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 China

Man Yee Ho

Chinese University of Hong Kong

Xuefei Chen

Chinese Foreign Affairs University

Fanny M.Cheung and Huimin Liu

Chinese University of Hong Kong

Everett L.Worthington,Jr.

Virginia Commonwealth University

This 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 ?306)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 couples

The 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 showed

Man 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@https://www.360docs.net/doc/4611451908.html,.hk

Journal of Occupational Health Psychology ?2013American Psychological Association 2013,Vol.18,No.1,53–631076-8998/13/$12.00DOI:10.1037/a0030885

53

T 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 Background

Work–Family Interface

Conflict 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 showed

that 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 Interface

The 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 Study

The 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).Social

54

HO,CHEN,CHEUNG,LIU,AND WORTHINGTON

T 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 Effects

Relationship-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 work

after 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 work

55

WORK–FAMILY INTERFACE

T 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 Partners

There 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 Effects

There 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).

Method

Participants

Married couples (N ?380)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 ?4.18)for men and 32.07years (SD ?3.56)for women.All of the couples had at least one child.The mean age of children was 4.63years (SD ?1.84).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 ?12.39)for men and 44.73hr (SD ?11.48)for women.The average housework time per week of participants was 10.85hr (SD ?8.11)for men and 19.33hr (SD ?10.95)for women.

Procedure

We 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 https://www.360docs.net/doc/4611451908.html,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).

Measures

Work–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 analysis

56

HO,CHEN,CHEUNG,LIU,AND WORTHINGTON

T 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 ?.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 1?never to 4?all 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 1?not at all to 4?always .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 random

variables 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.

Results

Means,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)? 4.93,p ?.01,whereas women reported higher levels of family-to-work conflict,t (304)?–4.76,p ?.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 (?1for husband,?1for 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 perceived

support

Figure 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.

57

WORK–FAMILY INTERFACE

T 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 .

are mixed predictor variables (they vary both within and between dyads);gender is a within-dyad predictor variable (it varies within dyads);and measures of similarity are the between-dyads predictor variables (e.g.,similarity in the relationship-oriented personality traits).Work–family enhancement and conflict are the outcome variables.Four separate analyses were conducted with each of the work–family interface subscales as the dependent variables.The actor and partner effects were estimated simultaneously.Results of the multilevel analyses are reported in Table 3.

Actor Effects (Spillover Effects)

We estimated the actor effects (spillover effects)of a per-son’s family orientation,perceived family support,and per-ceived work support.Results of the multilevel modeling par-tially support Hypothesis 1a;that is,respondents (both husbands and wives)with higher levels of family orientation reported significantly higher levels of family-to-work enhance-ment,b s ?.15and .22,p s ?.01,respectively,but not for work-to-family enhancement.As hypothesized (Hypothesis 1b),individuals who scored higher in family orientation re-ported less work–family conflict.Respondents (both husbands and wives)with higher levels of family orientation reported significantly lower levels of work-to-family conflict,b s ??.38and ?.43,p s ?.001,respectively,and family-to-work conflict,b s ??.13and ?.33,p s ?.03and ?.001,respectively.

To investigate the effects of similarity between partners’per-sonality score on family orientation,we calculated the absolute value of the difference between the two partners’scores.This

similarity effect tests whether partners who are similar in person-ality traits are more satisfied with their work and family lives than couples whose personality traits vary greatly.As hypothesized (Hypothesis 2a),similarity in family orientation was associated with more family-to-work enhancement,b ??.12,p ?.04.According to Campbell and Kashy (2002),a positive value of the coefficient implies dissimilarity.The negative value of this coef-ficient shows that there was a tendency for members of couples who were more dissimilar in family orientation to experience less family-to-work enhancement.In contrast to our hypothesis (Hy-pothesis 2b),similarity in family orientation was not significantly related to work–family conflict.

As expected (Hypothesis 3a),respondents who perceived higher levels of support from family reported significantly higher levels work–family enhancement.Husbands who perceived higher levels of support from family reported significantly higher levels of family-to-work enhancement,b ?.26,p ?.001,but not work-to-family enhancement.However,husbands’perceived work support was not related to work–family experiences.In contrast to hus-bands,wives who perceived higher levels of support from family reported significantly higher levels of work-to-family enhance-ment and family-to-work enhancement,b s ?.23and .30,p s ?.001,respectively.In addition,wives who perceived higher levels of support from work reported significantly higher levels of family-to-work enhancement,b ?.09,p ?.04,but not work-to-family enhancement.

