Work–Family Conflict and Psychological Well-being

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Journal of Vocational Behavior 73 (2008) 37–51

www.elsevier.com/locate/jvb

Work–family conflict and psychological well-being: Stabilityand cross-lagged relations within one- and six-year follow-ups

Johanna Rantanen a,*, Ulla Kinnunen b, Taru Feldt a, Lea Pulkkinen a

a Department of Psychology, University of Jyvaskyla, P.O. Box 35, FIN-40014, Finlandb Department of Psychology, University of Tampere, Finland

Received 20 June 2007Available online 26 January 2008

Abstract

The rank-order stability and cross-lagged relations between work-to-family conflict (WFC), family-to-work conflict(FWC), and psychological well-being were examined in two longitudinal studies with full two-wave panel designs. In Study1 (n = 365), the time lag was one year, and in Study 2 (n = 153), six years. The Structural Equation Modeling showed thatthe stability for WFC was .69 over one and .73 over six years. The respective stabilities for FWC were .57 and .48. Cross-lagged relations were not detected between WFC/FWC and low psychological well-being (job exhaustion, marital adjust-ment, parental stress, and psychological distress), expected to exist on the basis of the integrative model of work–familyinterface [Frone, M. R., Yardley, J. K., & Markel, K. S. (1997). Developing and testing an integrative model of thework–family interface. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50, 145–167.]. Instead, high job exhaustion preceded high psycho-logical distress, both within one- and six-year time lags, and within a one-year time lag: low marital adjustment precededhigh psychological distress, and high psychological distress preceded high parental stress. These findings supported thespillover perspective on work–family interface [Edwards, J. R., & Rothbard, N. P. (2000). Mechanisms linking workand family: Clarifying the relationship between work and family constructs. Academy of Management Review, 25,178–199.].� 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Work–family conflict; Psychological well-being; Longitudinal; Rank-order stability; Cross-lagged; Spillover; Gender

1. Introduction

Work–family conflict refers to an experience in which the demands from work and family domains collidewith each other and exceed the resources available for an individual (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). Most work–family conflict studies (94%) have been cross-sectional (Casper, Eby, Bordeaux, Lockwood, & Lambert, 2007)and, therefore, little is known about the stability and change of work–family conflict over time (Ford, Heinen, &Langkamer, 2007; Geurts & Demerouti, 2003), and causal relations between work–family conflict and

0001-8791/$ - see front matter � 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2008.01.001

* Corresponding author. Fax: +358 14 2602841.E-mail address: [email protected] (J. Rantanen).

mailto:[email protected]

38 J. Rantanen et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 73 (2008) 37–51

psychological well-being (Allen, Herst, Bruck, & Sutton, 2000). Furthermore, the question of gender as a mod-erator of work–family conflict experiences deserves more attention (Ford et al., 2007; Voydanoff, 2002). In thepresent study, work–family conflict originating either from the work (work-to-family conflict, WFC) or fromthe family (family-to-work conflict, FWC) (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985; Mesmer-Magnus & Viswesvaran,2005), and psychological well-being in general as well as in the areas of work and family (cf. Allen et al.,2000) were studied longitudinally among men and women.

1.1. Rank-order stability vs. instability of work–family conflict experience

Westman, Etzion, and Gortler (2004) found that the test–retest correlation was .86 for WFC within thetime lag of a few weeks, and Kinnunen, Geurts, and Mauno (2004) found that it was .71 within the timelag of a year. For FWC, the test–retest correlations were .51 across three months (Leiter & Durup, 1996)and .75 across six months (Kelloway, Gottlieb, & Barham, 1999). The test–retest correlations support the viewthat work–family conflict is a relatively stable experience, although one could be expect that critical incidentswithin work, family or individual circumstances (e.g., job change, judicial separation, onset of severe illness)might generate instability in work–family conflict experiences. A time lag of some weeks or months may be tooshort to demonstrate the stable vs. unstable nature of WFC and FWC experiences, as major changes in work,family, and other areas of life are likely to happen only to a minority of working adults in that interval. There-fore, further investigation with longer time lags was needed to provide missing information about the long-term stability of WFC and FWC, and to facilitate the definition of an optimal time lag in future longitudinalstudies (cf. de Lange, Taris, Kompier, Houtman, & Bongers, 2003).

In the present study, the stability of WFC and FWC was studied across one- and six-year time lags (Study 1and Study 2, respectively). With these time lags it was possible to get more information about the stability ofwork–family conflict experiences and to assess the role of ‘‘interim effects (i.e., effects of unobserved eventsduring the time, such as job change)” (de Lange et al., 2003, p. 285) on the stability of WFC and FWC. Withinsix years, major changes in work and family characteristics that affect work–family conflict experiences (e.g.,work schedule, age and number of children; Byron, 2005) are more plausible than within one year. Therefore,it was hypothesized that despite the relatively stable nature of work–family conflict, the stability of WFC andFWC would be lower in the six-year time lag than in the one-year time lag (Hypothesis 1).

1.2. Cross-lagged relations between work–family conflict and psychological well-being

The relationship between work–family conflict and psychological well-being has been conceptualized inthree ways. First, Conflict ? Strain approach: work–family conflict is seen as an antecedent of high psycho-logical strain, and thought to cause a state where an individual’s mental resources are threatened and depleted,leading to a possible decrease in well-being (e.g., Eby, Casper, Lockwood, Bordeaux, & Brinley, 2005;Voydanoff, 2002). Second, Strain ? Conflict approach: high psychological strain is seen as an antecedentof work–family conflict, as a consequence of which individuals suffering from psychological strain might haveless mental resources to manage simultaneous work- and family-related duties and the incidence of work–fam-ily conflict increases (cf. Westman et al., 2004). Third, Reciprocity approach: work distress is both an anteced-ent of WFC and an outcome of FWC, and similarly, family distress is both an antecedent of FWC and anoutcome of WFC (Frone, Yardley, & Markel, 1997). Through these work- and family-related strain experi-ences, the two directions of work–family conflict are reciprocally related to each other.

The Conflict ? Strain approach has received wide support but mostly from cross-sectional studies whichdo not warrant true antecedent–outcome interpretations (Allen et al., 2000; Casper et al., 2007). Schnabel(1996) emphasizes that a prerequisite for antecedent–outcome interpretations is a longitudinal study with afull cross-lagged panel design where every concept to be studied is measured at each time point, and dataare analyzed in a way that considers the stability and cross-lagged relations between all variables simulta-neously. In the area of work–family conflict and psychological well-being, the few studies fulfilling theserequirements support the Reciprocity approach: WFC was both an antecedent of and an outcome of jobexhaustion over three months (Leiter & Durup, 1996) and over six- and twelve-week periods (Demerouti,Bakker, & Bulters, 2004). Leiter and Durup (1996) also found that conflicts with family members predicted

J. Rantanen et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 73 (2008) 37–51 39

WFC, which in turn predicted marital dissatisfaction and dysphoric mood. Over six months FWC was anantecedent of, and WFC an outcome of, psychological stress symptoms (Kelloway et al., 1999).

