negative experiences in work and family domains.
Moreover, dual-earner parents also experience the interrole conflict and overload, which hurt their
work or family domain. It makes intricacy to fulfill one’s role in response to fulfilling other role
successfully.

References
[1] Amatea, E. S., Cross, E. G., Clark, J. E. & Bobby, C. L. (1986). Assessing the work and family
role expectations of career-orientated men and women: The Life Role Salience Scales. Journal
of Marriage and the Family, 48, pp. 831-838.
[2] Anderson-Kulman, R. E. & Paludi, M. A. (1986). Working mothers and the family context:
Predicting positive coping. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 28, pp. 241- 253.
[3] Aryee, S. (1992). Antecedents and outcomes of work-family conflict among married
professional women: Evidence from Singapore. Human Relations, 45, pp. 813-837.
[4] Barrera, M. Jr. (1986). Distinctions between social support concepts, measures, and models.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 14 (4), pp. 413-445.
[5] Bedeian, A. G., Burke, B. G. & Moffett, R.G. (1988). Outcomes of work-family conflict among
married male and female professionals. Journal of Management, 14 (3), pp. 475-491.
[6] Berk, S. F. (1985). The gender factory: The apportionment of work in American households.
New York: Plenum.
[7] Belsky, J. (1984). The determinants of parenting: A process model. Child Development, 55, pp.
83-96.
[8] Bielby, D. D. (1992). Commitment to work and family. Annual Review of Sociology, 18, pp.
281-302.
[9] Boles, J. S., Johnston, M. W., & Hair, J. F. (1997). Role stress, work-family conflict and
emotional exhaustion: Inter-relationships and effects on some work-related consequences.
Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 17, pp. 17-28.
[10] Brennan, R. T., Barnett, R. C. & Gareis, K. C. (2001). When She Earns More than He Does: A
Longitudinal Study of Dual-Earner Couples, Journal of Marriage and Family, 63 (1), pp. 168-
182.
[11] Burke, R. J. (1994). Career and life values and expectations of university business students.
Psychological Reports, 75, pp. 147-160.
[12] Burke, R. J. (1987). Occupational and life stress and the family: conceptual frameworks and
research findings. International Review of Applied Psychology, 35, pp. 347- 369.

38
 European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 17, Number 1 (2010)

[13] Burke, R. J. & Weir, T. (1981). Impact of occupational demands on nonwork experiences.
Group and Organization Studies, 6 (4), pp. 472-485.
[14] Burke, R. J., Weir, T. & DuWors, R.E. (1980). Work demands on administrators and spouse
well-being. Human Relations, 33 (4), pp. 253-278.
[15] Cook, J. D., Hepworth, S. J., Wall, T. D., & Warr, P. B. (1981). The experience of work: A
compendium and review of 249 measures and their use. London: Academic Press.
[16] Coverman, S. (1989). Role overload, role conflict, and stress: Addressing consequences of
multiple role demands. Social Forces, 67 (4), pp. 965-982.
[17] Deater-Deckard, K. & Scarr, S. (1996). Parenting stress among dual-earner mothers and
fathers: Are there gender differences? Journal of Family Psychology, 10, pp. 45-59.
[18] 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, pp. 145-167.
[19] Gilbert, L. A. & Rachlin, V. (1987). Mental health and psychological functioning of dual-career
families. The Counseling Psychologist, 15(1), pp. 7-49.
[20] Goff, S. J., Mount, M. K. & Jamison, R. L. (1990). Employer supported child care, work/family
conflict, and absenteeism: A field study. Personnel Psychology, 43, pp. 793-809.
[21] Goode, W. J. (1960). A theory of role strain. American Sociological Review, 25, pp. 483-496.
[22] Greenhaus, J. H. (1988). The intersection of work and family roles: Individual, interpersonal,
and organizational issues. In E.B. [] Goldsmith (Ed.). Work and family: Theory, research, and
applications. California: Sage.
[23] Greenhaus, J. H. & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles.
Academy of Management Review, 10, pp. 76-88.
[24] Greenhaus, J. & Parasuraman, S. (1987). A work-nonwork interactive perspective of stress and
its consequences. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 8, pp. 37-60.
[25] Higgins, C. A., Duxbury, L. E., & Irving, R. H. (1992). Work-family conflict in the dual- career
family. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 51, pp. 51-75.
[26] Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations. New York:John Wiley
& Sons.
[27] Kelly, J. R., & Kelly, J. R. (1994). Multiple dimensions of meaning in the domains of work,
family, and leisure. Journal of Leisure Research, 26(3), pp. 250-274.
[28] Kinnunen, U. & Mauno, S. (1998). Antecedents and outcomes of work-family conflict among
employed women and men in Finland. Human Relations, 51 (2), pp. 157-177.
[29] Kopelman, R. E., Greenhaus, J. H., & Connolly, T. F. (1983). A model of work, family, and
interrole conflict: a construct validation study. Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, 32, 198-215.
[30] Le, A. T., & Miller, P. W. (2000). Australia’s unemployment problem. The Economic Record,
76(232), pp. 74-104.
[31] Lechner, V. M., & Creedon, M. A. (1994). Managing work and family life. New York: Springer
Publishing.
[32] Maslach, C. & Jackson, S. (1981). The measurement of experienced burnout. Journal of
Occupational Behavior, 2, pp. 99-113.
[33] Milkie, M. A. & Peltola, P. (1999). Playing all the roles: Gender and the work-family balancing
act. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61(2), pp. 476-491.
[34] Olson, D. H., Portner, & Lavee, Y. (1985). FACES III family social science. St. Paul,
Minnesota: University of Minnesota.
[35] Ornstein, S. & Isabella, L. A. (1993). Making sense of careers: A review 1989-1992. Journal of
Management, 19(2), pp. 243-267.
[36] O'Reilly, C. A. (1991). Organizational behavior: Where we've been, where we're going. Annual
Review of Psychology, 42, pp. 427-458.