As hypothesized (Hypothesis 3b),perceived support from fam-ily was negatively associated with work–family conflict for both husbands and wives.Specifically,husbands who perceived higher levels of support from family reported significantly less family-to-work conflict,b ??.16,p ?.01.Surprisingly,husbands who perceived support from family reported more work-to-family con-flict,b ?.25,p ?.01.Husbands who perceived support from work reported significantly less work-to-family conflict,b ??.17,p ?.01,but not family-to-work conflict.In contrast,wives who perceived support from family reported significantly less family-to-work conflict,b ??.29,p ?.001,but not work-to-family conflict.Wives who perceived support from work did not report less work–family conflict.

Table 1

The Dyad-Level Data Arrangement

Dyad X

Y

X 1X 2Y 1Y 21x 11x 12y 11y 122x 21x 22y 21y 22...............k

x k 1

x k 2

y k 1

y k 2

Table 2

Means,Standard Deviations,and Alpha Coefficients of the Relationship-Oriented Personality Scale,Perceived Support,and Work–Family Interface Variables

Mean (SD )

Measure

Range Husband Wife ?t Relationship-orientated personality scale Family orientation 0–107.73(1.92)7.81(1.71).60?0.58Perceived support Family support 1–1612.09(2.16)11.77(2.25).64 1.78Work support

1–1610.48(2.67)10.62(2.61).81?0.66Work–family interface variables Work-to-family enhancement 1–1610.14(2.85)9.75(2.72).78 1.75Family-to-work enhancement 1–1612.12(1.90)11.82(2.06).62 1.92Work-to-family conflict 1–169.29(2.73)8.25(2.52).79 4.93?Family-to-work conflict 1–16

5.91(1.95)

6.79(2.59)

.80

?4.76?

Note.N ?612(306couples).?

p ?.001.

58

HO,CHEN,CHEUNG,LIU,AND WORTHINGTON

T 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 .

Partner Effects (Crossover Effects)

We also calculated the partner effects of family orientation,perceived family support,and perceived work support.The ratio of the compound symmetry provides an estimate of the degree of nonindependence within a couple after controlling for the predictor variables in the model.In this study,the partial intraclass corre-lations were.85,.83,.68,and.64for work-to-family enhancement,family-to-work enhancement,work-to-family conflict,and family-to-work conflict,respectively.Thus,after controlling for each partner’s personality traits,perceived support,and gender,work–family interface scores for the two dyad members were strongly correlated.As expected (Hypothesis 4a and Hypothesis 4b),work–family enhancement experienced by individuals was positively associated with work–family enhancement experienced by their spouses,whereas work–family conflict experienced by individuals was positively associated with work–family conflict experienced by their spouses.

Results of the multilevel analyses partially support Hypothesis 5a that individuals’personality trait (i.e.,family orientation)would be linked to work–family enhancement experienced by ones’spouse for husbands.Nevertheless,the direction of this association was the opposite of what we expected.Higher family orientation scores for husbands predicted less work-to-family enhancement for their wives,b ??.21,p ?.04,but husbands’family orien-tation did not predict wives’family-to-work enhancement.By contrast,wives’family orientation scores were not significantly associated with any of husbands’work–family interface scores.Different from our Hypothesis 5b,individuals’personality trait (family orientation)was not significantly linked to work–family conflict for both husbands and wives.As hypothesized in Hypothesis 6a,husbands’perceived social support was linked to more work–family enhancement experi-enced by wives.Specifically,husbands’perceived support from work was linked to more work-to-family enhancement experi-enced by wives,b ?.19,p ?.01.However,husbands’perceived support from family was not associated with wives’family-to-work enhancement.Wives’perceived social support (both family and work support)was not associated with husbands’work–family enhancement.As hypothesized (Hypothesis 6b),individuals’per-ceived social support was linked to work–family conflict experi-enced by one’s spouses.The direction of this association was the opposite of what we expected:Husbands’perceived support from family was linked to more family-to-work conflict experienced by wives,b ?.12,p ?.04.Wives’perceived support from work was linked to more family-to-work conflict experienced by husbands.Nevertheless,individuals’perceived social support was not asso-ciated with work-to-family conflict for both husbands and wives.The crossover effect from husbands’family orientation and perceived social support to wives’experiences at the work–family interface was stronger than the crossover effect from wives’family orientation and perceived social support to husbands’experiences work–family interface (Hypothesis 7).Particularly,husbands’family orientation scores were negatively associated with work-to-family enhancement experienced by wives,and husbands’per-ceived support from work was positively associated with work-to-family enhancement experienced by wives.Husbands’perceived support from family was also positively linked to family-to-work conflict experienced by wives.On the other hand,only wives’perceived support from work was positively linked to family-to-work conflict experienced by husbands.

