Copyright © The British Psychological SocietyReproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society

Interface between work and family: A longitudinalindividual and crossover perspective

Ulla Kinnunen1*, Taru Feldt2, Saija Mauno2 and Johanna Rantanen2

1Department of Psychology, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland2Department of Psychology, University of Jyvaskyla, Jyvaskyla, Finland

This study assessed longitudinal individual and crossover relationships between work–family conflict and well-being in the domains of work (job satisfaction) and family(parental distress) in a sample of 239 dual-earner couples. The results revealed onlylongitudinal individual effects over a 1-year period. First, high family-to-work conflict(WFC) at Time 1 was related to a high level of work-to-family conflict (WFC) 1 yearlater in both partners. Second, the wife’s high level of FWC was related to herdecreased job satisfaction 1 year later. Thus, the longitudinal effects identifiedsupported normal causality, that is, work-family conflict led to poor well-beingoutcomes or increased perceived work-family conflict later on. Longitudinal crossovereffects from one partner to another were not observed within a 1-year perspective.

In today’s western society the topic of how to reconcile the competing demands of work

and family life continues to be an increasing problem, which often results in work–family

conflict for both working men and women (e.g. Aryee, Srinivas, & Tan, 2005; Eagle, Miles, &

Icenogle, 1997; Kinnunen & Mauno, 1998). Work-family conflict has been defined as ‘a form

of inter-role conflict in which the role pressures from the work and family domains are

mutually incompatible in some respect’ (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985, p. 77). This inter-role

conflict functions bidirectionally, that is, work may interfere with family (WFC) and familymay interfere with work (FWC). It has been shown that work-family conflict is associated

with various negative individual (e.g. strain symptoms), family (e.g. family stress) and

organizational level (e.g. decreased organizational commitment) outcomes (for reviews,

see Allen, Herst, Bruck, & Sutton, 2000; Kossek & Ozeki, 1998; Kinnunen & Mauno, 2008).

However, less attention has been paid to possible detrimental outcomes of employees’

work-family conflict for their partners. According to a recent review, only 9% of work–

family research has focused on this issue (Casper, Eby, Bordeaux, Lockwood, & Lambert,

2007), which is highly relevant today when the dual-earner situation is the rule rather thanthe exception in western families. Thus, in these dual-earner families how both partners

manage the interface between their work and personal lives matters, and how partners

* Correspondence should be addressed to Professor Ulla Kinnunen, Department of Psychology, University of Tampere, 33014Tampere, Finland (e-mail: ulla.kinnunen@uta.fi).

TheBritishPsychologicalSociety

119

Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology (2010), 83, 119–137

q 2010 The British Psychological Society

www.bpsjournals.co.uk

DOI:10.1348/096317908X399420

Copyright © The British Psychological SocietyReproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society

succeed in this task determines the extent to which they are negatively affected by each

other’s experiences within the work and family domains. Extending work–family interface

research in a direction paying more attention to the family context has been urgently called

for (e.g. Barnett, 1998; Casper et al., 2007; Geurts & Demerouti, 2003). Our study aims to

respond to this call by focusing on both partners’ experiences of work-family conflict and

well-being in the domains of work and family.Our main objectives are threefold. First, we examine at the individual level using an

individual as the unit of analysis whether work-family conflict (i.e. WFC and FWC) has

effects on domain-specific well-being (i.e. job satisfaction and parental distress) in 1 year.

Second, we examine using a couple as the unit of analysis whether one partner’s WFC may

have longitudinal effects on the other partner’s well-being. Finally, because we utilize

longitudinal data we are also able to explore reversed causality, that is, whether own

impaired well-being predicts own work-family conflict or partner’s work-family conflict.

In sum, our study extends the existing work–family research in several ways. First,the most important extension is that we approach the very topical issue of work-family

conflict from both longitudinal and crossover perspectives. These perspectives have

seldom been combined, and to the best of our knowledge there is only one study in the

context of work-family conflict where this has been done using 1-year longitudinal data

(see Hammer, Cullen, Neal, Sinclair, & Shafiro, 2005). In the study of Hammer et al.

(2005), the focus was on the relation of work-family conflict with depression. Our study

extends this perspective into well-being experienced in the domains of work (job

satisfaction) and family (parental distress), which are the most important domains whenwork-family conflict is considered (e.g. Allen et al., 2000). Second, the present study

contributes to the existing literature by taking into account the possibility of reversed

causality which has recently gained more attention in the context of work-family

conflict (e.g. Demerouti, Bakker, & Bulters, 2004; Kinnunen, Geurts, & Mauno, 2004;

Rantanen, Kinnunen, Feldt, & Pulkkinen, 2008; Steinmetz, Frese, & Schmidt, 2008), but

which has not yet been studied in the context of couples.

Theoretical models of the outcomes of work-family conflictFrone and his colleagues have presented two interesting models concerning the

outcomes of work-family conflict. First, Frone, Russell, and Cooper (1992) tested a

‘Model of Work–Family Interface’ which they later (Frone, Yardley, & Markel, 1997)

elaborated as an ‘Integrative Model of the Work–Family Interface’. These models have

gained considerable support in cross-sectional studies (see Ford, Heinen, & Langkamer,

2007; Frone, 2003, for reviews). However, there is lack of studies testing the models ortheir different parts longitudinally and among couples.

According to the earlier ‘Model of Work–Family Interface’, WFC and FWC have

unique role-related outcomes. The outcomes of WFC reside in the family domain (e.g.

parental distress) and the outcomes of FWC reside in the work domain (e.g. job

satisfaction). In other words, each direction of conflict should be related to outcomes in

the domain receiving the conflict. Frone and his colleagues (1992) also claimed that

WFC and FWC have both a direct and a reciprocal relation to each other in such a way

that when WFC (or FWC) is experienced it increases the likelihood that family (work)responsibilities will remain unfulfilled, and these unfulfilled family (work) duties, in

turn, begin to impede work (family) performance, leading to experience of FWC (WFC).

The later ‘Integrative Model of Work–Family Interface’ proposed that the reciprocal

relation between WFC and FWC might alternatively be indirect, so that the two

120 Ulla Kinnunen et al.

Copyright © The British Psychological SocietyReproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society

directions of work-family conflict are related to each other through work and family

distress. In addition to being respectively domain-specific outcomes of FWC and WFC,

work distress and family distress are also domain-specific antecedents of these

experiences. More specifically, work distress is proposed to be an antecedent of WFC

and family distress an antecedent of FWC, that is, each direction of conflict should be

related to antecedents in the domain from which the conflict has originated. Thus, theaim of the present study is to shed further light on the views described above using

longitudinal data collected among Finnish working couples.