The cross-lagged relations between WFC/FWC and psychological well-being were examined in the presentstudy with a full two-wave panel design. Both in Study 1 (one-year time lag) and in Study 2 (six-year time lag)time-based work–family conflict was studied (excluding strain- and behavior-based conflict; e.g., Carlson,Kacmar, & Williams, 2000), because the psychological well-being variables were strain-based: job exhaustion,marital adjustment, parental stress, and psychological distress. In this way, an overlap in item contents wasavoided between work–family conflict and well-being variables, which could have caused overestimated asso-ciations (Hurrell, Nelson, & Simmons, 1998). Study 1 was an elaboration of the earlier study by Kinnunenet al. (2004). This study has now been completed, first, with a full cross-lagged panel design and using Struc-tural Equation Modeling (SEM) instead of regression analysis, and second, with both time-based WFC andFWC instead of only WFC including time- and strain-based items.

Studies of work–family conflict having longer than a one-year time lag are truly rare. In the present study,the one- and six-year time lags were expected to produce knowledge about the long-term relationship betweenWFC/FWC and psychological well-being. The hypotheses concerning WFC/FWC and psychological well-being were built on the integrative model of work–family interface (Frone, Yardley et al., 1997). Accordingto this model, role-related distresses, such as work and family distress, are associated with concurrentwork–family conflict, and reciprocally, work–family conflict is associated with these experiences. Frone andcolleagues (1997, p. 149) argue that work distress weakens both an individual’s capability and enthusiasmto meet the demands of family domain, because his or her resources are drained and used in the work domain,which leads to the experience of WFC. Family distress, in turn, hinders the management of work duties andobligations, because an individual’s resources are bounded to the family domain, which leads to the experienceof FWC. Moreover, the experience of WFC simultaneously generates family distress, and the experience ofFWC generates work distress. The argument for this is that, because WFC recurrently hinders the full partic-ipation in family life, and FWC hinders the full participation in working life, the quality of life in thesedomains is challenged, leading to feelings of family and work distress, respectively (Frone, Yardley et al.,1997, p. 152). Frone and colleagues (1997) tested the integrative model of work–family interface with across-sectional study design, which as a whole supported their model. They brought up, however, two majorlimitations and, consequently, two directions for future research: first, conducting longitudinal studies testingdifferent parts of the model, and second, integrating general health-related outcomes into their model (Frone,Yardley et al., 1997, pp. 164–165).

Based on the integrative model of work–family interface, it was hypothesized that high job exhaustion atTime 1 would precede high WFC at Time 2, and that low marital adjustment and high parental stress at Time1 would precede high FWC at Time 2 (Hypothesis 2). High WFC at Time1, in turn, was hypothesized to pre-cede low marital adjustment and high parental stress at Time 2, and high FWC at Time 1 was hypothesized toprecede high job exhaustion at Time 2 (Hypotheses 3). We additionally assumed that, on the one hand, con-text-free psychological distress is likely to hinder performance both in work and family roles, and on the otherhand, the difficulties of meeting the demands of work and family domains are likely to increase psychologicaldistress (cf. Frone, Yardley et al., 1997). Therefore, it was hypothesized that high psychological distress atTime 1 would precede high WFC and FWC at Time 2, and high WFC and FWC at Time 1 would precedehigh psychological distress at Time 2 (Hypothesis 4). These associations were expected to be more numerousover one year time lag than over six years. Frone, Russell, and Cooper (1997) found that across four years,only FWC had an effect on psychological well-being (predicting depression), and suggested that the detrimen-tal effect of WFC on health might occur on a shorter time lag.

1.3. Cross-lagged relations between work-related, family-related and general psychological well-being

The idea of work–family conflict as a mediator between antecedents and outcomes in work and familydomains (Frone, Russell, & Cooper, 1992; Frone, Yardley et al., 1997) has governed the work–family interfaceresearch since its early publications (Ford et al., 2007). The spillover perspective on work–family interface rep-resents a different view according to which work and family domains can affect each other also directly (Edwards& Rothbard, 2000; Lambert, 1990). Both Edwards and Rothbard (2000) and Lambert (1990), however,


emphasize that the different mechanisms and processes linking work and family life are likely to co-exist. Con-sequently, in the present study, the spillover perspective on work–family interface was considered as comple-menting rather than competing with the integrative model of work–family interface (Frone, Yardley et al., 1997).

Edwards and Rothbard (2000) present that spillover as a linking mechanism between work and familydomains exists when there is a positive link between a work construct and a distinct, but related constructin the family domain. They further specify that spillover is mainly unintentional process between work andfamily domains, where the effective performance within the receiving role is either enhanced or weakenedby the positive or negative mood and experiences within the originating role. The quality of performance(good vs. poor), in turn, affects the intrinsic and extrinsic rewards obtained within the receiving role and pro-duces similar emotional, affective, and cognitive states experienced within the originating role.

Longitudinal studies of work–family spillover that consider both spillover effects from work-to-family andfrom family-to-work are scarce (reviews by Casper et al., 2007; Eby et al. 2005). Heller and Watson (2005)showed using a diary study design that daytime job satisfaction was positively related to marital satisfactionin the evening and vice versa. Leiter and Durup (1996) found that conflicts with family members predictedemotional overload at work three months later. In addition, decrease in job and marital role quality was asso-ciated with increase in psychological distress over one-year time period (Barnett, Raudenbush, Brennan,Pleck, & Marshall, 1995). In the present study, the concept of spillover was applied to psychological well-beingin work, family and generally in life, which all have been shown to be moderately stable (r > .50) in studieswith at least a one-year time lag (e.g., Frone, Russell et al., 1997; Frone, Yardley et al., 1997; Kinnunenet al., 2004). Due to their stable nature, it was assumed that job exhaustion, marital adjustment, parentalstress, and psychological distress would produce long-term and cumulative effects on role performance acrosslife domains affecting the well-being and adjustment in each life domain.

The specific hypotheses concerning the cross-lagged spillover relations were as follows: High job exhaustionat Time 1 precedes low marital adjustment and high parental stress at Time 2, and low marital adjustment andhigh parental stress at Time 1 precede high job exhaustion at Time 2 (Hypothesis 5). High psychological dis-tress at Time 1 precedes high job exhaustion, low marital adjustment and high parental stress at Time 2, andhigh job exhaustion, low marital adjustment and high parental stress at Time 1 precede high psychologicaldistress at Time 2 (Hypothesis 6).