Table 3

Actor–Partner Interdependence Model of the Work–Family Interface

WFE

FWE

WFC

FWC

Variable

?

t

?t

?

t

?

t

Husbands

Actor effects

Family orientation .01ns .15 2.90???.38?4.72????.13?2.18?Family support ?.01ns .26 5.27???.25 3.34???.16?2.90??

Work support .13ns .07ns ?.17?2.75??

?.01ns Partner effects

Family orientation ?.21?2.06?

.02ns ?.16ns ?.12ns Family support ?.01ns .04ns ?.05ns .12 2.09?Work support

.19

2.78??

.10 2.30?

.07

ns

?.02

ns

Wives

Actor effects

Family orientation ?.05ns .22 3.39???.43?4.90???

?.33?3.74???Family support .23 2.83??.30 5.63???.02ns ?.29?3.92???

Work support .13ns .09 2.10??.04ns .07ns Partner effects

Family orientation ?.08ns .01ns ?.00ns ?.04ns Family support ?.13ns .04ns .04ns .08ns Work support .10ns .06ns ?.04ns .17 2.80??Dissimilarity

Dissimilarity in family orientation

.04

ns

?.12

?2.09?

?.07

ns

?.02

ns

Note.N ?612(306couples).WFE ?work-to-family enhancement;FWE ?family-to-work enhancement;WFC ?work-to-family conflict;FWC ?family-to-work conflict.?

p ?.05.??p ?.01.???p ?.001.

59

WORK–FAMILY INTERFACE

T 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 .

Discussion

This study investigated the correlates of work–family conflict and enhancement among working married couples.This study adds to the existing literature by including couple data into the analysis of the work–family interface.It also sheds light on cross-over effects of work–family experiences in the Chinese context.Specifically,personality and perceived support of one spouse have an effect on the other spouse’s work–family experiences.

Spillover Effects

Consistent with previous evidence (Grzywacz &Marks,2000),we found that a relationship-oriented personality trait (i.e.,family orientation)was related to dimensions of the work–family inter-face for both husbands and wives.Individuals with a strong sense of family orientation stress the importance of maintaining a har-monious atmosphere within the family;consequently,it might be expected that the manifestation of this orientation would suggest that family life is protected.Consistent with this view,our results indicate that higher scores on family orientation are associated with more family-to-work enhancement,but not more work-to-family enhancement.In addition,individuals who scored higher on family orientation reported less work–family conflict.These re-sults are consistent with those of Ling and Powell (2001),who proposed that interpersonal relationships are crucial factors for understanding work–family experiences among Chinese adults.In a Confucian cultural tradition,relationship-oriented personality traits could help individuals build and maintain harmonious rela-tionships in the family and the workplace,and serve as buffers against family and work stress.

Results of this present study regarding couple similarity support our expectations.Spousal similarity in family orientation is linked to better work–family experiences.These results are consistent with previous findings by Gaunt (2006),which indicated that spousal similarity in personality was related to marital satisfaction.Couples who share a similar personality trait on relational orien-tation may share similar personal values and gender role expecta-tions,and they may be more considerate and understanding with each other.Hence,they are more likely to experience work–family enhancement.

Our results reinforce the importance of perceived support from family and work in managing the work–family interface (Barnett &Rivers,1996;Parasuraman et al.,1996).Family support serves as a type of resource that generates positive outcomes (e.g.,great energy and positive affect),which further enhance individuals’performance in the workplace (Grzywacz &Marks,2000).Indi-viduals who perceived higher levels of support from family re-ported higher levels of family-to-work enhancement and lower levels of family-to-work conflict for both husbands and wives.Wives who perceived higher levels of support from the family reported more work–family enhancement (i.e.,work-to-family en-hancement and family-to-work enhancement).It is interesting that husbands who perceived higher levels of support from family reported higher levels of work-to-family conflict.It is possible that husbands experience increased pressure to perform at work and live up to their family members’expectations when receiving high levels of family support.At the same time,they may feel guilty about the burden that they may have imposed on their family.On the other hand,perceived support from the family appears to serve

as a buffer against family-to-work conflict for both husbands and wives.

