Antecedents and Outcomes of Work-Family Conflict Among Employed Women and Men in Finland

Antecedents and Outcomes of Work¯Family

Conflict Among Employed Women and Men in

Finland

Ulla Kinnunen1,2 and Saija Mauno1

The aim of this study was to examin e the prevale nce , ante cede nts, and

consequences of work¯family conflict among employe d women and men in

Finland. The data were obtained by que stionnaire from a sample of 501

employee s working in four organizations. The results showed that work¯family

conflict was more prevalent than family¯work conflict among both sexes, but

that there were no gende r differences in experiencing either work¯family or

family¯work conflict. Family¯work conflict was best explained by family domain

var iable s (e .g., numbe r of childre n living at home) for both se xe s, and

work¯family conflict by work domain variables (e .g., full-time job, poor

leadership relations) among the women, and by high education and high number

of children living at home among the me n. Family¯work conflict had negative

consequences on family well-being, and work¯family conflict, in particular, on

occupational well-being. The findings suggest that in particular improvements

in working life are needed to prevent problems in the work¯family interface.

KEY WORDS: work¯family conflict; family¯work conflict; family well-being;

occupational well-being.

INTRODUCTION

In rece nt ye ars, re se arch has increasingly focuse d on examining

work¯family issues due to the changing nature of work and family respon-

sibilitie s. For example , the proportion of women with children in the work-

force has incre ase d in many We ste rn countrie s. In Finlan d, fe male

participation rate in the workforce is high, e.g., 73% in 1993 among women

with preschool children, and most women are employed full time (Veikkola

& Lehtiniemi, 1994) . New role demands have also been focused on men

Hum an Relations, Vol. 51, No. 2, 1998

157

0018-7267/98/0200-0157 $15.00/1 Ó 1998 The Tavistock Institute

1Family Research Unit, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä , Finland.2Requests for reprints should be addressed to Ulla Kinnunen, Family Research Unit, Uni-

versity of Jyväskylä, P.O. Box 35, FIN-40351 Jyväskylä, Finland.

so that they are becoming more involve d with the ir familie s. For example ,

shared parenthood is more often the reality in Finnish familie s, particularly

among the younge r age groups. Toge ther, these trends are assumed to result

in an increase in the conflict between the demands of work and those of

the family among both sexes.

One major outcome of the inability to balance the demands of work

and family is work¯family conflict. Work¯family conflict may occur when

an individual has to perform multiple roles: worker, spouse , and in many

cases pare nt (Greenhaus & Beute ll, 1985) . To be performed adequate ly,

each of these roles demands time, energy, and commitment. That is, par-

ticipation in the work (family) role is made more difficult by virtue of par-

ticipation in the family (work) role . The cumulative demands of multiple

roles can result in two type s of conflicts: inte rference from work to family,

and interference from family to work.

Interference from family to work occurs when family-role responsibili-

ties hinder performance at work (e.g., a child’s illne ss prevents attendance

at work). Interference from work to family arises when work activitie s im-

pede performance of family responsibilitie s (e.g., long working hours pre-

vent the performance of dutie s at home) (Duxbury, Higgins, & Lee, 1994;

Gutek, Searle, & Klepa, 1991; MacEwen & Barling, 1994) . In addition to

the time-base d conflict referred in the definitions above , we can distinguish

strain- and behavior-base d conflicts (Greenhaus & Beute ll, 1985) . In strain-

base d conflict strain symptoms in one role affect performance in anothe r

role, and in behavior-base d conflict behavioral style s used in one role are

incompatible with the behaviors expe cted in anothe r role .

Despite the conceptual distinction of the two types of conflict and the

description of the work¯family interface as a reciprocal system, previous

research has mainly relied on assessing interference from work to family

only. This naturally limits our unde rstanding of the work¯family interface .

However, recently research has started to take this bidirectional nature of

work¯family conflict into account, showing despite their inte rcorrelation

that, these two types of conflict are conceptually and empirically distinct

constructs (see Duxbury, Higgins, & Lee, 1994; Frone, Russe ll, & Barnes,

1996; Frone , Russell & Cooper, 1992a,b; Wile y, 1987) .

One of the objectives of this study was to examine the prevale nce of

work¯family conflict among marrie d or cohabiting employe d men and

women in Finland. Accordingly, the present study sought to extend previous

research by exploring both work¯family and family¯work conflict. Earlier

research has shown that family boundarie s are more permeable than work

boundarie s among both male s and females (Frone , Russe ll, & Coope r,

1992b; Gutek et al., 1991; Wile y, 1987) . This means that work¯family con-

flict is more common than family¯work conflict.

158 Kinnunen and Maun o

Recent studie s have shown that although there are no gende r diffe r-

ences in experiencing family¯work conflict, women report interference from

work to family more than men (Frone et al., 1992b; Gutek et al., 1991;

Duxbury et al., 1994) . These results contradict the rational mode l of

work¯family conflict according to which the time spent in each role has

greatest significance . Thus, because women generally spend more hours en-

gage d in family work than men, they should report more family-to-work

interference than men. Men, in turn, should expe rience more work-to-fam-

ily inte rference than women because men tend to spend relative ly more

time in work activitie s. In fact, the recent findings are in line with the so-

ciocultural expe ctations theory which suggests that time spent working in

the opposite sex’s domain ought to have a greater psychological impact on

a person’s perceptions of work¯family conflict than time spent in his or

her own domain (Gutek et al., 1991) . Identity theory (see Frone et al.,

1996) , according to which men and women have been socialize d to diffe r-

entially value work- and family-re lated self-images, may lead to this same

conclusion.

We assumed that in Finland the gende r differences in experiencing

the two type s of work¯family conflict would be eithe r low or nonexiste nt.

We base d our hypothe sis on the fact that due to the history of female em-

ployment in Finland it is nowadays self-evident that women participate in

working life equally with men. The role s of women and men are not dif-

ferent in this regard. The high leve l of social services available in Finland

(e.g., day-care , school meals) has meant that even women with preschool

children can participate in full-time employme nt. Consequently, social ex-

pectations concerning male and female employment are similar, and there-

fore inte rference from work to family would also be at the same leve l

between the sexes.