Work-family conflict and well-beingThe relationship between work-family conflict and well-being has taken three different

forms in earlier longitudinal studies. According to the traditional and most used

approach, work-family conflict is seen as an antecedent of psychological strain, because

it is thought to cause a state in which an individual’s resources are threatened and

depleted, leading to a possible decrease in well-being (e.g. Eby, Casper, Lockwood,

Bordeaux, & Brinley, 2005; Grandey & Cropanzano, 1999; Voydanoff, 2002). This

normal causal approach (i.e. work-family conflict causes strain) has gained support at

least in six longitudinal studies. FWC predicted elevated levels of depression 4 yearslater (e.g. Frone, Russell, & Cooper, 1997). Over a 1-year time period WFC was related to

the emotional exhaustion dimension of burnout (Peeters, de Jonge, Janssen, & van der

Linden, 2004) and fatigue at work (van Hooff et al., 2005). In addition, WFC was a

precursor of job dissatisfaction, parental distress and psychological stress symptoms in

women, but not in men over 1 year (Kinnunen et al., 2004). In line with this gender

difference, Grandey, Gordeiro, and Crouter (2005) found that WFC preceded job

dissatisfaction 1 year later in women, but not in men. Finally, WFC (a global measure

without directionality) predicted employees’ low well-being after 6 months (Grant-Vallone & Donaldson, 2001).

Although the normal causal approach has received support, its premises can be

questioned. It is possible that if an individual suffers from psychological strain, he or she

has consequently fewer resources to cope with simultaneous work- and family-related

responsibilities. Therefore, psychological strain accompanied by impaired daily

functioning may increase the incidence of work-family conflict. This picture is in line

with the view that resources are finite and in the long run they may diminish because of

changes in well-being and health (Edwards & Rothbard, 2000). Accordingly, fivelongitudinal studies support this reversed causal approach (i.e. strain causes work-family

conflict). First, among business travellers pre- and mid-trip burnout preceded work-

family conflict (both directions were included but combined into one measure) during

and after the trip (the three measurement points were 1 week before, during and a few

days after the trip; Westman, Etzion, & Gortler, 2004). Second, among married soldiers

with children job dissatisfaction preceded WFC across 3 or 4 months (Britt & Dawson,

2005). Third, in men, but not in women, marital dissatisfaction, parental distress, and

psychological as well as physical stress symptoms were antecedents of WFC 1 year later(Kinnunen et al., 2004). Fourth, family dissatisfaction predicted FWC in men, but not in

women, and job dissatisfaction predicted WFC among both genders 1 year later (Huang,

Hammer, Neal, & Parrin, 2004). In the most recent longitudinal study with a 1-year time

lag by Steinmetz et al. (2008) reversed causality also gained support; namely, depression

served as an antecedent of WFC.

Interface between work and family 121

Copyright © The British Psychological SocietyReproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society

In addition to these two approaches, there is the reciprocity approach. According to

this, work-family conflict leads to increased strain, which in turn gives rise to increased

work-family conflict. Thus, adopting the terms of the conservation of resources theory

(Hobfoll, 1989; see also Grandey & Cropanzano, 1999) the question is of loss spirals, in

which negative experiences trigger other negative experiences over time. Such

reciprocal associations between work-family conflict and psychological strain have beenfound in three longitudinal studies. Over a 6- and 12-week period WFC was both an

antecedent and an outcome of job exhaustion (Demerouti, Bakker, & Schaufeli, 2005).

Over 3 months WFC preceded job exhaustion, dysphoric mood, and marital

dissatisfaction, and simultaneously WFC was an outcome of job exhaustion and a high

amount of conflict with family members, and FWC was an outcome of marital

dissatisfaction (Leiter & Durup, 1996). In addition, FWC was an antecedent, and WFC an

outcome of psychological stress symptoms 6 months later (Kelloway, Gottlieb, &

Barham, 1999).Taken as a whole, these longitudinal findings seem to give some support for the two

models of Frone and his colleagues (Frone et al., 1992; Frone, Yardley et al., 1997). First,

WFC was an outcome of job exhaustion and antecedent of marital dissatisfaction over 3

months (Leiter & Durup, 1996). Second, WFC predicted parental distress 1 year later in

women (Kinnunen et al., 2004), and third, family dissatisfaction predicted FWC in men

(Huang et al., 2004). Fourth, job dissatisfaction predicted WFC both across 3 or 4

months (Britt & Dawson, 2005) and 1 year (Huang et al., 2004). Although these findings

are in line with the domain-specific antecedents and outcomes presented in the Fronemodels, there are simultaneously several findings against the models. However, it is

worth noticing that the studies were not originally planned to test the Frone models.

In addition, the observed longitudinal results are inconsistent in several regards. First of

all, not all studies have taken the possibility of reversed causality into account (e.g. Frone,

Russell et al., 1997; Grant-Vallone & Donaldson, 2001). Second, such issues as different

follow-up periods, different measures, or different study designs may play a role. Of these

issues, the choice of the follow-up period is perhaps the most crucial question.

Theoretically, it is very difficult to define an optimal follow-up period within which, forexample, the negative outcomes of work-family conflict should emerge (see De Lange,

Taris, Kompier, Houtman, & Bongers, 2004). Based on the previous findings we know that

cross-lagged effects between work-family conflict and well-being have been found across 6

weeks (Demerouti et al., 2004) and up to 4 years (Frone, Russell et al., 1997).

The follow-up period is 1 year in our study, since the possible outcomes – job

satisfaction (e.g. Dormann & Zapf, 2001) and parental distress (e.g. Seginer, Vermulst, &

Gerris, 2002) – have been shown to be fairly stable. Also, both WFC and FWC has turned

out to be relatively stable across different time periods (e.g. Kelloway et al., 1999;Kinnunen et al., 2004; Rantanen et al., 2008). Therefore, it is necessary to have an

extended period of time to allow for change to occur by critical incidents within work and

family domains. However, satisfaction and distress belong to short-term outcomes in the

categorization of outcomes related to job insecurity (Sverke, Hellgren, & Naswall, 2002)

compared with outcomes related to health and performance, which were under the

label of long-term consequences. Consequently, we consider the 1-year time lag sufficient

to reveal meaningful variation in the outcomes studied; longer time lags may add the

risk to underestimate the true causal effect. Altogether, we were not interested either invery short-term changes (e.g. in emotions) which are captured better by the daily diary

studies or in very long-term changes (e.g. in health) which would need a still longer

follow-up period.

122 Ulla Kinnunen et al.

Copyright © The British Psychological SocietyReproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society

Crossover between partnersTo differentiate the partner effects from the individual level effects, the term crossover

has been introduced (Westman, 2001). The crossover process occurs when a stressor or

psychological strain experienced by one person affects the level of strain of another

person. This process has also been termed as emotional transmission (e.g. Jones &

Fletcher, 1993) or contagion (Bolger, DeLongis, Kessler, & Wethington, 1989). Partnercrossover may be either direct or indirect (Westman, 2001). A direct empathic crossover

is said to occur when stressors/strains experienced by one partner directly affect the

stressors/strains experienced by the other partner, whereas indirect crossover occurs

via mediating processes, for example, via interpersonal conflict (Westman & Etzion,

1995). In the present study, we focus on work-family conflict in terms of direct partner

crossover effects from a longitudinal perspective.