Furthermore,wives who perceived support from work reported higher levels of family-to-work enhancement.However,perceived support from work did not influence husbands’levels of work–family enhancement.On the other hand,husbands who perceived support from work reported lower levels of family-to-work con-flict.It is interesting that work support influences men’s and women’s work–family experiences in a different way.Men may use work support as an effective way to mitigate the stress and conflict derived from multiple role involvement,whereas women may consider work support as beneficial resources that enrich their work and family lives.As Friedman and Greenhaus (2000)indi-cated,resources emphasizing income,status,and power would contribute more strongly to men’s enhancement experiences in contrast to women,whereas resources associated with care,growth,and social relations should contribute more strongly to women’s enhancement processes compared with men.It is plau-sible that our measurement of work support emphasizes more the “caring”dimension,which explains why men failed to report enhancement generated from work support in the current study.Indeed,men and women are likely to utilize different domains and varying levels or kinds of resources (e.g.,work support)even when the same resources are available.More research is needed to examine the role of work support for men and women while dealing with work–family pressures.

Crossover Effects Between Partners

Our results extend previous research by examining the crossover effects of work–family experiences.These results demonstrate that an individual’s personality characteristic and perceived social sup-port are related to his or her spouse’s work–family experiences.The pattern of associations between personality trait,perceived social support,and work–family experiences varied across hus-bands and wives.For example,husbands’family orientation trait and perceived work support were related to work–family enhance-ment experienced by wives.

Surprisingly,wives of husbands who scored higher levels of family orientation reported less rather than more work-to-family enhancement.When husbands have a strong sense of family ori-entation,their wives may perceive their expectations for them to put the family as a priority,which in turn may affect wives’involvement at work (e.g.,fewer work hours)or the work-to-family enhancement they may experience.In a similar vein,hus-bands’perceived support from the family also influenced wives’work–family experience.We speculate that the primary source of family support perceived by the husbands is from their wives.When the wives are involved more in the family,it would be more likely for them to experience an imbalance between their work and family roles (i.e.,family-to-work conflict).

Compared with husbands,wives’personality and perceived social support had less influence on husbands’work–family experience.Only wives’perceived work support was associated with husbands’family-to-work conflict.When wives receive more support from work,they are more motivated to fulfill their duties at work;in turn,their husbands may need to carry out more duties at home,which may lead to imbalanced work–family lives.

60

HO,CHEN,CHEUNG,LIU,AND WORTHINGTON

T 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 .

Implications and Limitations

This study adopted a spillover–crossover model to examine the dyadic influences of marital partners in their experiences at the work–family interface.This study fills an important gap in the work–family literature by including couple data and by employing the APIM to analyze the data at the dyadic level.We further examined gender differences in the pattern of crossover effects.Both positive and negative aspects of work–family inter-face and the directions of work–family conflict and enhancement (work-to-family or family-to-work)were examined in this study.We highlighted the important role of culture in understanding experience in work–family conflict and enhancement by including an indigenous personality trait and samples from two cities in China.

Findings of this study have several important implications for future research and practice.The current study demonstrates that work and family life can enrich each other.With the fast-paced economic development in China,dual-earner families are becom-ing the norm.It is important to recognize that integrating work and family domains can bring about beneficial outcomes rather than just negative spillover.Implications for further research include a need for close examination of factors leading to both work–family conflict and enhancement in China and other non-Western coun-tries.These findings also provide insight into how individuals and their partners may cooperate to maximize their work–family ex-periences.The reciprocal influences of work–family experiences between married couples have been demonstrated in this study.Future studies should continue to expand existing literature by exploring potential mediators and moderators,as well as clarifying the underlying mechanisms responsible for the crossover pro-cesses.