In addition to gender, perceptions of work¯family conflict are affected

by various other, mainly family and work, factors (see Aryee, 1992; Frone

et al., 1992a; Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985; Izraeli, 1993; Loerch, Russe ll, &

Rush, 1989) . For the present study, the family domain variable s examined

in relation to work¯family conflict include d time-based antecedents, which

require a person to spend large amounts of time in family activitie s. These

include d the presence of children, especially preschool children, and the

employment status of the spouse in the family. It was expected (see Aryee,

1992; Greenhaus & Beute ll, 1985; Loerch et al., 1989) that the time-based

family factors would be positive ly relate d to problems in the work¯family

inte rface , and particularly to family¯work conflict, because exposure to

stressors in a given domain (e.g., family) may limit one’s ability to meet

the demands of other domains of life (e.g., work). Our hypothe sis was that

these family domain variable s would concern women more than men, be-

Anteceden ts and Outcom es of Work¯Fam ily Conflict 159

cause in spite of quite similar working situations between the sexes, Finnish

women spend still more time in taking care of childre n and doing domestic

tasks than men, although the share of home dutie s performed by men has

increased (Niemi, 1994) .

Similarly, the work domain variable s were hypothe sized to be relate d,

in particular, to interference from work to family. Moreove r, previous re-

search strongly supports a positive relationship between perceived job stres-

sors and work¯family conflict (Aryee, 1992; Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985;

Izrae li, 1993; Voydanoff, 1988). The work domain variable s examine d in

this study consiste d of time- and strain-base d factors. Number of hours

worked per week and work schedule were studied as time-based antece-

dents, and these were expected to be positive ly associated with work¯family

conflict for both sexes. However, the associations would be stronger for

women, because having a full-time job and doing nonday shift work create

difficultie s in dealing with family matters, and women have more respon-

sibility in this area than men.

The othe r job characte ristics studied (job insecurity, leade rship rela-

tions, influe nce at work) were strain-base d, i.e ., they may produce strain

symptoms such as tension, anxie ty, fatigue , and make it difficult to perform

ade quate ly in the other role . In line with previous studies (Duxbury et al.,

1994; Hughes & Galinsky, 1994; Larson, Wilson, & Beley, 1994; Lennon

& Rosenfie ld, 1992) it was predicted that job insecurity, poor leade rship

relations and a low level of influence at work would be positive ly related

to work¯family conflict for both sexes.

Work¯family conflict has been linked to many undesirable effects. Of

these effects the consequences on well-be ing have come unde r an increased

scrutiny on the basis of stress theory. A substantial body of evide nce sug-

gests that tensions between family and work role s can lead to decrements

in the psychological and the physical well-be ing of workers (Aryee, 1992;

Frone et al., 1992a; 1996; Higgins, Duxbury, & Irving, 1992; Thomas &

Ganster, 1995) . The outcome measures examine d in this study were both

domain-spe cific and general measure s of well-be ing. Our hypothe sis was

that proble ms in work¯family interface would be positive ly related to prob-

lems in well-be ing for both sexes; hence, interference from work to family

was expected to be relate d particularly to well-be ing in the family domain,

and interference from family to work to well-be ing in the work domain.

The rationale for this hypothe sis (see Frone et al., 1992a) is that if a person

is freque ntly struggling to meet the demands at work (home) because of

interference from family (work), he or she is more like ly to report a re-

duction in the quality of his or her work (home) life . Both types of conflict

were expected to be related to overall well-be ing.


In sum, this study aime d to gain a compre he nsive vie w of the

work¯family interface among Finnish employed men and women by study-

ing the prevale nce, ante cedents and conseque nces of work¯family conflict.

By taking a conflict point of view, we aimed to concentrate on the negative

spillove r effects. First, by focusing on both men and women and examining

all the relationships for each sex separate ly we hope d to be able to con-

tribute to an unde rstanding of work¯family issues from the perspective of

both sexes. Second, by taking into account interference from work to family

and from family to work, we aimed to extend our understanding of the

work¯family inte rface and the possibly diffe rent ante cedents and conse-

que nces of the two types of conflict. Third, by emphasizing both the ante-

cedents and consequences of work¯family conflict, we hope d to contribute

to the development of a framework which may enable to the interrelation-

ships be more fully unde rstood. There is still a lack of agre ement on a

general model for the study of work¯family interaction. The framework,

presented in Fig. 1, for studying the work¯family interface in this study is

base d on stress theory (e.g., Frone et al., 1992a).

METHOD

Subjects

Data for the study were obtaine d by means of a que stionnaire from

a sample of men and women employed in three different areas of the econ-

Fig. 1. Conceptual model of the antece dents and outcomes of work¯family and family¯workconflict. Solid lines represe nt stronger and broken lines weaker assumed paths between the

factors.


omy locate d in Central Finland: the public sector (municipal social and

health care , N = 2185) , manufacturing for export (a factory, N = 521) and

the home market (a bank, N = 343, and a supermarket, N = 117) . The

organizations were chosen to represent these three areas of the economy

because this study was part of a large r project the aim of which was to

Table I. Characte ristics of the Sample (n = 501)

Characteristic (% )

Men

(n = 145)

Women

(n = 356) c 2 values

Organization

Bank 16 27 157.24***Supermarket 8 7

Factory 64 11Social and health care 12 55

Age18¯29 yr 4 6 3.20

30¯39 yr 25 2840¯49 yr 44 46

50¯61 yr 27 20Vocational education

None 23 17 8.68Lower 9 11

Interme diate 55 63Highe r 13 9

Socioeconomic statusManual workers 50 12 178.49***

Lower nonmanual workers 23 73Upper nonmanual workers 27 15

No. of childrenNo children 33 43 3.53

1 26 242 32 22

3¯6 9 11Age of the youngest child 14.82**

No children 16 13Ove r 19 yr 13 28

13¯18 yr 28 187¯12 yr 20 18

0¯6 yr 23 23Spouse employment

Not employed 38 26 6.92**Employed 62 74

Working hours per weekPart time job (< 35 hr/week) 12 13 0.01

Full time job (> 35 hr/week) 88 87Working schedule

Regular day shift 53 77 20.90***Other shifts 47 23

*p < .05.

**p < .01.

***p < .001.


Tab

leII

.In

terc

orr

ela

tio

ns

Am

on

gS

tud

yV

ari

ab

les

for

Me

na

nd

Wo

me

na

Va

ria

ble

MS

D1

23

45

67

89

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

1.

Ag

e4

3.2

18

.07

¯¯2

4¯0

8¯1

8¯2

10

2¯0

4¯0

81

50

6¯1

90

6¯0

80

30

5¯0

8¯0

4¯1

2¯1

92

.E

du

cati

on

¯¯

¯25

¯7

21

41

51

32

9¯4

60

20

81

30

5¯0

30

4¯1

30

9¯0

52

81

7

3.

