Antecedents of Work Family

Journal of Organizational Behavior J. Organiz. Behav. (2010) Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/job.
695
Antecedents of workfamily conict: A meta-analytic review

JESSE S. MICHEL1*, LINDSEY M. KOTRBA2, JACQUELINE K. MITCHELSON3, MALISSA A. CLARK4 AND BORIS B. BALTES4
1 2 3
Department of Psychology, Florida International University, Miami, Florida, U.S.A. Denison Consulting, Ann Arbor, Michigan, U.S.A. Department of Psychology, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama, U.S.A. 4 Department of Psychology, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, U.S.A.
Summary
This study provides and meta-analytically examines an organizing framework and theoretical model of workfamily conict. Results, based on 1080 correlations from 178 samples, indicate that work role stressors (job stressors, role conict, role ambiguity, role overload, time demands), work role involvement (job involvement, work interest/centrality), work social support (organizational support, supervisor support, coworker support), work characteristics (task variety, job autonomy, family friendly organization), and personality (internal locus of control, negative affect/neuroticism) are antecedents of work-to-family conict (WFC); while family role stressors (family stressors, role conict, role ambiguity, role overload, time demands, parental demands, number of children/dependents), family social support (family support, spousal support), family characteristics (family climate), and personality (internal locus of control, negative affect/neuroticism) are antecedents of family-to-work conict (FWC). In addition to hypothesized results, a revised model based on study ndings indicates that work role stressors (job stressors, role conict, role ambiguity, role overload) and work social support (organizational support, supervisor support, coworker support) are predictors of FWC; while family role stressors (family stressors, role conict, role ambiguity, role overload), family involvement (family interest/centrality), family social support (family support, spousal support), and family characteristics (family climate) are predictors of WFC. Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Introduction
For most individuals the two most dominant life domains are work and family. Partially due to an increase in dual-earner households and non-traditional gender roles, and partially to an increase in the number of hours individuals work (Bond, Galinsky, & Swanberg, 1998; Greenhaus, Callanan, & Godshalk, 2000), juggling the domains of work and family has become a part of everyday life for
* Correspondence to: Jesse S. Michel, Department of Psychology, Florida International University, University Park, DM 256, 11200 S.W. 8th Street, Miami, FL 33199, U.S.A. E-mail: jmichel@u.edu
Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Received 11 April 2007 Revised 15 February 2010 Accepted 17 February 2010
J. S. MICHEL ET AL.
millions of adults. Accordingly, research investigating the relationship between work and family has steadily increased over the past few decades (Bond et al., 1998; Eby, Casper, Lockwood, Bordeaux, & Brinley, 2005). Much of this research has focused on the conict between the two domains, primarily demonstrating this conict to have harmful effects on important individual outcomes such as depression, hypertension, and substance abuse (Burke & Greenglass, 1999; Frone, 2000; Frone, Russell, & Cooper, 1997), and important organizational outcomes such as absenteeism, affective organizational commitment, and turnover intentions (Greenhaus, Parasuraman, & Collins, 2001; Kossek & Ozeki, 1998). Subsequently, this research has led to increased initiatives among employers, as well as public policy initiatives, aimed toward reducing the conict between work and family domains (Greenhaus & Parasuraman, 1999). Accordingly, it is important to have a clear understanding of the variables that cause workfamily conict in order to provide direction for research and application. The purpose of this study is to provide a quantitative review of the antecedents of workfamily conict that: (a) Provides a theoretically sound model of workfamily conict and its antecedents; (b) disentangles work and family domain variables into the categories of role stressors (e.g., role ambiguity, role overload), role involvement (e.g., job involvement, work interest/centrality), social support (e.g., supervisor support, coworker support), and work/family characteristics (e.g., schedule exibility, family friendly organization), and provides a ne grained analyses of these variables (e.g., ve forms of work stressors, eight forms of family stressors); (c) distinguishes the direct effects of personality, including both internal locus of control and negative affect/ neuroticism, from the moderating demographic variables of marital status, parental status, and gender; and (d) tests the hypotheses made in our theoretically derived model with an accumulation of the most recent work family research. Though a very informative quantitative review of worknonwork conict and its antecedents currently exists (see Byron, 2005), the present paper differs in several important ways. First, while Byrons review includes an assortment of worknonwork or worklife conict measures (cf. Kreiner, 2006; Rice, Frone, & McFarlin, 1992), we only include measures of workfamily conict. This is an important distinction as individuals have multiple roles outside of their family such as leisure roles, community roles, or religious roles (Frone, 2003). As a result, the construct of worknonwork conict is a much broader construct than the narrower workfamily conict construct. Generally, it would be expected that family domain antecedents would have stronger relationships with workfamily conict than worknonwork conict due to an underlying commonality, i.e., family (cf. Huffman, Youngcourt, Payne, & Castro, 2008). For example, family stressors such as family role overload and parental demands, along with supportive antecedents such as spousal support and family climate, should have larger effect size magnitudes with workfamily conict than worknonwork conict as these are family-specic antecedents. Thus a broader worknonwork conict construct may actually obscure relationships that occur on a more specic level (cf. Tett, Steele, & Beauregard, 2003; Tett & Christiansen, 2007). Accordingly, this meta-analysis examines these relationships between antecedents and workfamily conict at a more specic level. Second, we provide greater conceptual and empirical clarity on the work and family domain categories of role stressors, role involvement, social support, and work/family characteristics. For example, while Byron examined the variable of job stress as a grouped variable (i.e., job stress, role stress, role conict, role ambiguity, role overload, and psychological demands), we disentangled job stressors into the theoretically derived facets of work role conict, work role ambiguity, work role overload, and work time demands (cf. Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, & Rosenthal, 1964; Katz & Kahn, 1978). As such, this paper addresses Byrons call for researchers to attend to more nely grained variables that may more fully capture employees likelihood of experiencing workfamily conict (p. 169).
Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. (2010) DOI: 10.1002/job
ANTECEDENTS OF WORKFAMILY CONFLICT
Third, we examine the direct effects of personality, including both internal locus of control and negative affect/neuroticism, within our model. In doing so, this work provides the rst meta-analytic test of personality traits within the workfamily literature and helps answer the recent call for greater examination of personality in regards to work and family relationships (Eby et al., 2005; Friede & Ryan, 2005; Michel & Clark, 2009). Finally, we update the eld on the vast amount of research conducted since Byrons (2005) review. While the work of Byron included studies published between 1987 and 2002, this review includes studies published between 1987 and 2008. While this may be seen as a minor distinction, it is important to note as there has been a recent explosion of workfamily literature within Organizational Behavior and other related disciplines in the past few years. In fact, over 54 percent of the studies included in this 20 year review were published post-Byron. Given this dramatic increase of workfamily conict research, it is imperative that recent studies are systematically and empirically reviewed to assess current thought on the topic. Consequently, this review provides greater clarity on recent work and family relationships above and beyond that of Byron.
What is WorkFamily Conict?

Workfamily conict is commonly dened as a form of inter-role conict in which the role pressures from the work and family domains are mutually incompatible in some respect (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985: p. 77; see also Kahn et al., 1964). Further delineation of the contemporary workfamily conict construct reveals two primary characteristics. First, these role pressures are directional and produce negative effects from one domain to the other (Frone, Russell, & Cooper, 1992). Thus, researchers and theorists have recently focused on the degree to which participation in the family role is made more difcult from participation in the work roletermed work-to-family conict (WFC), and the degree to which participation in the work role is made more difcult from participation in the family role termed family-to-work conict (FWC). Recent meta-analytic research has shown differential patterns with outcome variables, along with incremental variance over one another, providing support for the distinction between WFC and FWC (see Mesmer-Magnus & Viswesvaran, 2005). Second, work family conict is generally seen as time-based, strain-based, and behavior-based (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985): Time-based conict occurs when time or attention allocated to one domain, such as work schedule inexibility and work or family time demands, hinders role performance in the other domain; strain-based conict occurs when increased stress or tension in one domain, such as role ambiguity or role overload, hinders role performance in the other domain; and behavior-based conict occurs when behaviors transferred from one domain, such as behavioral habits and role expectations, hinders role performance in the other domain. In general, empirical evidence has supported the time-based, strainbased, and behavior-based categorization of the workfamily conict construct (e.g., Bruck, Allen, & Spector, 2002; Frone et al., 1997).
Theory and Hypotheses

In this section, we link workfamily conict to its antecedents through primary workfamily linkage theories (cf. Edwards & Rothbard, 2000; Zedeck, 1992). Our organizing framework and theoretical model is displayed in Figure 1. A summary of included constructs and denitions is provided in Table 1.
J. S. MICHEL ET AL.
Figure 1. Proposed model of workfamily conict
Antecedents of workfamily conict