Work-family conflict has been examined from the perspective of crossover effects

only in a few and mainly cross-sectional studies. Among the first studies, based onhierarchical linear regression analyses using samples matched by the partner, that

conducted by Hammer, Allen, and Grigsby (1997) showed that one partner’s

experienced work-family conflict (a global measure without directionality) had a

crossover effect on the experience of work-family conflict in the other partner. Hammer,

Bauer, and Grandey (2003) have also shown that work-family conflict had a crossover

effect on work-related withdrawal behaviours. Husband’s FWC was related to lateness

for work reported by wife, and wife’s FWC was related to the number of interruptions

while at work and absences from work (due to family/personal-related issues) reportedby husband.

In a more recent study, which concentrated on work-to-relationship conflict

(measured with a single-item concerning the frequency of how often the demands of

one’s work interfere with his/her partner relationship), Matthews, Priore, Acitelli, and

Barnes-Farrell (2006) showed using structural equation modelling (SEM) that wife’s

work-to-relationship conflict was positively related to husband’s reports of relationship

tension. However, if the husband reported higher levels of work-to-relationship conflict,

the wife reported lower levels of relationship tension. In addition, one partner’srelationship tension had a direct negative crossover effect on the other partner’s

relationship satisfaction.

The only longitudinal study concerning the crossover effects of work-family conflict

by Hammer et al. (2005) showed that work–family crossover effects were linked to

depression. They found – using hierarchical regression analysis in a sample matched by

the partner – that only positive spillover (i.e. functioning in one domain having a

positive effect on functioning in another domain) had a longitudinal crossover effect on

depression. Namely, husband’s positive work–family spillover had a longitudinal (across1 year) crossover effect on wife’s decreased depression, and wife’s positive family–work

spillover had a longitudinal crossover effect on husband’s decreased depression. In

addition, one cross-sectional crossover effect from husband’s WFC to wife’s depression

was documented. However, the study did not reveal any significant longitudinal

individual effects of either work-family conflict or positive spillover on individuals’

depression. The authors consider this finding noteworthy, because one would expect

longitudinal crossover effects to be more difficult to detect than would be longitudinal

individual effects.When looking at the study findings from the perspective of the Frone models (Frone

et al., 1992; Frone, Yardley et al., 1997), the studies seem to give some support for the

models. The cross-sectional findings showed, first, that one partner’s work-family

Interface between work and family 123

Copyright © The British Psychological SocietyReproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society

conflict (without directionality) was linked to his or her partner’s work-family conflict

(Hammer et al., 1997), which can be considered supporting the view that different

types of work-family conflict (WFC and FWC) are related. Second, one partner’s FWC

was related to other partner’s work-related outcomes (Hammer et al., 2003) as well as

WFC was related to other partner’s family-related outcomes (Matthews et al., 2006). All

these relationships are in line with the Frone models. In the only longitudinal study(Hammer et al., 2005) work- and family-related outcomes were not studied.

In addition, crossover studies in the context of work and family focusing on other

experiences than work-family conflict have been published. Of these studies, those

focusing on the issue of whether well-being or distress crosses over from one partner to

another are relevant from the perspective of the present study. That is, because we examine

both partners’ well-being in the domains of work and family, and therefore also their

crossover from one partner to another. Westman (2001), in her review of 29 studies

examining crossover effects, noted many studies that have found one person’s distress to bepositively related to his or her spouse’s distress. Among these reviewed studies there were

also longitudinal ones, but only few had a long-term perspective like that in our study. Of

these few studies, that by Barnett, Raudenbush, Brennan, Pleck, and Marshall (1995)

showed direct longitudinal crossover of distress between partners, that is, an increase in

distress (i.e. anxiety and depression) of one partner was mirrored in the changes in distress

of the other over a 1-year time period. This study was also the only one using multi-level

modelling, that is, taking into account the hierarchical structure of the data.

Furthermore, in cross-sectional studies, the crossover of burnout (Bakker,Demerouti, & Schaufeli, 2005; Westman & Etzion, 1995) and work engagement (Bakker

et al., 2005) from one partner to another has been detected among working couples.

Also, the crossover of job exhaustion from women to men and life satisfaction from men

to women was shown to occur among dual-earner parents in the cross-sectional study

by Demerouti et al. (2005). In addition, relationship tension and dissatisfaction seem to

cross over from one partner to another (e.g. Matthews et al., 2006; Mauno & Kinnunen,

1999). These findings are based either on hierarchical regression or SEM analyses using

partner matched samples.

Purpose and hypotheses of the present studyThe main purpose of this study is to assess the longitudinal relations of work-family

conflict (i.e. WFC and FWC) and the experiences of job satisfaction and parental distress

among dual earner couples. On the basis of the theoretical views presented by Frone

and his colleagues (Frone et al., 1992; Frone, Yardley et al., 1997), we test the followingsix hypotheses:

Individual effects

Hypothesis 1 (stability): WFC, FWC, job satisfaction, and parental distress show considerablestability across the 1-year period.

Hypothesis 2 (normal causality): WFC at Time 1 is related to parental distress and FWC at Time2, and FWC at Time 1 is related to job dissatisfaction and WFC at Time 2.

Hypothesis 3 (reversed causality): Job dissatisfaction at Time 1 is related to WFC at Time 2, andparental distress at Time 1 is related to FWC at Time 2.

124 Ulla Kinnunen et al.

Copyright © The British Psychological SocietyReproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society

Crossover effects

Hypothesis 4 (normal causality): One partner’s WFC at Time 1 is related to the other partner’sparental distress and FWC at Time 2, and one partner’s FWC at Time 1 is related to the otherpartner’s job dissatisfaction and WFC at Time 2.

Hypothesis 5 (reversed causality): One partner’s job dissatisfaction at Time 1 is related to theother partner’s WFC at Time 2, and one partner’s parental distress at Time 1 is related to theother partner’s FWC at Time 2.

Hypothesis 6 (domain-specific well-being effects): One partner’s job satisfaction at Time 1 isrelated to the other partner’s job satisfaction at Time 2, and one partner’s parental distress atTime 1 is related to the other partner’s parental distress at Time 2.

Method

ParticipantsThe data were gathered as a part of the research project ‘Economic Crisis, Job Insecurity,

and the Household’, in which 608 couples participated in the first phase of the study(1999; Time 1). One year later (2000; Time 2), these couples were asked to participate in

the second phase of the study. Of the couples, 468 complied with the request, yielding a

response rate of 77%. Originally, the participants were drawn randomly from the

database of the Population Register Centre of Finland (see Kinnunen et al., 2004;

Kinnunen & Feldt, 2004). The participants have been shown to represent reasonably

well both the original sample and Finnish working aged people in demographic

background factors available (gender, age, marital status, and geographical location).