So

cio

eco

no

mic

sta

tus

¯¯

02

37

¯1

81

30

72

7¯3

60

41

21

9¯0

2¯0

31

1¯0

91

10

32

91

14

.N

o.

chil

dre

n1

.09

1.1

1¯2

91

21

1¯

79

03

¯10

¯04

¯23

09

15

¯09

01

¯05

¯15

¯09

¯05

24

25

5.

Ag

eo

fyo

un

ge

stch

ild

¯¯

¯26

16

11

79

¯0

1¯1

50

1¯1

50

61

4¯0

70

8¯1

3¯1

6¯1

5¯1

52

42

56

.S

po

use

em

plo

yed

¯¯

¯06

16

05

26

22

¯¯1

6¯0

2¯0

2¯0

2¯0

2¯0

50

10

40

40

30

50

30

7

7.

Fu

ll-t

ime

job

¯¯

09

18

25

06

06

¯01

¯¯3

61

23

11

40

5¯0

0¯0

6¯1

5¯0

5¯1

10

31

48

.N

on

da

ysh

ift

¯¯

09

¯26

¯36

¯13

¯11

¯08

¯18

¯¯1

0¯2

0¯1

5¯1

4¯0

70

10

9¯0

60

1¯0

0¯0

9

9.

Job

inse

curi

ty2

.79

.91

¯07

10

08

¯02

¯06

11

¯04

¯09

¯¯1

4¯3

5¯0

2¯1

71

93

21

52

20

61

11

0.

Le

ad

ers

hip

rela

tio

ns

3.3

7.9

20

10

40

60

21

0¯0

00

2¯0

1¯0

5¯

24

14

27

¯33

¯45

¯31

¯34

¯07

¯05

11

.In

flu

en

cea

tw

ork

3.0

1.8

20

8¯0

41

0¯0

20

1¯0

20

7¯0

3¯3

53

3¯

09

14

¯25

¯41

¯14

¯21

11

13

12

.M

ari

tal

sati

sfa

ctio

n3

.86

.79

02

¯02

¯05

¯15

¯13

03

¯00

¯00

06

10

00

¯3

3¯1

6¯1

0¯1

0¯1

2¯1

4¯2

6

13

.P

are

nta

lsa

tisf

act

ion

3.6

7.5

4¯0

5¯0

10

2¯0

7¯0

2¯0

50

2¯0

30

01

30

42

0¯

¯24

¯19

¯20

¯28

¯26

¯11

14

.Jo

ba

nxi

ety

3.2

5.7

1¯0

50

2¯0

3¯0

2¯0

80

80

9¯0

42

2¯3

5¯3

7¯1

4¯2

0¯

71

71

66

37

13

15

.Jo

bd

ep

ress

ion

2.6

3.7

5¯0

80

3¯0

4¯0

4¯0

50

60

8¯0

22

0¯3

4¯3

5¯1

7¯2

57

0¯

55

64

16

08

16

.Jo

be

xha

ust

ion

2.1

5.7

30

2¯0

00

2¯0

9¯1

00

20

90

30

8¯3

1¯2

7¯1

5¯1

26

25

3¯

72

47

24

17

.P

sych

oso

ma

tic

sym

pto

ms

1.8

6.5

8¯0

1¯0

6¯1

0¯0

8¯1

20

50

11

01

0¯3

3¯2

9¯2

2¯1

95

85

86

8¯

38

19

18

.W

F-c

on

flic

t2

.67

.77

¯10

13

19

15

17

05

13

03

¯08

¯18

¯15

¯19

¯13

34

28

45

36

¯3

7

19

.F

W-c

on

flic

t1

.88

.62

¯10

13

15

43

42

18

06

¯05

08

¯03

¯02

¯26

¯20

09

11

08

06

38

¯aD

eci

ma

lsa

reo

mit

ted

.C

orr

ela

tio

ns

ab

ove

the

dia

go

na

la

refo

rm

en

an

dth

ose

be

low

the

dia

go

na

la

refo

rw

om

en

.F

or

me

n:

r³

½2

1½

,p

<.0

1,

r³

½28½

,p

<.0

01

;fo

rw

om

en

:r

³½

14½

,p

<.0

1,

r³

½1

8½

,p

<.0

01

.


examine job insecurity: job insecurity was hypothe sized to vary according

to sector of the economy.

All the employe es at the supermarket participate d in the study. In the

other organizations, a random sample of the employe es was selected. These

organizations provide d a list of employe es from which a random sample

was selected. Of the 979 que stionnaire s distribute d, 636 were returned,

yielding a response rate of 65% . Given the focus of the study, only data

from subje cts who reported being married or cohabiting were used. This

criterion was met by 501 responde nts, of which 71% were female . The

mean age reported for the sample was 43.2 years (SD = 8.1) .

Table I summarize s the demographic characteristics for the male and

female respondents separate ly. There were some significant differences be-

tween the sexes. The most notable was that half of the men in the sample

were manual workers, whereas over 70% of the women were lower non-

manual workers. In addition, men more often than women had nonday shift

work. These differences are due to the fact that the men who participate d in

the study mostly worked in the factory (64% of the men) and the women

either in the social and health care (55% of the women) or banking (27% ).

Procedure

The data colle ction was performed in February 1995 using an 18-page

que stionnaire which was distribute d to each employe r through interoffice

mail. Responde nts returned their completed questionnaire s in closed en-

velopes to a mailbox on the work premises. The respondents’ identitie s

remained hidde n, as response s were given without using names. Some of

the items in the questionnaire were colle cted for other research purpose s

and are not reported here. Those that are relevant are discusse d below in

detail.

Measures

All the composite variable s were created by averaging their respective

items and scored so that a high score represents a higher level of the con-

struct. According to the conceptual mode l of the study, the research vari-

ables divide d into the following groups. In Table II Pearson correlations

for these variable s among the men and women are presented.

Work¯Family and Family¯Work Conflict. Work¯family interaction was

assessed from the viewpoint of time-base d conflict. The measure was de-

rived from Frone , Russe ll, and Coope r (1992a,b) and Brett and Yogev

(1985) . The work¯family conflict measure consiste d of three statements,

which assessed the degree to which a respondent’s job interferes with his


or her family life (e.g., “How often does your job or career inte rfere with

your responsibilitie s at home, such as yard work, cooking, cleaning, repairs,

or child care?”). Similarly the family¯work conflict measure had three simi-

lar items which assessed the degree to which a respondent’s home life in-

terferes his or her job (e.g., “How often doe s your home life keep you

from spending the amount of time you would like to spend on job or ca-

reer-relate d activitie s? ”). Each item used a 5-point frequency-base d re-

sponse scale. The reliabilitie s (Cronbach’s alpha-coe fficients) for the scales

were 0.73 for work¯family conflict and 0.69 for family¯work conflict.