Role Stressors. Work and family stressors result from role pressures within each domain. Within the stressor framework, role conict, role ambiguity, and role overload are traditionally seen as the primary sources of stress (Kahn et al., 1964): Role conict refers to the extent to which an individual experiences incompatible role pressures (Beehr, 1995; Kahn et al., 1964; Kopelman, Greenhaus, &
Table 1. Summary of included constructs and denitions Construct Work domain Role stressors Job stressors Work role conict Work role ambiguity Work role overload Work time demands Role involvement Job involvement Work interest/centrality Social support Organizational support Supervisor support Coworker support Work characteristics Organizational tenure Job tenure Type of job Current salary Task variety Job autonomy Schedule exibility Family friendly organization Denitions
Pooled (at the sample level) conict, ambiguity, overload, and/or time demands of the work domain Used when the study did not report individual job stressors The extent to which an individual experiences incompatible role pressures within the work domain The lack of necessary information (specicity and predictability) about duties, objectives, and responsibilities needed for a particular workrole or the lack of workrole clarity The perception of having too many workrole tasks and not enough time to do them Amount of time devoted to the work role Includes work time demands, hours worked, and hours spent in paid work Level of psychological involvement (attachment, connection) to the work role Perceived importance of work in ones life; the degree to which the work role is central in life Includes work centrality/identity, work interest, and work importance Amount of instrumental aid, emotional concern, informational, and/or appraisal functions from the organization Amount of instrumental aid, emotional concern, informational, and/or appraisal functions from the immediate supervisor Amount of instrumental aid, emotional concern, informational, and/or appraisal functions from peers or coworkers Duration of placement within an organization Duration of placement on a particular job Categorization of jobs characteristics Includes job and organizational level, job rank, job type (e.g., blue collar vs. white collar), and self-employment Employees current monetary compensation The extent to which a job requires an individual to perform a wide range of tasks Degree of freedom available on the job Flexible working hours Includes schedule exibility, extime, telecommuting, and shift work Organizations that are sympathetic toward employee family-related needs Includes family supportive organization, workfamily organizational culture, number of organizational benets offered, and dependant care benets/family supportive services Pooled (at the sample level) conict, ambiguity, overload and/or time demands of the family domain Used when the study did not report individual family stressors The extent to which an individual experiences incompatible role pressures within the family domain (Continues)
Family domain Role stressors Family stressors Family role conict
J. Organiz. Behav. (2010) DOI: 10.1002/job
J. S. MICHEL ET AL.
Table 1. (Continued) Construct Family role ambiguity Family role overload Family time demands Parental demands Number of children/dependents Denitions The lack of necessary information (specicity and predictability) about duties, objectives, and responsibilities needed for a particular family role or the lack of familyrole clarity The perception of having too many familyrole tasks and not enough time to do them Amount of time devoted to the family role Includes family time demands and time spent in family work Demands on the parental role Includes number and age of children Number of children (and other dependents) living at home Includes total number of children, number of children 18 or under, number of children 7 or under, number of children under 5, and total number of other dependents Age of children Includes age of children and age of youngest child living at home Level of psychological involvement (attachment, connection) to the family role Perceived importance of family in ones life; the degree to which the family role is central in life Includes family centrality/identity, family commitment, and family importance Amount of instrumental aid, emotional concern, informational, and/or appraisal functions from the family unit Amount of instrumental aid, emotional concern, informational, and/or appraisal functions from the spouse Status of spouses paid employment Includes working spouse, spouse hours worked, and spouse hours worked per week Collective wage of the family unit Extent to which the family unit is sympathetic toward members needs Includes family climate for sharing, family climate for sacrice (reverse coded), family climate, family cohesion, family adaptability Extent to which individuals feel that outcomes are caused by the individual or self (i.e., internal variables) as opposed to external variables such as chance Includes locus of control, sense of control, and perceived control Extent to which individuals have higher levels of distress, anxiety, and dissatisfaction; focusing primarily on unpleasant characteristics of themselves, others, and the world; represents an individuals tendency to experience psychological distress
Age of children Role involvement Family involvement Family interest/centrality
Social support Family support Spousal support Family characteristics Working spouse Family income Family climate Personality Internal locus of control
Negative affect/neuroticism
Connolly, 1983); role ambiguity refers to the lack of necessary information (specicity and predictability) about duties, objectives, and responsibilities needed for a particular role or the lack of role clarity (Beehr & Glazer, 2005; Cooper, Cooper, & Eaker, 1988; Kahn et al., 1964; Schuler, 1980); and role overload refers to the perception of having too many role tasks and not enough time to do them (Bacharach, Bamberger, & Conley, 1990; Caplan, Cobb, & French, 1975; Kahn, 1980). Though role
overload and role time demands are unique, role time demands are often seen as a precursor to role overload; and therefore, are included as a subcomponent of role overload in our model. Depending on the domain, time demands can be the actual time devoted to the role (work and family), or additional demands of the role directly related to time demands (such as parental demands for the family domain).1 Role conict has been suggested as an antecedent of workfamily conict (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985), and has been shown to be associated with higher levels of workfamily conict (e.g., Bedeian, Burke, & Moffett, 1988; Greenhaus, Parasuraman, Granrose, Rabinowitz, & Beutell, 1989; Kopelman et al., 1983). Greenhaus and Beutell (1985; see also Carlson, 1999) also suggest role ambiguity to be an antecedent of workfamily conict. This notion was supported by Frone et al. (1992) who found family role ambiguity to relate to FWC. Past research has suggested a relationship between role overload and WFC (e.g., Frone et al., 1997). Similarly, work and family time demands have been demonstrated to be positively related to workfamily conict (e.g., Frone et al., 1997). Past research has found that the number of children individuals have impacts their ability to accommodate family responsibilities with work demands (Bedeian et al., 1988; Kelly & Voydanoff, 1985). Additionally, younger children typically require more care, and thus more resources, from their caregivers. In support of this notion, parents with younger children at home report more conict between work and family (Burke, Weir, & DuWors, 1979) and have fewer time and energy resources (Grandey & Cropanzano, 1999). The linkage between role stressors and workfamily conict can be explained through role theory and resource drain theory. Role theory implies that (1) work and family roles result from the expectations of others, and what is believed to be appropriate behavior for a particular position (e.g., subordinate, spouse), and (2) both work and family domains entail multiple roles where numerous demands are placed on the individual (Kahn et al., 1964). In an attempt to meet various work and family role expectations, many individuals succumb to role pressures. When role pressures within the role stressor framework are encountered (conict, ambiguity, overload, and time demands), resource drain is likely. Resource drain theory views resources such as time, attention, and energy (physical and psychological) as nite (Edwards & Rothbard, 2000; Small & Riley, 1990; Staines, 1980; Tenbrunsel, Brett, Maoz, Stroh, & Reilly, 1995); thus, role stressors that occur in each domain subtract from the nite resources available to the individual. Both role theory and resource drain theory imply a positive relationship between role stressors and workfamily conict. For example, ambiguity in the work role requires greater psychological expenditures to meet the expectations of that role, resulting in a decrease in available resources for family role demands. Assuming an individual has a limited amount of immediate expendable physical and psychological resources, increased role stressors in one domain will result in greater cross-domain conict. Therefore, we hypothesize the following: Hypothesis 1a: Stressors in the work domain are positively related to WFC. Hypothesis 1b: Stressors in the family domain are positively related to FWC.
Role involvement Work and family involvement refer to the level of psychological attachment or connection to the work and family roles (Frone, 2003; Greenhaus & Parasuraman, 1999; Kanungo, 1982; Yogev & Brett, 1985). Individuals high in role involvement possess a cognitive preoccupation with a particular role.
1 Time demands could be included in the role involvement category (cf. Edwards & Rothbard, 2000); however, within a theoretical meta-framework, we feel that time demands better represent the perceived overload of a role, as time demands likely engender perceived overload. Likewise, though number of children/dependents and age of children could be included in the family characteristics category, we feel that parental demands better represent the perceived overload of the family role, as previous research has indicated (e.g., Bedeian, Burke, & Moffett, 1988; Major, Klein, & Ehrhart, 2002; Parasuraman & Simmers, 2001).
J. S. MICHEL ET AL.
Like role involvement, role interest or centrality revolves around the importance or identity an individual attaches to a role (Paullay, Alliger, & Stone-Romero, 1994). Individuals high in role interest or centrality view that role as an important and central component of their lives (Hirschfeld & Feild, 2000). Role involvement is conceptualized as an antecedent of workfamily conict as high levels of psychological involvement in a particular role may make it difcult to engage in activities of a competing role (Adams, King, & King, 1996; Frone et al., 1992; Greenhaus & Parasuraman, 1999). The linkage between role involvement and workfamily conict can be explained through role theory, resource drain theory, and compensation theory. As implied by role theory, individuals may become psychologically involved in their work and family roles while attempting to meet the role expectations of each domain. However, if dissatisfaction in either role is encountered, individuals may adjust (i.e., compensate) their time, attention, and energy. Compensation theory posits an inverse relationship between the work and family domains, where dissatisfaction in one domain is offset through satisfaction in the other domain (Edwards & Rothbard, 2000; Zedeck, 1992); stated alternatively, dissatisfaction in one domainsuch as family, is counterbalanced through greater role involvement in another domainsuch as work. Role theory, resource drain theory, and compensation theory all imply a positive relationship between role involvement and workfamily conict. For example, if general satisfaction is lacking in the family domain, an individual will compensate through greater role involvement in the work domain. This increased work involvement will subtract limited physical and psychological time, attention, and energy, resulting in greater cross-domain conict. Therefore, we hypothesize the following: Hypothesis 2a: Involvement in the work domain is positively related to WFC. Hypothesis 2b: Involvement in the family domain is positively related to FWC.
Social support Social support refers to instrumental aid, emotional concern, informational, and appraisal functions of , 1999; House, 1981; others that serve to heighten ones feelings of self-importance (Carlson & Perrewe Matsui, Ohsawa, & Onglatco, 1995). Social support in the work domain may come from several sources such as coworkers, the immediate supervisor, and the organization itself; meanwhile, social support in the family domain may come from the spouse and/or the family as a whole. Several researchers view social support as an important antecedent to workfamily conict (Frone et al., 1997; Glass & Estes, 1997; Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985; Greenhaus & Parasuraman, 1999). For example, Galinsky (1994) found that workers in unsupportive work environments experienced more negative family consequences. The linkage between social support and workfamily conict can be explained through role theory and resource drain theory. As implied by role theory, an individual has multiple demands and expectations within the work and family domains. Social support experienced in either domain should lead to a reduction of the time, attention, and energy needed to perform that role. Both role theory and resource drain theory imply an inverse relationship between social support and workfamily conict. For example, if spousal support is experienced in the family domain, demands within that domain will be met more effectively (e.g., adjustment of role expectations, assisted role performance). Subsequently, the individual should experience a reduction of role pressures within the family domain, and maintenance of limited physical and psychological time, attention, and energy. Therefore, increased social support in one domain will result in a reduction of cross-domain conict. Accordingly, we hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 3a: Support in the work domain is negatively related to WFC. Hypothesis 3b: Support in the family domain is negatively related to FWC.
Work/family characteristics Work and family characteristics consist of the properties within each domain that impact role performance (Hackman & Oldham, 1976; Morgenson & Campion, 2003). Within the literature, there tends to be some variability on what is a work/family characteristic versus a demographic or background characteristic. For example, a recent monograph by Eby et al. (2005) refers to family income and number of children as family characteristics, while others have referred to these same variables as background characteristics (e.g., Stoeva, Chiu, & Greenhaus, 2002). Likewise, while Eby et al. refer to salary as a characteristic of the job, others have referred to this same variable as a demographic characteristic (e.g., Keene & Quadagno, 2004). We dene work and family characteristics as variables that are generally determined by parties other than the target within the work and family domains, respectively. Within the work domain, these consist of such variables as the duration of a role (job and organizational tenure), the characteristics of a role (type of job, job autonomy, task variety, and salary), and the organizational impact on the role (alternative work schedules and the extent to which the organization is family responsive). Within the family domain, these consist of the general structure and characteristics of the spouse (working spouse) and family roles (family income and family climate).2 While different, work and family characteristics are conceptualized as antecedents of workfamily conict for the same reason; they impact role performance and subsequently impact role pressures. On the work domain side, work characteristics can be further grouped into three areas. First are time based work characteristics. Here organizational and job tenure are thought to lead to greater exibility. For many jobs lower tenure employees may be required to work night shifts or weekends while more tenured employees are not (Lambert, Hogan, & Barton, 2004). As such, organizational and job tenure are believed to lead to lower levels of WFC. Second are differences in workplace policy that stem from differences in the nature of the job. Here we believe type of job, current salary, and task variety will all lead to higher levels of WFC. Higher status jobs require increased responsibility and thus elicit more stress and greater difculty balancing work and family; however, it could also be that higher status jobs tend to allow for more exibility and greater control and thus allow one more opportunity to attend to family responsibilities (e.g., Archbold, 1983). While both of these explanations seem rational, the negative effects of stress should be both more salient and proximal than the option to utilize exibility and control. In the current study, type of job includes the variables of organizational level, job type, rank, self-employment, and job level (see Table 1). Similarly, higher salary should indicate greater job responsibility, producing more stress, and thus greater WFC; however, it could also be that a higher salary may provide individuals with the opportunity to hire additional help in handling their work and family responsibilities. Again, while both of these explanations seem plausible, the negative effects of stress should be both more salient and proximal than the option to utilize employed help. Regarding task variety, though not a role stressor, a job with high task variety requires an employee to perform a
2 While marital and parental status could be argued to be caused or inuenced heavily by the spouse, and therefore be classied as a family characteristic, these variables are not generally determined by the spouse or other family members (cf. working spouse, family climate). Similarly, an argument could be made for employee income as a demographic characteristic, but the work role and employing organization have a heavy inuence on this variable. Finally, it could be argued that an individual ultimately determines his/her job tenure, marital status, and other work, family, and demographic characteristics. While this may be technically correct (cf. individual free will), our classication of work and family characteristics is an attempt to best conceptualize these variables given (1) our theoretical model (e.g., operationalization of number of children as a parental demand), and (2) primary inuences on each model variable (e.g., operationalization of family climate as a family characteristic).
J. S. MICHEL ET AL.
wide range of tasks and is therefore believed to lead to higher WFC. A third and nal set of work characteristic antecedents revolve around the level of control over ones work. Here we believe job autonomy, schedule exibility, and family friendly organization will all reduce perceptions of WFC. Job autonomy suggests that having freedom in regards to your job and its responsibilities can lessen the extent to which work conicts with the demands of family. Research has in fact supported a negative relationship between job autonomy and WFC (e.g., Aryee, 1992; Parasuraman, Purohit, & Godshalk, 1996). Meanwhile, schedule exibility and family friendly organization are often suggested as antecedents of WFC (e.g., Glass & Estes, 1997; Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985; Greenhaus & Parasuraman, 1999). It is believed that family friendly policies should ease the burden of balancing work and family, and indeed these variables have been linked to lower levels of WFC (e.g., Hammer, Allen, & Grigsby, 1997). On the family domain side, working spouse and family income are both thought to lead to higher levels of FWC. As a member of a dual-career couple, employees with a working spouse, often indicated by a higher family salary, should have greater family role pressures thus increasing their FWC. Meanwhile, family climate is believed to reduce perceptions of FWC through a more cohesive and supportive family network (cf. family social support). The linkage between work/family characteristics and workfamily conict can be explained through role theory, resource drain theory, and conict theory. From the perspective of role and resource drain theories, characteristics of the job (e.g., tenure, type of job, job autonomy, task variety), and family (e.g., dual-career couple) impact expectations for the work/family roles and role performance. Consequently, ones limited pool of time, attention, and energy can be affected. For example, higher tenure should produce greater exibility thus allowing for better utilization of limited resources and subsequently reducing perceptions of WFC. Conict theory posits that the work and family domains are incompatible resulting from different norms and requirements (Burke, 1986; Evans & Bartolome, 1984; Zedeck, 1992). From a conict theory perspective, characteristics of the job (e.g., alternative work schedules, the extent to which the organization is family responsive) and family (e.g., family climate) should impact potential cross-domain conict. For example, an organization that offers alternative work schedules should reduce WFC by providing a work environment that is more compatible with family domain pressures (Baltes, Briggs, Huff, Wright, & Heuman, 1999). Since some of these variables should inuence workfamily conict positively, and others negatively, we hypothesize the following: Hypothesis 4a: Work characteristics are related to WFC. Hypothesis 4b: Family characteristics are related to FWC.
Personality Personality refers to dynamic mental structures and coordinated mental processes that determine individuals emotional and behavioral adjustments to their environments (Allport, 1937; James & Mazerolle, 2002; Millon, 1990). Though we would like to examine multiple components of personality (e.g., Five-Factor Model), within the workfamily literature, only internal locus of control and negative affectivity/neuroticism have received enough empirical attention to allow meta-analytic examination (e.g., Bruck & Allen, 2003; Grzywacz & Marks, 2000; Stoeva et al., 2002). Internal locus of control is generally dened as the extent to which an individual feels outcomes are caused by the individual or self (internal variables), as opposed to external variables such as chance (Rotter, 1966). This variable is hypothesized as an antecedent of workfamily conict since internal locus of control has often been shown to relate to work and life stress and also directly to workfamily conict (Noor, 2002). More specically, this research suggests high perceived control to negatively relate to workfamily conict
(e.g., Clark, 2002; Duxbury, Higgins, & Lee, 1994; Noor, 2002). Meanwhile, negative affectivity and neuroticism are typically dened as (higher) levels of trait-based psychological distress, anxiety, and general dissatisfaction (Costa & McCrae, 1992; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988). Generally, negative affect is commonly seen as a facet of neuroticism (Judge, Higgins, Thoresen, & Barrick, 1999: p. 625), and has been included in meta-analyses examining the personality factor of neuroticism (e.g., Judge & Ilies, 2002). Both negative affect (Carlson, 1999) and neuroticism (Rantanen, Pulkkinen, & Kinnunen, 2005) have been suggested as antecedents of workfamily conict because they are likely to have a large impact on how individuals perceive both life and work situations. The linkage between personality and workfamily conict can be explained through congruence theory. Congruence theory posits that similarity between work and family (e.g., satisfaction in work, satisfaction in family) is generated by a third variable (e.g., positive affect); that is, a third variable acts as a common cause (Edwards & Rothbard, 2000; Morf, 1989; Zedeck, 1992). General cognitive affective and behavioral propensities, such as internal locus of control and negative affectivity/ neuroticism, may serve as this third variable and dually inuence ones perception of workfamily conict. Accordingly, individuals high in internal locus of control should feel greater control over the interplay between their work and family domains, while individuals high in negative affectivity/ neuroticism should feel greater psychological distress, anxiety, and dissatisfaction across workfamily situations. Therefore, we hypothesize the following: Hypothesis 5: Internal locus of control is negatively related to WFC and FWC. Hypothesis 6: Negative affect/neuroticism is positively related to WFC and FWC.
Moderators of the work and family domain and workfamily conict relationship
We propose that demographic variables have signicant impact on the relationships between (1) work domain antecedents and WFC, and (2) family domain antecedents and FWC. Marital status, parental status, and gender are the demographic characteristics we chose to include in this investigation. These variables are common in the workfamily literature, but more importantly, previous research and theory provides strong empirical and conceptual rationale for their role as moderators. We should note, however, that recent workfamily research has highlighted the distinction between participant sex and gender role orientation (Livingston & Judge, 2008). Gender role orientation has been dened as the degree to which one identies with the traditional conceptions (i.e., expectations) of his or her gender role (Livingston & Judge, 2008: p. 208). As the vast majority of the workfamily conict literature examines participant sex versus gender role orientation, this meta-analysis will focus on participant sex (male/female) as our gender role proxy variable (which will be referred to as gender). In regards to marital and parental status, individuals who are married and/or have children are often suggested to have more family role responsibilities. Accordingly, when confronted with antecedents such as work time demands or other work domain stressors, such individuals should be more likely to see these antecedents as conicting with their family lives than individuals who are single and/or without parental responsibilities (Ford, Heinen, & Langkamer, 2007). Likewise, when individuals who are married or have children receive social support, they should benet from this support more than individuals who are not married or have no children. This general belief is so common in the work family literature that these demographic characteristics (marital and parental status) are often used as sample inclusion criteria, or are otherwise controlled for in workfamily studies (e.g., Frye & Breaugh, 2004; Grandey, Cordeiro, & Crouter, 2005; Hammer, Neal, Newsom, Brockwood, & Colton, 2005;
J. S. MICHEL ET AL.
Young, Baltes, & Pratt, 2007), based on the assumption that workfamily dynamics are fundamentally different for those who are married and have children. Regarding gender, though some research has not found gender differences for workfamily conict (e.g., Eagle, Miles, & Icenogle, 1997), there are several studies that support the role of gender as a moderator. For example, previous research has suggested work to be more central to the identity of men, and family to more central to the identity of women (Cinamon & Rich, 2002); thus it is reasonable to expect the role involvementworkfamily conict relationship to differ by gender. In support of this, other researchers have found work involvement to be a stronger predictor of workfamily conict for women and family involvement to be a stronger predictor for men (Duxbury & Higgins, 1991). Similarly, Gutek, Searle, and Klepa (1991) found hours worked to relate to WFC for women, but not for men. In general, gender is often positioned as a moderator as men and women are believed to experience and react to proposed antecedents differently, and previous research has found support for this assertion. The modeling of moderating demographic variables within a work/family antecedent and work family conict context (cf. Voydanoff, 2002) can be explained through role theory. As previously reviewed, role theory posits that roles develop from the expectation of others and what is believed to be appropriate behavior for a particular position. From these expectations, role theory suggests that demographic differences will result in incongruent role expectations, role pressures, and subsequent role performance. Returning to gender as an illustrative example, though gender roles are beginning to converge, women are still thought to assume the majority of family responsibilities despite their increasing work domain roles. As a result of these differential role expectations and pressures, gender should moderate the relationship between family domain role stressors and involvement to FWC such that these relationships are stronger for women than men. Accordingly, we propose that demographic variables will have signicant impact on the relationships between work domain antecedents and WFC and family domain antecedents and FWC. Thus, in accordance with role theory, we provide the following: Hypothesis 7: The demographic variables of marital status, parental status, and gender moderate the relationships between (a) work domain antecedents and WFC, and (b) family domain antecedents and FWC.
Method
Literature search and inclusion criteria
The search for studies examining antecedents of workfamily conict was performed in two stages. In the rst stage, computer-based literature searches were conducted on the databases of ABI/INFORM, ERIC, and PsycINFO/Dissertation Abstracts. Keyword search terms included work family conict in conjunction with 129 search terms representing the variables in our model. In the second stage, manual cross-referencing was done with recent qualitative and quantitative review articles (Byron, 2005; Eby et al., 2005; Ford et al., 2007). Studies were included if they fullled three requirements: (1) The study included a measure of WFC and/or FWC, (2) the study included a variable we conceptualized as an antecedent in our model, and (3) zero-order correlations were reported. If a study met our rst two criteria but did not report data, the rst author was contacted to obtain missing data. Additionally, it is important to note that several studies
utilized the same sample. Under these circumstances, only unique relationships from each study were included in the analyses in order to assure that the assumption of independence was not violated. In total, 142 studies containing 178 samples met our inclusion requirements. These studies reported a total of 1080 effect sizes that were used in our analyses.3 A summary of studies and sample characteristics can be provided by the corresponding author upon request.
Coding of antecedents and moderators

