一个工作家庭冲突的双向模型：一个在中国双职工夫妇中的研究

A Dyadic Model of the Work–Family Interface:A Study of Dual-Earner Couples in ChinaMan Yee HoChinese University of Hong KongXuefei ChenChinese Foreign Affairs UniversityFanny M.Cheung and Huimin LiuChinese University of Hong KongEverett L.Worthington,Jr.Virginia Commonwealth UniversityThis study adopted a spillover–crossover model to examine the roles of personality and perceived social support as antecedents of the work–family interface among dual-earner couples in China.Married couples (N ϭ306)from 2major cities in China (Shanghai and Jinan)completed questionnaires measuring a relationship-oriented personality trait (i.e.,family orientation),perceived family and work support,and work–family conflict and enhancement.The results showed that family orientation and perceived family support was positively associated with family-to-work enhancement and negatively associated with family-to-work conflict for both husbands and wives.Perceived work support was positively associated with family-to-work enhancement for wives and negatively associated with work-to-family conflict for husbands.Similarities in family orientation between partners were positively correlated with the individual’s family-to-work enhancement.This study also illustrated the crossover of the work–family interface between dual-earner couples by using the actor–partner interdependence model.The pattern of associations between personality trait and perceived social support varied by gender.Husbands’family orientation was negatively correlated with work-to-family enhancement experienced by wives,and husbands’perceived work support was positively correlated with work-to-family enhancement experienced by wives.Wives’perceived work support was positively correlated with family-to-work conflict experienced by husbands.Keywords:work–family enhancement,work–family conflict,actor–partner interdependence model,dual-earner couplesThe potential impact of work on employees’personal lives is far reaching,affecting not only the employees but other family mem-bers as well (Edwards &Rothbard,2000).However,work–family research has been overly individual-focused.Existing research has generally lost sight of the fact that individuals do not live in a social vacuum:They affect and are affected by coworkers and family members.Moreover,most studies of the work–family in-terface have relied on single-source,self-report data,and little attention has been given to crossover effects in dual-earner cou-ples.The number of dual-earner families has increased in contem-porary societies,producing the need to understand how individuals meet their work and family responsibilities and how each member of the “dual-earner”dyad affects and is affected by his/her part-ner’s work and family experiences.Evidence suggests,for exam-ple,that depressive symptoms “cross over”from one working family member to another (Hammer,Cullen,Neal,Sinclair,&Shafiro,2005).Furthermore,most work–family research has taken place in countries that tend toward the individualistic end of the “individualistic–collectivistic”continuum (Hofstede,2001).There is evidence that individuals and couples from different cultures experience work and family differently (F.M.Cheung &Halpern,2010;Spector et al.,2004;Yang,Chen,Choi,&Zou,2000).For instance,family-to-work conflict was positively related to job satisfaction in the United States (representing an individualistic culture),but was negatively related in Singapore (representing a collectivistic culture;Galovan et al.,2010).Consequently,the overarching goal of the present study was to identify important correlates of both positive and negative work–family spillover and crossover on a dyadic level (with couple data)in a collectivistic (i.e.,Chinese)context.Work and family are intertwined domains of human life.Estab-lishing and maintaining harmony between work and family lives are generally regarded as being of great importance for individuals,families,organizations,and society as a whole.In various con-temporary Chinese societies,about 50%to 75%of women are expected to participate in paid employment at different stages of life (Halpern &Cheung,2008).As a result,the number of dual-earner couples in China is growing rapidly.Research has showedMan Yee Ho,Department of Psychology,Chinese University of Hong Kong,People’s Republic of China;Xuefei Chen,Department of Diplo-macy,Chinese Foreign Affairs University,Beijing,People’s Republic of China;Fanny M.Cheung and Huimin Liu,Department of Psychology,Chinese University of Hong Kong;Everett L.Worthington,Jr.,Depart-ment of Psychology,Virginia Commonwealth University.Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Man Yee Ho,Department of Psychology,Chinese University of Hong Kong,Shatin,N.T.,Hong Kong.E-mail:myho@.hkJournal of Occupational Health Psychology ©2013American Psychological Association 2013,Vol.18,No.1,53–631076-8998/13/$12.00DOI:10.1037/a003088553T h i s d o c u m e n t i s c o p y r i g h t e d b y t h e A m e r i c a n P s y c h o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n o r o n e o f i t s a l l i e d p u b l i s h e r s .T h i s a r t i c l e i s i n t e n d e d s o l e l y f o r t h e p e r s o n a l u s e o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l u s e r a n d i s n o t t o b e d i s s e m i n a t e d b r o a d l y .that a high proportion of dual-earner couples,particularly those with children,have serious difficulty in combining their work and family obligations (Geurts &Demerouti,2004).Thus,a systematic examination of the correlates of the contemporary work–family interface may shed light on personal as well as management issues,and help decision makers develop strategies that mitigate stress and stimulate growth,performance,and satisfaction among em-ployees.Theoretical BackgroundWork–Family InterfaceConflict and enhancement are two competing perspectives used to understand the experiences of combining multiple roles in work–family research.The conflict perspective posits that individ-uals have a fixed amount of psychological and physiological resources (Edwards &Rothbard,2000),and juggling multiple roles will inevitably exhaust the total resources and lead to overall poor functioning (Zedeck &Mosier,1990).In contrast,the en-hancement perspective argues that individuals have an expandable,not fixed,amount of resources (Hobfoll,1989),and involvement in multiple roles provides a number of positive gains that may out-weigh the costs (Marks,1977;Sieber,1974).Integrating both perspectives,the work–family interface comprises two compo-nents:work–family conflict and work–family enhancement .Work–family conflict is defined as “a form of interrole conflict in which role pressures from the work and family domains are mutually incompatible in some respect.That is,participation in the work (family)role is made more difficult by virtue of participation in the family (work)role”(Greenhaus &Beutell,1985,p.77).Work–family conflict is conceptualized as a bidirectional construct in which work interferes with family (work-to-family conflict)or family interferes with work (family-to-work conflict).The list of the possible consequences in relation to work–family conflict is increasing.These consequences may vary from physical and psy-chological health to attitudes toward the job or to behaviors both within and outside the organization (Grant-Vallone &Donaldson,2001;Jansen,Kant,Kristensen,&Nijhuis,2003).A growing number of researchers are calling for attention to the positive interdependency between work and family lives (Barnett &Hyde,2001;Frone,2003;Greenhaus &Powell,2006;Parasura-man &Greenhaus,2002).Based on qualitative data from a finan-cial service organization,van Steenbergen,Ellemers,and Mooi-jaart (2007)demonstrated that time devoted to one role can promote efficiency in managing the time schedule in another role.They also found that behaviors developed in one role can make it easier for individuals to meet the requirements of another role.Work–family enhancement has been proposed to study the positive connections between work and family lives (e.g.,Edwards &Rothbard,2000).Work–family enhancement is frequently used interchangeably with positive work–family spillover,work–family facilitation,and work–family enrichment.Work–family enhance-ment is also characterized by two dimensions:work-to-family enhancement and family-to-work enhancement.The experience of enhancement can produce a number of beneficial outcomes for employees as well as organizations.McNall,Nicklin,and Masuda (2010)conducted a meta-analytic review of the consequences associated with work–family enhancement.The results showedthat both dimensions of work–family enhancement were positively related to job satisfaction,family satisfaction,and affective com-mitment,as well as indicators of physical and mental health.A Spillover–Crossover Model of the Work–Family InterfaceThe large and growing body of research has improved under-standing of the work–family interface;nevertheless,several gaps remain in the literature.One of the common criticisms of previous research is that work–family research has overemphasized individual-level analyses.Work–family research has been dominated by a spill-over model,which assumes a intraperson connection between what occurs in the individual’s work and family lives.Emotions,atti-tudes,and behaviors would carry over from one domain to another for an individual (Staines,1980).Drawing from both qualitative and