Fam ily Domain Antecedents. The family variable s examine d belonged

to time-based antecedents. These were num ber of children currently living

at home, which was coded into four categories ranging from 0 to 3 or more,

and age of the youngest child living at home, which was coded into one of

the following five categories: no childre n, younge st child over 18 years of

age, younge st child 13¯18, younge st child 7¯12 years of age , and younge st

child less than 7 years of age (see Table I). Spouse’s employment status was

coded into two categories: 1 = not employed and 2 = employed.

Work Domain Antecedents. The two work variable s examined belonged

to time-base d ante cedents. The am ount of working hours per week was

coded into two categories: 1 = parttime (unde r 35 hours per week), and

2 = fulltime (over 35 hours per week) job. Work schedule had also two

categorie s: 1 = regular day shift, and 2 = othe r shifts.

Job insecurity, leade rship relations, and influe nce at work were studied

as strain-base d antecedents, i.e ., job stressors. Job insecurity was measured

using a global definition which centres on concern and certainty about the

future of one ’s job. Hence, job insecurity represented the threat of losing

one ’s job. The measure consiste d of five items (see Greenhalgh, 1982;

Johnson, Messe, & Crano, 1984; Jacobson, 1991) which assessed concern

(e.g., “I am worried about the possibility of be ing fired”) and the certainty

about the future (e.g., “I am certain that my job will continue for a long

time”). The subje cts responde d on a 5-point agre e/disagre e scale . Cron-

bach’s alpha for job insecurity was 0.78

Leadership relations, which were primarily concerned with feedback

and support from supe rvisors, were measure d with four items (e.g., “I can

get he lp and support from my supervisor when I expe rience difficultie s at

work”) modifie d from the study “The Quality of Working Life in Finland”( se e Kinnune n & Nä tti, 1994) . The subje cts answere d on a 5-point

agre e/disagre e response scale . A total score (alpha = 0.79) was calculate d

so that higher scores indicate d good and supportive leade rship relations.

Influence at work was assessed with four items describing latitude in de-

cision-making and relative power at work (e.g., “I have enough power in this

organization to control events that might affect my job”) using a 5-point


agree/disagre e response scale . The scale was a modified version of Ashford,

Lee, and Bobko’s (1989) scale , and its alpha in this study was 0.77.

Fam ily Domain Outcomes. Family-re lated well-be ing was measure d by

two constructs: marital and pare ntal satisfaction. Marital satisfaction was

assessed using Fowers and Olson’s (1993) Enrich Marital Satisfaction Scale

(ENRICH) in a shortened form which consisted of eight items (e.g., “I am

very happy with how we handle role responsibilitie s in our marriage”). Pa-

rental satisfaction was measure d by six items (e.g., “Being a parent isn’t as

rewarding as I expe cted it to be”), which were derived from three scales

(see Canfie ld, Schumm, Swihart, & Egge richs, 1990; Gerris et al., 1993;

Greenbe rger & O’Neill, 1993). To these satisfaction items the subje cts re-

sponde d on a 5-point agre e/disagre e scale . Cronbach’s alpha for marital

and parental satisfaction were 0.86 and 0.64, respectively.

Work Domain Outcomes. Job anxie ty, job depression, and job exhaustion

were used as indicators of well-be ing at work. All these indicators measure d

job-re lated affect, with job exhaustion representing more serious and long-

lasting proble ms of well-be ing than job anxie ty and job depression. Warr’s(1990) 12-ite m scale measured the extent to which people were e ither anxious

or comfortable , depressed or enthusiastic in relation to their job. The respon-

dents were asked to think over the past few weeks and indicate the extent to

which their job had made them feel tense, une asy, worried, calm, contented,

and relaxed (for job-re lated anxie ty-comfort) , and depressed, gloomy, miser-

able , cheerful, enthusiastic, and optimistic (for job-re lated depression-enthu-

siasm). The ratings were done using a 6-point frequency-based response scale

(never¯always) . Job exhaustion was assessed by five items from the Maslach

Burnout Inventory (Maslach & Jackson, 1981) concerning feelings of fatigue

that deve lop as one’s emotional energies become drained at work (e.g., “I

feel like I’m at the end of my tether”). The subje cts responde d with five re-

sponse options (never¯always). Reliabilities for the scale s were 0.80 for job

anxie ty, 0.85 for job depression, and 0.86 for job exhaustion.

Overall Outcomes. On the basis of stress theory, psychosom atic symp-

toms were used as a measure of general well-be ing. These symptoms (e.g.,

headache , palpitations, or irregular heartbe at, overstrain, tension) were as-

sesse d by a ten-ite m scale (alpha = 0.87) , with five response options

(never¯all the time). This same measure has been used in the study of

“The Quality of Working Life in Finland” (see Kinnune n & Nätti, 1994) ,

and its modifie d versions widely in stress studies.

Data Analyses

Hierarchical multiple regression analysis was used to test the hypo-

thetical relations between the ante cedent variable s and the two types of


work¯family conflict variable s for men and women separate ly. Each type

of the conflict was regressed on the ante cedent sets in the following man-

ner. First, the demographical variable s were entered to control the ir effects.

In the case of work¯family conflict the family domain variable s were en-

tered next, followed by the work domain variable s, the time-based preced-

ing the strain-base d variable s. In the case of family¯work conflict the order

of the family and work variable s was reversed: the work-domain variable s

were entered before the family domain variable s.

Thus, the final entry provide d the unique variance explaine d by the

domain (work or family) after controlling for background variable s and the

variable s of the other domain. In this way, the hypothe sized priority of the

role of family factors in explaining family¯work conflict and work factors

in explaining work¯family conflict was tested. The magnitude of R2 change

at each step of the hie rarchical regression analysis was used to determine

the variance explaine d by each set of ante cedents. The beta values reported

for each variable were used to determine the effect of each variable in the

antecedent sets on the two type s of work¯family conflict.

The conseque nces of work¯family conflict on well-be ing were analyzed

using MANOVA. In this analysis, three groups of work¯family as well as fam-

ily¯work conflict were formed by trichotomizing the sample . For the MA-

NOVA analysis, a design with two independent variable s (gende r, type of

conflict) and with the well-be ing variable s as dependent variable s was used.