1.4. The role of gender in the stability and cross-lagged relations of work–family interface

Few longitudinal studies have addressed the role of gender in the rank-order stability of WFC and FWC orin the cross-lagged relations between work–family conflict and psychological well-being (Eby et al., 2005). Inthe studies available, methodological differences may explain conflicting results. Demerouti and colleagues(2004), who applied SEM with a full cross-lagged panel design, did not find gender differences in the relationsbetween work pressure, WFC, and job exhaustion. On the contrary, Kinnunen and colleagues (2004), madeseparate regression analyses for men and women and found gender differences: for women, WFC was an ante-cedent of job dissatisfaction, parental distress, and psychological stress symptoms, whereas for men, WFC wasan outcome of marital dissatisfaction, parental distress, and psychological as well as physical stress symptoms.

In the present study, the stability and cross-lagged relations of work–family interface were examined andcompared between men and women in order to find out whether or not these relations would be moderatedby gender. The social-role hypothesis emphasizing gender similarities in the work–family interface experiences(Voydanoff, 2002) was considered plausible in the cultural context of the present study. According to this per-spective, the key issue is a comparable role involvement, not gender: if both men and women invest the sameamount of time, attention, and energy on work and family roles, these involvements should have similar effectson the experiences of men and women (Voydanoff, 2002). As the participants were Finnish men and womenbeing both employed and having family, it is likely that they had comparable role involvements. Finland is oneof the Nordic welfare states where the roles of women and men are relatively equal in working life. For oneexample, women constitute almost as a large proportion of the workforce as men, and in most cases being infull-time employment (Statistical Office of the European Communities, 2006). Therefore, gender differences inthe stability and cross-lagged relations between work–family conflict and psychological well-being were notexpected (Hypothesis 7).


2. Methods

2.1. Participants

2.1.1. Study 1

The data were derived from the research project titled ‘‘Economic Crisis, Job Insecurity and the House-hold” carried out during the years 1999 and 2000. The original sample (n = 1878) was drawn randomly fromthe database of the Population Register Centre of Finland and it was limited to 25- to 59-year-old citizens. Themailed questionnaire was returned by 851 and 655 persons in 1999 and 2000, respectively. It has been foundthat the respondents represent well the Finnish adult population regarding gender, age, marital status, andgeographical location (Kinnunen et al., 2000). In the present study, respondents who were employed and ahad family (spouse/partner and/or child(ren) living at home) both in 1999 (Time 1) and 2000 (Time 2) wereincluded. Altogether 365 participants (189 men, 176 women) met these criteria.

The demographic characteristics of the participants did not change significantly between Time 1 and 2; 73%had the same work situation (same employer, occupational status, and full-time vs. part-time weekly workinghours) and 84% had the same family situation (same spouse and number of children). Thus, only Time 1demographics are described. At Time 1, the mean age of the participants was 43 years for both men andwomen (range 25–59 years, SD 9 years). More men than women were blue-collar (39% vs. 25%) and upperwhite-collar (38% vs. 27%) workers, whereas more women than men were lower white-collar workers (48%vs. 23%) (p < .001). The majority of men (95%) and women (88%) worked full-time (>34 h per week), andthe average number of weekly working hours was 44 for men and 39 for women (p < .001). Of the men,98%, and of the women, 90% were married or cohabiting, and of these participants’ spouses 80% were work-ing. Over half of the men (61%) and women (62%) had children living at home. Among those with children,the number of children was typically one or two and the median age of the youngest child was nine years.

2.1.2. Study 2

The data were gathered in 1995 and 2001, as a part of the Jyvaskyla Longitudinal Study of Personalityand Social Development, that has been conducted in Finland since 1968 (Pulkkinen, 2006). The originalsample consisted of all 369 pupils (196 boys and 173 girls born mostly in 1959) in 12 urban and suburban,randomly selected second-grade school classes. The sample in adulthood (at ages 36 and 42) has proven tobe representative of the age cohort born in 1959 according to gender, marital status, number of children,and employment status (Pulkkinen, 2006). Those participants who had participated both at age 36 in1995 and at age 42 in 2001, and who were employed and had a family (spouse/partner and/or child(ren)living at home) were included in the present study. These criteria yielded 153 participants (78 men, 75women).

Of these 153 participants, 38% had the same work situation (same employer, occupational status, and full-time vs. part-time weekly working hours) and 56% had the same family situation (same spouse and number ofchildren) at the age of 42 than at the age of 36. At age 36 (Time 1), the participants divided into occupationalgroups as follows: 43% (men)/3% (women) were blue-collar workers, 41%/72% lower white-collar workers,and 16%/25% upper white-collar workers. At age 42 (Time 2), the respective percentages were: 47% (men)/8% (women) blue-collar workers, 17%/60% lower white-collar workers, and 36%/32% upper white-collarworkers. Men in this sample were more often than women blue-collar workers, whereas women were moreoften than men lower white-collar workers at both Times 1 (p < .001) and 2 (p < .001). Similarly, the averageweekly working hours was higher for men than for women, the respective means being 46 and 40 h both atTime 1 (p < .001) and at Time 2 (p < .01). Of the men, 96% (Time 1) and 95% (Time 2) worked full-time(>34 h per week); the respective percentages for women were 81% and 85%.

The majority of the participants (100% of the men and 81% of the women) were either married or cohab-iting at Time 1, and of these participants’ spouses 81% were working. At Time 2, 92% of the men and 82% ofthe women had a spouse, and of these, 89% were working. The majority of the participants had children livingat home (90% of the men and 88% of women at Time 1; 92% of men and 91% of women at Time 2), thecommon number of children being two at both times. The median age of the youngest child was four yearsat Time 1 and ten years at Time 2.


2.2. Measures

The measures for job exhaustion, parental stress, and psychological distress were the same in both studies.The measures for work–family conflict and marital adjustment differed between the studies; but the content ofthese measures corresponded highly between the studies. The measures were carefully translated from originalsources into Finnish, the native language of the participants.

2.2.1. Work–family conflict

In Study 1, WFC was measured with two items from the scale by Stephens and Sommer (1996) (e.g., ‘‘Mywork keeps me from my family more than I would like”). FWC was measured with two items from the scaledeveloped by Netemeyer, Boles, and McMurrian (1996) (e.g., ‘‘I have to put off doing things at work becauseof the demands on my time at home”). The response scale ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (stronglyagree). The Cronbach’s alphas for WFC at Time 1 were .87 (men) and .76 (women), and for FWC .77/.67(respectively). At Time 2, they were .83/.84 for WFC, and .68/.64 for FWC.

In Study 2, work–family conflict was measured with a four-item scale developed by Frone et al. (1992). Thescale consists of two items measuring WFC and two items measuring FWC. The response scale ranged from 1(never) to 5 (always). The Cronbach’s alphas at Time 1 for WFC were .79 (men) and .87 (women), and forFWC .77/.80 (respectively). At Time 2 they were .78/.58 for WFC, and .68/.74 for FWC.

2.2.2. Job exhaustionPsychological strain at work was measured with a four-item job exhaustion scale developed by Maslach and

Jackson (1986). In Study 1, the response scale ranged from 1 (never) to 5 (always) and the Cronbach’s alphasfor this measure (men and women, respectively) were .86/.91 (Time 1) and .87/.89 (Time 2). In Study 2, theresponse scale ranged from 1 (never) to 6 (always) and the Cronbach’s alphas were .88/.89 (Time 1) and.90/.89 (Time 2).