39
European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 17, Number 1 (2010)

[37] Patterson, G. R. (1986). Performance models for antisocial boys. American Psychologist, 41,
pp. 432-444.
[38] Perry-Jenkins, M., Repetti, R. L., & Crouter, A. C. (2000). Work and family in the 1990s.
Journal of Marriage & the Family, 62 (4), pp. 981-1018.
[39] Pierce, G. R., Sarason, B. R., Sarason, I. G., Joseph, H. J. & Henderson, C. A. (1996).
Conceptualising and assessing social support in the context of the family. In G.R. Pierce, B.R.
Sarason, & I.G. Sarason (Eds.). Handbook of Social Support and the Family. New York:
Plenum Press.
[40] Piotrkowski, C.S., & Hughes, D. (1993). Dual-earner families in context: Managing family and
work systems. In F. Walsh (Ed.). Normal family processes. New York: The Guilford Press.
[41] Probert, B. (1989). Working life. Victoria: McPhee Gribble.
[42] Rapoport, R., & Rapoport, R. (1980). The impact of work on the family. In P. Moss & N.
Fonda (Eds.). Work and the family. London: Temple Smith.
[43] Ray, E. B. & Miller, K. I. (1994). Social support, home/work stress, and burnout: Who can
help? Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 30(3), pp. 357-373.
[44] Sarason, I. G., Sarason, B. R., & Pierce, G. R. (1988). Social support, personality, and health.
In S.Maes, C.D. Spielberger, P.B. Defares, & I.G. Sarason (Eds.). Topics in health psychology.
London: John Wiley & Sons.
[45] Schermerhorn, J. R. Jr. (2002). Management. (7th Ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
[46] Schwartz, P. (1994). Peer marriage: How love between equals really works. New York: Free
Press.
[47] Sieber, S. D. (1974). Toward a theory of role accumulation. American Sociological Review, 39,
pp. 567-578.
[48] Skinner, D. A. & McCubbin, H. I. (1987). DECS: Dual employed coping scales. In H.I.
McCubbin & A.I. Thompson, (Eds.). Family Assessment Inventories for Research and
Practice. USA: University of Wisconsin-Madison.
[49] Vaux, A., Riedel, S. & Stewart, D. (1987). Models of social support: The social support
behaviors (SS-B) scale. American Journal of Community Psychology, 15(2), pp. 209-237.
[50] Wilkie, J. R. (1991). The decline in men's labor force participation nd earnings and the
changing structure of family economic support. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53, pp.
111-122.
[51] Wilkie, J. R., Ferree, M. M., Ratcliff K. S. (1998). Gender and Fairness: Marital Satisfaction in
Two-Earner Couples, Journal of Marriage and Family, 60 (3), pp. 577-594.
[52] Zedeck, S., & Mosier, K. L. (1990). Work in the family and employing organization. American
Psychologist, 45, pp. 240-254.

40