Absolute agreement on the coding of antecedent variables was determined with an Intraclass Correlation Coefcient (ICC) of 0.84, p < 0.001. The ICC was determined on antecedent coding agreement between judges (rst three authors). Any discrepancies in coding were discussed by the judges until consensus was reached, resulting in absolute agreement. Moderators were analyzed as continuous variables; however, we adapted post hoc coding schemes for each sample characteristic that best utilized the information reported in primary studies as many reported continuous data categorically. Thus given primary data limitations, we coded continuous moderators categorically in order to include as many primary studies and as much information as possible. Though this attenuation of the moderator variables results in a loss of statistical power, it also results in a more representative sample of studies for analyses. Accordingly, marital status was coded as the percent age of sample participants who were married or living with partner; we coded this data into one of six categories ranging from 1 20 percent or less currently married or living with partner to 6 100 percent currently married or living with partner. Parental status was coded as the percent age of the study sample with children; we coded this data into one of six categories ranging from 1 20 percent or less parents to 6 100 percent parents. Gender was coded as the percent age of female participants within the sample; we coded this data into one of 12 categories ranging from 1 0 percent female to 12 100 percent female.
Meta-analytic method
We used Hunter and Schmidts (2004) random-effect meta-analysis technique as assumptions in random-effects models generally t the goals of meta-analyses more appropriately than xed-effects models (Field, 2001; Geyskens, Krishnan, Steenkamp, & Cunha, 2009; Kisamore & Brannick, 2008; Schmidt, Oh, & Hayes, 2008). Sample size weighted mean observed correlations as well as the reliability-corrected mean correlations were computed. Mean sample size weighted correlations were corrected for unreliability based on artifact distributions from primary study data. Specically, we corrected psychological or attitudinal variables (e.g., job stress, WFC) for unreliability with alpha value (a) distributions reported in the primary studies; however, some self-reported variables such as time demands (e.g., work time demands) and other non-psychological measures (e.g., number of children/ dependents) were not disattenuated because they are assumed to be measured without error (i.e., perfect
3 In total, we have 142 studies in our review; Byron (2005) had 61 studies. Thus, this study is not a replication, it is an extension. As such, we have 105 studies that are unique to this study. Thirty-seven studies in this review were also included in Byrons review; however, 24 studies in her review are not included in the current work. Reasons for our exclusion of these studies include differences in antecedents examined (e.g., demographic variables; e.g., Adams & Jex, 1999; Gignac, Kelloway, & Gottlieb, 1996), unanimous agreement between the rst three authors that the study did not include a measure of WFC or FWC (e.g., worknonwork conict; e.g., Klitzman, House, Israel, & Mero, 1990; ODriscoll, Ilgen, & Hildreth, 1992), and the use of aggregated longitudinal data (e.g., Williams & Alliger, 1994). Quantitatively, the overlap between meta-analyses (i.e., studies included in each) was 22.29 percent .
J. S. MICHEL ET AL.
reliability; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002; Sparks, Cooper, Fried, & Shirom, 1997). When multiple correlations were available for a single antecedent and WFC/FWC relationship (e.g., three forms of schedule exibility), we combined these into a composite variable prior to meta-analytic examination (Hunter & Schmidt, 2004). We also examined our data for outliers; effect sizes were converted to zscores and extreme values (/3.29) were deemed outliers. Of the 1080 effect sizes reported in this meta-analysis, 12 values were deemed outliers at the p < 0.001 level. Analyses were run with and without the identied outliers, resulting in no signicant differences; therefore, all outliers were included. Finally, the associated standard deviations of the reliability-corrected mean correlations were examined for potential moderating inuences as well as used in computing the 80 percent credibility interval around the (true) correlation. In regards to moderator analysis, some researchers have used a minimum of 20 (e.g., Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002) or 15 studies (e.g., Ng & Feldman, 2008) with the necessary information for tests of moderation. In order to investigate more hypothesized relationships, we used 10 studies as our cutoff. To test for the moderating role of marital status, parental status, and gender, we took the percent age of each demographic moderator in each sample as a proxy independent variable. Not all studies clearly reported the marital status, parental status, and gender compositions of the sample (e.g., study reported percent female as categorical data), which reduced our ability to test for moderated relationships. Specically, this resulted in (1) a subgroup analysis of moderator effects as some studies omitted this information entirely, and (2) a post hoc categorical coding scheme that allowed us to retain as many samples as possible (see earlier review of moderator coding). To further ensure our moderator analyses were based on a representative subgroup of studies we used a minimum cutoff of 70 percent sample retention. In examining our moderators, we used the percent age of marital status, parental status, or gender as an independent variable in the prediction of Fishers z-transformed corrected correlation coefcients for the relationship of interest using weighted least-squares multiple regression (cf. Ng, Eby, Sorensen, & Feldman, 2005; Ng & Feldman, 2008). Accordingly, if the independent variable is a signicant predictor of the correlation coefcients, this suggests that the strength of the relationship between the hypothesized antecedent and WFC/FWC construct differs based on that moderator. This technique of testing for moderators in meta-analyses has been found to be more reliable and robust than other methods (Steel & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2002).
Results
Results are reported in Table 2 (relationships with WFC) and Table 3 (relationships with FWC). In general, we base our discussion of results on Cohens (1988) classication of correlation magnitudes (i.e., >0.50 large, >0.30 moderate, and >0.10 small). In this discussion we refer to our corrected correlations. While this magnitude distinction is admittedly arbitrary, we feel that a cut-off should be used, thus we refer to meaningful relationships as those that have an effect size magnitude of r > 0.10.
Hypothesized antecedent relationships

Hypotheses 1a and 1b predicted role stressors within the work and family domains would be positively related to WFC and FWC. Results support both hypotheses. Global job stressors (r 0.50) and work role overload (r 0.55) both had large relationships with WFC, work role conict (r 0.41) and work time demands (r 0.30) both had moderate relationships with WFC, while work role ambiguity
Table 2. Effects of work domain, family domain, and personality antecedents on WFC Antecedents Work domain Role stressors Job stressors Work role conict Work role ambiguity Work role overload Work time demands Role involvement Job involvement Work interest/centrality Social support Organizational support Supervisor support Coworker support Work characteristics Organizational tenure Job tenure Type of job Current salary Task variety Job autonomy Schedule exibility Family friendly organization Family domain Role stressors Family stressors Family role conict Family role ambiguity Family role overload Family time demands Parental demands Number of children/dependents Age of children Role involvement Family involvement Family interest/centrality Social support Family support Spousal support Family characteristics Working spouse Family income Family climate Personality Internal locus of control Negative affect/neuroticism k N r r 80% CV SD r % Variance
19 19 20 29 81 34 4 11 31 15 20 6 14 8 6 16 31 16 6 6 6 6 22 12 66 15 21 6 19 16 8 9 5 9 15
6354 5324 5344 9830 39 944 8913 699 3386 11 960 6179 6013 1989 11 233 3518 905 13 421 13 045 6952 2913 2008 2008 1692 9248 2890 27 753 7159 6513 1453 5314 4365 1912 7092 5099 7609 4595
0.42 0.34 0.17 0.45 0.27 0.11 0.11 0.25 0.19 0.21 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.08 0.12 0.09 0.07 0.10 0.28 0.25 0.15 0.20 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.03 0.02 0.07 0.15 0.08 0.04 0.08 0.28 0.15 0.31
0.50 0.41 0.20 0.55 0.30 0.13 0.13 0.30 0.22 0.25 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.09 0.17 0.11 0.09 0.11 0.35 0.30 0.19 0.24 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.04 0.02 0.10 0.17 0.10 0.05 0.09 0.36 0.21 0.38
0.26 0.28 0.10 0.38 0.17 0.08 0.13 0.47 0.37 0.46 0.13 0.15 0.11 0.02 0.07 0.25 0.33 0.35 0.23 0.22 0.19 0.07 0.08 0.04 0.03 0.20 0.07 0.25 0.30 0.15 0.01 0.06 0.51 0.38 0.23
0.74 0.53 0.50 0.73 0.42 0.35 0.13 0.12 0.07 0.05 0.07 0.11 0.14 0.20 0.26 0.02 0.15 0.13 0.47 0.38 0.19 0.42 0.19 0.16 0.18 0.13 0.12 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.09 0.12 0.20 0.04 0.52
0.189 0.098 0.236 0.136 0.096 0.168 0.000 0.135 0.118 0.162 0.080 0.101 0.098 0.085 0.071 0.107 0.188 0.185 0.096 0.063 0.000 0.137 0.105 0.079 0.084 0.126 0.072 0.117 0.099 0.044 0.031 0.022 0.119 0.136 0.113
8.91 36.13 8.82 21.15 20.72 17.74 100.00 18.30 19.99 11.93 38.61 25.12 13.13 28.86 70.55 13.47 8.81 8.05 31.28 51.02 100.00 20.61 20.19 43.21 29.03 13.97 48.22 32.67 32.31 72.97 84.93 76.92 11.56 12.79 24.35
Note: Higher values indicate higher levels of the construct. Type of Job: Low lower rank/level, high higher rank/level. k, number of samples; N, number of participants; r, sample size weighted mean observed validity; r, r corrected for unreliability; CV, credibility interval; SD r, standard deviation of r; % Variance, the percentage of variance in effect sizes that was accounted for by statistical artifacts and sampling error.
J. S. MICHEL ET AL.
Table 3. Effects of work domain, family domain, and personality antecedents on FWC Antecedents Work domain Role stressors Job stressors Work role conict Work role ambiguity Work role overload Work time demands Role involvement Job involvement Work interest/centrality Social support Organizational support Supervisor support Coworker support Work characteristics Organizational tenure Job tenure Type of job Current salary Task variety Job autonomy Schedule exibility Family friendly organization Family domain Role stressors Family stressors Family role conict Family role ambiguity Family role overload Family time demands Parental demands Number of children/dependents Age of children Role involvement Family involvement Family interest/centrality Social support Family support Spousal support Family characteristics Working spouse Family income Family climate Personality Internal locus of control Negative affect/neuroticism k N r r 80% CV SD r % Variance
8 11 12 17 57 21 2 9 25 13 11 6 9 5 1 10 19 13 4 6 6 6 21 9 46 14 17 5 21 15 5 10 2 7 10
3506 3266 4065 5255 25 277 5790 461 2752 10 726 6107 4542 5265 5879 2037 113 8033 7099 6059 1694 2008 2008 1800 9046 1432 17 894 5173 5053 1099 7413 4011 1220 7444 810 7148 3418
0.19 0.21 0.13 0.20 0.06 0.02 0.02 0.11 0.09 0.11 0.01 0.05 0.07 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.05 0.08 0.30 0.29 0.22 0.28 0.13 0.19 0.12 0.02 0.00 0.05 0.09 0.14 0.07 0.01 0.13 0.13 0.27
0.24 0.25 0.16 0.26 0.07 0.02 0.03 0.14 0.11 0.14 0.01 0.06 0.08 0.07 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.40 0.36 0.28 0.35 0.15 0.22 0.13 0.02 0.00 0.06 0.11 0.16 0.08 0.01 0.18 0.19 0.33
0.07 0.14 0.07 0.10 0.08 0.13 0.11 0.24 0.20 0.27 0.05 0.08 0.06 0.07 0.17 0.05 0.26 0.22 0.27 0.13 0.21 0.07 0.18 0.03 0.25 0.10 0.06 0.38 0.34 0.00 0.02 0.18 0.40 0.22
0.40 0.36 0.39 0.42 0.23 0.17 0.16 0.04 0.02 0.00 0.04 0.03 0.21 0.07 0.12 0.18 0.07 0.57 0.45 0.43 0.48 0.24 0.27 0.30 0.29 0.09 0.06 0.16 0.01 0.16 0.01 0.18 0.03 0.46
0.129 0.084 0.180 0.127 0.121 0.117 0.104 0.078 0.070 0.104 0.036 0.022 0.107 0.000 0.111 0.088 0.126 0.136 0.068 0.115 0.105 0.066 0.036 0.126 0.209 0.074 0.000 0.211 0.137 0.061 0.012 0.000 0.169 0.087
17.88 39.36 11.60 25.42 16.34 31.94 30.82 43.00 40.79 21.91 69.68 74.97 14.24 100.00 13.83 37.22 16.93 20.18 46.22 25.31 29.98 40.75 85.66 16.99 70.68 49.70 100.00 8.21 21.51 59.06 92.46 100.00 6.72 34.03
Note: Higher values indicate higher levels of the construct. Type of Job: Low lower rank/level, high higher rank/level. k, number of samples; N, number of participants; r, sample size weighted mean observed validity; r, r corrected for unreliability; CV, credibility interval; SD r, standard deviation of r; % Variance, the percentage of variance in effect sizes that was accounted for by statistical artifacts and sampling error.
(r 0.20) had a small relationship with WFC. Meanwhile, global family stressors (r 0.40), family role conict (r 0.36), and family role overload (r 0.35) all had moderate relationships with FWC, while family role ambiguity (r 0.28), family time demands (r 0.15), parental demands (r 0.22), and number of children/dependents (r 0.13) all had small relationships with FWC. A surprising nding for these hypotheses was that age of children was not a strong predictor of workfamily conict. Given previous theoretical and empirical support (e.g., Byron, 2005), it was expected that this relationship with FWC would have been much stronger, and in the opposite (i.e., negative) direction. Overall, these results suggest that as role stressors in the work domain increase, WFC also increases; likewise, as role stressors in the family domain increase, FWC also increases. Hypotheses 2a and 2b predicted role involvement within the work and family domains would be positively related to WFC and FWC. Results support Hypothesis 2a only. Specically, both job involvement (r 0.13) and work interest/centrality (r 0.13) had small relationships with WFC. However, it is important to note that the nding for job involvement should be a much more robust nding than that for work interest/centrality given the number of studies examined for each (k 34 vs. k 4). Overall, these results suggest that as role involvement in the work domain increases, WFC also increases. Hypotheses 3a and 3b predicted social support within the work and family domains would be negatively related to WFC and FWC. Results support both hypotheses. Organizational support (r 0.30) had a moderate negative relationship with WFC, while supervisor support (r 0.22) and coworker support (r 0.25) both had small negative relationships with WFC. Meanwhile, both family support (r 0.11) and spousal support (r 0.16) had small negative relationships with FWC. Overall, these results suggest that as social support in the work role increases, WFC decreases; similarly, as social support in the family domain increases, FWC decreases. Hypotheses 4a and 4b predicted work and family characteristics would be related to WFC and FWC. Results partially support both hypotheses. Specically, task variety (r 0.17) had a small positive relationship with WFC, while job autonomy (r 0.11) and family friendly organization (r 0.11) both had small negative relationships with WFC. Meanwhile, family climate (r 0.18) had a small negative relationship with FWC. Overall, these results suggest that as task variety increases, so does WFC; as job autonomy and family friendly organization increase, WFC decreases; and as family climate increases, FWC decreases. Finally, Hypothesis 5 predicted internal locus of control would be negatively related to WFC and FWC, while Hypothesis 6 predicted negative affectivity/neuroticism would be positively related to WFC and FWC. Results support both hypotheses. Internal locus of control, where higher scores reect an internal orientation, had small relationships with both WFC (r 0.21) and FWC (r 0.19), while negative affectivity/neuroticism had moderate relationships with both WFC (r 0.38) and FWC (r 0.33). Collectively, these results suggest that the personality traits of internal locus of control and negative affectivity/neuroticism have signicant predictive roles in the perceptions of both WFC and FWC.
Non-hypothesized antecedent relationships