2.2.3. Marital adjustment

In Study 1, the functionality and the quality of partner relationship were assessed with nine items from thedyadic adjustment scale (Busby, Crane, Larson, & Christensen, 1995; Spanier, 1976) (e.g., ‘‘How often haveyou regretted your marriage or cohabitation?” (reversed)). The response scale ranged from 1 (never) to 5(always) and the Cronbach’s alphas for this measure were .85/.85 (Time 1) and .85/.84 (Time 2).

In Study 2, marital adjustment at Time 1 was assessed with 15 questions (e.g., ‘‘How much conflict, tension,and discord is there in your relationship at the moment?”). On the basis of these questions, five value catego-ries describing marital quality were formed with (1) denoting a poor and (5) a very good relationship (seeKinnunen & Pulkkinen, 2003). At Time 2, marital adjustment was assessed with the same nine items (fromBusby et al., 1995; Spanier, 1976) as in Study 1. For most of the items the response scale ranged from 1 (never)to 6 (always). Because there were two items with a response scale from 1 (never) to 5 (every day), all of theitems were first standardized before forming the composite variable. The Cronbach’s alphas for this measureat Time 2 were .81/.83.

2.2.4. Parental stress

The difficulties and sense of inadequacy experienced as a parent were assessed with three items from themeasure by Abidin (1990) (e.g., ‘‘When I think about the kind of parent I am, I often feel guilty or bad aboutmyself”). In Study 1, the response scale ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) and the Cron-bach’s alphas for this measure were .79/.78 (Time 1) and .80/.84 (Time 2). In Study 2, the response scale ran-ged from 1 (I do not agree at all) to 4 (I agree totally) and the Cronbach’s alphas were .77/.75 (Time 1), and.74/.72 (Time 2).

2.2.5. Psychological distress

Psychological strain experienced in everyday life was measured with the 12-item General Health Question-naire (GHQ: Goldberg, 1972). The response scale ranged from 1 to 4. The Cronbach’s alphas in Study 1 were.87/.90 (Time 1) and .89/.91 (Time 2), and in Study 2 they were .83/.89 (Time 1), and .88/91 (Time 2).


2.3. Data analysis

The method of analyses was SEM using multigroup procedure and the analyses proceeded in three stages.In the first stage, the stability of WFC and FWC was compared between Study 1 and Study 2 (Hypothesis 1).Therefore, the data from Studies 1 and 2 concerning these two constructs were combined into a commoncovariance matrix. First, the equality of the stability coefficients of WFC and FWC between genders withinStudies 1 and 2 was tested. After that, the equality of the stability coefficients of WFC and FWC betweenStudies 1 and 2 was examined.

In the second stage, the hypothesized cross-lagged relations of work–family interface were investigatedwithin Study 1 (Hypotheses 2–6). First, the stability coefficients and cross-lagged relations between study vari-ables were freely estimated for men and women. Then non-significant cross-lagged relations (t-value <1.96)were removed and the gender-equality of the remaining significant cross-lagged relations were tested (Hypoth-esis 7). In Study 1, the observed items were used as latent factor indicators for WFC, FWC, job exhaustion,and parental stress. However, the use of nine and twelve observed items as latent factor indicators for maritaladjustment and psychological distress, respectively, would have resulted in an unacceptably high ratio of esti-mated parameters, which was not feasible. Therefore, a parceling procedure for the latent factor indicators ofmarital adjustment and psychological distress was chosen (Little, Cunningham, Sharar, & Widaman, 2002).The latent factors of marital adjustment and psychological distress were based on three parceled scales.

In the third stage, the hypothesized cross-lagged relations of work–family interface were investigated inStudy 2 (Hypotheses 2–6). Path analysis with observed variables was used instead of latent factors, as the sam-ple size did not allow full SEM analyses with a measurement model component. The stability coefficients andcross-lagged relations were estimated first for the whole sample (men and women combined), after which thegender-equality of the final model with only significant cross-lagged relations (t-value <1.96) was tested(Hypothesis 7).

The SEM and path analyses were conducted by using Mplus statistical package (Version 4.0: Muthen &Muthen, 1998–2006) in which the robust full information maximum likelihood (MLR) estimation methodwas used. The goodness-of-fit of the SEM models was evaluated using a chi-square value, with a non-signif-icant p-value indicating a good fit (Kelloway, 1998), a root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA)with values 0.05 or less indicating a good fit, values 0.06–0.08 a reasonable fit (Steiger, 1990), and acomparative fit index (CFI) and Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI) with values 0.90 or above indicating a good fit(Hu & Bentler, 1999). When comparing models with alternative equality constraints, the significance of changein the chi-square index of fit was evaluated by using a scaled chi-square difference test (Satorra & Bentler,1999). The constraints are supported if the chi-square difference test produces a non-significant loss of fitfor the constrained model, when compared to the unconstrained model.

3. Results

3.1. Descriptive analyses

The correlations were mostly similar in direction and magnitude between genders both in Study 1 and 2(Table 1). The test–retest correlations for WFC and FWC were significant (p < .001). Significant (p < .001)cross-lagged correlations between work–family conflict and psychological well-being indicators were foundonly in Study 1, whereas significant (p < .001) cross-lagged spillover relations from work to general psycho-logical well-being were found both in Study 1 and 2.

3.2. Rank-order stability of WFC and FWC: Study 1 and Study 2 compared

A base model (Model A), consisting of a correlated two-factor measurement model at Time 1 and Time 2and stability coefficients between the latent factors for WFC and FWC, was first freely estimated both acrossgender and study samples: men in Study 1, women in Study 1, men in Study 2, and women in Study 2. The fitof Model A was reasonable: v2 (88) = 130.95, p < 0.01, RMSEA = 0.06, CFI = 0.96, TLI = 0.95. To seewhether or not the rank-order stability of WFC and FWC differed first, between genders, and second, between

Table 1Means (M), standard deviations (SD), and pearson intercorrelations between study variables

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Time 1 Study 1M (SD)

Study 2M (SD)

1. WFC, work-to- family conflict 2.57 (1.23) 2.55 (1.04) — .17* .25** �.14 �.07 .35**m .54*** .10 .18* �.05 �.01 .04

�.08f

2. FWC, family-to-work conflict 1.43 (0.64) 1.81 (0.74) .32*** — .07 �.11 .11 .10 .09 .39*** .01 �.01 �.11 .023. Job exhaustiona 2.19 (0.85) 2.51 (0.92) .34*** .18** — �.10 .30** .34*** .18* .12 .67*** �.13 .28*** .39***