quantitative data,Bolger,DeLongis,Kessler,and Wethington (1989)distinguished between two conditions in which stress is contagious.In spillover,stress generated from one domain (e.g.,work)results in stress experienced in another domain (e.g.,family)for the same individual.A crossover model extends this thinking by arguing that stress experienced by an individual (in the work-place)leads to stress experienced by the individual’s spouse (at home).In other words,spillover represents an intraindividual and interdomain transmission of stress,whereas crossover is interindi-vidual and intradomain in nature.By acknowledging the interper-sonal interactions in close dyads,such as married couples,the crossover model adds another level of analysis to the traditional spillover model.Hammer,Allen,and Grigsby (1997)examined both spillover (within-individual)and crossover (between-individuals)effects of work and family variables on work–family conflict in a sample of 399dual-earner couples.They found that women’s work–family conflict was a significant predictor of their male partners’work–family conflict.They also found that crossover effects contributed significantly to the variance explained in work–family conflict over and above the spillover effects (i.e.,5%and 4%additional variances in men’s and women’s work–family conflict,respec-tively).Thus,it is important to incorporate both the spillover and crossover effects into the theoretical model when examining the work–family interface among married couples.The Present StudyThe present study examined an integrative spillover–crossover model of the work–family interface among Chinese dual-earner couples.The purposes of this study were threefold.First,we investigated spillover processes at the work–family interface.Spe-cifically,an individual’s relationship-oriented personality trait (i.e.,family orientation)and perceived social support were in-cluded as important predictors of individuals’experiences of work–family conflict and work–family enhancement,family ori-entation,and perceived family and work support because they are strong correlates of well-being and coping.Moreover,they possi-bly play prominent roles in the work–family interface in collec-tivistic societies.Family orientation is an indigenously derived personality construct that has been found to be a significant pre-dictor of life satisfaction,social beliefs,and leadership in collec-tivistic cultures (M.C.Cheung,Zhang,&Cheung,2010).Social54HO,CHEN,CHEUNG,LIU,AND WORTHINGTONT h i s d o c u m e n t i s c o p y r i g h t e d b y t h e A m e r i c a n P s y c h o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n o r o n e o f i t s a l l i e d p u b l i s h e r s .T h i s a r t i c l e i s i n t e n d e d s o l e l y f o r t h e p e r s o n a l u s e o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l u s e r a n d i s n o t t o b e d i s s e m i n a t e d b r o a d l y .support has been identified as an important moderator of life stress,which can produce effective coping in the event of work and family conflict (Rashid,Nordin,Omar,&Ismail,2011).Second,we examined crossover effects in the work–family interface.Spe-cifically,we sought to understand how family orientation and perceived social support affect the transmission of work–family conflict and work–family enhancement from one partner to an-other.Third,we explored gender similarities as well as differences in the spillover and crossover processes.Spillover EffectsRelationship-oriented personality trait.Prior studies have examined personal characteristics in relation to the work–family interface,such as life role values,attachment style,negative af-fectivity,and personality (e.g.,Eby,Casper,Lockwood,Bordeaux,&Brinley,2005).For example,Michel and Clark (2009)found that individuals with higher negative affect,defined as a general tendency to be anxious,afraid,and angry,also displayed higher levels of work–family conflict and lower levels of work and family satisfaction.Researchers have called for investigation of the role of other personality variables in the work–family interface (Byron,2005;Eby et al.,2005;Parasuraman &Greenhaus,2002).In studies of personality in a non-Western context,F.M.Cheung,van de Vijver,and Leong (2011)emphasized the importance of adopt-ing culturally sensitive measures that included culture-specific aspects of personality.In the present study,we investigated an indigenous personality trait,family orientation,in relation to work–family conflict and work–family enhancement.In Chinese societies,family cohesiveness is highly prized,and this behavioral orientation is a salient feature of personal identity.Solid family ties provide emotional and economic security and support for ordinary Chinese people,and