RESULTS

Prevalence of Work¯Family Conflict

The discriminant validity of the work¯family conflict scales was exam-

ined by factor analysis. Principal axis factoring was used to extract the fac-

tors and rotated using oblimin rotation. With regard to the six work¯family

conflict items, the factoring revealed two factors with eigenvalue s greater

than one . The three work¯family conflict items loade d highly on the first

factor (oblique rotate d loadings = 0.77, 0.85, and 0.48) , whereas the three

family¯work conflict items loade d on the second factor (oblique roated

loadings = 0.80, 0.69, and 0.50) . In addition, the cross-factor loadings were

small (ranging from 0.01 to 0.07) . The correlation between work¯family

conflict and family¯work conflict was 0.38 (p < .001) for women and 0.37

(p < .001) for men. These results support the conceptual distinction be-

tween work¯family and family¯work conflict.

Table III presents means and prevalence rates (i.e ., the percentage re-

porting each conflict at least “occasionally ”) of the two types of conflicts.

These figure s show that inte rference from work to family was more preva-


lent than interference from family to work among both sexes (for men t

(139) = 12.87, p = .000 and for women t (350) = 17.76, p = .000) . How-

ever, there were no gende r diffe rences in reporte d interference from work

to family or from family to work. The prevale nce of work¯family conflict

was at a moderate leve l, about 40% suffering from it at least occasionally,

whereas the prevale nce of family¯work conflict was very low, under 10%

of the men and women reporting at least occasional interference from fam-

ily to work.

Antecedents of Work¯Fam ily Conflict

There were significant sex differences in the ante cendent variable s, as

Table I indicate s. In addition to these, the evaluations of job insecurity,

leade rship relations, and influence at work also differed between the sexes.

The men reporte d expe riencing job insecurity less than the women (p <

.01) , whereas the women rated their leade rship relations better (p < .05)

and their influe nce at work greater (p < . 05) than did the men.

To examine the joint contribution made by each of the ante cedent sets

to work¯family and family¯work conflict, each type of conflict was regressed

onto the full set of variable s for men and women separate ly. Due to the

high corre lations (see Table II), between education and socioe conomic

status (for men r = 0.72 and for women r = 0.37) , on the one hand, and

between number of childre n living at home and the age of the younge st

child (for both sexes r = 0.79) , on the othe r hand, only the variable s of

education and number of childre n were used in the regression analyse s.

The results are reporte d in Table s IV and V.

As indicate d in Table IV, the full set of ante cedent variable s accounted

for 21% of the variance in work¯family conflict for men and 14% of the

variance for women. Of the four ante cedent sets, the demographic variable s

made the highe st contribution for men (11% ). In addition, only the pro-

portion of variance accounted for by family domain variable s (6% ) was

Table III. Work¯Family Conflict: Means and Prevale nce Ratesa

Type of conflict

Work¯family conflict Family¯work conflict

Gende r M PR M PR

Men 2.74 44.8% 1.88 7.1%Wome n 2.64 39.5% 1.88 7.1%

Total 2.67 41.0% 1.88 7.1%

aPR = prevalence rate, which represents the percentage of respondents

reporting the type of conflict at least ‘occasionally ’ (i.e., mean score

³ 3). The PR of work¯family and family¯work conflict was base d on

the me an of the corre sponding three items.


significant. Within the ante cedent sets, education and the numbe r of chil-

dren living at home significantly explaine d work¯family conflict in the men’ssample .

For women, as Table IV indicate s, of the four antecedent se ts, the

strain-base d work domain variable s (after controlling for the effects of

background variable s and family domain variable s) made the highe st in-

cremental contribution (6% ), followe d by the time-base d work domain and

family domain characteristics (3% ). Among the individual variable s, four

variable s significantly explaine d work¯family conflict in the women’s sam-

ple. These were in descending orde r of significance : leade rship relations,

full-time job, number of childre n living at home, and job insecurity.

As shown in Table V, the equation involving the full set of variable s

for family¯work conflict accounte d for 21% of the variance in family¯work

conflict for men and 27% of the variance for women. For men, family do-

main ante cedents (after controlling for the effects of background variable s

and variable s of the work domain) made the most incremental contribution

(9% ), followe d by demographic variable s (7% ), while work domain vari-

ables made the least contribution. Two variable s within the antecedent sets

significantly explaine d men’s family¯work conflict: numbe r of children living

at home and job insecurity.

Table IV. Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Work¯Family Conflicta

Men (n = 145) Women (n = 356)

Independent variable b R2 D R2 F b R2 D R2 F

Step 1. Demographics

Age ¯.01 ¯.05Education .33* .11 .11 7.65*** .09 .02 .02 3.21*

Step 2. Family domainvariables

No. children .28* .17**Spouse employment .01 .17 .06 4.33* ¯.00 .05 .03 4.03*

Step 3. Time-based workdomain variables

Full-time job ¯.02 .17**Nonday shift .11 .18 .01 0.68 .10 .08 .03 4.97**

Step 4. Strain-based workdomain variables

Job insecurity .16 ¯.12*Leadership relations ¯.10 ¯.17**

Influence at work .08 .21 .03 1.64 ¯.11 .14 .06 6.65***

aBeta-coefficients for each variable are based on the final step of the complete model with

all variables in the equation. D R2 at each step represents the incremental proportion of vari-

ance accounted for by the set of variables entered at that step.

*p < .05.

**p < .01.

***p < .001.


For women, family domain ante cedents were found to be unique ly pre-

dictive of family¯work conflict, accounting for an increment of 22% of the

variance . Also, the proportion of variance explaine d by demographic vari-

ables (3% ) was significant. Among the individual variable s numbe r of chil-

dren living at home was most signific ant; howe ve r, job inse curity and

nonday shift also appeared to be significantly relate d to family¯work con-

flict among the women.

Thus, of the variable s examine d, inte rference from family to work was

slightly be tter explaine d than interference from work to family. For the

men, the only significant predictors of work¯family conflict were education

and number of children living at home. For women, however, there were

more significant predictors of work¯family conflict, of which the work do-

main antecedents were best: full-time job, poor supe rvisor relations and

low job insecurity were related to reported work¯family conflict. Interfer-

ence from family to work was best accounte d for by family domain variable s

among both sexes, although better among the women. Increasing number

of children living at home appe ared the best predictor of family¯work con-

flict for both men and women.