4. Marital adjustmenta 3.96 (0.52) 3.94 (0.95) �.09 �.18** �.07m — �.25** �.12 �.08 �.07 �.09 .34*** �.21* �.08�.30***

f

5. Parental stressa 2.30 (0.85) 1.57 (0.56) .11 .21*** .27*** �.26*** — .11 .03 .20* .23*** �.24** .57*** .20*

6. Psychological distress 1.95 (0.43) 1.89 (0.41) .19*** .22*** .52*** �.14m .18** — .23** .16 .30*** �.06 .03 .23**

�.48***f

Time 27. WFC, work-to- family conflict 2.57 (1.22) 2.57 (0.91) .59*** .26*** .28*** �.10 .13* .13* — .32*** .18m �.13 .01 .14

.47***f

8. FWC, family-to-work conflict 1.41 (0.63) 1.78 (0.69) .28*** .48*** .14** �.06 .25*** .15** .38*** — .16* �.25**m .17* .19*

.08f

9. Job exhaustiona 2.15 (0.84) 2.44 (0.91) .19*** .13* .65*** �.22*** .26*** .36*** .31*** .22*** — �.17* .32*** .64***m

.40***f

10. Marital adjustmenta 3.93 (0.51) 0.04b (0.61) �.09 �.12* .01m .80*** �.17** �.22*** �.09 �.05 �.16** — �.30*** �.19**

�.17f

11. Parental stressa 2.29 (0.91) 1.48 (0.53) .12 .23*** .26** �.22*** .65*** .26*** .21*** .31*** .30*** �.20** — .28**

12. Psychological distress 1.93 (0.42) 1.94 (0.47) .14** .19*** .41*** �.30*** .20*** .55*** .20*** .23*** .54*** �.25*** .21**m —

.46***f

Note. Correlations for Study 1 (n = 293–365) are below and for Study 2 (n = 129–153) above the diagonal. If two correlations are given there was significant (p < .05) gender differencein the correlations between m men and f women.

* p < .05.** p < .01.

*** p < .001.a The response scale is not comparable between Study 1 and 2.b Calculated from standardized scores due to differences in the response scales of the items.

44J

.R

an

tan

enet

al./J

ou

rna

lo

fV

oca

tion

al

Beh

avio

r7

3(

20

08

)3

7–

51

Fig. 1. Stability of work-to-family and family-to-work conflict within one- and six-year time lags. In the factor loadings, the first countrefers to men and the second to women. *Item autocovariance between Time 1 and Time 2 has been released.


one- and six-year time lags (Hypothesis 1), Model A was compared with two alternative models. In Model B,the stability coefficients for WFC and FWC were constraint equal between genders within each study sample.In Model C, these equality constraints were extended over both study samples as well.1 Both Models B and Chad reasonable fit with the data: v2 (102) = 148.36, p < 0.01, RMSEA = 0.06, CFI = 0.96, TLI = 0.96, and v2

(109) = 187.28, p < 0.001, RMSEA = 0.06, CFI = 0.93, TLI = 0.93, respectively.Model B was supported over Model A: the chi-square difference test was non-significant (v2

difference

(14) = 17.97, p = n.s.). Thus, in comparison to freely estimated Model A, the equality constraints in stabilitycoefficients included in Model B did not produce a significant loss of model fit, which means that the rank-order stabilities of WFC and FWC did not differ statistically significantly between genders within Study 1and Study 2. Instead, there was significant difference in the rank-order stabilities of WFC and FWC betweenone- and six-year time interval (comparison between Models C and A: v2

difference (21) = 52.56, p < 0.001). Asonly Model B was supported over Model A, it provided better fit with the data than Model C, and the resultsof Model B are illustrated in Fig. 1. Overall, the stability for WFC was higher than the stability for FWC inboth studies. When the two studies were compared, the stability of WFC was statistically significantly higherand the stability of FWC was lower in Study 2 than in Study 1.

3.3. Cross-lagged relations of work–family interface across one year

In Study 1, a correlated six-factor measurement model at Time 1 and Time 2 with stability coefficientsbetween the latent factors for WFC, FWC, job exhaustion, marital adjustment, parental stress, and psycho-

1 A prerequisite for valid group comparisons in SEM and regression coefficients is the measurement invariance of the scales between thegroups (Little, 1997; Ryan, Chan, Ployhart, & Slade, 1999). In the present study, the measurement invariance tests were executed beforethe examination of gender- and sample-equality in the stability coefficients of WFC and FWC. The results showed that the measurementstructure of these scales was statistically highly similar both across time and between genders and samples. Thus, time, gender and sampleinvariance constraints in factor loadings and factor correlations were included in the Models A, B, and C. The detailed evidence wasprovided during the review process, but was omitted from the final manuscript, as the structural invariance of the measurement scales wasnot the main focus of the present study. If interested, more information can be obtained from the corresponding author.

Fig. 2. Stability and cross-lagged relations between work–family conflict and four indicators of psychological well-being in men andwomen in Study 1. The model includes the synchronous correlations between latent factors at Time 1 and residual covariances betweenlatent factors at Time 2, although these are not shown here for the sake of clarity of presentation. In the factor loadings, the first countrefers to men and the second to women. *Item/parcel autocovariance between Time 1 and Time 2 has been released.


logical distress and cross-lagged relations (Hypotheses 2–6) were freely estimated for both genders (Model D).The fit of Model D with the data was satisfactory (v2 (989) = 1299.40, p < 0.001, RMSEA = 0.04, CFI = 0.96,TLI = 0.95), but it contained only three significant cross-lagged relations: high job exhaustion at Time 1 pre-ceded high psychological distress at Time 2, low marital adjustment at Time 1 preceded high psychologicaldistress at Time 2, and high psychological distress at Time 1 preceded high parental stress at Time 2. Thenon-significant cross-lagged relations were removed and the resulting model was first freely estimated for bothgenders (Model E). Then, the significant cross-lagged relations and stability coefficients were constrained equalbetween men and women (Model F, Hypothesis 7) and compared to freely estimated Model E in order toexamine the invariance across genders.2

Although both Models E and F provided satisfactory fit with the data (v2 (1023) = 1349.11, p < 0.001,RMSEA = 0.04, CFI = 0.96, TLI = 0.95, and v2 (1058) = 1397.76, p < 0.001, RMSEA = 0.04, CFI = 0.96,TLI = 0.95, respectively), the v2 difference test supported the gender-equal Model F over the freely estimatedModel E (v2

difference (35) = 48.02, p = n.s.). Thus, the stabilities and cross-lagged relations were the samebetween men and women. These final results of Model F are illustrated in Fig. 2. Despite highly significantcross-lagged correlations (Table 1), work–family conflict and psychological well-being constructs were notlongitudinally related to each other when the stability and concurrent correlations between each construct

2 The measurement model component in Models D, E, and F was found to be time- and gender-invariant before gender-equalitycomparisons in cross-lagged relations and stability coefficients were performed. Hence, time and gender invariance constraints in factorloadings and factor correlations were included in Models D, E, and F. If interested in these measurement invariance analyses, moreinformation can be obtained from the corresponding author.


were taken into account. Instead, job exhaustion and marital adjustment had longitudinal effects on psycho-logical distress, and psychological distress had a longitudinal effect on parental stress.

