Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 17, No.

3, Spring 2003 (2003)

WORK-FAMILY CONFLICT
AND WORK-RELATED
WITHDRAWAL BEHAVIORS
Leslie B. Hammer
Talya N. Bauer
Portland State University

Alicia A. Grandey
Pennsylvania State University

ABSTRACT: This survey study explored the effects of work-to-family conflict and
family-to-work conflict on withdrawal behaviors at work (family interruptions at
work, lateness to work, and absenteeism) among both members of 359 dual-
earner couples. Using a systems theory framework, regression analyses revealed
significant individual-level and crossover effects for both types of work-family
conflict on withdrawal behaviors. Theoretical and practical implications of the
study of work-family conflict crossover effects on withdrawal behaviors at work
are discussed.

KEY WORDS: work-family conflict; organizational stress; organizational with-

drawal; absenteeism.

Although work-family research has been making its way into the
mainstream of organizational research over the past 10 years, only a
few studies have examined withdrawal behaviors as an outcome of such
multiple role demands (e.g., Goff, Mount, & Jamison, 1990; MacEwen &
Barling, 1994; Milkovich & Gomez, 1976). Furthermore, although work-
family issues affecting individuals are inherently dependent upon inter-

An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society
for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, April 1999, Atlanta, GA. We thank Russell
Cropanzano and Mina Westman for their valuable comments on an earlier version of this
paper.
Address correspondence to Leslie B. Hammer, Department of Psychology, Portland
State University, Portland, OR 97207; hammerl@pdx.edu.

419

0889-3268/03/0300-0419/0  2003 Human Sciences Press, Inc.

420 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

actions with key people in the work sphere (e.g., supervisors and co-
workers) and the family sphere (e.g., spouses and dependents), much of
the work-family research to date fails to consider this larger social con-
text. Taking a systems view recognizes that individuals’ attitudes and
behaviors are influenced by other individuals in their work and family
environments, providing for a more comprehensive understanding of
work-family dynamics. This is the first study to examine spousal cross-
over effects on work withdrawal outcomes, taking into consideration the
effects of the broader family system of the dual-earner couple. Therefore,
the present study uses systems theory as a framework for examining
the effects of work-family conflict (work-to-family and family-to-work) on
spouses’ withdrawal behaviors at work (i.e., family interruptions, late-
ness, and absenteeism). This study proposes two general sets of hypothe-
ses: 1) one’s own work-family conflict will affect one’s own withdrawal
behaviors at work, and 2) one’s own work-family conflict will affect the
spouse’s withdrawal behaviors at work beyond their spouse’s own work-
family conflict.

WORK-FAMILY CONFLICT

Work-family conflict is a form of interrole conflict in which engaging

in one role interferes with engaging in another role (Greenhaus & Beu-
tell, 1985). Work-family conflict has been conceptualized as a two-dimen-
sional construct where work interferes with family (work-to-family con-
flict) and family interferes with work (family-to-work conflict) (e.g.,
Frone, Russell, & Cooper, 1992; Frone, Yardley, & Markel, 1997; Nete-
meyer, Boles, & McMurrian, 1996). In their integrative model of the
work-family interface, Frone et al. (1997) suggest that these two types
of work-family conflict reciprocally affect one another indirectly through
role overload and distress.
Consistent with the idea that they are separate factors, work-to-fam-
ily and family-to-work conflict have been found to have different anteced-
ents and consequences. For example, some research has demonstrated
that work-to-family conflict is primarily caused by work-related stressors
and characteristics and that it predicts family-related affective and be-
havioral outcomes, while family-to-work conflict is caused by family-
related stressors and characteristics and predicts work-related outcomes
(e.g., Frone et al., 1997). The underlying assumption is that high levels
of interference from one role to the other makes meeting the demands of
the second role more difficult (Frone et al., 1992). For example, MacEwen
and Barling (1994) found family-to-work conflict to be positively related
to work withdrawal and work-to-family conflict to be positively related
to family withdrawal. Likewise, Frone et al. (1997) found work-to-family
 L. B. HAMMER, T. N. BAUER, AND A. A. GRANDEY 421

and family-to-work conflict to predict family and job performance out-

comes, respectively. Other researchers, however, have found direct rela-
tionships between work-to-family conflict and work outcomes, in addi-
tion to family outcomes, and between family-to-work conflict and family
outcomes, in addition to work outcomes (e.g., Adams, King, & King,
1996; Gignac, Kelloway, & Gottlieb, 1996; Grandey & Cropanzano, 1999;
Judge, Boudreau, & Bretz, 1994; Netemeyer et al., 1996).
Thus, it is important to consider the effects of both dimensions of
work-family conflict simultaneously. In this study, both dimensions of
work-family conflict are included in predicting the work outcome of with-
drawal behaviors. Including both directional measures of work-family
conflict in our analyses allows us to test the effects of each, above and
beyond the other, and should provide more information about the nature
of the directional measures of work-family conflict, thus contributing to
theoretical models of the work-family interface.