In addition to our hypothesized relationships, we found some unanticipated yet meaningful ndings that fall outside of the traditional workfamily conict framework (i.e., work antecedents to WFC, family antecedents to FWC). A primary nding was that role stressors tend to be related to both forms of workfamily conict. Though typically smaller in magnitude than our relationships stemming from Hypotheses 1a and 1b, we found consistent stressor effects. On the work side, global job stressors (r 0.24), work role conict (r 0.25), work role ambiguity (r 0.16), and work role overload
J. S. MICHEL ET AL.
(r 0.26) all had small relationships with FWC. Likewise, on the family side, global family stressors (r 0.35), family role conict (r 0.30), family role ambiguity (r 0.19), and family role overload (r 0.24) all had moderate to small relationships with WFC. These ndings could suggest several workfamily relationships. For example, it is possible that work and family role stressors are highly salient and pervasive phenomena that permeate both WFC and FWC. Another explanation is that perceptions of stressors and conict have a common underlying theme (i.e., negative feelings and emotions), thus overlapping within a construct space and producing moderate to small effect sizes. A nal related potential explanation could be that negative affect drives these perceptions (cf. Judge, Ilies, & Scott, 2006; Michel & Clark, 2009), thus individuals high in negative affect report both higher stressors and workfamily conict than those low in negative affect. This is particularly interesting as time demands had relatively low non-traditional cross-over effects (r 0.060.07), while role conict, role ambiguity, and role overload had relatively high non-traditional cross-over effects (r 0.160.30), suggesting that it is not physical stressors themselves (i.e., time demands) but the perceptions of stressors (e.g., perceptions of overload). Another unanticipated nding was that family interest/centrality, work and family social support, and family climate had small to moderate non-hypothesized relationships. On the work side, though smaller in magnitude than our relationships stemming from Hypotheses 3a, organizational support (r 0.14), supervisor support (r 0.11), and coworker support (r 0.14) all had small relationships with FWC. Meanwhile, on the family side, and with similar or larger magnitudes than our relationships stemming from Hypotheses 2b, 3b, and 4b, family interest/centrality (r 0.10), family support (r 0.17), spousal support (r 0.10), and family climate (r 0.36) all had small to moderate relationships with WFC. Interestingly, this family climate relationship was actually twice the magnitude of our coinciding FWC nding from Hypothesis 4b. Post hoc, these ndings seem logical as organizations and coworkers who are supportive, and particularly family supportive, probably engender less FWC as they are more understanding and tolerant of an employees family life within the work domain. Likewise, as an employee has family members who are more socially supportive and provide a more understanding family culture, so should negative cross-over effects of WFC be reduced as they too should be more understanding and tolerant of ones work life. Collectively, future research and theoretical attention should be devoted to these unanticipated ndings.
Hypothesized moderation effects

In the reporting of moderator effects, we only report results with 10 or more samples (k), with a loss of no more than 30 percent of the original samples, to ensure our inferences come from relatively stable meta-analytic results. Though family income met this criterion, examination of credibility intervals and variance explained by statistical artifacts and sampling error suggests moderators are not present, and therefore was not included in our moderator analysis. Overall, average number of studies retained for moderator analysis was 92.44 percent. Table 4 reports the results for Hypothesis 7a, in which marital status, parental status, and gender were examined as potential moderators of our hypothesized work domain and WFC relationships. Results partially support this hypothesis. We found seven of these relationships to be impacted by at least one of the theoretically driven moderators investigated in this study; nine moderation effects in total. For work role stressors, we found three signicant ndings, all in the unexpected direction. First, the global job stressors and WFC relationship was moderated by parental status sample characteristics. The moderating role of parental status was negative, such that as the percent of sample participants who are parents increases, the global job stressors and WFC relationship is less positive. This nding suggests that nonparents experience greater WFC from global job stressors than parents. Second, the work role
Table 4. Moderating effects of demographic variables on hypothesized work domain antecedents and WFC Marital status Regression F-value 0.17 1.94 1.66 0.40 4.86 0.88 0.79 0.30 28.28 0.02 0.01 3.35 4.41 2.17 Parental status Regression F-value 6.04 2.08 1.53 0.00 2.72 0.07 0.15 0.01 9.10 0.00 0.08 2.25 10.92 4.85 Gender Regression F-value 1.71 1.22 4.43 1.02 1.60 0.04 0.10 0.20 2.36 0.08 0.53 6.64 0.79 1.08
WFC Job stressors Work role conict Work role ambiguity Work role overload Work time demands Job involvement Organizational support Supervisor support Coworker support Organizational tenure Type of job Job autonomy Schedule exibility Family friendly organization
kt 19 19 20 29 81 34 11 31 15 20 14 16 31 16
k 18 18 19 28 69 33 10 28 11 18 14 12 27 13
b 0.10 0.33 0.30 0.12 0.26 0.17 0.30 0.11 0.87 0.03 0.03 0.50 0.39 0.41
k 15 16 17 26 69 33 10 29 12 17 13 12 25 13
b 0.56 0.36 0.30 0.01 0.20 0.05 0.13 0.01 0.69 0.00 0.09 0.43 0.57 0.55
k 19 19 20 29 77 34 11 30 13 20 14 16 29 14
b 0.30 0.26 0.45 0.19 0.14 0.04 0.11 0.08 0.42 0.07 0.21 0.57 0.17 0.29
Note: kt, number of samples cumulated; k, number of samples in regression analysis; b, standardized beta weight for moderator. Marital status was coded as percentage of sample participants who were married or living with partner, with values ranging from 1 20% or less currently married or living with partner to 6 100% currently married or living with partner. Parental status was coded as percentage of the study sample with children, with values ranging from 1 20% or less parents to 6 100% parents. Gender was coded as percentage of female participants within the sample, with values ranging from 1 0% female to 12 100% female. p < 0.05; p < 0.01.
ambiguity and WFC relationship was moderated by gender sample characteristics. The moderating role of gender was negative, such that as the percent of sample participants who are female increases, the work role ambiguity and WFC relationship is less positive. This nding suggests that males experience greater WFC from work role ambiguity than females. And third, the work time demands and WFC relationship was moderated by marital status sample characteristics. The moderating role of marital status was negative indicating that the work time demands and WFC relationship is less positive as the sample contains more individuals who are married. This nding suggests that nonmarried individuals experience greater WFC from work time demands than married individuals. We also found several signicant relationships for work social support and work characteristics. First, the coworker support and WFC relationship was moderated by both marital status and parental status sample characteristics. The moderating role of both marital status and parental status was positive, such that as the percent of sample participants who are married or are parents increases, the coworker support and WFC relationship is more negative. These ndings suggest that individuals who are married or parents experience a greater reduction in WFC from coworker support than individuals who are nonmarried or nonparents. Similarly, the schedule exibility and WFC relationship was moderated by both marital status and parental status sample characteristics. The moderating role of both marital status and parental status was positive, such that as the percent of sample participants who are married or are parents increases, the schedule exibility and WFC relationship is more negative. These ndings suggest that individuals who are married or parents experience a greater reduction in WFC from schedule exibility than individuals who are nonmarried or nonparents. The family friendly organization and WFC relationship was moderated by parental status sample characteristics. The moderating role of parental status was positive, such that as the percent of sample participants who are parents increases, the family friendly organization and WFC relationship is more negative. These
J. S. MICHEL ET AL.
Table 5. Moderating effects of demographic variables on hypothesized family domain antecedents and FWC Marital status Regression F-value 1.93 1.91 0.11 3.50 0.55 0.36 Parental status Regression F-value 8.19 2.46 3.63 1.31 1.25 0.14 Gender Regression F-value 3.19 0.73 1.62 0.44 0.00 0.43
FWC Family time demands Number of children/ dependents Age of children Family involvement Family support Spouse support
kt 21 46 14 17 21 15
k 19 46 14 17 21 14
b 0.32 0.20 0.09 0.44 0.17 0.17
k 19 43 13 17 21 13
b 0.57 0.24 0.50 0.28 0.25 0.11
k 21 46 14 16 20 15
b 0.38 0.13 0.34 0.17 0.00 0.18
Note: kt, number of samples cumulated; k, number of samples in regression analysis; b, standardized beta weight for moderator. Marital status was coded as percentage of sample participants who were married or living with partner, with values ranging from 1 20% or less currently married or living with partner to 6 100% currently married or living with partner. Parental status was coded as percentage of the study sample with children, with values ranging from 1 20% or less parents to 6 100% parents. Gender was coded as percentage of female participants within the sample, with values ranging from 1 0% female to 12 100% female. p < 0.05.
ndings suggest that individuals who are parents experience a greater reduction in WFC from a family friendly organization than individuals who are nonparents. Finally, gender had a signicant and negative moderating effect on the job autonomy and WFC relationship, which was in the unexpected direction. The negative moderating effect indicates that the job autonomy and WFC relationship becomes less negative as more females are included in the sample. This nding suggests that males experience a greater reduction in WFC from job autonomy than females. Table 5 reports the results of Hypothesis 7b, in which marital status, parental status, and gender were examined as potential moderators of our hypothesized family domain and FWC relationships. Results do not support this hypothesis. Of these sample demographics, only parental status was found to be a signicant moderator, and this relationship was in the unexpected direction. Parental status had a signicant and negative moderating effect on the family time demands and FWC relationship, such that this relationship becomes less positive as more parents are included in the sample. This nding suggests that nonparents experience greater FWC from family time demands than parents.
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to provide a comprehensive meta-analytic examination of workfamily conict and its antecedents. Given our ndings, we present a slightly modied version of our model in Figure 2. As displayed, antecedents in bold font represent variables that were predictors of both WFC and FWC, antecedents in regular font represent variables that were predictors of same domain conict only (work predictor of WFC, family predictor of FWC), and antecedents in italic font represent variables that were predictors of other domain conict only (family predictor of WFC). Collectively, our hypothesized results suggest: (1) Work role stressors (global job stressors, work role conict, work role ambiguity, work role overload, and work time demands), work role involvement (job involvement and work interest/centrality), work social support (organizational support, supervisor support, and coworker support), and work characteristics (task variety, job autonomy, and family friendly
Figure 2. Final meta-analytic model of workfamily conict. Note: Antecedents in bold font are predictors of both WFC and FWC; antecedents in regular font are predictors of the hypothesized relationship only; antecedents in italic font are predictors of the non-hypothesized relationship only. Dotted lines represent non-hypothesized relationships. Corrected correlations are reported. a see Tables 4 and 5 for direction and magnitude of moderation effects
organization) are predictors of WFC; (2) family role stressors (global family stressors, family role conict, family role ambiguity, family role overload, family time demands, parental demands, and number of children/dependents), family social support (family support and spousal support), and family characteristics (family climate) are predictors of FWC; (3) internal locus of control and negative affect/neuroticism predict both WFC and FWC; and (4) demographic variables (marital status, parental status, and gender) are signicant and meaningful moderators of many work domain/WFC and family domain/FWC relationships. We also found some unanticipated ndings. These ndings suggest: (1) Work role stressors (global job stressors, work role conict, work role ambiguity, and work role overload) and work social support (organizational support, supervisor support, and coworker support) are related to FWC; and (2) family role stressors (global family stressors, family role conict, family role ambiguity, and family role overload), family role involvement (family interest/centrality), family
J. S. MICHEL ET AL.
social support (family support and spousal support), and family characteristics (family climate) are related to WFC. Some of the more interesting ndings from this meta-analysis revolve around role stressors, personality, and the moderator ndings of the role stressors and workfamily conict relationships. Regarding role stressors, workfamily researchers have repeatedly noted the importance of both work , 1999; Greenhaus and family stressors as antecedents of workfamily conict (e.g., Carlson & Perrewe & Beutell, 1985; Parasuraman, Greenhaus & Granrose, 1992; Van Sell, Brief, & Schuler, 1981); however, there has been much ambiguity revolving around the types of work and family stressors and the subsequent impact on workfamily conict (e.g., Michel, Mitchelson, Pichler, & Cullen, 2010). Our results reduce this ambiguity and clearly show differential impact of specic work and family domain stressors on WFC and FWC. Though each of these stressors have unique magnitudes in relation to workfamily conict, there are several trends across these relationships. For example, role ambiguity was consistently a much weaker predictor of workfamily conict than global stressors, role overload, and role conict. Similarly, psychological stressors (e.g., role ambiguity, role overload) were better predictors of overall workfamily conict (i.e., both WFC and FWC) than non-psychological stressors (e.g., time demands, number of children), while non-psychological stressors were better predictors of same domain workfamily conict. Regarding personality, there has been a recent call for greater examination of personality variables within the workfamily literature (see Eby et al., 2005; Friede & Ryan, 2005; Michel & Clark, 2009). This study provides the rst meta-analytic examination of personality and workfamily conict. More specically, we examined the direct effects of both internal locus of control and negative affect/ neuroticism on WFC and FWC. Our results indicated that both personality variables were signicant predictors of both forms of workfamily conict. Further, negative affectivity/neuroticism was one of the strongest predictors of workfamily conict, second only to various domain stressors. Consequently, these results suggest a signicant amount of variance in workfamily conict, and potentially other workfamily constructs, is disposition-based. Regarding the moderator ndings of the role stressors and workfamily conict relationships, and contrary to our hypotheses, our results support a potential buffering effect where role stressorWFC relationships were weaker for samples that consisted of more married, parent, and female participants. Post hoc, it seems that incorporating additional roles into ones life (e.g., marital roles, parental roles), and thus increasing self-complexity, may provide a protective buffer for role stressors negative inuence on workfamily conict. Self-complexity refers to both the number of self-aspects, including roles, behaviors, traits, and similar category memberships, as well as the degree of distinction or independence between these aspects of the self (Linville, 1985, 1987; see Koch & Shepperd, 2004 for a review). For example, a woman high in self-complexity would perceive herself as having many roles that are seen as separate and potentially non-overlapping such as mother, wife, employee, friend, and daughter. Recent research, however, suggests that the number of self-aspects drives the buffering effects more so than the degree of non-overlap (Brown & Rafaeli, 2007; Rothermund & Meiniger, 2004). Regardless, according to theory, having high self-complexity (i.e., more roles) prevents stressors or stressful events from one domain spreading or spilling over into other self-aspects or roles; thus protecting the overall positive self-view of the individual (Linville, 1987). For example, Dixon and Baumeister (1991) found that those high in self-complexity respond to failure in one self-aspect (i.e., verbal intelligence) by focusing on and persisting in tasks relevant to other independent self-aspects (i.e., personal goals). Our results suggest that a similar buffering effect could explain the effects of our moderator variables. For example, though global job stressors was highly positively related to WFC, this relationship was weaker for samples that consisted of more parents. Accordingly, self-complexity would suggest that individuals who possess more roles (e.g., parents), and thus greater self-complexity, would have a reduction in this stressorstrain relationship.
Byron (2005): Comparisons and contributions