Table V. Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Family¯Work Conflicta

Men (n = 145) Women (n = 356)

Independent variable b R2 D R2 F b R2 D R2 F

Step 1. Demographics

Age ¯.10 .02Education .11 .07 .07 5.01** .07 .03 .03 4.53**

Step 2. Time-based workdomain variables

Full-time job .15 .05Nonday shift .07 .08 .01 0.36 .12* .04 .01 1.01

Step 3. Strain-based workdomain variables

Job insecurity .21* .15**Leadership relations ¯.07 ¯.07

Influence at work .17 .12 .04 1.63 .05 .06 .02 1.50Step 4. Family domain

variablesNo. children .31*** .49***

Spouse employment .08 .21 .09 6.83** .02 .27 .22 41.68***

aBeta-coefficients for each variable are based on the final step of the complete model with

all variables in the equation. D R2 at each step represents the incremental proportion of vari-

ance accounted for by the set of variables entered at that step.

*p < .05.

**p < .01.

***p < .001.


Consequences of Work¯Family Con flict

The correlations between the well-be ing variable s (see Table II) were

mostly statistically significant. In particular, job anxie ty, job depression, job

e xhaustion , and psychosomatic symptoms corre late d ve ry highly (r =

0.53¯0.72) with each other both in the men’s and women’s group. Due to

these correlations, the well-be ing variable s were divide d into two groups

for the MANOVA analyse s. The job and overall well-be ing variable s were

treated as one group, and marital and pare ntal satisfaction formed the

other group of depende nt variable s.

By trichotomizing the sample three groups of work¯family and fam-

ily¯work conflict were formed. Those with mean scores highe r than 2.67

for work¯family conflict and 2.33 for family¯work conflict belonged to the

uppe r tertile and had the highe st level of conflict. Those with scores below

2.00 for work¯family and 1.67 for family¯work conflict belonged to the

lower tertile and had the lowest level of conflict. Others formed the inter-

mediate group.

MANOVA with two inde pende nt variable s (gende r and family¯work

conflict) and two depende nt variable s (marital and pare ntal satisfaction)

showed that the interaction term was not significant, but the main effects

of gender (Wilk’s lambda = 0.97, F (2, 432) = 5.91, p = .003) and fam-

ily¯work conflict (Wilk’s lambda = 0.95, F (4, 862) = 5.63, p = .000) on

family well-be ing turne d out to be significant. The univariate tests showed

that women’s pare ntal satisfaction was higher than men’s (F (1, 433) =

10.49, p = .001) , but martial satisfaction was at the same level among both

sexes. Family¯work conflict had effects on both family variable s: those hav-

ing the highe st leve l of conflict had the lowest leve l of marital (F (2, 433)

= 9.17, p = .000) and parental satisfaction (F (2, 433) = 3.87, p = .021) .

MANOVA with the other highly correlating well-be ing variable s (job

anxie ty, job depression, job exhaustion, and psychosomatic symptoms) as

depende nt variable s indicate d that there was no interaction between gender

and family¯work conflict, and that only the main effect of gender (Wilk’slambda = 0.92, F (4, 476) = 11.01, p = .000) was significant. Men turned

out to experience more job depression than women (F (1, 479) = 11.03,

p = .001) , whereas women expe rienced more job exhaustion than men (F

(1, 479) = 6.32, p = .012) .

The effects of gender and work¯family conflict were also tested sepa-

rately for the family and othe r well-be ing variable s. MANOVA with family

variable s as depende nt variable s showed that the interaction term was not

significant. Work¯family conflict had a main effect (Wilk’s lambda = 0.97,

F (4, 868) = 3.13, p = .014) on family well-be ing; those with a high leve l

of conflict had a significantly lower level of parental satisfaction (F (2, 435)

= 4.64, p = .010) .


MANOVA with the other well-be ing variable s as depende nt variable s

indicate d that there was no interaction. The main effect of work¯family

conflict was significant (Wilk’s lambda = 0.88, F (8, 962) = 7.76, p = .000) ,

and according to the univariate tests, those with a high leve l of conflict

had a significantly highe r leve l of job anxie ty (F (2, 484) = 20.01, p =

.000) , job depression (F (2, 484) = 5.29, p = .005), job exhaustion (F (2,

484) = 24.34, p = .000) , and psychosomatic symptoms (F (2, 484) = 17.28,

p = .000) .

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this study was to explore the prevale nce, ante cedents,

and outcome s of work¯family conflict among both men and women in Fin-

land. The perspective of both sexes was deemed important since, due to

changing role s, increased levels of conflict between work and family was

expected to involve both men and women. On the basis of our hypothe sis

(see Frone et al., 1992b; Gutek et al., 1991) , our findings indicate d, that

work¯family conflict was more prevale nt than family¯work conflict among

both sexes.

There were no diffe rences be tween the sexes in the expe rience of

either family¯work or work¯family conflict: the leve l of each type of conflict

was the same for both men and women. Although this finding was in line

with our hypothe sis, it was contrary to the results of some earlier studies

(Frone et al., 1992b; Gutek et al., 1991; Duxbury et al., 1994) which have

shown that women report inte rference from work to family more than men.

However, on the basis of our hypothe sis, this result can be unde rstood by

conside ring the multiple role s of women in Finland. Because Finnish

women are expected to participate in working life equally with men, it is

quite natural that the re are no ge nde r diffe re nce s in e xpe rie ncing

work¯family conflict. This possibility of combining multiple roles is made

easier by Finland’s socie tal structure s.

The ante cedents of family¯work conflict we re hypothe size d to be

mainly family domain variable s (see Frone et al., 1992a) . This hypothe sis

also received support in our study, especially among women, as was ex-

pected. Family domain ante cedents (after controlling for the effects of

background variable s and variable s of the work domain) made the most

incremental contribution: 9% of the variance for men and as much as 22%

for women; hence, the highe r the numbe r of children in the family, the

higher the leve l of family¯work conflict among both men and women. This

result refers to the greater responsibility of women for family matters than

men, despite the fact that both sexes participate equally in working life .


Furthe rmore, of the job variable s, job insecurity had a significant effect

on family¯work conflict for both sexes. This interesting finding may be in-

terpreted according to the results of van Vuuren, Klande rmans, Jacobson,

and Hartley (1991) ; a possible response to job insecurity is to increase the

effort one puts into one’s work, which in turn may increase experiences of

interference from family to work.