Practical implications of our findings involve the recognition of the importance of relationship-oriented personality traits and in-terpersonal and communication skills in marital relationships.Family support from spouse or other family members is also very important for improving experiences at the work–family interface by minimizing conflict or promoting enhancement.At the organi-zational level,company programs can be tailored to facilitate work–family integration in married https://www.360docs.net/doc/4611451908.html,anizational culture that promotes work–family life integration by providing family-friendly policies and employer-supported childcare would enable employees to perform their family responsibilities better,which in turn would enhance employees’satisfaction in the work-place.The role of understanding and supportive supervisors is particularly important.Practitioners may also develop specific intervention strategies to reduce work–family conflict and promote work–family enhancement (Shockley &Singla,2011).

We note several limitations of this study.First,the sample of couples came from two major cities in China.Although we se-lected the two cities bearing different cultural stereotypes of gen-der equality,with Shanghai reputed to be more egalitarian and Jinan reputed to be more male-dominated in gender ideology,we did not find actual differences in the pattern of responses in the participants from the two cities.However,we caution against generalizing the results to other Chinese cities or to rural China.Because all of the couples in this sample had at least one child in kindergarten,this cohort may also face different work and family challenges from those of couples in different life stages.Cross-

validation is particularly helpful for the generalization of these findings.Second,the cross-sectional design of this study did not allow us to determine whether a causal link existed.A longitudinal study that involves repeated observations of the same variables over time may help to identify the presence and (if so)direction of possible causal relationship.We also recognize that self-report measures are subject to perception bias and common method bias.Further research may include behavioral measures and others’rating to complement the self-report data.

Conclusions

The results of this study revealed spillover and crossover effects of work–family conflict and enhancement among dual-earner cou-ples.The crossover effects of each spouse’s personality and per-ceived social support on work–family experiences also varied by gender.The crossover effects from husbands’personal character-istics (i.e.,personality and perceived support)to wives’work–family experiences were prominent and consistent with wives’personal characteristics on husbands’work–family experiences.We used the APIM approach to investigate the crossover effects in work–family experiences.Our findings support the importance of incorporating this style of dyadic analysis in studies of work–family interface.

Most work–family research has been conducted in individual-istic cultures.Whether the models of the work–family interface developed in individualistic societies are transportable to collec-tivistic societies was addressed.Our findings extend our under-standing of the work–family interface in a collectivistic culture and indicate that a relationship-oriented personality trait,family orien-tation,plays a crucial role in work–family experiences among Chinese dual-earner couples.Family orientation was positively related to family-to-work enhancement and negatively related to work-to-family and family-to-work conflict for husbands and wives.These cultural variables suggest a more comprehensive model of the work–family interface.

References

Adams,G.A.,King,L.A.,&King,D.W.(1996).Relationships of job and family involvement,family social support,and work–family conflict with job and life satisfaction.Journal of Applied Psychology,81,411–420.doi:10.1037/0021-9010.81.4.411

Anyabwile,T.(2004).Encouraging strong family relationships:Recom-mendations for state policy .Washington,DC:Center for the Study of Social Policy.

Aumann,K.,Galinsky,E.,&Matos,K.(2011).The new male mystique .New York,NY:Families and Work Institute.

Bakker,A.B.,&Schaufeli,W.B.(2000).Burnout contagion processes among teachers.Journal of Applied Social Psychology,30,2289–2308.doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2000.tb02437.x

Barnett,R.C.,&Hyde,J.S.(2001).Women,men,work,and family:An expansionist theory.American Psychologist,56,781–796.doi:10.1037/0003-066X.56.10.781

Barnett,R.C.,&Rivers,C.(1996).She works/he works:How two-income families are happy,healthy,and thriving .Cambridge,MA:Harvard University Press.

Bolger,N.,DeLongis,A.,Kessler,R.,&Wethington,E.(1989).The contagion of stress across multiple roles.Journal of Marriage and the Family,51,175–183.doi:10.2307/352378

61

WORK–FAMILY INTERFACE

T 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 .

Byron,K.(2005).A meta-analytic review of work–family conflict and its antecedents.Journal of Vocational Behavior,67,169–198.doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2004.08.009

Campbell,L.,&Kashy,D.A.(2002).Estimating actor,partner,and interaction effects for dyadic data using PROCMIXED and HLM:A user-friendly guide.Personal Relationships,9,327–342.doi:10.1111/1475-6811.00023

Caplan,R.D.,Cobb,S.,French,J.R.P.,Jr.,Harrison,R.V.,&Pinneau,S.R.,Jr.(1980).Job demands and worker health:Main effects and occupational differences .Ann Arbor,MI:Survey Research Center In-stitute for Social Research,University of Michigan.