While the general structure of our revised model and Byrons (2005) model are similar, primary differences revolve around three critical aspects: Level of clarity regarding work and family antecedents, inclusion of personality variables, and the placement of variables within models (e.g., direct vs. interaction effect). As this work is an extension of Byrons, a comparison between reviews should be offered. A primary contribution of this review is the added conceptual and empirical clarity of role stressors, role involvement, social support, and work/family characteristics in regards to WFC and FWC. For example, while Byron (2005) examined role stressors, we disentangled role stressors into the theoretically derived facets of role conict, role ambiguity, and role overload (cf. Katz & Kahn, 1978). From this disentanglement, we can see that the estimates Byron reported for job stress and WFC (r 0.48) and family stress and FWC (r 0.47) are missing the theoretical facets of role conict (r 0.41 for work; r 0.36 for family), role ambiguity (r 0.20 for work; r 0.28 for family), and role overload (r 0.55 for work; r 0.35 for family), for example. While Byron did report work role overload for WFC (r 0.65) and FWC (r 0.40), the other relationships reported above are novel to this review. Accordingly, we now see that work and family role ambiguity is a much weaker predictor of WFC and FWC than other role stressors. Likewise, while Byron reports work support and WFC (r 0.19) and family support and FWC (r 0.17) relationships, we again see that social support is multifaceted with aspects of organizational support (r 0.30), supervisor support (r 0.22), and coworker support (r 0.25) on the work side and family social support (r 0.11) and spousal support (r 0.16) on the family side. This is another novel contribution of the current review. Finally, we extend Byrons review with the addition of seven work characteristics; of these, task variety (r 0.17) job autonomy (r 0.11) and family friendly organization (r 0.11) were all predictive of WFC. In total, our ner grained analysis provides 13 additional or rened work domain predictors of WFC (work role conict, work role ambiguity, work interest/centrality, organizational support, supervisor support, coworker support, organizational tenure, job tenure, type of job, current salary, task variety, job autonomy, and family friendly organization) and seven additional or rened family domain predictors of FWC (family role conict, family role ambiguity, family role overload, parental demands, family interest/centrality, spousal support, family climate). These additional variables are also provided for our unhypothesized, yet often signicant and meaningful, work domain to FWC and family domain to WFC relationships. As such, this paper addresses Byrons call for researchers to attend to more nely grained variables that may more fully capture employees likelihood of experiencing work family conict, and does so at a meta-analytic level (p. 169). Several of these discrepancies seem particularly noteworthy due to the magnitude of the difference. On the work side, work role overload had discrepancies with WFC (r 0.55, current study; r 0.65, Byron) and FWC (r 0.26, current study; r 0.40, Byron), while schedule exibility had discrepancies with WFC (r 0.09, current study; r 0.30, Byron) and FWC (r 0.06, current study; r 0.17, Byron). Meanwhile, on the family side, age of children had discrepancies with FWC (r 0.02, current study; r 0.22, Byron) and WFC (r 0.04, current study; r 0.17, Byron). There are several potential explanations for these discrepancies. One would be the operationalization of constructs and subsequent studies included in each review. For example, in regards to workfamily conict, we only included measures of workfamily conict as the construct of worknonwork or worklife conict is far more inclusive (e.g., leisure roles, community roles; Frone, 2003). While we expected that family domain antecedents would have stronger relationships with workfamily conict than worknonwork conict due to the underlying family commonality (cf. Huffman, Youngcort, Payne, & Castro, 2008), this may not have been the case. In fact, we found one relationship, age of
J. S. MICHEL ET AL.
children and FWC (r 0.02), which was unexpectedly smaller and in the opposite direction than that in Byron (r 0.22). However, this relationship found by Byron could have been captured in our operationalization of the parental demands variable (r 0.22), as younger children often require greater parental demands. Regardless, we feel that the methodological and conceptual clarity of metaanalytically examined variables is paramount (cf. Burke & Landis, 2003), and feel condent in our decision to exclude non-family oriented measures and provide more detailed coding of antecedents (e.g., multiple sources of social support such as organization, supervisor, or coworker). A related potential explanation for these discrepancies revolves around the number of studies and subsequent stability of the effect size estimates. Specically, many of these discrepancies could be explained through the addition of effect sizes, as the modied failsafe N (MFN) in Byrons (2005) estimates were often exceeded in the current review. For example, Byrons MFN for work role overload was 5 for WFC and 4 for FWC. Our review exceeded these with an additional 19 effect sizes for WFC (29 vs. 10) and an additional 7 effect sizes for FWC (17 vs. 10). Likewise, Byrons MFN for schedule exibility was 2 for WFC and 4 for FWC. Again, our review exceeded these with an additional 23 effect sizes for WFC (31 vs. 8) and an additional 11 effect sizes for FWC (19 vs. 8). Overall, Byrons MFN was exceeded in our review ve times for WFC (job involvement, work time demands, schedule exibility, work role overload, and number of children/dependents) and six times for FWC (job involvement, schedule exibility, work role overload, family involvement, family time demands, and number of children/dependents), suggesting that some discrepancies may be due to the addition of effect sizes. Another primary contribution of this review is the added conceptual and empirical clarity of personality in relation to workfamily conict, as this study provides the rst meta-analytic examination of internal locus of control and negative affect/neuroticism in regards to WFC and FWC. Our results indicate that internal locus of control had relationships of r 0.21 and r 0.19 with WFC and FWC, while negative affectivity/neuroticism had relationships of r 0.38 and 0.33 with WFC and FWC. Accordingly, these results suggest that these personality traits of internal locus of control and negative affectivity/neuroticism have small and moderate predictive roles in the perceptions of workfamily conict. As such, this work provides a contribution above and beyond that of Byron (2005) by providing the rst meta-analytic test of personality traits within the workfamily literature and helps answer the recent call for greater examination of personality in regards to work and family relationships (Eby et al., 2005; Friede & Ryan, 2005; Michel & Clark, 2009). Finally, this review and Byrons (2005) differ in regards to the examination of demographic variables. First, while Byron examined the percent of sample with parents and women as moderators, we supplemented her research with marital status. Second, we examined our moderator variables on ner grained relationships (e.g., ve forms of job stressors, three forms of work support). And third, as we had a much larger sample of studies to examine (142 studies vs. 61 studies; 105 studies unique to this review), we were able to further clarify under what circumstances WFC and FWC are perceived (e.g., when schedule exibility is not provided for employees who are married or parents).
General contributions and practical implications

The current work contributes to the workfamily conict literature and impacts the eld in at least three ways. First, this work provides, tests, and subsequently revises a meta-framework that was developed from multiple workfamily linkages, incorporates core work, family, and personality antecedents, and examines demographic variables as moderators. In doing so, the current work integrates and applies many seminal works within the literature into a coherent framework (e.g., Edwards & Rothbard, 2000; Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985; Kahn et al., 1964; Kopelman et al., 1983; Zedeck, 1992).
Second, while there have been previous meta-analyses within the workfamily conict literature, none have been as exhaustive as the current work. While comprehensiveness by itself is not a contribution, this did allow for a ner grained analysis of the constructs within the study, along with additional moderator analyses. For example, while Byron (2005) included a work domain variable of support, she found that work support had a relationship with WFC of r 0.19. However, given the comprehensiveness of the current work, we were able to disentangle the work social support construct and determine its relationship to WFC at facet levels: Organizational support (r 0.30), supervisor support (r 0.22), and coworker support (r 0.25). Likewise, though Byron reported job stress and WFC (r 0.48) and family stress and FWC (r 0.47) relationships, we were able to further explore the theoretical facets of role conict (r 0.41 for work domain to WFC; r 0.36 for family domain to FWC), role ambiguity (r 0.20 for work domain to WFC; r 0.28 for family domain to FWC), and role overload (r 0.55 for work domain to WFC; r 0.35 for family domain to FWC). In doing so, the current work answers Byrons call by providing a meta-analytic examination of ner grained variables that provide greater clarity of workfamily conict antecedents. And third, with this better understanding of workfamily conict and its antecedents, implementation of these ndings can progress. For example, many of the variables in our model are potentially under the control of the individual, the partner in the relationship, peers or coworkers, the organization, the immediate supervisor, or various laws and regulations. Thus, the ndings herein could be used for, or in the goal of, reduction of workfamily conict at multiple levels. For example, job stressors are important antecedents of WFC and FWC. Organizations that are interested in reducing the extent to which their employees work lives conict with their family lives, and visa versa, would particularly benet from focusing on reducing work role conict, work role ambiguity, and work role overload. In other words, employers can likely reduce employee WFC and FWC by ensuring job duties and responsibilities are clear and compatible, while also ensuring that the number of tasks in which employees are responsible for are reasonable. Similarly, our moderator variables revealed some interesting results with practical implications. For example, our ndings suggest that schedule exibility beneted those who were of married/partnered or parental status. These ndings could also be used in the goal to reduce perceptions of employee WFC.
Study limitations and future research