The present sample was restricted to those couples in which both partners wereemployed at both measurement times. Of the original 608 couples, 387 were working

couples (63.6%), and from them 239 (61.8%) participated at Time 2. The demographic

characteristics of the participants did not change significantly between Times 1 and 2,

thus only Time 1 demographics are described. About 78% of the couples were married

and 22% cohabiting. The marital or cohabitational relationship had on average lasted 17

years (SD ¼ 10:8). The average age of the men was 43.7 years (SD ¼ 8:7) and of the

women 42.2 years (SD ¼ 8:6) ( p , :001). The great majority of the partners were

between 35- and 54-years-old. Of the couples, 21% (N ¼ 50) did not have children, andamong those with children living at home, the number of children was typically one or

two and the median age of the youngest child was 9 years. Most had a vocational school

or a college education, men more often vocational school education (33% vs. 25%) and

women college education (37% vs. 23%; p , :001). Consequently, men worked more

often than women as blue-collar (35% vs. 28%) workers, whereas women worked more

often than men as white-collar workers (67% vs. 50%; p , :001). The majority of men

(95%) and women (88%) worked full-time (.34 h/week), and the average number of

weekly working hours was 44.0 (SD ¼ 10:5) for men and 38.5 (SD ¼ 7:3) for women( p , :001).

ProcedureTwo identical postal questionnaires bearing the same code number were posted at Time

1 to each member of the randomly-selected sample. One questionnaire was intended for

Interface between work and family 125

Copyright © The British Psychological SocietyReproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society

the target individual and the other, where relevant, for his or her partner. At Time 2 the

questionnaires were sent only to those completing the questionnaires at Time 1.

The respondents were instructed to complete the questionnaires independently and to

post them in separate sealed envelopes to the researchers. The partners were matched

by the code number.

Measures

Work-family conflictWFC was measured with two-items (e.g. ‘My work keeps me from my family more than I

would like’) from the scale by Stephens and Sommer (1996), and FWC with two-items

(e.g. ‘I have to put off doing things at work because of the demands on my time at

home’) from the scale developed by Netemeyer, Boles, and McMurrian (1996). Theitems were rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 ¼ strongly disagree, 5 ¼ strongly agree).

The correlations (all significant at the level of p , :001) of the two WFC items were .72

(Time 1) and .65 (Time 2) for men and .65 (Time 1) and .74 (Time 2) for women, and the

corresponding correlations for the two FWC items were .53 and .53 for men and .54 and

.66 for women, respectively.

Well-being indicatorsJob satisfaction was assessed globally with three-items (e.g. ‘In general, I am satisfied

with my job) using a 5-point Likert scale (1 ¼ strongly disagree, 5 ¼ strongly agree). The

items are from the job diagnostic survey (Hackman & Oldham, 1980), which has been

validated in Finland (Vartiainen, 1989). The Cronbach’s alphas for the scale were .85

(Time 1) and .82 (Time 2) for men and .84 (Time 1) and .80 (Time 2) for women.

Parental distress was measured with six-items from the parental stress index

developed by Abidin (1990). The measure used indicates the degree to which the parentreports experiencing the parent role as stressful (three-items, e.g. ‘Being a parent is

harder than I thought it would be’) and restricting (three-items, e.g. ‘I feel trapped by my

responsibilities as a parent’). All items used a 5-point Likert scale (1 ¼ strongly disagree,

5 ¼ strongly agree). The Cronbach’s alphas for the parental distress scale were .81

(Time 1) and .85 (Time 2) for men and .83 (Time 1) and .86 (Time 2) for women.

Statistical analysesThe hypotheses of the present study were tested within the SEM framework using the

Mplus 5.0 programme (Muthen & Muthen, 1998–2006). The responses of each

participant and those of his/her partner were matched and the models were estimated

simultaneously for both genders, first, because it is not possible to investigate the

crossover process between the partners using separate models for men and women and,

second, because the married or cohabiting couples have to be considered as a

dependent sample. A latent variables approach was chosen as it offers potentialadvantages enabling measurement errors to be taken into account. Each latent variable

(i.e. WFC, FWC, job satisfaction, and parental distress) was therefore constructed by

multiple observed items or scales. Scales were used in the case of parental distress, as

using the high number of original items would have resulted in an unacceptably high

ratio of estimated parameters in relation to sample size.

126 Ulla Kinnunen et al.

Copyright © The British Psychological SocietyReproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society

The analytical procedure included three major phases. In the first phase, a stability

model based on the all latent constructs was tested in order to establish the invariance of

the factor loadings of the latent variables across time and across partners. Demonstration

of structural invariance of the latent variables allows the further investigation of the

longitudinal individual and crossover effects with no need to worry about whether

observed effects are due to gender-related factors or to structural change in the latentconstructs over time. In the second phase, the hypotheses (2–3) of the individual effects

were tested by adding all the individual-effect paths to the stability model. After that, the

significant paths (t-values 1.96 or above) were retained and the non-significant paths

(t-values less than 1.96) were deleted from the model. In the third and final phase of the

analytical procedure, the hypothesized crossover paths (4–6) were added to the model,

and again, the non-significant paths were dropped from the model.

As the data included both categorical (items indicating WFC, FWC, and job

satisfaction) and continuous variables (two mean scores of parental distress) we usedweighted least squares means and variance adjusted (WLSMV) estimation with full

information data treatment (i.e. weighted least square parameter estimates using a

diagonal weight matrix with standard errors and mean- and variance-adjusted

chi-squared test statistic that use a full weight matrix). In order to test the adequacy

of the hypothesized SEM model, a number of key model fit indices were examined as

part of the analysis. First, the chi-squared and degrees of freedom are presented. A non-

significant chi-squared value is considered to be indicative of an acceptable model.

Second, when the competing models were compared in testing the invariance of thestability model across time and partners, we performed chi-squared difference testing.

It is notable that the chi-squared value for the WLSMV method of estimation cannot be

used for chi-squared difference tests as such. Chi-squared difference testing, that is to be

used in conjunction with the WLSMV method of estimation is described in detail in the

Mplus technical appendices (see www.statmodel.com) and in the Mplus User’s Guide by

Muthen and Muthen (1998–2006). If the chi-squared difference test produces a non-

significant loss-of-fit, the invariance assumptions are supported.

Third, in conjunction with the chi-squared statistics, a combination of the TuckerLewis index (TLI) and the comparative fit index (CFI) was used. In addition, the root

mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), which takes model complexity into

account and is generally considered to be one of the most informative indices, was in

use. As adjusting the index cutoff values on the basis of the model characteristics (e.g.

the number of participants and the observed variables included in the model) has been

recommended (Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, & Tatham, 2006), we followed these

guidelines. In our case with 239 couples and 36 observed variables included in the SEM

model, the criteria for a good model fit are .90 and above for TLI and CFI values, and .07or less for RMSEA values with an acceptable CFI value. In addition, a significant

chi-squared value can be expected (Hair et al., 2006).

Results

Descriptive resultsThe means, standard deviations and correlations of the study variables are presented

separately for the husbands and the wives in Table 1. Based on paired sample t tests,

gender differences emerged for six of the eight model variables. Husbands had a higher

level of WFC at Time 1 ( p , :01) and at Time 2 ( p , :05) compared to wives. In a

Interface between work and family 127

Copyright © The British Psychological SocietyReproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society

Table

1.