Carlson,D.S.,&Perrewé,P.L.(1999).The role of social support in the stressor–strain relationship:An examination of work–family conflict.Journal of Management,25,513–540.doi:10.1177/014920639902500403

Cheung,F.M.,Cheung,S.F.,&Leung,F.(2008).Clinical utility of the Cross-Cultural (Chinese)Personality Assessment Inventory (CPAI-2)in the assessment of substance use disorders among Chinese men.Psycho-logical Assessment,20,103–113.doi:10.1037/1040-3590.20.2.103Cheung,F.M.,Cheung,S.F.,Zhang,J.X.,Leung,K.,Leong,F.,&Yeh,K.H.(2008).Relevance of openness as a personality dimension in Chinese culture:Aspects of its cultural relevance.Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,39,81–108.doi:10.1177/0022022107311968Cheung,F.M.,&Halpern,D.F.(2010).Women at the top:Powerful leaders define success as work ?family in a culture of gender.American Psychologist,65,182–193.doi:10.1037/a0017309

Cheung,F.M.,van de Vijver,F.J.R.,&Leong,F.T.L.(2011).Toward a new approach to the study of personality in culture.American Psy-chologist,66,593–603.doi:10.1037/a0022389

Cheung,M.C.,Zhang,J.,&Cheung,S.F.(2010).From indigenous to cross-cultural personality:The case of the Chinese Personality Assess-ment Inventory.In M.H.Bond (Ed.),The Oxford handbook of Chinese psychology (pp.295–308).New York,NY:Oxford University Press.Cook,W.L.,&Kenny,D.A.(2005).The actor–partner interdependence model:A model of bidirectional effects in developmental studies.Inter-national Journal of Behavioral Development,29,101–109.doi:10.1080/01650250444000405

Crouter,A.,Bumpus,M.,Maguire,M.,&McHale,S.(1999).Linking parents’work pressure and adolescents’well-being:Insights into dy-namics in dual-earner families.Developmental Psychology,35,1453–1461.doi:10.1037/0012-1649.35.6.1453

Eby,L.T.,Casper,W.J.,Lockwood,A.,Bordeaux,C.,&Brinley,A.(2005).Work and family research in IO/OB:Content analysis and review of the literature (1980–2002).Journal of Vocational Behavior,66,124–197.doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2003.11.003

Edwards,J.R.,&Rothbard,N.P.(2000).Mechanisms linking work and family:Clarifying the relationship between work and family constructs.Academy of Management Review,25,178–199.doi:10.2307/259269Friedman,S.D.,&Greenhaus,J.H.(2000).Work and family—Allies or enemies?What happens when business professionals confront life choic-es .New York,NY:Oxford University Press.

Frone,M.R.(2003).Work–family balance.In J.C.Quick &L.E.Tetrick (Eds.),Handbook of occupational health psychology (pp.143–162).Washington,DC:American Psychological Association.doi:10.1037/10474-007

Frone,M.R.,Yardley,J.K.,&Markel,K.S.(1997).Developing and testing an integrative model of the work–family interface.Journal of Vocational Behavior,50,145–167.doi:10.1006/jvbe.1996.1577

Galinsky,E.,Aumann,K.,&Bond,J.T.(2009).Times are changing:Gender and generation at home and at work .New York,NY:Families and Work Institute.

Galovan,A.M.,Fackrell,T.,Buswell,L.,Jones,B.L.,Hill,E.J.,&Carroll,S.J.(2010).The work–family interface in the United States and Singapore:Conflict across cultures.Journal of Family Psychology,24,646–656.doi:10.1037/a0020832

Gaunt,R.(2006).Couple similarity and martial satisfaction:Are similar spouses happier?Journal of Personality,74,1401–1420.doi:10.1111/j .1467-6494.2006.00414.x

Geurts,S.A.E.,&Demerouti,E.(2004).Work/non-work interface:A review of theories and findings.In M.Schabracq,J.Winnubst,&C.L.Cooper (Eds.),The handbook of work and health psychology (pp.279–312).Chichester,England:Wiley.doi:10.1002/0470013400.ch14