interpersonal relatedness is a fundamental component of healthy psychological functioning and well-being (F.M.Cheung,Cheung,&Leung,2008;Widiger,2003).Family orientation is a relationship-oriented personality trait that usually is not included in Western personality measures.It captures the extent to which individuals have a strong sense of family solidarity and maintain a loving relationship with their family members.Thus,relationship-oriented personality traits,such as family orientation,may play a stress-buffering role for individuals managing multiple role obligations.Individuals who exhibit a strong sense of family orientation emphasize the importance of maintaining a harmonious atmo-sphere within the family and of showing respect,understanding,and trust toward family members.Such individuals are more likely to build a strong and healthy family.Strong and healthy families have lower levels of conflict,display more caring and nurturing behaviors,have higher levels of quality interaction between family members,and maintain stronger social networks in their neighbor-hood and workplaces (Anyabwile,2004).Individuals high in fam-ily orientation tend to create a balance between their work and family lives and would generally not allow their workload to encroach on their family time.However,when work extended hours are required,they often receive understanding and support from their family members.Based on Lau’s (1982)concept of “utilitarian familism”in Chinese culture,spending more time on paid work would be considered a benefit to one’s family in the long run.According to this family-based work ethic,extra workafter official hours is taken as a form of self-sacrifice for the sake of family welfare rather than a sacrifice of the family to benefit one’s own career (Yang et al.,2000).Hence,in Chinese society,individuals high in family orientation are expected to show better adjustment because they perceive consistent values across work and family domains.Accordingly,we hypothesized that individu-als who score higher in family orientation would also report more work–family enhancement (Hypothesis 1a)and less work–family conflict (Hypothesis 1b)than would those lower in family orien-tation.Previous research has been interested in investigating whether similarities between spouses would predict better relationship out-comes.Gaunt (2006)found that similarity in personality between spouses was associated with higher levels of marital satisfaction.However,other researchers found that spousal similarity in the Big Five personality factors predicts more negative marital satisfaction trajectories in long-term marriages (Shiota &Levenson,2007).In this present study,we explored whether spouses having similar personality traits in relation to their family orientation are more successful in managing the work–family interface.Couples with similar family orientation may coordinate to create a warm and harmonious family atmosphere,which in turn may influence indi-vidual work–family experiences.Therefore,we expected that sim-ilarity in family orientation would be positively related to work–family enhancement (Hypothesis 2a)and negatively related to work–family conflict (Hypothesis 2b).Perceived social support.Perceived social support is consid-ered a crucial environmental factor influencing experiences at the work–family interface.Two major types of social support are studied in the literature:emotional support and instrumental sup-port .Emotional support refers to providing affective understand-ing to the individuals;instrumental support refers to providing practical help that the individuals need (Adams,King,&King,1996;Shaffer &Joplin,2005).In the workplace,emotional sup-port mainly comes from supervisors and colleagues,and instru-mental support may derive from the company’s family-friendly polices such as onsite childcare or flexible work time (Shaffer &Joplin,2005).At home,individuals may receive emotional and instrumental support from their spouse and parents.Previous research has suggested that social support in the work-place or family helps individuals release strain,and contributes to less work–family conflict and greater work–family enhancement (Adams et al.,1996;Barnett &Rivers,1996;Grzywacz &Marks,2000).A supportive work environment has been related to more time spent on home activities and with children,quality of inter-action with family members,and family satisfaction (Frone,Yard-ley,&Markel,1997;Voydanoff,2001).Conversely,family sup-port was negatively associated with work–family conflict (Carlson &Perrewé,1999).For example,a study of 111men and women entrepreneurs reported that they benefited from spousal support (Parasuraman,Purohit,Godshalk,&Beutell,1996).Lapierre and Allen (2006)also