3.4. Cross-lagged relations of work–family interface across six years

In Study 2, the stabilities and cross-lagged relations between WFC, FWC, job exhaustion, marital adjust-ment, parental stress and psychological distress (Hypotheses 2–6) were investigated through path analysis. Theconstructed Model G, estimated first for the whole sample, consisted of stability coefficients and cross-laggedpaths with synchronous correlations (at Time 1) and residual covariances (at Time 2). Model G provided goodfit with the data: v2 (10) = 13.03, p = n.s., RMSEA = 0.04, CFI = 0.99, TLI = 0.95. However, it containedonly one significant cross-lagged relation: high job exhaustion at Time 1 preceded high psychological distressat Time 2. Therefore, all the non-significant cross-lagged relations were removed (Model H). Model H pro-vided outstanding fit with the data: v2 (29) = 28.64, p = n.s., RMSEA = 0.00, CFI = 1.00, TLI = 1.00.

To examine the gender-equality of Model H, it was freely estimated for both genders (Model I) and com-pared to Model J, in which the stability coefficients and the detected cross-lagged relation were set equalbetween genders (Hypothesis 7). Both Model I and J provided very good fit with the data (v2 (58) = 47.50,p = n.s., RMSEA = 0.00, CFI = 1.00, TLI = 1.06, and v2 (95) = 97.91, p = n.s., RMSEA = 0.00,CFI = 0.99, TLI = 0.99, respectively) but the v2 difference test supported gender-equal Model J over ModelI (v2

difference (37) = 49.69, p = n.s.). In conclusion, in Model J the stability coefficients were .53 for WFC,.41 for FWC, .65 for job exhaustion, .32 for marital adjustment, and .56 for parental stress for both genders.The stability coefficient for psychological distress (.09) turned out to be non-significant after the cross-laggedrelation from job exhaustion at Time 1 to psychological distress at Time 2 was included in the model. The pathcoefficient for the latter relation was .32.

4. Discussion

The results of the present study showed, first, that the experiences of work-to-family conflict (WFC) andfamily-to-work conflict (FWC) where rather stable even across six years. Second, work–family conflict andpsychological strain in job, family, or everyday life in general did not seem to have antecedent–outcome rela-tions that would extend over years. Instead, the adverse effect of job exhaustion on general psychological well-being appeared to be far-reaching.

Both WFC and FWC showed rank-order stability over one and six years (coefficients ranged between .48and .73). One explanation for the stability of experiences can be found in the way in which work–family con-flict was operationalized. The participants were asked to evaluate WFC and FWC on a general level withoutattaching it to any specific time period or episode at work or within family. Therefore, the participants mayhave reported their ‘average opinion’ that has been formed over a longer period of time instead of reportingtheir immediate experience at each measurement time. Thus, more specific measures would be needed for bet-ter tapping the often assumed fluctuating nature of work–family interface (cf. Ford et al., 2007). Anotherexplanation for the stability of the experience of the work–family conflict may lie in the role of personalitytraits as they have been shown to be related to the experiences of WFC and FWC (e.g., Rantanen, Pulkkinen,& Kinnunen, 2005; Wayne, Musisca, & Fleeson, 2004). Personality traits show considerable stability in adult-hood (Rantanen, Metsapelto, Feldt, Pulkkinen, & Kokko, 2007; Roberts & DelVecchio, 2000), and therefore,each participant’s personality induced adaptation to changing work and family environments might have gen-erated the stable nature of WFC and FWC experiences.

The stability was higher for WFC than for FWC. The results suggest that the WFC is less context-boundthan FWC indicating that the interim effects (that is, the effects of unobserved events during measurementinterval; de Lange et al., 2003) are stronger for FWC than for WFC. This finding might be related, however,also to the fact that FWC was reported less than WFC. Therefore even a mild change in some individuals’FWC experiences (e.g., from ‘never’ to ‘from time to time’) may exert a large effect on the rank-order stabilityin a group level. The present study cannot rule out this possibility.

The stability of FWC was lower across six years than across one year as expected (Hypothesis 1). Anexplanation for this difference may be in stronger interim effects over six years compared to one year time


lag. It was obtained that during six years the participants’ family structure changed more than during oneyear (i.e., in Study 2 children got older, new were born and there where also more changes in marital rela-tions than in Study 1). The stability of WFC was significantly higher across six years than across one year,which was against expectations (Hypothesis 1). However, as the difference in stability coefficients (.69 inStudy 1 vs. .73 in Study 2) was relatively small, this result is to be considered with caution and needinga replication.

The findings both from one-year and six-year follow-ups showed that neither WFC nor FWC had long-term reciprocal associations with job exhaustion, low marital adjustment, parental stress, or psychological dis-tress. Hence, the Hypotheses 2, 3 and 4 predicting these associations were not supported, most likely becauseof the long time lag between the measurements. Hypotheses 2, 3 and 4 were based on the integrative model ofwork–family interface which was originally successfully tested with a cross-sectional design (Frone, Yardleyet al., 1997), and which has received support from short-term studies with a time-lag of less than a year(Demerouti et al., 2004; Kelloway et al., 1999; Leiter & Durup, 1996).

Another reason for the lag of hypothesized associations may be the fact that we used a time-based work–family conflict measure. Kelloway and colleagues (1999), who investigated both strain- and time-based work–family conflicts separately, found significant cross-lagged relations only between strain-based WFC/FWC andstress. On the other hand, the longitudinal study across four years by Frone, Russell and colleagues (1997)with the same work–family conflict measure used (as in the present study), showed that at least FWC was neg-atively related to psychological well-being (predicting depression). One further reason for the present zerofindings might be the fact that, in the SEM analysis we examined simultaneously both conflict (Frone, Yardleyet al., 1997) and spillover (Edwards & Rothbard, 2000) perspectives on work–family interface and psycholog-ical well-being, of which only spillover perspective was supported. The simultaneous analysis of work–familyconflict and work–family spillover effects on psychological well-being was not included in the study of Frone,Russell and his colleagues (1997).

In the present study, the following cross-lagged spillover relations between domain specific (job exhaustion,marital adjustment, parental stress) and general well-being (psychological distress) were found. First, jobexhaustion preceded psychological distress both across one- and six-year periods. Second, low marital adjust-ment preceded psychological distress, and third, psychological distress preceded parental stress across oneyear. These findings supported partially Hypothesis 6, concerning spillover between domain specific and gen-eral well-being, but not Hypothesis 5, concerning spillover between work- and family-related well-being. Thechain of cross-lagged relations across a one-year time lag in Study 1 suggests that well-being and adjustment atwork and in marital relationship have a central role in maintaining psychological functioning in everyday life(cf. Barnett et al., 1995) which, in turn, is a base for sense of adequacy and ability to function as a parent. Theresults from Study 1 also support the idea that general psychological well-being and mood may act as a trans-mitter of psychological strain across work and family domains (cf. Edwards & Rothbard, 2000; Heller &Watson, 2005; Leiter & Durup, 1996).