Grant-Vallone,E.J.,&Donaldson,S.I.(2001).Consequences of work–family conflict on employee well-being over time.Work &Stress,15,214–226.doi:10.1080/02678370110066544

Greenhaus,J.H.,&Beutell,N.J.(1985).Sources of conflict between work and family roles.Academy of Management Review,10,76–88.doi:10.2307/258214

Greenhaus,J.H.,&Powell,G.N.(2006).When work and family are allies:A theory of work–family enrichment.Academy of Management Review,31,72–92.doi:10.5465/AMR.2006.19379625

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 Occupa-tional Health Psychology,5,111–126.doi:10.1037/1076-8998.5.1.111Halpern,D.F.,&Cheung,F.M.(2008).Women at the top:Powerful leaders tell us how to combine work and family .Hoboken,NJ:Wiley-Blackwell.

Hammer,L.B.,Allen,E.,&Grigsby,T.(1997).Work–family conflict in dual-earner couples:Within-individual and crossover effects of work and family.Journal of Vocational Behavior,50,185–203.doi:10.1006/jvbe.1996.1557

Hammer,L.B.,Cullen,J.C.,Neal,M.B.,Sinclair,R.R.,&Shafiro,M.V.(2005).The longitudinal effects of work–family conflict and positive spillover on depressive symptoms among dual-earner couples.Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,10,138–154.doi:10.1037/1076-8998.10.2.138

Hobfoll,S.E.(1989).Conservation of resources:A new attempt at con-ceptualizing stress.American Psychologist,44,513–524.doi:10.1037/0003-066X.44.3.513

Hofstede,G.(2001).Culture’s consequences:Comparing values,behav-iors,institutions,and organizations across nations (2nd ed.).Thousand Oaks,CA:Sage.

Jansen,N.W.,Kant,I.,Kristensen,T.S.,&Nijhuis,F.J.(2003).Ante-cedents and consequences of work–family conflict:A prospective cohort study.Journal of Occupational Environment Medicine,45,479–491.doi:10.1097/01.jom.0000063626.37065.e8

Jones,F.,&Fletcher,B.(1993).Transmission of occupational stress:A study of daily fluctuations in work stress and strain and their impact on marital partners.In H.Schroder,K.Rescke,M.Johnston,&S.Maes (Eds.),Health psychology:Potential in diversity (pp.328–338).Regens-burg,Germany:RodererVerlag.

Kashy,D.A.,&Kenny,D.A.(1999).The analysis of data from dyads and groups.In H.T.Reis &C.M.Judd (Eds.),Handbook of research methods in social psychology (pp.451–477).New York,NY:Cam-bridge University Press.

Kenny,D.A.,Kashy,D.A.,&Cook,W.L.(2006).Dyadic data analysis .New York,NY:Guilford Press.

Lapierre,L.M.,&Allen,T.D.(2006).Work-supportive family,family-supportive supervision,use of organizational benefits,and problem-focused coping:Implications for work–family conflict and employee well-being.Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,11,169–181.doi:10.1037/1076-8998.11.2.169

Lau,S.K.(1982).Society and politics in Hong Kong .Hong Kong,People’s Republic of China:The Chinese University Press.

Ling,Y.,&Powell,G.N.(2001).Work-family conflict in contemporary China:Beyond an American-based model.International Journal of Cross Cultural Management,1,357–375.doi:10.1177/147059*********

62

HO,CHEN,CHEUNG,LIU,AND WORTHINGTON

T 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 .

Marks,S.R.(1977).Multiple roles and role strain:Some notes on human energy,time and commitment.American Sociological Review,42,921–936.doi:10.2307/2094577

McNall,L.A.,Nicklin,J.M.,&Masuda,A.D.(2010).A meta-analytic review of the consequences associated with work–family enrichment.Journal of Business and Psychology,25,381–396.doi:10.1007/s10869-009-9141-1

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 conflict,enrichment and satisfaction.Personality and Individual Differences,47,163–168.doi:10.1016/j.paid.2009.02.015

Parasuraman,S.,&Greenhaus,J.H.(2002).Toward reducing some critical gaps in work–family research.Human Resource Management Review,12,299–312.doi:10.1016/S1053-4822(02)00062-1

Parasuraman,S.,Purohit,Y.S.,Godshalk,V.M.,&Beutell,N.J.(1996).Work and family variables,entrepreneurial career success,and psycho-logical well-being.Journal of Vocational Behavior,48,275–300.doi:10.1006/jvbe.1996.0025

Rashid,W.E.W.,Nordin,M.S.,Omar,A.,&Ismail,I.(2011).Evaluating social support,work–family enrichment and life satisfaction among nurses in Malaysia.International Conference on Management and Ser-vice Science,8,150–154.