postulated that support from one’s family seems promising in terms of avoiding work–family conflict.We expected that both instrumental and emotional support from family mem-bers and coworkers would help individuals buffer against the negative interplay between work and family,as well as promote enriching work–family experiences.Thus,we hypothesized that individuals who perceive higher levels of family support and work55WORK–FAMILY INTERFACET h i s d o c u m e n t i s c o p y r i g h t e d b y t h e A m e r i c a n P s y c h o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n o r o n e o f i t s a l l i e d p u b l i s h e r s .T h i s a r t i c l e i s i n t e n d e d s o l e l y f o r t h e p e r s o n a l u s e o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l u s e r a n d i s n o t t o b e d i s s e m i n a t e d b r o a d l y .support would report more work–family enhancement (Hypothesis 3a)and less work–family conflict (Hypothesis 3b).Crossover Effects Between PartnersThere are relatively few studies of the crossover process among working couples.Nevertheless,evidence does show that various kinds of strain may transfer from one person to another,such as physical health (Jones &Fletcher,1993;Westman,Keinan,Ro-ziner,&Benyamini,2008),depression (Westman &Vinokur,1998),burnout (Bakker &Schaufeli,2000;Westman &Etzion,1995),anxiety (Westman,Etzion,&Horovitz,2004),and marital dissatisfaction (Westman et al.,2004).Earlier crossover research has largely focused on the contagion of stress or strain.To capture a more comprehensive picture of how people manage work and family,it is important to expand the scope of crossover to include not only the transmission of stress and strain,but also the trans-mission of positive work–family experiences.Based on previous literature,we hypothesized that work–family enhancement expe-rienced by individuals would be positively associated with work–family enhancement experienced by their spouses (Hypothesis 4a),and that work–family conflict experienced by individuals would be positively associated with work–family conflict experienced by their spouses (Hypothesis 4b).We expected that,if an individual can benefit from having a strong sense of family orientation or possessing ample social support,his or her partner would also encounter less work–family conflict and achieve higher subjective well-being,as intimate partners are closely interrelated with each other in the family system.Therefore,we hypothesized that family orientation would be linked to more work–family enhancement (Hypothesis 5a)and less work–family conflict (Hypothesis 5b)experienced by one’s spouse.Individuals’perceived social support would linked to more work–family enhancement (Hypothesis 6a)and less work–family conflict (Hypothesis 6b)experienced by one’s spouse.Gender Similarities and Differences in Crossover EffectsThere is a long and inconsistent pattern of gender effects in the work–family literature,including evidence that crossover effects diverge for women and men.For instance,men’s reported level of work–life conflict has risen significantly over the past 3decades,whereas the level of conflict reported by women has not changed significantly (Galinsky,Aumann,&Bond,2009).Aumann,Ga-linsky,and Matos (2011)reported that a large body of findings in the field of emotional transmission studies showed that fathers’stress at the job seem to spillover and affect other family members,whereas mothers’negative emotions at work do not affect other family members.Crouter,Bumpus,Maguire,and McHale (1999)showed that fathers’work pressure predicted both parents’feelings of role overload,but mothers’work pressure predicted only their own overload,not their spouses’.A review of the literature reveals there are more factors predic-tive of work–family conflict among men than among women (Galinsky et al.,2009).For example,researchers found that men experienced more conflict than women in terms of work interfer-ence with family (time,strain,behavior),and women experienced more conflict in only time-based family interference with work(Watai,Nishikido,&Murashima,2008).We thus hypothesized that the crossover effect from husbands’family orientation and perceived social support to wives’experiences at the work–family interface would be stronger than wives’family orientation and perceived social support to husbands’experiences at the work–family interface (Hypothesis 7).MethodParticipantsMarried couples (N ϭ380)in two major Chinese cities,Shang-hai and Jinan in Shandong Province,were invited to participate in this study;306couples returned completed questionnaires (42couples did not return the questionnaires and 32couples had missing data).The mean age of participants was 34.40years (SD