One of the most common typologies in the workfamily conict literature recognizes three forms of conict: Time-based, strain-based, and behavior-based conict (Carlson, 1999; Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985; Stephens & Sommer, 1996). Unfortunately, our data only included four studies that provided data independently for time, strain, and/or behavior based conict. When factoring in the number of variables we examine, along with the few studies that include one or more forms of this conict, there simply was not sufcient data to meta-analytically examine. Thus, we were forced to average effect sizes across these facets of workfamily conict. Future research should further examine Greenhaus and Beutells (1985) trichotomization of time, strain, and behavior based workfamily conict. This is important for theoretical clarication of each form of workfamily conict. For example, resource drain theory should be an important component of time and strain based workfamily conict, but conict theory should be an important component of behavior based workfamily conict (cf. Edwards & Rothbard, 2000). Further examination of these workfamily components should shed light on the validity of extant theoretical models within the workfamily literature. Further, increased examination of these forms of conict at the primary level need to be executed so secondary research synthesis can be conducted.
J. S. MICHEL ET AL.
Similarly, the hindrance/challenge stressor framework is a recent contribution to the stressor (LePine, LePine, & Jackson, 2004; LePine, Podsakoff, & LePine, 2005) and workfamily (LePine, LePine, & Saul, 2007) literatures. This framework posits that work stressors are differentially related to work outcomes, such that challenge-related stressors are positively related to desirable outcomes and hindrance-related stressors are negatively related to desirable outcomes. Unfortunately, much of the hindrance/challenge construct occurs at the item level (Cavanaugh, Boswell, Roehling, & Boudreau, 2000), thus stressor measures included in this meta-analysis contain both hindrance and challenge items, resulting in our inability to partition each form of stress. We should note, however, that the majority of the antecedent variables we examined could be classied as hindrance stressors (e.g., work role conict, job stressors), thus providing additional support and clarity on a portion of this novel framework. Given the importance of this emerging framework, we suggest further studies of this framework at the primary level so secondary research synthesis can be conducted. Our results provide moderate support for the personality variable of internal locus of control and strong support for the personality variable of negative affect/neuroticism; thus, we highly encourage the examination of personality within the workfamily interface. Our ndings provide preliminary support for potential relationships between workfamily conict and Core Self-Evaluations and the Five Factor Model. More specically, internal locus of control has been conceptualized as a component of Core Self-Evaluations (e.g., Judge, Bono, Erez, & Locke, 2005); likewise, neuroticism is one of the ve factors within the Five Factor Model of personality. Future research should further explore these relationships. In addition, while we have preliminary support for these relationships, examination of personality within the workfamily domain could explore the impact explicit social reputations and implicit social cognitions (Bing, LeBreton, Davison, Migetz, & James, 2007; Bing, Stewart, Davison, Green, McIntyre, & James, 2007; Hogan, 1991; James & Mazerolle, 2002), along with more dysfunctional personality traits (Buss & Perry, 1992; Paulhus & Williams, 2002), have on workfamily conict. In addition, personality based research could also expand beyond the workfamily conict literature and examine personality inuences on other forms of workfamily interactions. For example, it could be that some personality variables (e.g., negative affect) have signicant direct effects on work family conict, while others (e.g., positive affect, proactivity) have signicant direct effects on other forms of workfamily interactions such as enrichment and facilitation. Despite the fact that personality variables seem to be a promising component in the prediction of workfamily constructs, personality variables have received less attention than other antecedents. For example, our literature review included relatively few studies on internal locus of control (k 9, WFC; k 7, FWC) and negative affect/neuroticism (k 15, WFC; k 10, FWC). In comparison, role stressors have received far more empirical examination (up to k 81 for WFC; up to k 57 for FWC). As such, the stability of our metaanalytic bivariate relationships is variable, where larger k (e.g., role stressor variable estimates) should represent more robust effect size approximations than smaller k (e.g., personality variable estimates). Nonetheless, based on this study, future research on personality variables within the workfamily interface should prove fruitful. Finally, we suggest meta-analytic path analysis of holistic models of work and family. Though the present work examined the antecedents of workfamily conict (see also Byron, 2005), previous work has examined the consequences of workfamily conict (Allen, Herst, Bruck, & Sutton, 2000; Kossek & Ozeki, 1998), and the recent works of Ford et al. (2007), Michel and Hargis (2008), and Michel, Mitchelson, Kotrba, LeBreton, and Baltes (2009) examined cross-domain relationships of work and family, we suggest the meta-analytic examination of holistic workfamily models (e.g., Frone et al., 1997) to provide greater clarity of workfamily conict and its antecedents and outcomes at an incremental multivariate level (cf. Michel et al., 2009). Further, such examination could expand beyond the workfamily conict literature and examine other forms of workfamily interactions such as enrichment, facilitation, and balance for a more complete understanding of work and family.
Conclusions
It was the intention of the current work to integrate the workfamily conict literature and provide a meta-framework with both theoretical and meta-analytic support. The quantitative review resulted in strong empirical support for our revised model and the constructs of WFC and FWC, which were supported by various theories linking work and familyincluding role theory, resource drain theory, compensation theory, and congruence theory. Major contributions revolve around the importance of role stressors and personality variables in regards to perceptions of workfamily conict, while multiple roles may buffer harmful stressor effects on workfamily conict.
Author biographies
Jesse S. Michel is an Assistant Professor in the Psychology Department at Florida International University. His research interests include dynamics between work and family, personality and behavioral stability, and leadership and abusive supervision. Lindsey M. Kotrba is the Director of Research and Development at Denison Consulting. Her research interests include job satisfaction, work and family balance, organizational culture and leadership. Jacqueline K. Mitchelson is an Assistant Professor in the Psychology Department at Auburn University. Her research interests include leadership and organizational culture, workfamily conict, and individual differences. Malissa A. Clark is a doctoral student in the Psychology Department at Wayne State University. Her research interests include emotions in the workplace, workfamily conict, counterproductive work behaviors, and occupational health psychology. Boris B. Baltes is an Associate Professor in the Psychology Department at Wayne State University. His research interests include age and workplace issues, biases in performance appraisal, and workfamily balance.
References
References marked with an asterisk are included in the meta-analysis. Adams, G. A., & Jex, S. M. (1999). Relationships between time management, control, work-family conict, and strain. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 4, 7277. Adams, G. A., King, L. A., & King, D. W. (1996). Relationship of job and family involvement, family social support, and work-family conict with job and life satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 411420. Allen, T. D., Herst, D. E. L., Bruck, C. S., & Sutton, M. (2000). Consequences associated with work-to-family conict: A review and agenda for future research. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 278308. Allport, G. W. (1937). Personality: A psychological interpretation. New York: Holt. Anderson, S. E., Coffey, B. S., & Byerly, R. T. (2002). Formal organizational initiatives and informal workplace practices: Links to work-family conict and job-related outcomes. Journal of Management, 28, 787810. Andreassi, J. K., & Thompson, C. A. (2007). Dispositional and situational sources of control: Relative impact on work-family conict and positive spillover. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22, 722740. Archbold, P. G. (1983). Impact of parental-caring on women. Family Relations, 32, 3945. Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. (2010) DOI: 10.1002/job
J. S. MICHEL ET AL.
Aryee, S. (1992). Antecedents and outcomes of work-family conict among married professional women: Evidence from Singapore. Human Relations, 45, 813837. Aryee, S., Fields, D., & Luk, V. (1999). A cross-cultural test of a model of the work-family interface. Journal of Management, 25, 491511. Aryee, S., Luk, V., Leung, A., & Lo, S. (1999). Role stressors, interrole conict, and well-being: The moderating inuence of spousal support and coping behaviors among employed parents in Hong Kong. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 259278. Aycan, Z., & Eskin, M. (2005). Relative contributions of childcare, spousal support, and organizational support in reducing work-family conict for men and women: The case of Turkey. Sex Roles, 53, 453471. Bacharach, S. B., Bamberger, P., & Conley, S. (1990). Work processes, role conict, and role overload: The case of nurses and engineers in the public sector. Work and Occupations, 17, 199228. Baltes, B. B., Briggs, T. E., Huff, J. W., Wright, J. A., & Heuman, G. A. (1999). Flexible and compressed workweek schedules: A Meta-analysis of their effects on work-related criteria. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 496 513. Baltes, B. B., & Heydens-Gahir, H. (2003). Reduction of work-family conict through the use of selection, optimization, and compensation behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 10051018. Bedeian, A. G., Burke, B. G., & Moffett, R. G. (1988). Outcomes of work-family conict among married male and female professionals. Journal of Management, 14, 475491. Beehr, T. A. (1995). Psychological stress in the workplace. London: Routledge. Beehr, T. A., & Glazer, A. (2005). Organizational role stress. In J. Barling, E. K. Kelloway, & M. R. Frone (Eds.), Handbook of work stress (pp. 733). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Behson, S. J. (2002a). Coping with family-to-work conict: The role of informal work accommodations to family. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 7, 324341. Behson, S. J. (2002b). Which dominates? The relative importance of work-family organizational support and general organizational context on employee outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 5372. Bernas, K. H., & Major, D. A. (2000). Contributors to stress resistance: Testing a model of womens work-family conict. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 24, 170178. Beutell, N. J., & Wittig-Berman, U. (1999). Predictors of work-family conict and satisfaction with family, job, career, and life. Psychological Reports, 85, 893903. Bing, M. N., LeBreton, J. M., Davison, H. K., Migetz, D. Z., & James, L. R. (2007). Integrating implicit and explicit social cognitions for enhanced personality assessment: A general framework for choosing measurement and statistical methods. Organizational Research Methods, 10, 346389. Bing, M. N., Stewart, S. M., Davison, H. K., Green, P. D., McIntyre, M. D., & James, L. R. (2007). An integrative typology of personality assessment for aggression: Implications for predicting counterproductive workplace behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 722744. Blau, G. (1995). Inuence of group lateness on individual lateness: A cross-level examination. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 14831496. Boles, J. S., & Babin, B. J. (1996). On the front lines: Stress, conict, and the customer service provider. Journal of Business Research, 37, 4150. Boles, J. S., Johnston, M. W., & Hair, J. F. (1997). Role stress, work-family conict and emotional exhaustion: Inter-relationships and effects on some work-related consequences. The Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 17, 1728. Bond, J. T., Galinsky, E., & Swanberg, J. E. (1998). The 1997 national study of the changing workforce. New York: Families and Work Institute. Bolino, M. C., & Turnley, W. H. (2005). The personal costs of citizenship behavior: The relationship between individual initiative and role overload, job stress, and work-family conict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 740748. Boyar, S. L., Carr, J. C., Mosley, D. C., & Carson, C.M., (2007). The development and validation of scores on perceived work and family demand scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 67, 100115. Boyar, S. L., Maertz, C. P., Jr., Pearson, A. W., & Keough, S. (2003). Work-family conict: A model of linkages between work and family domain variables and turnover intentions. Journal of Managerial Issues, 15, 175 190. Boyar, S. L., & Mosley, D. C. (2007). The relationship between core self-evaluations and work and family satisfaction: The mediating role of work-family conict and facilitation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 71, 265281. Britt, T. W., & Dawson, C. R. (2005). Predicting work-family conict from workload, job attitudes, group attributes, and health: A longitudinal study. Military Psychology, 17, 203227.
Brough, P. (2005). A comparative investigation of the predictors of work-related psychological well-being within police, re and ambulance workers. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 34, 127134. Brough, P., & Kelling, A. (2002). Women, work & well-being family-work conict. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 31, 2938. Brough, P., ODriscoll, M. P., & Kalliath, T. J. (2005). The ability of family friendly organizational resources to predict work-family conict and job and family satisfaction. Stress & Health, 21, 223234. Brown, G. & Rafaeli, E. (2007). Components of self-complexity as buffers for depressed mood. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 21, 308331. Bruck, C. S. (2003). Theoretical antecedents to work-family conict: A comprehensive approach. Unpublished Dissertation. University of South Florida, Tampa, FL. Bruck, C. S., & Allen, T. D. (2003). The relationship between big ve personality traits, negative affectivity, type A behavior, and work-family conict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63, 457472. Bruck, C. S., Allen, T. D., & Spector, P. E. (2002). The relationship between work-family conict and job satisfaction: A ner grained analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 60, 336353. Burke, R. J. (1986). Occupational and life stress and the family: Conceptual frameworks and research ndings. International Review of Applied Psychology, 35, 347369. Burke, R. J. (1988). Some antecedents and consequences of work/family conict. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality Special Issue: Work and family: Theory, Research, and Applications, 3, 287302. Burke, R. J. (1998). Work and non-work stressors and well-being among police ofcers: The role of coping. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping: An International Journal, 11, 345362. Burke, R. J., & Greenglass, E. R. (1999). Work-family conict, spouse support, and nurse-staff well-being during organizational restructuring. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 4, 327336. Burke, R. J., & Greenglass, E. R. (2001). Hospital restructuring stressors, work-family concerns and psychological well-being among nursing staff. Community, Work & Family, 4, 4962. Burke, R. J., & Landis, R. S. (2003). Methodological and conceptual challenges in conducting and interpreting meta-analyses. In K. Murphy (Ed.), Validity generalization: A critical review (pp. 287309). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Burke, R. J., Weir, T., & DuWors, R. E. (1979). Type A behavior of administrators and wives reports of marital satisfaction and well-being. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 5765. Buss, A. H., & Perry, M. (1992). The Aggression Questionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 452459. Butler, A. B., Grzywacz, J. G., Bass, B. L., & Linney, K. D. (2005). Extending the demands-control model: A daily diary study of job characteristics, work-family conict and work-family facilitation. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78, 155169. Byron, K. (2005). A meta-analytic review of work-family conict and its antecedents. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67, 169198. Caplan, R. D., Cobb, S., & French, J. R. (1975). Relationships of cessation of smoking with job stress, personality, and social support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 211219. Carbone, D. J. (1992). The effects of career stage and family stage on human service employees coping with workfamily conict. Unpublished Dissertation. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. Carlson, D. S. (1999). Personality and role variables as predictors of three forms of work-family conict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 55(2), 236253. Carlson, D. S., & Kacmar, K. M. (2000). Work-family conict in the organization: Do life role values make a difference? Journal of Management, 26, 10311054. , P. L. (1999). The role of social support in the stressor-strain relationship: An Carlson, D. S., & Perrewe examination of work-family conict. Journal of Management, 25, 513540. Casper, W. J., Martin, J. A., Buffardi, L. C., & Erdwins, C. J. (2002). Work-family conict, perceived organizational support, and organizational commitment among employed mothers. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 7, 99108. Cavanaugh, M. A., Boswell, W. R., Roehling, M. V., & Boudreau, J. W. (2000). An empirical examination of selfreport work stress among U.S. managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 6574. Cinamon, R. G., & Rich, Y. (2002). Proles of attribution of importance to life roles and their implications for the work-family conict. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 49, 212220. Cinamon, R. G., & Rich, Y. (2005). Work-family conict among female teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 365378. Cinamon, R. G., Rich, Y., & Westman, M. (2007). Teachers occupation-specic workfamily conict. The Career Development Quarterly, 55, 249261.
J. S. MICHEL ET AL.
Cinamon, R. G., Weisel, A., & Tzuk, K. (2007). Work-family conict within the family: Crossover effects, perceived parent-child interaction quality, parental self-efcacy, and life role attributions. Journal of Career Development, 34, 79100. Clark, S. C. (2002). Employees sense of community, sense of control, and work/family conict in Native American organizations. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 92108. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Cohen, A., Granot-Shilovsky, L., & Yishai, Y. (2007). The relationship between personal, role, and organizational variables and promotion to managerial positions in the Israeli educational system. Personnel Review, 36, 622. Cooper, C. L., Cooper, R. D., & Eaker, L. H. (1988). Living with stress. London: Penguin. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Four ways ve factors are basic. Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 653665. Cullen, J. C., & Hammer, L. B. (2007). Developing and testing a theoretical model linking work-family conict to employee safety. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12, 266278. Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2005). Spillover and crossover of exhaustion and life satisfaction among dual-earner parents. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67, 266289. Dixon, T. M., & Baumeister, R. F. (1991). Escaping the self: The moderating effect of self-complexity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 363368. Duxbury, L. E., & Higgins, C. A. (1991). Gender differences in work-family conict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 6074. Duxbury, L. E., Higgins, C. A., & Lee, C. M. (1994). Work^family conict: A comparison by gender, family type and perceived control. Journal of Family Issues, 15, 449466. Eagle, B. W. (1996). A construct validity study of bidirectional measures of work-family conict. Unpublished Dissertation. Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA. Eagle, B. W., Icenogle, M. L., Maes, J. D., & Miles, E. W. (1998). The importance of employee demographic proles for understanding experiences of work-family interrole conicts. Journal of Social Psychology, 138, 690709. Eagle, B. W., Miles, E. D., & Icenogle, M.L., (1997). Interrole conicts and the permeability of work and family domains: Are there gender differences? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50, 168184. 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 (19802002). Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 124197. Edwards, J. R., & Rothbard, N. P. (2000). Mechanisms linking work and family: Clarifying the relationship between work and family constructs. Academy of Management Review, 25, 178199. Evans, P., & Bartolome, F. (1984). The changing pictures of the relationship between career and family. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 5, 921. Field, A. P. (2001). Meta-analysis of correlation coefcients: A Monte Carlo comparison of xed- and randomeffects methods. Psychological Bulletin, 6, 161180. Filippo, C. L. (2003). The relationship of select demographic, psychological, and social support variables with work-to-family and family-to-work conict in medical students. Unpublished Dissertation. The University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK. Ford, M. T., Heinen, B. A., & Langkamer, K. L. (2007). Work and family satisfaction and conict: A meta-analysis of cross-domain relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 5780. Fox, M. L., & Dwyer, D. J. (1999). An investigation of the effects of time and involvement in the relationship between stressors and work-family conict. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 4, 164174. Friede, A. & Ryan, A. M. (2005). The importance of the individual: How self-Evaluations inuence the workfamily interface. In E. E. Kossek and S. Lambert (Eds.). Work and life integration: Organizational, cultural, and individual perspectives (pp. 193209). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Frone, M. R. (2000). Work-family conict and employee psychiatric disorders: The national comorbidity survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 888895. Frone, M. R. (2003). Work-family balance. In J. C. Quick, & L. E. Tetrick (Eds.), Handbook of occupational health psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Frone, M. R., Barnes, G. M., & Farrell, M. P. (1994). Relationship of work-family conict to substance use among employed mothers: The role of negative affect. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 56, 10191030. Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Barnes, G. M. (1996). Work-family conict, gender, and health-related outcomes: A study of employed parents in two community samples. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 1, 5769. Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M. L. (1992). Antecedents and outcomes of work-family conict: Testing a model of the work-family interface. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 6578.
Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M. L. (1997). Relation of work-family conict to health outcomes: A fouryear longitudinal study of employed parents. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 70, 325 335. Frone, M. R., & Yardley, J. K. (1996). Workplace family-supportive programmes: Predictors of employed parents importance ratings. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 69, 351366. Frone, M. R., Yardley, J. K., & Markel, K. S. (1997). Developing and testing an integrative model of the workfamily interface. Journal of Vocational Behavior: Special issue on work and family balance, 50, 145167. Frye, N. K., & Breaugh, J. A. (2004). Family-friendly policies, supervisor support, work-family conict, familywork conict, and satisfaction: A test of a conceptual model. Journal of Business and Psychology, 19, 197220. Fu, C. K., & Shaffer, M. A. (2001). The tug of work and family: Direct and indirect domain-specic determinants of work-family conict. Personnel Review, 30, 502522. Gaitley, N. J. (1996). The inuence of social support and locus of control on the well-being of men and women in the work-family domain. Unpublished Dissertation. Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA. Galinsky, E. (1994). Families and work: The importance of the quality of the work environment. In S. L. Kagan, & B. Weissbourd (Eds.), Putting families rst: Americas family support movement and the challenge of change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Geyskens, I., Krishnan, R., Steenkamp, J. E. M., & Cunha, P. V. (2009). A review and evaluation of meta-analysis practices in management research. Journal of Management, 35, 393419. Gignac, M. A. M., Kelloway, E. K., & Gottlieb, B. H. (1996). The impact of caregiving on employment: A mediational model of work-family conict. Canadian Journal on Aging, 15, 525542. Glass, J. L., & Estes, S. B. (1997). The family responsive workplace. Annual Review of Sociology, 23, 289313. Golden, T. D. (2002). Telecommuting optimization: An investigation of inuential factors during technologyreliant interactions. Unpublished Dissertation. The University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT. Golden, T. D. (2006). The role of relationships in understanding telecommuter satisfaction. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 319340. Golden, T. D., Veiga, J. F., & Simsek, Z. (2006). Telecommutings differential impact on work-family conict: Is there no place like home? Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 13401350. Good, L. K., Sisler, G. F., & Gentry, J. W. (1988). Antecedents of turnover intentions among retail management personnel. Journal of Retailing, 64, 295314. Gooler, L. E. (1996). Coping with work-family conict: The role of organizational support. Unpublished Dissertation. City University of New York, New York, NY. Gordon, J. R., Whalen-Berry, K. S., & Hamilton, E. A. (2007). The relationship among work-family conict and enhancement, organizational work-family culture, and work outcomes for older working women. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12, 350364. Grandey, A. A., Cordeiro, B. L., & Crouter, A. C. (2005). A longitudinal and multi-source test of the work-family conict and job satisfaction relationship. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78, 305323. Grandey, A. A., Cordeiro, B. L., & Michael, J. H. (2007). Work-family supportiveness organizational perceptions: Important for the well-being of male blue-collar hourly workers? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 71, 460478. Grandey, A. A., & Cropanzano, R. (1999). The conservation of resources model applied to work-family conict and strain. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 350370. Greenhaus, J. H., Bedian, A. G., & Mossholder, K. W. (1987). Work experiences, job performance, and feelings of personal and family well-being. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31, 200215. Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conict between work and family roles. Academy of Management Review, 10, 7688. Greenhaus, J. H., Callanan, G. A., & Godshalk, V. M. (2000). Career management. Fort Worth: The Dryden Press. Greenhaus, J. H., Collins, K. M., Singh, R., & Parasuraman, S. (1997). Work and family inuences on departure from public accounting. Journal of Vocational Behavior: Special Issue on Work and Family Balance, 50, 249 270. Greenhaus, J. H., & Parasuraman, S. (1999). Research on work, family, and gender: Current status and future directions. In G. N. Powell (Ed.), Handbook of gender and work. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Greenhaus, J. H., Parasuraman, S., & Collins, K. M. (2001). Career involvement and family involvement as moderators of relationships between work-family conict and withdrawal from a profession. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6, 91100. Greenhaus, J. H., Parasuraman, S., Granrose, C. S., Rabinowitz, S., & Beutell, N. J. (1989). Sources of work/ family conict among two-career couples. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 34, 133153.