Pear

son

corr

elat

ions

ofth

est

udy

vari

able

sam

ong

husb

ands

and

wiv

es(N

¼190

–239)

Var

iable

Husb

ands

Wiv

es

MSD

MSD

12

34

56

78

Time1

1.W

FC2.6

41.2

22.3

61.1

7–

.35**

*2

.16*

.11

.57**

*.2

4**

*2

.14*

.18*

2.FW

C1.5

10.6

91.3

10.5

3.4

1**

*–

2.1

3*

.41**

*.3

1**

*.4

4**

*2

.11

.40**

*3.Jo

bsa

tisf

action

4.0

70.8

54.1

20.8

12

.03

2.1

1–

2.1

7*

2.1

6*

2.0

1.6

1**

*2

.26**

*4.Par

enta

ldis

tres

s1.9

20.6

42.1

10.7

2.1

3.2

6**

*2

.25**

–.1

8*

.32**

*2

.23**

.71**

*Time2

5.W

FC2.5

91.1

82.3

81.1

8.5

9**

*.3

3**

*2

.03

.17*

–.2

8**

*2

.22**

.22**

*6.FW

C1.4

80.6

81.3

50.6

3.2

5**

*.5

6**

*2

.09

.28**

*.3

8**

*–

2.1

5*

.41**

*7.Jo

bsa

tisf

action

4.0

30.8

44.1

50.6

9.0

12

.09

.71**

*2

.22**

2.1

02

.16*

–2

.32**

*8.Par

enta

ldis

tres

s1.9

90.6

92.1

30.7

9.1

7*

.21**

2.2

2**

.62**

*.2

3**

.30**

*2

.29**

*–

Note.

Corr

elat

ions

above

the

dia

gonal

are

for

wiv

esan

dunder

the

dia

gonal

for

husb

ands.

*p,

:05,**p,

:01,**

*p,

:001.

128 Ulla Kinnunen et al.

Copyright © The British Psychological SocietyReproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society

similar vein, husbands reported a higher level of FWC than wives at both Times 1

( p , :001) and 2 ( p , :05). However, wives were more likely than husbands to report

parental distress at both Times 1 ( p , :01) and 2 ( p , :05). Job satisfaction was at a

similar level in both partners at both measurement times. No mean level changes in any

of the variables occurred between Time 1 and Time 2.

As can be seen in Table 1, WFC and FWC at Time 1 correlated significantly with parentaldistress at Time 2 both among the husbands and the wives. In addition, parental distress at

Time 1 correlated significantly with WFC and FWC at Time 2 among both partners.

However, of the longitudinal relations between WFC and job satisfaction, only two turned

out to be significant: WFC at Time 1 was related to decreased job satisfaction at Time 2, and

job satisfaction at Time 1 was related to decreased WFC at Time 2 for the wives. Thus, the

individual longitudinal correlations seem to support the reciprocity model.

The inter-correlations of the study variables between the partners are presented in

Table 2. As can be seen in the table, both partners’ WFC and FWC as well as jobsatisfaction and parental distress correlated significantly with each other, providing a

first indication of covariation between the partners’ responses. Furthermore, one

partner’s WFC and FWC at Time 1 showed a significant correlation with the other

partner’s parental distress at Time 2, whereas only husband’s parental distress at Time 1

was related to his wife’s WFC at Time 2. In addition, wife’s job satisfaction at Time 1

correlated with her husband’s decreased WFC at Time 2. Thus, in the light of the

longitudinal crossover correlations the normal causality seems to receive more support

than the reversed causality.

Testing the hypotheses

Stability modelIn the first phase of our SEM analyses, we tested the adequacy of the stability model of

the latent constructs investigated. To do this, each latent variable was constructed eitherby multiple items (i.e. all items of WFC, FWC and job satisfaction were set on the

corresponding latent variable) or scales (i.e. the mean scores of stress and restrictions of

parental role were set on the latent variable of parental distress) in husbands and wives

at both measurement times. We first tested a freely estimated stability model where each

latent construct was set to predict itself and no invariance constraints were imposed in

factor loadings. In this freely estimated stability model, the associations between the

latent variables at Time 1 were estimated. At Time 2, none of the residual error

covariances between latent variables were significant, and were therefore not includedin the model. The fit statistics of this freely estimated model were well within good

fitting limits (x2 ¼ 165:152, df ¼ 95, p , :001, CFI ¼ :97, TLI ¼ :98, RMSEA ¼ :056).

The significant chi-squared value did not support this very complex model (16 latent

variables, 36 observed variables), as expected, but the other fit indices easily met the

threshold of a good model fit.

Next, the invariance of the factor loadings across time was tested by setting the

corresponding factor loadings equal over time (x2 ¼ 167:348, df ¼ 97, p , :001,

CFI ¼ :97, TLI ¼ :98, RMSEA ¼ :055). These equality constraints did not weaken themodel fit as indicated by the chi-squared difference -test (Dx2 ¼ 12:39, Ddf ¼ 9, ns).

Consequently, the structure of the latent variables was concluded to be invariant across

time. To detect the invariance across partners, the corresponding factor loadings were

finally set equal across husbands and wives (x2 ¼ 164:803, df ¼ 97, p , :001,

Interface between work and family 129

Copyright © The British Psychological SocietyReproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society

Table

2.

Pear

son

corr

elat

ions

ofth

est

udy

vari

able

sbet

wee

nhusb

ands

and

wiv

es(N

¼190

–239)

Wiv

es

Var

iable

sfo

rhusb

ands

12

34

56

78

Time1

1.W

FC.3

4**

*.1

6*

2.0

7.1

0.1

5*

.14

2.0

9.2

2**

2.FW

C.2

2**

.31**

*2

.03

.18*

.24**

*.2

3**

*2

.03

.21**

3.Jo

bsa

tisf

action

2.1

22

.03

.17*

2.1

32

.08

2.0

8.1

5*

2.1

8*

4.Par

enta

ldis

tres

s.1

6*

.18*

2.1

1.3

1**

*.1

5*

.11

2.0

7.3

4**

*Time2

5.W

FC.2

1**

.11

2.1

3*

.11

.21**

.17*

2.0

8.1

6*

6.FW

C.1

4*

.04

2.0

9.0

7.2

0**

.17**

2.1

4*

.11

7.Jo

bsa

tisf

action

2.0

8.0

3.1

7**

2.0

22

.11

2.0

2.1

8**

2.1

18.Par

enta

ldis

tres

s.2

0**

.15*

2.1

7*

.32**

*.1

9**

.19**

2.2

3**

.39**

*

Note.

*p,

:05,**p,

:01,**

*p,

:001.

130 Ulla Kinnunen et al.

Copyright © The British Psychological SocietyReproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society

CFI ¼ :97, TLI ¼ :98, RMSEA ¼ :054). As the deterioration in model fit was not

statistically significant (Dx2 ¼ 3:427, Ddf ¼ 4, ns), the model was concluded also to be

invariant across partners. Thus, this stability model with equality constraints in

factor loadings across time and across partners was chosen as the basic model for

our subsequent analyses of longitudinal individual and crossover effects.