ϭ4.18)for men and 32.07years (SD ϭ3.56)for women.All of the couples had at least one child.The mean age of children was 4.63years (SD ϭ1.84).Over half of the participants had com-pleted college (60%of men,55%of women),and most partici-pants were middle-level managers or professionals (70%of men,65%of women).The average working time per week of partici-pants was 48.75hr (SD ϭ12.39)for men and 44.73hr (SD ϭ11.48)for women.The average housework time per week of participants was 10.85hr (SD ϭ8.11)for men and 19.33hr (SD ϭ10.95)for women.ProcedureWe selected three to four districts within each identified city with demographic heterogeneity.With the help of the local Bu-reaus of Education,we contacted one kindergarten in each district.Under the approval of those kindergartens,we distributed the questionnaires to the children’s parents.The participants were told that they would be filling out questionnaires on work and family life rmed consent was collected from the participants.Those parents who agreed to participate completed the question-naires at home.Parents who returned the questionnaires to the kindergartens 1week later received a souvenir worth about RMB$10(equivalent to US$1.50).MeasuresWork–family enhancement and conflict.Work–family en-hancement and conflict were assessed using the Work–Family Spillover scale developed by Grzywacz and Marks (2000),which includes four dimensions:positive spillover from work to family,positive spillover from family to work,negative spillover from work to family,and negative spillover from family to work.Each subscale includes four items.Sample items from each subscale are “The things I do at work help me deal with personal and practical issues at home”(work-to-family enhancement);“Home life helps me relax and feel ready for the next day’s work”(family-to-work enhancement);“Job reduces the effort I can give to activities at home”(work-to-family conflict);and “Responsibilities at home reduce the effort I can devote to my job”(family-to-work conflict).The Chinese version of this scale was developed through transla-tion and back-translation by several researchers fluent in both English and Chinese.As all the items we used in the analysis56HO,CHEN,CHEUNG,LIU,AND WORTHINGTONT h i s d o c u m e n t i s c o p y r i g h t e d b y t h e A m e r i c a n P s y c h o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n o r o n e o f i t s a l l i e d p u b l i s h e r s .T h i s a r t i c l e i s i n t e n d e d s o l e l y f o r t h e p e r s o n a l u s e o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l u s e r a n d i s n o t t o b e d i s s e m i n a t e d b r o a d l y .loaded reasonably high in the corresponding four dimensions (average factor loading ϭ.70)in this study,these items seemed applicable to the Chinese context.Based on the pilot test,a 5-point response scale was modified to a 4-point one ranging from 1ϭnever to 4ϭall of the time to avoid ambiguous responses.A higher score indicates a higher level of work-to-family enhance-ment/conflict or family-to-work enhancement/conflict.Perceived social support.Perceived support was assessed using the Social Support Scale developed by Caplan,Cobb,French,Harrison,and Pinneau (1980).The Supervisor and Col-leagues subscales were combined to assess work support.An example item is “I can depend on my supervisor or colleagues to deal with problems at work.”The Spouse,Relatives,and Friends subscale was turned into a scale of “spouse or parents”to assess family support.An example item is “My family (spouse or parents)is willing to listen to my personal problems.”The respondents answered on a 4-point scale ranging from 1ϭnot at all to 4ϭalways .The Chinese version of this scale was developed through translation and back-translation by two bilingual researchers fluent in both English and Chinese.Personality.Personality was assessed using the Family Ori-entation subscale from the Cross-cultural (Chinese)Personality Assessment Inventory (F.M.Cheung,Cheung,Zhang,et al.,2008),an indigenously derived personality measure that includes relationship-oriented personality dimensions not covered in West-ern personality tests.The Family Orientation subscale has 10items using descriptors for which participants provide a yes or no re-sponse.The yes answer is coded as 1,and the no answer is coded as 0.Sample items of the Family Orientation subscale include “I often celebrate special holidays with my family,”and “There are many things I do not feel easy about telling my family”(reverse coded).Actor–partner interdependence model (APIM).The APIM is an analytic strategy that accommodates nonindependence in dyadic data and allows for the simultaneous estimation of both actor and partner effects (Cook &Kenny,2005;Kashy &Kenny,1999).The two members of a married couple are not two inde-pendent individuals;rather,they share something in common (e.g.,common environments,common life events).Because the APIM measures interdependence within interpersonal relationships,it has been recommended for studies of families (Rayens &Svavardottir,2003)and close relationships (Campbell &Kashy,2002).The APIM assumes that the data have a pairwise structure (Kenny,Kashy,&Cook,2006)and is generally used to analyze dyadic data in which the members of a dyad occupy nondistinguishable roles.Whereas multiple features (e.g.,age,family responsibilities)dis-tinguish the role of “parent”from “child,”there are few ways of distinguishing roles in an intimate relationship such as a marriage.The actor effect estimates how much a person’s outcome is pre-dicted by his or her own attributes (e.g.,a husband’s personality trait predicts his work–family conflict).The partner effect esti-mates how much a person’s outcome is influenced by his or her partner’s attributes (e.g.,a husband’s personality trait predicts his wife’s work–family conflict;see Figure 1).The squares in Figure 1refer to observed variables,and the circles refer to unobserved variables.Straight single-headed ar-rows represent directional structural relations between variables,and curved bidirectional arrows depict nondirectional associations between variables.For each member of the dyad,two randomvariables are observed (i.e.,X and Y ),with X preceding Y.The variables X 1and Y 1refer to the first member of the dyad,and X 2and Y 2refer to the second member of the dyad.The effect of X i and Y i is denoted as the actor effect .The partner effect refers to the effect of X i on Y j ,in other words,the effect of one member’s independent variable on the other member’s dependent variable.Accordingly,the APIM assumes that an individual’s standing on a predictor variable affects his or her partner’s outcome,as well as his or her own outcome (Kenny et al.,2006).The association between error terms represents the partial association between scores on Y 1and Y 2after controlling for X 1and X 2.In Table 1,we show an example of the dyad-level data arrange-ment for two members with scores on two variables:X and Y.The x ij stands for the score of member j belonging to i th dyad on variable X ,and y ij represents the score of member j belonging to dyad i on variable Y.For instance,y 21stands for the score of the first member of the second dyad on the dependent variable.ResultsMeans,standard deviations,and alpha coefficients for the inter-personal personality scales,perceived support,and work–family interface variables are summarized in Table 2.Independent t tests were conducted to examine whether there were significant gender differences in all the variables.The t tests showed that there were significant gender differences in the work–family conflict and the work–family enhancement variables.Men reported higher levels of work-to-family conflict,t (304)ϭ 4.93,p ϭ.01,whereas women reported higher levels of family-to-work conflict,t (304)ϭ–4.76,p ϭ.01.Because all of our dyads were heterosexual married couples,we distinguished members of the dyads on the basis of gender.Gender was effect coded (ϩ1for husband,Ϫ1for wife).To make inter-pretation of the intercept more direct,we centered all of the continuous predictor variables on the grand mean.Three types of predictor variables and four outcome variables (work-to-family enhancement,family-to-work enhancement,work-to-family con-flict,family-to-work conflict)were included in the present study.In the multilevel model,personality traits and perceivedsupportFigure 1.A general description of the actor–partner interdependence model for dyads.The squares refer to observed variables,and the circles refer to unobserved variables.The variables X 1and Y 1refer to the first member of the dyad,and X 2and Y 2refer to the second member of the dyad.The effect of X i and Y i is denoted as the actor effect .The partner effect refers to the effect of X i on Y j ,in other words,the effect of one member’s independent variable on the other member’s dependent variable.Straight single-headed arrows represent directional structural relations between variables,and curved bidirectional arrows depict nondirectional associa-tions between variables.57WORK–FAMILY INTERFACET h i s d o c u m e n t i s c o p y r i g h t e d b y t h e A m e r i c a n P s y c h o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n o r o n e o f i t s a l l i e d p u b l i s h e r s .T h i s a r t i c l e i s i n t e n d e d s o l e l y f o r t h e p e r s o n a l u s e o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l u s e r a n d i s n o t t o b e d i s s e m i n a t e d b r o a d l y .。