J. S. MICHEL ET AL.
rin, A., Carrillo, L., Burke, B., & Coates, M. L., et al. (2007). Work-family Grzywacz, J. G., Arcury, T. A., Ma conict: Experiences and health implications among immigrant Latinos. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 11191130. Grzywacz, J. G., & Bass, B. L. (2003). Work, family, and mental health: Testing different models of work-family t. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65, 248261. Grzywacz, J. G., & Marks, N. F. (2000). Reconceptualizing the work-family interface: An ecological perspective on the correlates of positive and negative spillover between work and family. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 111126. Gutek, B. A., Searle, S., & Klepa, L. (1991). Rational versus gender role explanations for work/family conict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 560568. Haar, J. M. (2004). Work-family conict and turnover intention: Exploring the moderation effects of perceived work-family support. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 33, 3539. Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 250279. Hammer, L. B., Neal, M. B., Newsom, J. T., Brockwood, K. J., & Colton, C. L. (2005). A longitudinal study of the effects of dual-earner couples utilization of family-friendly workplace supports on work and family outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 799810. Hammer, L. B., Allen, E., & Grigsby, T. D. (1997). Work-family conict in dual-earner couples: Withinindividual and crossover effects of work and family. Journal of Vocational Behavior: Special Issue on Work and Family Balance, 50, 185203. Hammer, L. B., Bauer, T. N., & Grandey, A. A. (2003). Work-family conict and work-related withdrawal behaviors. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17, 419436. Hammer, T. H., Saksvik, P., Nytr, K., Torvatn, H., & Bayazit, M. (2004). Expanding the psychosocial work environment: Workplace norms and work-family conict as correlates of stress and health. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 9, 8397. Hart, M. S., & Kelley, M. L. (2006). Fathers and mothers work and family issues as related to internalizing and externalizing behavior of children attending day care. Journal of Family Issues, 27, 252270. Higgins, C., Duxbury, L., & Lee, C. (1994). Impact of life-cycle stage and gender on the ability to balance work and family responsibilities. Family Relations: Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Studies, 43, 144150. Hill, E. J., Yang, C., Hawkins, A. J., & Ferris, M. (2004). A cross-cultural test of the work-family interface in 48 countries. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 13001316. Hirschfeld, R. R., & Feild, H. S. (2000). Work centrality and work alienation: Distinct aspects of a general commitment to work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 789800. Hogan, R. T. (1991). Personality and personality measurement. In M. D. Dunnette, & L. M. Hough (Eds.), The handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 2). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc. Hogan, N. L., Lambert, E. G., Jenkins, M., & Wambold, S. (2006). The impact of occupational stressors on correctional staff organizational commitment: A preliminary study. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 22, 4462. House, G. S. (1981). Work stress and social support. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Huang, Y. E. (2001). A model of antecedents of work-family conict for dual-earner couples in the sandwiched generation: A longitudinal study. Unpublished Dissertation. Portland State University, Portland, OR. Huffman, A. H., Youngcort, S. S., Payne, S. C., & Castro, C. A. (2008). The importance of construct breadth when examining interrole conict. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 68, 515530. Hughes, E. L., & Parkes, K. R. (2007). Work hours and well-being: The roles of work-time control and workfamily interference. Work & Stress, 21, 264278. Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research ndings (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. James, L. R., & Mazerolle, M. D. (2002). Personality in work organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc. Jex, S. M., & Elacqua, T. C. (1999). Time management as a moderator of relations between stressors and employee strain. Work & Stress, 13, 182191. Johnson, A. F. (2003). Multiple-role self-efcacy and value attainment: Personal factors that mediate the relationships between levels of work and family involvement and work-family conict. Unpublished Dissertation. University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS.
Judge, T., Bono, J., Erez, A., & Locke, E. (2005). Core self-evaluations and job and life satisfaction: The role of self-concordance and goal attainment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 257268. Judge, T. A., Boudreau, J. W., & Bretz, R. D. (1994). Job and life attitudes of male executives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 767782. Judge, T. A., & Colquitt, J. A. (2004). Organizational justice and stress: The mediating role of work-family conict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 395404. Judge, T. A., Higgins, C. A., Thoresen, C. J., & Barrick, M. R. (1999). The big ve personality traits, general mental ability, and career success across the life span. Personnel Psychology, 52, 621652. Judge, T. A., & Ilies, R. (2002). Relationship of personality to performance motivation: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 797807. Judge, T. A., Ilies, R., & Scott, B. A. (2006). Work-family conict and emotions: Effects at work and at home. Personnel Psychology, 59, 779814. Kahn, R. (1980). Conict, ambiguity, and overload: Three elements in job stress. In D. Katz, & R. Kahn, & J. Adams (Eds.), The study of organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P., Snoek, J. D., & Rosenthal, R. A. (1964). Organizational stress. NewYork: Wiley. Kanungo, R. N. (1982). Measurement of job and work involvement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 341349. Katz, D., & Kahn, R. (1978). The social psychology of organizations. New York: Wiley. Keene, J. R., & Quadagno, J. (2004). Predictors of perceived work-family balance: Gender difference or gender similarity? Sociological Perspectives, 47, 123. Kelly, R. F., & Voydanoff, P. (1985). Work/family role strain among employed parents. Family Relations, 34, 367 374. Kim, J. L. S., & Ling, C. S. (2001). Work-family conict of women entrepreneurs in Singapore. Women in Management Review, 16, 204221. Kinnunen, U., & Mauno, S. (1998). Antecedents and outcomes of work-family conict among employed women and men in Finland. Human Relations, 51, 157177. Kinnunen, U., Vermulst, A., Gerris, J., & Makikangas, A. (2003). Work-family conict and its relations to wellbeing: The role of personality as a moderating factor. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 1669 1683. Kisamore, J. L., & Brannick, M. T. (2008). An illustration of the consequences of meta-analysis model choice. Organizational Research Methods, 11, 3553. Klitzman, S., House, J. S., Israel, B. A., & Mero, R. P. (1990). Work stress, nonwork stress, and health. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 13, 221243. Koch, E. J., & Shepperd, J. A. (2004). Is self-complexity linked to better coping? A review of the literature. Journal of Personality, 72, 727760. Kopelman, R. E., Greenhaus, J. H., & Connolly, T. F. (1983). A model of work, family, and interrole conict: A construct validation study. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 32, 198215. Kopelman, R. E., Prottas, D. J., Thompson, C. A., & Jahn, E. W. (2006). A multilevel examination of work-life practices: Is more always better? Journal of Managerial Issues, 18, 232253. Kossek, E. E., Colquitt, J. A., & Noe, R. A. (2001). Caregiving decisions, well-being, and performance: The effects of place and provider as a function of dependent type and work-family climates. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 2944. Kossek, E. E., Lautsch, B. A., & Eaton, S. C. (2006). Telecommuting, control, and boundary management: Correlates of policy use and practice, job control, and work-family effectiveness. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 347367. Kossek, E. E., & Ozeki, C. (1998). Work-family conict. Policies, and the job-life satisfaction relationship: A review and directions for organizational behavior-human resources research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 139149. Kowalski, K. B. (1998). A model of the antecedents and outcomes of work-family conict as moderated by social support. Unpublished Dissertation. University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI. Kreiner, G. E. (2006). Consequences of work-home segmentation or integration: A person-environment t perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 485507. Lambert, E. G., Hogan, N. L., & Barton, S. M. (2002). The impact of work-family conict on correctional staff job satisfaction: An exploratory study. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 27, 3552. Lambert, E. G., Hogan, N. L., & Barton, S. M. (2004). The nature of work-family conict among correctional staff: An exploratory examination. Criminal Justice Review, 29, 145172.
J. S. MICHEL ET AL.
Lapierre, L. M., & Allen, T. D. (2006). Work-supportive family, family-supportive supervision, use of organizational benets, and problem-focused coping: Implications for work-family conict and employee well-being. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11, 169181. LePine, J. A., LePine, M. A., & Jackson, C. L. (2004). Challenge and hindrance stress: Relationships with exhaustion, motivation to learn, and learning performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 883891. LePine, J. A., LePine, M. A., & Saul, J. R. (2007). Relationships among work and non-work challenge and hindrance stressors and non-work and work criteria: A model of cross-domain stressor effects. In P. Perrewe, & D. C. Ganster (Eds.), In Research in occupational stress and well being (Vol. 6, pp. 3573). Oxford, UK: JAI Press. LePine, J. A., Podsakoff, N. P., & LePine, M. A. (2005). A meta-analytic test of the challenge stressor hindrance stressor framework: An explanation for inconsistent relationships among stressors and performance. Linville, P. W. (1985). Self-complexity and affective extremity: Dont put all of your eggs in one cognitive basket. Social Cognition, 3, 94120. Linville, P. W. (1987). Self-complexity as a cognitive buffer against stress-related illness and depression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 663676. Little, L. M., Simmons, B. L., & Nelson, D. L. (2007). Health among leaders: Positive and negative affect, engagement and burnout, forgiveness and revenge. Journal of Management Studies, 44, 243260. Livingston, B. A., & Judge, T. A. (2008). Emotional responses to work-family conict: An examination of gender role orientation among working men and women. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 207216. Lu, L., Kao, S. F., Chang, T. T., Wu, H. P., & Cooper, C. L. (2008). Work/family demands, work exibility, work/ family conict, and their consequences at work: A national probability sample in Taiwan. International Journal of Stress Management, 15, 121. Luk, D. M., & Shaffer, M. A. (2005). Work and family domain stressors and support: Within- and cross-domain inuences on work-family conict. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78, 489 508. Lyness, K. S., & Thompson, D. E. (1997). Above the glass ceiling? A comparison of matched samples of female and male executives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 359375. Major, V. S., Klein, K. J., & Ehrhart, M. G. (2002). Work time, work interference with family, and psychological distress. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 427436. Martins, L. L., Eddelston, K. A., & Veiga, J. F. (2002). Moderators of the relationship between work-family conict and career satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 399409. Matsui, T., Ohsawa, T., & Onglatco, M. (1995). Work-family conict and the stress-buffering effects of husband support and coping behavior among Japanese married working women. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 47, 178192. Mauno, S., Kinnunen, U., & Pyykko, M. (2005). Does work-family conict mediate the relationship between work-family culture and self-reported distress? Evidence from ve Finnish organizations. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78, 509530. Mcelwain, A. K., Korabik, K., & Rosin, H. M. (2005). An examination of gender differences in work-family conict. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 37, 283298. Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., & Viswesvaran, C. (2005). Convergence between measures of work-to-family and familyto-work conict: A meta-analytic examination. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67, 215232. Michel, J. S., & Clark, M. A. (2009). Has it been affect all along? A test of work-to-family and family-to-work models of conict, enrichment, and satisfaction. Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 163168. Michel, J. S., & Hargis, M. B. (2008). Linking mechanisms of work-family conict and segmentation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73, 509522. Michel, J. S., Mitchelson, J. K., Kotrba, L. M., LeBreton, J. M., & Baltes, B. B. (2009). A comparative test of workfamily conict models and critical examination of work-family linkages. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74, 199218. Michel, J. S., Mitchelson, J. K., Pichler, S., & Cullen, K. L. (2010). Clarifying relationships among work and family social support, stressors, and work-family conict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76, 91104. Miller, T. A. (2000). Work-life role integration: A construct validation study. Unpublished Dissertation. Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA. Millon, T. (1990). Toward a new personology: An evolutionary model. Oxford, England: JohnWiley & Sons. Montgomery, A. J., Panagopolou, E., & Benos, A. (2006). Work-family interference as a mediator between job demands and job burnout among doctors. Stress & Health, 22, 203212. Morf, M. (1989). The work/life dichotomy. Westport, CT: Quorum.
Morgenson, F. P., & Campion,.M.A., (2003). Work design. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of psychology (12, 423452). NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Netemeyer, R. G., Boles, J. S., & McMurrian, R. (1996). Development and validation of work-family conict and family-work conict scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 400410. Nielson, T. R., Carlson, D. S., & Lankau, M. J. (2001). The supportive mentor as a means of reducing work-family conict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59, 364381. Ng, T. W. H., Eby, L. T., Sorensen, K. L., & Feldman, D. C. (2005). Predictors of objective and subjective career success: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 58, 367408. Ng, T. W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2008). Long work hours: A social identity perspective on meta-analysis data. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 853880. Noor, N. M. (2002). Work-family conict, locus of control, and womens well-being: Tests of alternative pathways. Journal of Social Psychology, 142, 645662. Noor, N. M. (2004). Work-family conict, work- and family-role salience, and womens well-being. Journal of Social Psychology, 144, 389405. ODriscoll, M. P., Ilgen, D. R., & Hildreth, K. (1992). Time devoted to job and off-job activities, interrole conict, and affective experiences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 272279. ODriscoll, M. P., Poelmans, S., Spector, P. E., Kalliath, T., Allen, T. D., Cooper, C. L., & Sanchez, J. I. (2003). Family-responsive interventions, perceived organizational and supervisor support, work-family conict, and psychological strain. International Journal of Stress Management, 10, 326344. Pal, S., & Saksvik, P. O. (2008). Work-family conict and psychosocial work environment stressors as predictors of job stress in a cross-cultural study. International Journal of Stress Management, 15, 2242. Parasuraman, S., Greenhaus, J. H., & Granrose, C. S. (1992). Role stressors, social support, and well-being among two-career couples. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 339356. Parasuraman, S., Purohit, Y. S., & Godshalk, V. M. (1996). Work and family variables, entrepreneurial career success and psychological well-being. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 48, 275300. Parasuraman, S., & Simmers, C. A. (2001). Type of employment, work-family conict and well-being: a comparative study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 551568. Parker, S. K., & Griffen, M. A. (2002). What is so bad about a little name-calling? Negative consequences of gender harassment for overperformance demands and distress. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 7, 195210. Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The dark triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 556563. Paullay, I. M., Alliger, G. M., & Stone-Romero, E. F. (1994). Construct validation of two instruments designed to measure job involvement and work centrality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 224228. , P. L., & Carlson, D. S. (2002). Do men and women benet from social support equally? Results from a Perrewe eld examination within the work and family context. In D. L. Nelson, & R. J. Burke (Eds.), Gender, work stress, and health. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Premeaux, S. F., Adkins, C. L., & Mossholder, K. W. (2007). Balancing work and family: A eld study of multidimensional, multi-role work-family conict. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28, 705727. Rantanen, J., Pulkkinen, L., & Kinnunen, U. (2005). The big ve personality dimensions, work-family conict, and psychological distress: A longitudinal view. Journal of Individual Differences, 26, 155166. Rau, B. L., & Hyland, M. M. (2002). Role conict and exible work arrangements: The effects on applicant attraction. Personnel Psychology, 55, 111136. Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 698714. Rice, R. W., Frone, M. R., & McFarlin, D. B. (1992). Work-nonwork conict and the perceived quality of life. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 155168. Rogers, N. E. (1998). The role of marital status, family composition, role commitment, family support of career, and role conict in women business owners success. Unpublished Dissertation. University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH. Rothermund, K., & Meiniger, C. (2004). Stress-buffering effects of self-complexity: Reduced affective spillover or self-regulatory processes? Self and Identity, 3, 263281. Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control reinforcement. Psychological Monographs: General & Applied, 80, 128. Schmidt, F. L., Oh, I. S., & Hayes, T. L. (2008). Fixed versus random effects models in meta-analysis: Model properties and an empirical comparison of differences in results. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 62, 97128.
J. S. MICHEL ET AL.
Schuler, R. S. (1980). Denition and conceptualization of stress in organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 25, 184215. Shaffer, M. A., Harrison, D. A., Gilley, K. M., & Luk, D. M. (2001). Struggling for balance amid turbulence on international assignments: Work-family conict, support and commitment. Journal of Management, 27, 99121. Shockley, K. M., & Allen, T. D. (2007). When exibility helps: Another look at the availability of exible work arrangements and work-family conict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 71, 479493. Small, S. A., & Riley, D. (1990). Toward a multidimensional assessment of work spillover. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 5161. Smith, J., & Gardner, D. (2007). Factors affecting employee use of work-life balance initiatives. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 36, 312. Sparks, K., Cooper, G. L., Fried, Y., & Shirom, A. (1997). The effects of hours of work on health: A meta-analytical review. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 70, 391408. Spector, P. E., Allen, T. D., Poelmans, S. A. Y., Lapierre, L. M., Cooper, C. L., & ODriscoll, M., et al. (2007). Cross-national differences in relationships of work demands, job satisfaction, and turnover intentions with workfamily conict. Personnel Psychology, 60, 805835. Staines, G. (1980). Spillover versus compensation: A review of the literature of the relationships between work and nonwork. Human Relations, 33, 111129. Steel, P. D., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. (2002). Comparing meta-analytic moderator estimation techniques under realistic conditions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 96111. Stepanski, K. M. (2002). Work-family conict theories: Integration and model development. Unpublished dissertation. Wayne State University, Detroit, MI. Stephens, G. K., & Sommer, S. M. (1996). The measurement of work to family conict. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56, 475486. Stoeva, A. Z., Chiu, R. K., & Greenhaus, J. H. (2002). Negative affectivity, role stress, and work-family conict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 60, 116. Stone-Romero, E. F., & Anderson, L. E. (1994). Relative power of moderated multiple regression and the comparison of subgroup correlation coefcients for detecting moderating effects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 354359. Tenbrunsel, A. E., Brett, J. M., Maoz, E., Stroh, L. K., & Reilly, A. H. (1995). Dynamic and static work-family relationships. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 63, 233246. Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 178190. Tett, R. P., & Christiansen, N. D. (2007). Personality tests at the crossroads: A response to Morgeson, Campion, Dipboye, Hollenbeck, Murphy, and Schmitt (2007). Personnel Psychology, 60, 967993. Tett, R. P., Steele, J. R., & Beauregard, R. S. (2003). Broad and narrow measures on both sides of the personalityjob performance relationship. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 335356. Thompson, C. A., Beauvais, L. L., & Lyness, K. S. (1999). When work-family benets are not enough: The inuence of work-family culture on benet utilization, organizational attachment, and work-family conict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 392415. Thompson, C. A., & Blau, G. (1993). Moving beyond traditional predictors of job involvement: Exploring the impact of work-family conict and overload. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 8, 635646. van Daalen, G., Willemsen, T. M., & Sanders, K. (2006). Reducing work-family conict through different sources of social support. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69, 462476. van Rijswijk, K., Bekker, M. H. J., Rutte, C. G., & Croon, M. A. (2004). The relationships among part-time work, work-family interference, and well-being. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 9, 286295. Van Sell, M., Brief, A. P., & Schuler, R. S. (1981). Role conict and role ambiguity: Integration of the literature and directions for future research. Human Relations, 34, 4371. van Steenbergen, E. F., Ellemers, N., & Mooijaart, A. (2007). How work and family can facilitate each other: Distinct types of work-family facilitation and outcomes for women and men. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12, 279300. Vinokur, A. D., Pierce, P. F., & Buck, C. L. (1999). Work-family conicts of women in the Air Force: Their inuence on mental health and functioning. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 865878. Voydanoff, P. (2002). Linkages between the work-family interface and work, family, and individual outcomes: An integrative model. Journal of Family Issues, 23, 138164. Voydanoff, P. (2004a). Implications of work and community demands and resources for work-to-family conict and facilitation. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 9, 275285. Voydanoff, P. (2004b). The effects of work demands and resources on work-to-family conict and facilitation. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 398412.
Voydanoff, P. (2005). Consequences of boundary-spanning demands and resources for work-to-family conict and perceived stress. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10, 491503. Wadsworth, L. L. (2003). The application of role-identity salience to the study of social support and work-family interaction. Unpublished Dissertation. The University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT. Wallace, J. E. (1999). Work-to-nonwork conict among married male and female lawyers. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 797816. Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 10631070. Wayne, J. H., Musisca, N., & Fleeson, W. (2004). Considering the role of personality in the work-family experience: Relationships of the big ve to work-family conict and facilitation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64, 108130. Wiley, D. L. (1987). The relationship between work/nonwork role conict and job-related outcomes: Some unanticipated ndings. Journal of Management, 13, 467472. Williams, K., & Alliger, G. M. (1994). Role stressors, mood spillover, and perceptions of work-family conict in employed parents. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 837868. Witt, L. A., & Carlson, D. S. (2006). The work-family interface and job performance: Moderating effects of conscientiousness and perceived organizational support. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11, 343 357. Yogev, S., & Brett, J. (1985). Patterns of work and family involvement among single- and dual-earner couples. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 754768. Young, L. M., Baltes, B. B., & Pratt, A. K. (2007). Using selection, optimization, and compensation to reduce job/ family stressors: Effective when it matters. Journal of Business and Psychology, 21, 511539. Zedeck, S. (1992). Introduction: Exploring the domain of work and family concerns. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), Work, families and organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Antecedents of Work Family