Rayens,M.K.,&Svavardottir,E.K.(2003).A new methodological approach in nursing research:An actor,partner,and interaction effect model for family outcomes.Research in Nursing &Health,26,409–419.doi:10.1002/nur.10100

Shaffer,M.A.,&Joplin,J.R.W.(2005).Easing the pain:A cross-cultural study of support resources and their influence on work–family conflict.In S.A.Y.Poelmans (Ed.),Work and family—An international research perspective (pp.319–340).Mahwah,NJ:Erlbaum.

Shiota,M.N.,&Levenson,R.W.(2007).Birds of a feather don’t always fly farthest:Similarity in Big Five personality predicts more negative marital satisfaction trajectories in long-term marriages.Psychology and Aging,22,666–675.doi:10.1037/0882-7974.22.4.666

Shockley,K.M.,&Singla,N.(2011).Reconsidering work–family inter-actions and satisfaction:A meta-analysis.Journal of Management,37,861–886.doi:10.1177/0149206310394864

Sieber,S.D.(1974).Toward a theory of role accumulation.American Sociological Review,39,567–578.doi:10.2307/2094422

Spector,P.E.,Cooper,C.L.,Poelmans,S.,Allen,T.D.,O’Driscoll,M.,Sanchez,J.I.,...Lu,L.(2004).A cross-national comparative study of work–family stressors,working hours,and well-being:China and Latin

America versus the Anglo world.Personnel Psychology,57,119–142.doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2004.tb02486.x

Staines,G.L.(1980).Spillover versus compensation:A review of the literature on the relationship between work and non-work.Human Re-lations,33,111–129.doi:10.1177/001872678003300203

van Steenbergen,E.,Ellemers,N.,&Mooijaart,A.(2007).How work and family can facilitate each other:Distinct types of work–family facilita-tion and outcomes for women and men.Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,12,279–300.doi:10.1037/1076-8998.12.3.279

Voydanoff,P.(2001).Conceptualizing community in the context of work and https://www.360docs.net/doc/4611451908.html,munity,Work &Family,4,133–156.doi:10.1080/13668800120061125

Watai,I.,Nishikido,N.,&Murashima,S.(2008).Gender difference in work–family conflict among Japanese technology engineers with pre-school children.Journal of Occupational Health,50,317–327.doi:10.1539/joh.L7124

Westman,M.,&Etzion,D.(1995).Crossover of stress,strain and re-sources from one spouse to another.Journal of Organizational Behav-ior,16,169–181.doi:10.1002/job.4030160207

Westman,M.,Etzion,D.,&Horovitz,S.(2004).The toll of unemployment does not stop with the unemployed.Human Relations,57,823–844.doi:10.1177/0018726704045767

Westman,M.,Keinan,G.,Roziner,I.,&Benyamini,Y.(2008).The crossover of perceived health between spouses.Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,13,168–180.doi:10.1037/1076-8998.13.2.168Westman,M.,&Vinokur, A.(1998).Unraveling the relationship of distress levels within couples:Common stressors,emphatic reactions,or crossover via social interactions?Human Relations,51,137–156.doi:10.1177/001872679805100202

Widiger,T.A.(2003).Personality disorder diagnosis.World Psychiatry,2,131–135.doi:10.1207/s1*******jpa6303_15

Yang,N.,Chen,C.C.,Choi,J.,&Zou,Y.(2000).Sources of work–family conflict:A Sino–https://www.360docs.net/doc/4611451908.html,parison of the effects of work and family demand.Academy of Management Journal,43,113–123.doi:10.2307/1556390

Zedeck,S.,&Mosier,K.L.(1990).Work in the family and employing organization.American Psychologist,45,240–251.doi:10.1037/0003-066X.45.2.240

Received January 26,2012

Revision received September 6,2012

Accepted September 29,2012Ⅲ

63

WORK–FAMILY INTERFACE

T 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 .