Individual effectsIn the second phase, six hypothesized individual-effects paths in both partners

(hypotheses 2 and 3) were added to the above described stability model with equality

constraints ðx2 ¼ 154:018, df ¼ 97, p , :001, CFI ¼ :98, TLI ¼ :99, RMSEA ¼ :050).A closer examination of the t-values indicated that, of the 12 individual paths, nine were

non-significant. After dropping the nine non-significant paths (starting from the smallest

t-value), the model fit was adequate (x2 ¼ 150:746, df ¼ 97, p , :001, CFI ¼ :98,

TLI ¼ :99, RMSEA ¼ :048). Of the individual paths, the following three turned out to be

significant (see Figure 1): First, husbands’ high FWC at Time 1 was linked to their high

WFC at Time 2. Second, wives’ high FWC at Time 1 was linked to their high WFC at

Time 2. Third, wives’ high FWC at Time 1 was linked to their decreased job satisfaction

at Time 2.

Figure 1. Final model with standardized stability coefficients: individual longitudinal paths and factor

loadings for measures. WFC, work-to-family conflict; FWC, family-to-work conflict.

Interface between work and family 131

Copyright © The British Psychological SocietyReproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society

Crossover effectsIn the third phase of the analysis, all the hypothesized crossover effects (eight in both

partners; see hypotheses 4–6) were added to the model (x2 ¼ 158:876, df ¼ 96,

p , :001, CFI ¼ :98, TLI ¼ :98, RMSEA ¼ :052). Of these, none turned out be significant,

and therefore the predecessor model, shown graphically in Figure 1, with three

longitudinal individual-effects paths was the final model. For the sake of clarity, theconcurrentc-associations between the latent variables at Time 1 are presented in Table 3.

As can be seen in Figure 1, the stability of the latent constructs investigated was

consistently relatively high, stability coefficients ranging from .55 to 1.00. As already

stated, one longitudinal individual effect was detected in husbands; high FWC at Time 1

was related to husbands’ high level of WFC 1 year later. Two longitudinal individual

effects were detected in wives. Similarly to husbands, wives’ high FWC was linked to

their high WFC 1 year later. In addition, wives’ high FWC was linked to decreased job

satisfaction 1 year later.

Discussion

Our results revealed that only FWC showed long-term effects. First, high FWC at Time 1

was related to high WFC 1 year later in both partners, and second, wife’s FWC was

linked to her decreased job satisfaction over 1 year. These findings were in line with our

Hypothesis 2, which was based on the earlier model of Frone and colleagues (1992).

According to this model, the outcomes of FWC reside in the domain receiving theconflict (i.e. WFC and job dissatisfaction). The present findings also support Frone and

colleagues’ cross-sectional results showing that only FWC (and not WFC) was related to

job distress and depression (Frone et al., 1992), and longitudinal results showing that

only FWC had a detrimental effect on an individual’s health over 4 years (Frone, Russell

et al., 1997). However, the theoretical elaboration presented by Frone, Yardley et al.

(1997b) concerning the indirect reciprocal nature of the relationship between WFC and

FWC was not supported (Hypothesis 3), that is, neither job dissatisfaction nor parental

distress increased WFC and FWC later on.Consequently, the significant longitudinal findings at the individual level gave

support for normal causality which has so far also received most support in other studies

(e.g. Frone, Russell et al., 1997; van Hooff et al., 2005). Thus, the theoretical

explanation, according to which FWC reflects a state in which an individual’s resources

are threatened and depleted leading to an increase in WFC and a decrease in well-being

Table 3. Concurrent c-associations between the latent variables at Time 1

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Husband’s WFC –2. Husband’s FWC .55 –3. Husband’s job satisfaction 2 .04a 2 .22 –4. Husband’s parental distress .22 .47 2 .40 –5. Wife’s WFC .37 .32 2 .18 .26 –6. Wife’s FWC .25 .42 2 .15a .31 .54 –7. Wife’s job satisfaction 2 .11a 2 .14a .23 2 .25 2 .25 2 .16 –8. Wife’s parental distress .21 .23 2 .18 .49 .20 .61 2 .31 –

Note. a Not statistically significant

132 Ulla Kinnunen et al.

Copyright © The British Psychological SocietyReproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society

received support (e.g. Eby et al., 2005; Voydanoff, 2002). One possible statistical reason

making it difficult to find reciprocal relationships may lie in the moderately high stability

of the experiences examined during the 1-year follow-up among both husbands and

wives. However, the observed moderate stability of the experiences was in line with our

stability hypothesis (1).

The longitudinal relationship established from FWC to WFC in both partners isconsistent with the views of gender similarities in work–family interface experiences

(Gutek, Searle, & Klepa, 1991; Voydanoff, 2002). According to the social-role hypothesis

perspective (Voydanoff, 2002), the key issue is a comparable role involvement, not

gender: if both men and women invest the same amount of time, attention, and energy

in their work and family roles, these involvements should have similar effects on the

experiences of men and women. In the Nordic countries, men and women are equally

active in working life, and in this respect their investments could be considered to be

identical, rendering our results interpretable. By contrast, the longitudinal effectobserved from FWC to job dissatisfaction among women is against the social-role

hypothesis. This finding suggests that perhaps family is still a more salient and resource

consuming role for women, and therefore FWC has a more marked effect on women’s

psychological well-being (Voydanoff, 2002).

It is worth noticing that these effects occurred in spite of men’s higher levels of WFC

and FWC compared to those of women. The finding of men’s higher level of WFC is

consistent with earlier studies, for example, across twenty-seven studies (Byron, 2005)

male employees tended to have slightly higher WFC. However, in this same review,female employees tended to have higher FWC than men. Thus, our findings suggest that

Finnish women are more resistant than their partners to the perceived conflicts. One

reason for these gender differences may be the fact that in practice women have been

more active (e.g. utilizing care and flexibility benefits) in juggling with the demands of

work and family. This means that women have developed strategies for handling both

work and family responsibilities over the years (see e.g. Hammer et al., 2005).

In the present study, no longitudinal crossover effects were found. This was contrary

to our Hypotheses 4–6. However, we based our hypotheses mostly on cross-sectionalstudies, because there is a lack of longitudinal crossover research. The only existing

longitudinal study addressing the crossover effects of work-family conflict showed no

crossover effects of work-family conflict on depression 1 year later (Hammer et al.,

2005). In that study only positive work–family spillover showed longitudinal crossover

effects on decreased depression among partners. Thus, one reason for the absence of

crossover effects may be due to our focus on work-family conflict. It could be that

positive work–family experiences are more likely to cross over in close relationships

over time. This issue is an important area for further research.Another possible reason for not finding longitudinal crossover effects is that, in order

to find crossover effects of work-family conflict, a different time lag than the 1 year used

in the present study, would be needed. Although we regarded 1 year as an adequate time

period in regard to our outcomes, in the absence of theoretical views, it is hard to say

what the optimal time-lag would be to establish longitudinal crossover effects.