The best predictors of work¯family conflict (after controlling for the

effects of background and of the family domain variable s) turne d out to

be the work domain variable s, but only for women; however, the proportion

of variance explaine d by these variable s (full-time job, poor leadership re-

lations, low level of job insecurity) remained low (9% ). Thus, our hypothe -

sis (see Duxbury et al., 1994; Lennon & Rosenfie ld, 1992) received only

partial support. Moreove r, the negative relationship between job insecurity

and work¯family conflict was unpre dictable . This may mean that some

women respond to job insecurity by withdrawing psychologically from the ir

work (see Dekker & Schaufe li, 1995; van Vuuren et al., 1991) and, conse-

que ntly, they do not experience work to family interference .

In the men’s sample , high education and a high numbe r of children

in the family meant a highe r level of work¯family conflict. This finding

indicate s the possibility that highly educated men (i.e., men with high so-

cioeconomic status) and men with several childre n living at home (i.e., men

with preschool children) appear to feel guilt about neglecting the family

because of work. These feelings of guilt may arise out of social expectations:

men are increasingly expected to be good husbands and fathe rs and devote

time to the family. Thus, the ability of men to maintain a positive family

relate d self-image is hindered (Frone et al., 1996) .

The differences in the predictors of work¯family conflict between the

sexes may partly depend on the fact that the men in the study were mainly

blue-collar workers and the women white-collar workers. Conse quently, the

characte ristics of the women’s and men’s jobs are like ly to be different.

This was also seen in our study: some job characteristics (e .g., job insecurity,

influe nce at work) were expe rienced differentially by women and men.

However, it is also possible that our study took more account of the char-

acteristics which describe women’s jobs than men’s.

The predicted outcome s of family¯work conflict (see Frone et al.,

1992a, Higgins, Duxbury, & Irving, 1992; Thomas & Ganster, 1995) were

not fully supporte d by the data. Although family¯work conflict had negative

consequences, they were not seen in occupational well-be ing, as expected,

but in well-be ing in the family domain. Work¯family conflict, in turn, had

negative conseque nces on the well-be ing experienced at home as well as

at work. Thus, the relationship between work¯family conflict and well-be ing

at work was stronger than hypothe sized. Also, reduced overall well-be ing


was relate d only to work¯family conflict. Contrary to our expectations, our

findings sugge st that a person is more like ly to report a reduction in the

quality of his or her family life , if he or she suffers from family¯work con-

flict. Similarly, if a person suffers from work¯family conflict, this may pri-

marily be seen as a reduction in the quality of his or her working life .

We divide d the research variable s into ante cedents and conseque nces

on the basis of existing mode ls of the antecedents and conseque nces of

work¯family conflict (see Aryee, 1992; Frone et al., 1992a; Higgins & Dux-

bury, 1992; Thomas & Ganste r, 1995). However, because our cross-sec-

tional data cannot show the causal direction of the relationships between

variable s, alternative interpretations of the data are possible . For example ,

the well-be ing variable s studied may serve as antecedents rather than con-

seque nces of the two types of conflict. In that case, the process may be as

follows: family stressors cause family distre ss which may lead to fam-

ily¯work conflict, and job stressors cause job distre ss which may lead to

work¯family conflict.

When thinking about the generalizabilty of the results of our study,

we have to remember that the men studied were mostly skilled manual

workers, and the women were lower-level nonmanual workers employe d in

white-collar occupations. In this sample , the employed men and women

did not differ either in the leve l of work¯family or family¯work conflict.

However, the situation might be different, for example , in more career-ori-

ented familie s with young childre n. Although the study participants came

mostly from two-earne r familie s (62% of men and 74% of women), only

some of these might be termed two-care er familie s.

In addition, anothe r limitation of the study should also be acknow-

ledged: the variance explaine d by the variable s examine d remaine d rather

low. This suggests that it would be useful to broade n the domain of both

the family-re lated and work-re late d ante cedents in future research. In ad-

dition, our approach, which concentrate d on the negative spillove r effects,

should in future be broade ned to also include the positive effects of spil-

lover (e.g., Kirchmeyer, 1995) .

From a practical perspective this study indicate d in particular that

work¯family conflict was a stressor which had adve rse effects on individuals ’well-be ing at work and at home. For this reason, improve ments in working

life are needed to prevent inte rference from work to family and its negative

consequences. For example , inte rventions which combine structural change s

(e.g., flexible work schedule s) with attempts to redesign jobs so that em-

ployees’ psychological well-be ing is enhanced by their work should be en-

couraged. However, it has been claime d that workplace family policie s such

as family leave , flexible timetables, and job sharing are primarily used by

women (Pleck, 1993) . Therefore, in orde r to develop interventions that also


target men, more emphasis should be give n to employme nt experiences

and e nhancing occupational well-be ing. On the basis of our results, this

can be accomplishe d, for example , by paying attention to job insecurity and

leade rship relations at work. By improving the quality of working life , we

can also influence the quality of family life .

Finally, the study suggests that by supporting familie s (e .g., by family

policy and equality measures) family¯work conflict with its adve rse effects

on family well-be ing could be prevented. Promoting the increased partici-

pation of men in family care is one prerequisite of change towards broad-

ening equal opportunitie s. It seems that the changes in gende r roles are

more marked in women than in men. How equal opportunitie s have been

define d has led to policie s to enable women to act like men in the work-

place , rathe r than a questioning of the appropriate ness of current forms

of work for today’s men as well as women, and pare nts as well as others

(see Lewis & Cooper, 1995) .

REFERENCES

ARYEE, S. Antecedents and outcomes of work¯family conflicts among marrie d professional

women: Evidence from Singapore . Hum an Relations, 1992, 54, 813-837.

ASHFO RD, S., LEE, C., & BOBKO, P. Content, cause s and consequences of job insecurity:

A theory-based measure and substantive test. Academ y of Managem ent Journal, 1989, 32,

803-829.

BRETT, J. M., & YOGEV, S. Restructuring work for family. How dual-earner couples with

children manage ? Journal of Social Behavior and Person ality, 1985, 3, 159-174.

CANFIELD, K. R., SCHUMM, W. R., SWIHART, J. J., & EGGERICH S, E. E. Factorial

validity of brief satisfaction scale s in surveys of Mormon, Roman Catholic, and Protestant

fathers. Psychological Reports, 1990, 67, 1319-1322.

DEKKR, S., & SCHAUFELI, W. The effects of job insecurity on psychological health and

withdrawal: A longitudinal study. Australian Psychologist, 1995, 30, 57-63.

DUXBURY, L., HIGGINS, C., & LEE, C. Work¯family conflict. A comparison by ge nder,

family type, and perceived control. Journal of Family Issues, 1994, 15, 449-466.