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Antecedents of Work Family

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Journal of Organizational Behavior J. Organiz. Behav. (2010) Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/job.

Antecedents of workfamily conict: A meta-analytic review

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received 11 April 2007 Revised 15 February 2010 Accepted 17 February 2010

ANTECEDENTS OF WORKFAMILY CONFLICT

What is WorkFamily Conict?

Theory and Hypotheses

Figure 1. Proposed model of workfamily conict

Antecedents of workfamily conict

ANTECEDENTS OF WORKFAMILY CONFLICT

Family domain Role stressors Family stressors Family role conict

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

J. Organiz. Behav. (2010) DOI: 10.1002/job

Age of children Role involvement Family involvement Family interest/centrality

ANTECEDENTS OF WORKFAMILY CONFLICT

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

J. Organiz. Behav. (2010) DOI: 10.1002/job

ANTECEDENTS OF WORKFAMILY CONFLICT

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

J. Organiz. Behav. (2010) DOI: 10.1002/job

ANTECEDENTS OF WORKFAMILY CONFLICT

ANTECEDENTS OF WORKFAMILY CONFLICT

Coding of antecedents and moderators

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

J. Organiz. Behav. (2010) DOI: 10.1002/job

Hypothesized antecedent relationships

ANTECEDENTS OF WORKFAMILY CONFLICT

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

J. Organiz. Behav. (2010) DOI: 10.1002/job

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

J. Organiz. Behav. (2010) DOI: 10.1002/job

ANTECEDENTS OF WORKFAMILY CONFLICT

Non-hypothesized antecedent relationships

Hypothesized moderation effects

ANTECEDENTS OF WORKFAMILY CONFLICT

b 0.32 0.20 0.09 0.44 0.17 0.17

b 0.57 0.24 0.50 0.28 0.25 0.11

b 0.38 0.13 0.34 0.17 0.00 0.18

ANTECEDENTS OF WORKFAMILY CONFLICT

ANTECEDENTS OF WORKFAMILY CONFLICT

Byron (2005): Comparisons and contributions

General contributions and practical implications

ANTECEDENTS OF WORKFAMILY CONFLICT

Study limitations and future research

ANTECEDENTS OF WORKFAMILY CONFLICT

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

J. Organiz. Behav. (2010) DOI: 10.1002/job

ANTECEDENTS OF WORKFAMILY CONFLICT

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

J. Organiz. Behav. (2010) DOI: 10.1002/job

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

J. Organiz. Behav. (2010) DOI: 10.1002/job

ANTECEDENTS OF WORKFAMILY CONFLICT

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

J. Organiz. Behav. (2010) DOI: 10.1002/job

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

J. Organiz. Behav. (2010) DOI: 10.1002/job

ANTECEDENTS OF WORKFAMILY CONFLICT

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

J. Organiz. Behav. (2010) DOI: 10.1002/job

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

J. Organiz. Behav. (2010) DOI: 10.1002/job

ANTECEDENTS OF WORKFAMILY CONFLICT