Therefore, we encourage researchers to adopt different time lags in order to learn more

about lagged crossover effects. Previous studies suggest that rather a shorter than a

longer time period than 1 year would be needed in order to be able to demonstrate, forexample, reciprocal crossover relationships between work-family conflict and domain-

specific well-being (see Demerouti et al., 2004; Leiter & Durup, 1996, for reciprocal

effects at an individual level). However, De Lange et al. (2004) indicated that a 1-year

Interface between work and family 133

Copyright © The British Psychological SocietyReproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society

time lag was the most appropriate for demonstrating causal relationships between

demands, control and social support and indicators of mental health.

A third reason for not finding longitudinal crossover effects may be the fact that we

focused on time-based conflict. This could be regarded as a limitation of the present

study, although in this way (i.e. not using strain-based items), an overlap in item contents

was avoided between work-family conflict and well-being variables, which could havecaused overestimated associations, as pointed out by Hurrell, Nelson, and Simmons

(1998). On the other hand, time-based work-family conflict, and especially time-based

FWC, might have captured women’s real worries (e.g. delays and interruptions during

working day due to family commitments such as taking children to daycare and picking

them up from daycare in fixed times) better than those of men. Perhaps, time-based

conflict is perceived as an external restriction by women, that is, they feel that it is

beyond their control, and therefore time-based WFC has detrimental effects for women

(Steinmetz et al., 2008).

LimitationsThe present study is not without limitations. First, although each partner was requested

to complete the questionnaires separately, we cannot be entirely sure if this really was

the case. However, if partners completed the questionnaires jointly, this may have

contributed to greater crossover; therefore, this may not be a problem in our study.A second limitation concerns the fact that we only used self-report questionnaires.

Common method bias may thus have strengthened the relationships. Third, it has been

proposed that crossover research should start looking for mechanisms (e.g. mediating

roles of support and empathy or moderating role of personality) via which crossover

might occur (e.g. Westman, 2001, 2006). Unravelling such processes, however, was

beyond the scope of this study. Focussing on mediators and moderators in subsequent

longitudinal crossover research could be a fruitful avenue. Fourth, our results might be

best generalizable to countries where sociocultural expectations and practicesconcerning working, household duties, and child rearing among men and women are

characterized as egalitarian rather than traditional (see Westman, 2005).

ConclusionOf the types of work-family conflict, only FWC had long-term effects, suggesting that it ismore important than WFC. Therefore, the prevention of FWC could be given priority

when long-term preventive and intervention strategies are planned for working couples

with children. This suggests that in the Nordic countries, too, where the state has an

active role in reconciling work and family demands, additional efforts are still needed in

order to avoid negative long-term consequences of FWC. In this respect it is important

to develop daycare system as well as children’s care after school. In Finland, the daycare

system is functioning well, but there are not enough after school activities available for

school-aged children. This is a problem because Finnish parents are often employed full-time. Also, extra domestic help (e.g. cleaning help) would prevent feelings of

exhaustion and save parents’ energy for their children. Equal division of domestic duties

between partners would especially be beneficial for women, because Finnish women

spend still more time in doing domestic tasks than men. All these measures would be

helpful in preventing the experience of FWC.

134 Ulla Kinnunen et al.

Copyright © The British Psychological SocietyReproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society

Acknowledgements

The research project ‘Economic Crisis, Job Insecurity and the Household’ was financially

supported by the Academy of Finland (grant No. 43553).

References

Abidin, R. R. (1990). Parenting stress index manual. Charlottesville, VA: Pediatric Psychology

Press.

Allen, T. D., Herst, D. E. L., Bruck, C. S., & Sutton, M. (2000). Consequences associated with work-

to-family conflict: A review and agenda for future research. Journal of Occupational Health

Psychology, 5, 278–308.

Aryee, S., Srinivas, E. S., & Tan, H. H. (2005). Rhythms of life: Antecedents and outcomes of work-

family balance in employed parents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 132–146.

Bakker, A., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. (2005). The crossover of burnout and work engagement

among couples. Human Relations, 58, 661–689.

Barnett, R. (1998). Toward a review and re-conceptualization of the work/family literature.

Generic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 124, 125–182.

Barnett, R. C., Raudenbush, S. W., Brennan, R. T., Pleck, J. H., & Marshall, N. L. (1995). Change in

job and marital experiences and change in psychological distress: A longitudinal study of dual-

earner couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 839–850.

Bolger, N., DeLongis, A., Kessler, R. C., & Wethington, E. (1989). The contagion of stress across

multiple roles. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 51, 175–183.

Britt, T. W., & Dawson, C. R. (2005). Predicting work–family conflict from workload, job attitudes,

group attributes, and health: A longitudinal study. Military Psychology, 17, 203–227.

Byron, K. (2005). A meta-analytic review of work–family conflict and its antecedents. Journal of

Vocational Behavior, 67, 169–198.

Casper, W. J., Eby, L. T., Bordeaux, C. A., Lockwood, A., & Lambert, D. (2007). Review of research

methods in IO/OB work–family research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 28–43.

Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., & Bulters, A. J. (2004). The loss spiral of work pressure, work-home

interference and exhaustion: Reciprocal relations in a three-wave study. Journal of Vocational

Behavior, 64, 131–149.

Demerouti, E., Bakker, A., & Schaufeli, W. (2005). Spillover and crossover of exhaustion and life

satisfaction among dual-earner parents. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67, 266–289.

De Lange, A. H., Taris, T. W., Kompier, M. A. J., Houtman, I. L. D., & Bongers, P. M. (2004). The

Relationships between work characteristics and mental health: Examining normal, reversed

and reciprocal relationships in a 4-wave study. Work & Stress, 18, 149–166.

Dormann, C., & Zapf, D. (2001). Job satisfaction: A meta-analysis of stabilities. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 22, 483–504.

Eagle, B. W., Miles, E. W., & Icenogle, M. L. (1997). Interrole conflicts and the permeability of work

and family domains: Are there gender differences? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50,

168–184.

Eby, L. T., Casper, W. J., Lockwood, A., Bordeaux, C., & Brinley, A. (2005). Work and family research

in IO/OB: Content analysis and review of the literature (1980–2002). Journal of Vocational

Behavior, 66, 124–197.

Edwards, J. R., & Rothbard, N. P. (2000). Mechanisms linking work and family: Clarifying the

relationship between work and family constructs. Academy of Management Review, 25,

178–199.

Ford, M. T., Heinen, B. A., & Langkamer, K. L. (2007). Work and family satisfaction and conflict:

A meta-analysis of cross-domain relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 57–80.

Frone, M. R. (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.

Interface between work and family 135

Copyright © The British Psychological SocietyReproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society

Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M. L. (1992). Antecedents and outcomes of work–family

conflict: Testing a model of the work–family interface. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77,

65–78.

Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M. L. (1997a). Relation of work–family conflict and health

outcomes: A four-year longitudinal study of employed parents. Journal of Occupational and

Organizational Psychology, 70, 325–335.

Frone, M. R., Yardley, J. K., & Markel, K. S. (1997b). Developing and testing an integrative model of

the work–family interface. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50, 145–167.

Geurts, S. A. E., & Demerouti, E. (2003). Work/non-work interface: A review of theories and

findings. In M. J. Schabracq, J. A. M. Winnubst, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), The handbook of work

and health psychology (pp. 279–312). Chichester: Wiley.

Grandey, A. A., Cordeiro, B. L., & Crouter, A. (2005). A longitudinal and multi-source test of the

work–family conflict and job satisfaction relationship. Journal of Occupational and

Organizational Psychology, 78, 305–323.

Grandey, A. A., & Cropanzano, R. (1999). The Conservation of Resources Model applied to work–

family conflict and strain. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 350–370.

Grant-Vallone, E. J., & Donaldson, S. I. (2001). Consequences of work–family conflict on employee

well-being over time. Work & Stress, 15, 214–226.

Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources and conflict between work and family roles.

Academy of Management Review, 10, 76–88.

Gutek, B. A., Searle, S., & Klepa, L. (1991). Rational versus gender role explanations for work–

family conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 560–568.

Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data

analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Hammer, L., Allen, E., & Grigsby, E. D. (1997). Work–family conflict in dual-earner couples: Within-

individual and crossover effects of work and family. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50,

185–203.

Hammer, L., Bauer, T., & Grandey, A. (2003). Work–family conflict and work-related withdrawal

behaviors. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17, 419–436.

Hammer, L., Cullen, J., Neal, M., Sinclair, R., & Shafiro, M. (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.

Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conversation of resources. A new approach at conceptualizing stress.

American Psychologist, 44, 513–524.

Huang, Y., Hammer, L. B., Neal, M. B., & Parrin, N. A. (2004). The relationship between work-

to-family conflict and family-to-work conflict: A longitudinal study. Journal of Family and

Economic Issues, 25, 79–100.

Hurrell, J. J. J., Nelson, D. L., & Simmons, B. L. (1998). Measuring job stressors and strains: Where

we have been, where we are, and where we need to go. Journal of Occupational Health

Psychology, 3(4), 368–389.

Jones, F., & Fletcher, B. (1993). An empirical study of occupational stress transmission in working

couples. Human Relations, 6, 881–903.

Kelloway, E. K., Gottlieb, B. H., & Barham, L. (1999). The source, nature, and direction of work and

family conflict: A longitudinal investigation. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 4,

337–346.

Kinnunen, U., & Feldt, T. (2004). Economic stress and marital adjustment among couples: Analyses

at the dyadic level. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34, 519–532.

Kinnunen, U., Geurts, S., & Mauno, S. (2004). Work-to-family conflict and its relationship with

satisfaction and well-being: A one-year longitudinal study on gender differences. Work &

Stress, 18, 1–22.

Kinnunen, U., & Mauno, S. (1998). Antecedents and outcomes of work–family conflict among

employed women and men in Finland. Human Relations, 51, 157–177.

136 Ulla Kinnunen et al.

Copyright © The British Psychological SocietyReproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society

Kinnunen, U., & Mauno, S. (2008). Work–family conflict in individuals’ lives: Prevalence,

antecedents, and outcomes. In K. Naswall, J. Hellgren, & M. Sverke (Eds.), The individual in

the changing working life (pp. 126–146). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kossek, E. E., & Ozeki, C. (1998). Work–family conflict, policies, and the job-life satisfaction

relationship: A review and directions for organizational behavior-human resources research.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 139–149.

Leiter, M. P., & Durup, M. J. (1996). Work, home, and in-between: A longitudinal study of spillover.

Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 32, 29–47.

Matthews, R., Priore, R., Acitelli, L., & Barnes-Farrell, J. (2006). Work-to-relationship conflict:

Crossover effects in dual earner couples. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11,

228–240.

Mauno, S., & Kinnunen, U. (1999). The effects of job stressors on marital satisfaction in Finnish

dual-earner couples. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 879–895.

Muthen, L. K., & Muthen, B. O. (1998–2006). Mplus user’s guide (4th ed.). Los Angeles, CA:

Muthen & Muthen.

Netemeyer, R. G., Boles, J. S., & McMurrian, R. (1996). Development and validation of work–family

and family–work conflict scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 400–410.

Peeters, M. C. W., de Jonge, J., Janssen, P. P. M., & van der Linden, P. (2004). Work–home

interference, job stressors, and employee health in a longitudinal perspective. International

Journal of Stress Management, 4, 305–322.

Rantanen, J., Kinnunen, U., Feldt, T., & Pulkkinen, L. (2008). Work–family conflict and

psychological well-being: Stability and cross-lagged relations within one- and six-year follow-

ups. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73, 37–51.

Seginer, R., Vermulst, A., & Gerris, J. (2002). Bringing up adolescent children. A longitudinal study

of parents’ child-rearing stress. Journal of Behavioral Development, 26, 410–422.

Steinmetz, H., Frese, M., & Schmidt, P. (2008). A longitudinal panel study on antecedents and

outcomes of work–home interference. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73, 231–241.

Stephens, G. K., & Sommer, S. M. (1996). The measurement of work to family conflict.

Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56, 475–486.

Sverke, M., Hellgren, J., & Naswall, K. (2002). No security: A meta-analysis and review of job

insecurity and its consequences. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 7, 242–264.

van Hooff, M. L. M., Geurts, S. A. E., Taris, T. W., Kompier, M. A. J., Dikkers, J. S. E., &

Houtman, I. L. D. (2005). Disentangling the causal relationship between work–home

interference and employee health. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment, and

Health, 31, 15–29.

Vartiainen, M. (1989). JDS – Job Diagnostic Survey – katsaus menetelmaan [ JDS – a review].

Katsaus no 112. Teknillinen korkeakoulu, teollisuustalous ja tyopsykologia, Helsinki.

Voydanoff, P. (2002). Linkages between the work–family interface and work, family, and individual

outcomes. Journal of Family Issues, 23, 138–164.

Westman, M. (2001). Stress and strain crossover. Human Relations, 54, 717–751.

Westman, M. (2005). Cross-cultural differences in crossover research. In S. Poelmans (Ed.), Work

and family. An international research perspective (pp. 241–260). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum.

Westman, M. (2006). Crossover of stress and strain in the work–family context. In F. Jones,

R. Burke, & M. Westman (Eds.), Work-life balance. A psychological perspective (pp. 163–184).

New York: Psychology Press.

Westman, M., & Etzion, D. (1995). Crossover of stress, strain and resources from one spouse to

another. Journal of Organizational Psychology, 16, 169–181.

Westman, M., Etzion, D., & Gortler, E. (2004). The work–family interface and burnout.

International Journal of Stress Management, 11, 413–428.

Received 21 January 2008; revised version received 27 November 2008

Interface between work and family 137