As all the findings in the present study were gender-equal, they lent strong support for Hypothesis 7 pre-dicting that there are no gender differences either in the stability or in the cross-lagged relations of work–fam-ily interface. Hence, the social-role hypothesis, which emphasizes gender similarities in the work–familyinterface experiences (Voydanoff, 2002), was also supported. This finding may reflect the cultural context inwhich the study was conducted. Finland belongs to the Nordic welfare states, where the state has an activerole in reconciling the demands of work and family lives. For one example, in Finland both fathers and moth-ers benefit from a well-functioning communal day-care system with highly qualified childcare staff for childrenunder school age, and the legal right to reduce their working hours when children are young. These social pol-icy arrangements may diminish the gender differences in the work–family interface among Finnish parents.The present findings are, however, also in line with a meta-analysis showing considerable symmetry betweengenders in the cross-domain work–family relations (Ford et al., 2007).

The present results are most generalizable into countries where socio-cultural gender expectations and prac-tices are characterized as egalitarian rather than traditional, as in Nordic countries. At the same time, the pres-ent study offers insights for cross-cultural comparisons between working adults’ experiences in differentcountries because the participants represented a wide array of occupations and socioeconomic backgrounds.Casper and colleagues (2007) have emphasized that workers in occupations other than managerial or


professional positions and from outside the United States are clearly underrepresented in the work–familyresearch literature.

A limitation of the present study was that the abridged scales of WFC, FWC, marital adjustment andparental stress were used. The data both in Study 1 and 2 were derived from larger research projects includingwork–family issues as one theme among many others. To avoid exhausting the participants, density and con-ciseness in the scales were aimed at. The coefficient alphas for the work–family conflict scales were not as highas in the other scales because both WFC and FWC consisted of only two items. However, if a scale with a fewitems produces a very high reliability coefficient it is likely to be an indication of tautology in items (Brewerton& Millward, 2001, p. 89). The SEM analyses showed that the construct validity of the work–family scales wasgood: the items used measured the underlying phenomenon equally well both across time, genders, and studysamples (cf. Footnote 1 and Fig. 1) confirming the justified use of these scales.

The other restrictions of the present study were the facts that, it was limited to time-based work–familyconflict (excluding strain- and behavior-based WFC/FWC; see Carlson et al., 2000), the positive side of thework–family interface was not included (e.g. Greenhaus & Parasuraman, 1999), and work–family conflictand well-being were studied from the perspective of the working adults based on self-reports (excludingspouses and children in the family, and supervisors and co-workers in the workplace as informants; cf.Hammer, Cullen, Neal, Sinclair, & Shafiro, 2005).

There are at least three possibilities maintaining the stability of work–family conflict experiences obtainedin the present study which should be considered for the implications of the study. First, the situational workand family characteristics may remain stable; second, the way work–family conflict is operationalized mayproduce stability, and third, the stability of personality in adulthood may create stability into work–familyconflict experiences. Equally important is to examine whether the moderate rank-order stability of WFCand FWC are homogeneous phenomena among adults, or is there an unobserved heterogeneity in a given pop-ulation. If this is the case, for some adults the experiences of WFC/FWC may change dramatically, whereasfor others changes may be very mild or non-existent. Consequently, the future research focusing on stabilityand change in work–family conflict would benefit from techniques identifying latent classes with differenttypes of work–family conflict trajectories over time (e.g., Factor Mixture Modeling; Lubke & Muthen,2005). The closer analyses of these latent classes and factors predicting a class membership would be helpfulin planning well allocated, efficient work–family benefits for working adults.

The present results indicated that time-based work–family conflict was neither an antecedent nor a conse-quence of psychological well-being but job exhaustion did exert a negative spillover effect on general psycho-logical well-being both in men and women, and across one- and six-year follow-ups. These results do notdispute the importance of cross-sectional and short-term longitudinal findings showing that work–family con-flict and psychological strain are intertwined (e.g., Allen et al., 2000; Demerouti et al., 2004; Kelloway et al.,1999; Leiter & Durup, 1996). When the present findings are combined to these earlier findings they indicatethat if organizations want to take care of their employees, they should pay special attention to the experienceof mental strain among their employees. Offering flextime or reduced working hours to meet the responsibil-ities of work and family life is benefiting but it may not be enough, because the more primary correlate of lowpsychological well-being may be strain-based than time-based work–family conflict (cf. Kelloway et al., 1999).This is not to say that time-based work–family conflict does not matter at all, but that its role in the long runmaybe additive in relation to other established antecedents of psychological well-being. Therefore, organiza-tions should ensure that they are focusing on all relevant issues in their human resource policies. Of these pol-icies, the prevention and reduction of job exhaustion in today’s competitive working life is one of the mostchallenging and, in the light of the present study, the most important tasks.

Acknowledgments

This paper was prepared as a part of the project ‘‘Human Development and Its Risk Factors”, financed bythe Academy of Finland (Finnish Center of Excellence Program No. 44858 for 2000–2005). The researchproject ‘‘Economic Crisis, Job Insecurity and the Household” was financially supported by the Academy ofFinland (Grant No. 43553).


References

Abidin, R. R. (1990). Parenting stress index manual. University of Virginia: Pediatric Psychology Press.Allen, T. D., Herst, D. E. L., Bruck, C. S., & Sutton, M. (2000). Consequences associated with work-to-family conflict: A review and

agenda for future research. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 278–308.Barnett, R. C., Raudenbush, S. W., Brennan, R. T., Pleck, J. H., & Marshall, N. L. (1995). Change in job and marital experiences and

change in psychological distress: A longitudinal study of dual-earner couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69,839–850.

Brewerton, P., & Millward, L. (2001). Organizational research methods: A guide for students and researchers. London: SAGE Publications.Busby, D. M., Crane, D. R., Larson, J. H., & Christensen, C. (1995). A revision of the dyadic adjustment scale for use with distressed and

nondistressed couples: Construct hierarchy and multidimensional scales. Journal of Marital & Family Therapy, 21, 289–308.Byron, K. (2005). A meta-analytic review of work–family conflict and its antecedents. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67, 169–198.Carlson, D. S., Kacmar, K. M., & Williams, L. J. (2000). Construction and initial validation of a multidimensional measure of work–

family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 56, 249–276.Casper, W. J., Eby, L. T., Bordeaux, C., Lockwood, A., & Lambert, D. (2007). A review of research methods in IO/OB work–family

research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 28–43.de Lange, A. H., Taris, T. W., Kompier, M. A. J., Houtman, I. L. D., & Bongers, P. M. (2003). ‘The very best of the millennium’:

Longitudinal research and the demand-control-(support) model. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 8, 282–305.Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., & Bulters, A. J. (2004). The loss spiral of work pressure, work-home interference and exhaustion:

Reciprocal relations in a three-wave study. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64, 131–149.Eby, L. T., Casper, W. J., Lockwood, A., Bordeaux, C., & Brinley, A. (2005). Work and family research in IO/OB: Content analysis and

review of the literature (1980–2002). Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 124–197.Edwards, J. R., & Rothbard, N. P. (2000). Mechanisms linking work and family: Clarifying the relationship between work and family

constructs. Academy of Management Review, 25, 178–199.Ford, M. T., Heinen, B. A., & Langkamer, K. L. (2007). Work and family satisfaction and conflict: A meta-analysis of cross-domain

relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 57–80.Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M. L. (1992). Antecedents and outcomes of work–family conflict: Testing a model of the work–

family interface. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 65–78.Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M. L. (1997). Relation of work–family conflict to health outcomes: A four-year longitudinal study

of employed parents. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 70, 325–335.Frone, M. R., Yardley, J. K., & Markel, K. S. (1997). Developing and testing an integrative model of the work–family interface. Journal of

Vocational Behavior, 50, 145–167.Geurts, S. A. E., & Demerouti, E. (2003). Work/non-work interface: A review of theories and findings. In M. J. Schabracq, J. A. M.

Winnubst, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), The handbook of work and health psychology (pp. 279–312). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.Goldberg, D. P. (1972). The detection of psychiatric illness by questionnaire: A technique for the identification and assessment of non-

psychotic psychiatric illness. Oxford, England: Oxford U. Press.Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources and conflict between work and family roles. Academy of Management Review, 10, 76–88.Greenhaus, J. H., & Parasuraman, S. (1999). Research on work, family, and gender. In G. N. Powell (Ed.), Handbook of gender and work

(pp. 391–412). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Hammer, L. B., Cullen, J. C., Neal, M. B., Sinclair, R. R., & Shafiro, M. V. (2005). The longitudinal effects of work–family conflict and

positive spillover on depressive symptoms among dual-earner couples. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10, 138–154.Heller, D., & Watson, D. (2005). The dynamic spillover of satisfaction between work and marriage: The role of time and mood. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 90, 1273–1279.Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutt-off criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new

alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.Hurrell, J. J. J., Nelson, D. L., & Simmons, B. L. (1998). Measuring job stressors and strains: Where we have been, where we are, and

where we need to go. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 3, 368–389.Kelloway, E. K. (1998). Using LISREL for structural equation modeling: A researcher’s guide. Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications,

Inc.Kelloway, E. K., Gottlieb, B. H., & Barham, L. (1999). The source, nature, and direction of work and family conflict: A longitudinal

investigation. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 4, 337–346.Kinnunen, U., Natti, J., Happonen, M., Kalliolahti, M., Kelhala, A., & Mauno, S. (2000). Kokemuksia tyosta ja perheesta laman

jalkeisessa Suomessa. [Experiences of work and family life in Finland after the economic recession of the early 1990 s.]. University ofJyvaskyla. Reports from the Family research Unit, 12.

Kinnunen, U., Geurts, S., & Mauno, S. (2004). Work-to-family conflict and its relationship with satisfaction and well-being: A one-yearlongitudinal study on gender differences. Work & Stress, 18, 1–22.

Kinnunen, U., & Pulkkinen, L. (2003). Childhood socio-emotional characteristics as antecedents of marital stability and quality. European

Psychologist, 8, 223–237.Lambert, S. J. (1990). Processes linking work and family: A critical review and research agenda. Human Relations, 43, 239–257.Leiter, M. P., & Durup, M. J. (1996). Work, home, and in-between: A longitudinal study of spillover. Journal of Applied Behavioral

Science, 32, 29–47.


Little, T. D. (1997). Mean and covariance structures (MACS) analyses of cross-cultural data: Practical and theoretical issues. Multivariate

Behavioral Research, 32, 53–76.Lubke, G. H., & Muthen, B. (2005). Investigating population heterogeneity with factor mixture models. Psychological Methods, 10, 21–39.Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. (1986). MBI: Maslach Burnout Inventory (2nd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., & Viswesvaran, C. (2005). Convergence between measures of work-to-family and family-to-work conflict: A meta-

analytic examination. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67, 215–232.Muthen, L. K., & Muthen, B. O. (1998–2006). Mplus user’s guide (4th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthen n.Netemeyer, R. G., Boles, J. S., & McMurrian, R. (1996). Development and validation of work–family conflict and family-work conflict

scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 400–410.Pulkkinen, L. (2006). The Jyvaskyla Longitudinal Study of Personality and Social Development (JYLS). In L. Pulkkinen, J. Kaprio, & R.

J. Rose (Eds.), Socioemotional development and health from adolescence to adulthood (pp. 29–55). New York: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Rantanen, J., Metsapelto, R-L., Feldt, T., Pulkkinen, L., & Kokko, K. (2007). Long-term stability in the big five personality traits inadulthood. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 48, 511–518.

Rantanen, J., Pulkkinen, L., & Kinnunen, U. (2005). The big five personality dimensions, work–family conflict, and psychological distress:A longitudinal view. Journal of Individual Differences, 26, 155–166.

Roberts, B. W., & DelVecchio, W. F. (2000). The rank-order consistency of personality traits from childhood to old age: A quantitativereview of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 3–25.

Ryan, A. M., Chan, D., Ployhart, R. E., & Slade, L. A. (1999). Employee attitude surveys in a multinational organization: Consideringlanguage and culture in assessing measurement equivalence. Personnel Psychology, 52, 37–58.

Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). A scaled difference chi-square test statistic for moment structure analysis. Available from: <http://www.stat.ucla.edu/papers/preprints/260/>.

Schnabel, K. (1996). Latent difference models as alternatives to modeling residuals of cross-lagged effects. In U. Engel & J. Reinecke(Eds.), Analysis of change: Advanced techniques in panel data analysis (pp. 253–278). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Spanier, G. B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of

Marriage & the Family, 38, 15–28.Statistical Office of the European Communities (2006). A statistical view of the life of women and men in the EU25. Eurostat News

Release, 29.Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research,

25, 173–180.Stephens, G. K., & Sommer, S. M. (1996). The measurement of work to family conflict. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56,

475–486.Voydanoff, P. (2002). Linkages between the work–family interface and work, family, and individual outcomes: An integrative model.

Journal of Family Issues, 23, 138–164.Wayne, J. H., Musisca, N., & Fleeson, W. (2004). Considering the role of personality in the work–family experience: Relationships of the

big five to work–family conflict and facilitation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64, 108–130.Westman, M., Etzion, D., & Gortler, E. (2004). The work–family interface and burnout. International Journal of Stress Management, 11,

413–428.

http://www.stat.ucla.edu/papers/preprints/260/

http://www.stat.ucla.edu/papers/preprints/260/

Documents

Work–Family Conflict and Psychological Well-being