FOWERS, B. J., & OLSON, D. H. Enrich Marital Satisfaction Scale : A brief research and

clinical tool. Journal of Fam ily Psychology, 1993, 7, 176-185.

FRONE, M. R., RUSSELL, M., & BARNES, G. M. Work¯family conflict, ge nder, and health-

related outcomes: A study of employed pare nts in two community samples. Journ al of

Occupationa l Health Psychology, 1996, 1, 57-69.

FRONE, M. R., RUSSELL, M., & COOPER, M. L. Antecedents and outcomes of work¯fam-

ily conflict: Testing a mode l of the work¯family interface. Journal of Applied Psychology,

1992, 77, 65-78. (a)

FRONE, M. R., RUSSELL, M., & COOPER, M. L. Prevale nce of work¯family conflict: Are

work and family boundaries asymmetrically permeable ? Journal of Organizational Behav-

ior, 1992, 13, 723-729. (b)

GERRIS, J. R. M., VERMULST, A. A., VAN BOXTEL, D. A. A. M., JANSSENS, J. M. A.

M., VAN ZUTPHEN, R. A. H., & FELLING, A. J. A. Parenting in Dutch families: A

representative description of Dutch family life in terms of validated concepts representing

characteristics of parents, children, the family as a system and parental socio-cultural value

orientations. Institute of Family Studies, Unive rsity of Nijmege n, 1993.


GREENBE RGER, E., & O’NEIL, R. Spouse, parent, worker: Role commitme nts and role

related experie nces in the construction of adults’ well-being. Developm ental Psychology,1993, 29, 181-197.

GREENHALG H, L. Maintaining organizational effectiveness during organizational retrench-me nt. Journal of Applied Behavioral Sciences, 1982, 18, 155-170.

GREENHAUS, J. H., & BEUTELL, N. J. Sources of conflict between work and family roles.Academ y of Managem en t Review, 1985, 10, 76-88.

GUTEK, B. A., SEARLE, S., & KLEPA, L. Rational versus ge nder role explanations for

work¯family conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1991, 76, 560-568.

HIGGINS, C., & DUXBURY, L. Work¯family conflict: A comparison of dual-career and tra-ditional-career me n. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 1992, 13, 389-411.

HIGGINS, C., DUXBURY, L., & IRVING, R. Work¯family conflict in the dual-career family.

Organizational Behavior and Hum an Decision Processes, 1992, 51, 51-75.

HUGHES, D., & GALINSKY, E. Work experie nces and marital interactions: Elaborating the

complexity of work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 1994, 15, 423-438.

IZRAELI, D. N. Work/family conflict among women and men in dual-career couples in Israel.

Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 1993, 8, 371-385.

JACOBSON, D. The conceptual approach to job insecurity. In J. Hartley, D. Jacobson, B.

Klandermans, and T. van Vuuren (Eds.), Job insecurity: Coping with jobs at risk. London:Sage , 1991, pp. 23-39.

JOHNSO N, C. D., MESSE, L. A., & CRANO, W. D. Predicting job performance of lowincome workers: The work opinion questionnaire. Personnel Psychology, 1984, 37, 291-

299.

KINNUNE N, U., & NÄTTI, J. Job insecurity in Finland: Antece dents and conseque nces.

European Work and Organizational Psychologist, 1994, 4, 297-321.

KIRCHMEYE R, C. Managing the work-nonwork boundary: An assessment of organizational

responses. Hum an Relations, 1995, 48, 515-536.

LARSON, J. H., WILSON, S. M., & BELE Y, R. The impact of job insecurity on maritaland family relationships. Family Relations, 1994, 43, 138-143.

LENNO N, M. C., & ROSENFIELD, S. Wome n and me ntal health: The interaction of job

and family conditions. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 1992, 33, 316-327.

LEWIS, S., & COOPER, C. L. Balancing the work/home interface: A European perspective .

Hum an Resource Managem ent Review , 1995, 5, 289-305.

LOERCH, K. J., RUSSELL, J. E. A., & RUSH, M. C. The re lationship among family domain

variables and work¯family conflict for men and women. Journ al of Vocational Behavior,1989, 35, 288-308.

MacEWEN, K. E., & BARLING, J. Daily consequences of work interference with family andfamily interference with work. Work and Stress, 1994, 8, 244-254.

MASLACH, C., & JACKSON, S. The measurem ent of experience d burnout. Journal of Oc-cupational Behavior, 1981, 2, 99-113.

NIEMI, I. Perheiden ajankäyttö [Use of time in families]. In Suom alainen perhe [Finnish fam-ily]. He lsinki: Tilastokeskus, 1994, pp. 161-165.

PLE CK, J. Are family-supportive employer policies re levant to men? In J. C. Hood (Ed.),Men, work and fam ily. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1993, pp. 217-237.

THO MAS, L. T., & GANSTE R, D. C. Impact of family-supportive work variables on work-family conflict and strain: A control perspective . Journal of Applied Psychology, 1995, 80,

6-15.

VEIKKOLA, E. S., & LEHTINIE MI, A. (Eds.) Naiset ja miehet Suom essa [Women and menin Finland]. SVT, Elinolot 1994: 2. He lsinki: Tilastokeskus, 1994.

VOYDANO FF, P. Work role characte ristics, family structure demands, and work/family con-

flict. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1988, 50, 749-761.

VAN VUURE N, T., KLANDE RMANS, B., JACOBSON, D., & HARTLEY, J. Employees’reactions to job insecurity. In J. Hartley, D. Jacobson, B. Klandermans, and T. van Vuuren

(Eds.), Job insecurity: Coping with jobs at risk. London: Sage, 1991, pp. 65-78.

WARR, P. The measureme nt of well-being and other aspe cts of mental health. Journal of

Occupationa l Psychology, 1990, 63, 193-210.


WILEY, D. L. The relationship between work/nonwork role conflict and job-related outcomes:

Some unanticipated findings. Journal of Managem ent, 1987, 13, 467-472.

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE

ULLA KINNUNEN has a PhD in Psychology and is a Special Rese archer in the Family Re-

search Unit at the University of Jyväskylä, Finland. He r main research interests are thework¯family interface, economic stress in families, job insecurity, and stress at work.

SAIJA MAUNO has an MA in Psychology and is a Researcher in the Family Research Unit

at the University of Jyväskylä, Finland. He r rese arch interests are the work¯family interfaceand job insecurity.


Antecedents and Outcomes of Work-Family Conflict Among Employed Women and Men in Finland

Documents

Transcript of Antecedents and Outcomes of Work-Family Conflict Among Employed Women and Men in Finland