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN WORK-FAMILY CONFLICT

AND WITHDRAWAL BEHAVIORS

Only three known studies have examined the relationship between

general work-family conflict and general withdrawal behaviors (Goff et
al., 1990; MacEwen & Barling, 1994; Thomas & Ganster, 1995). As noted
above, the MacEwen and Barling (1994) study used bi-directional mea-
sures of work-family conflict, demonstrating that family-to-work conflict
predicted work withdrawal, while Goff and colleagues and Thomas and
Ganster used overall work-family conflict measures. Although Goff and
colleagues found that overall work-family conflict was a significant pre-
dictor of absenteeism among employed parents, Thomas and Ganster
failed to find significant relationships between work-family conflict and
absenteeism.
Four additional studies examined work-family conflict and with-
drawal behaviors due specifically to either the eldercare role (Barling,
MacEwen, Kelloway, & Higginbottom, 1994; Hepburn & Barling, 1996)
or the childcare role (Kossek, 1990; Kossek & Nichol, 1992). In testing
a model of interrole conflict between work and eldercare, Barling and
colleagues demonstrated a direct relationship between work and elder-
care conflict and partial absenteeism (i.e., lateness, leaving work early,
time on telephone). Likewise, using a subset of the original Barling et al.
data, Hepburn and Barling demonstrated that the relationship between
hours spent in caregiving and partial absence (e.g., being late to work
and leaving early) was stronger as the interrole conflict between work
and eldercare increased. In related research, Kossek and colleagues
found relationships between attitudes towards managing work and
422 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

childcare responsibilities and days missed due to childcare problems.

Therefore, the few studies that exist suggest a positive relationship be-
tween an individual’s work-family conflict and withdrawal in general
and withdrawal due to family care demands.
The specific withdrawal behaviors examined in the present study
range in severity from mild family interruptions at work, to lateness, to
the even more severe, absenteeism. These are all important to examine
because research has demonstrated that more mild forms of withdrawal
behaviors (e.g., lateness) have a tendency to escalate over time into more
severe forms (e.g., turnover) based on the progression of withdrawal
model (Koslowsky, Sagie, Krausz, & Singer, 1997; Rosse, 1988). We have
also chosen to use these three measures of withdrawal as separate indi-
cators, consistent with arguments by Blau (1998) and Johns (1998) that
aggregate measures of withdrawal may be premature, as the construct
is not clearly defined. Finally, as noted above, there is reason to believe
that both directional measures of work-family conflict may affect with-
drawal outcomes. Therefore, the present study will assess the effects of
both types of work-family conflict on three withdrawal behaviors at
work.

H1a: There will be a positive relationship between work-family con-

flict (work-to-family and family-to-work) and family interrup-
tions at work (i.e., interruptions).
H1b: There will be a positive relationship between work-family con-
flict (work-to-family and family-to-work) and being late to work
(i.e., lateness).
H1c: There will be a positive relationship between work-family con-
flict (work-to-family and family-to-work) and missing work
(i.e., absence).

GENERAL SYSTEMS THEORY

AND THE WORK-FAMILY INTERFACE

A system can be defined as, “Any two or more parts that are related,
such that change in any one part changes all parts” (Hanson, 1995; p.
27). A guiding systems principle is the interrelatedness between the com-
ponents of systems. Bronfenbrenner (1977) uses systems theory to argue
for maximizing ecological validity in the study of human behavior and
describes a progressive accommodation between the growing human or-
ganism and its changing environment, which includes immediate set-
tings, as well as larger social contexts. Systems theory provides a foun-
dation for understanding the dynamics that occur between the two
dominant spheres of our lives, work and family. Furthermore, family
 L. B. HAMMER, T. N. BAUER, AND A. A. GRANDEY 423

systems theory, based in general systems theory, elucidates the effects

of work and family within the context of the family or the dual-earner
couple, as in the case of the present study.

Family Systems Theory

Family systems theory considers how complex interactions among
family members affect behavior (Day, 1995). The primary premise of this
theory is that we learn more about the family if we study the interactions
among family members than if we simply study each family member
individually (Day, 1995). A criticism of the work-family literature is the
primary focus on the individual instead of the broader social context of
the couple or the family (Edwards & Rothbard, 2000; Westman & Pi-
otrkowski, 1999; Zedeck, 1992). Using family systems theory helps to
address this limitation.
One of the central tenets of family systems theory is context; behav-
ior can only be understood within the context of the multiple systems in
which it occurs. For instance, in family systems counseling, the behav-
ioral problems of children are not examined in isolation from the rest of
the family, but rather by observing the patterns of interactions among
family members. Taking this one step further, it is argued that the be-
havior of one family member cannot be completely understood without
considering the behavior of other family members and that our family
roles affect these interactions (Day, 1995).
It has been suggested that work-family researchers should consider
the broader family system by, at a minimum, using the couple as the
unit of analysis (Hammer, Allen, & Grigsby, 1997; Zedeck & Mosier;
1990). Using a family systems approach involves including a broader
contextual base (e.g., the family, the couple) for understanding the dy-
namic relationships between attitudes and behaviors of members within
a family, thus providing a useful framework for work-family researchers.
Family systems researchers have noted the complexities involved in
studying the family system, due to the interactional and reciprocal ef-
fects of stress, strain, and psychopathology of one family member on an-
other (Hayden, Schiller, Dickstein, Seifer, Sameroff, Miller, Keitner, &
Rasmussen, 1998). Taking a family systems perspective when studying
work-family issues, including examining the interactive relationship be-
tween attitudes and behaviors of both members of dual-earner couples,
should enhance understanding of these two very important spheres of
our lives. Therefore, the present study adds to the current work-family
literature by providing a strong theoretical basis for examining the work-
family interface, and does so using the dual-earner couple as the unit of
analysis in the study of crossover effects.
424 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

Crossover Effects
Crossover effects involve the transmission of stress and strain from
one member of a dyad to another (e.g., Bolger, DeLongis, Kessler, & Weth-
ington, 1989; Jones & Fletcher, 1993; Westman, 2001; Westman & Vino-
kur, 1998). Although the specific mechanisms by which crossover effects
occur are not clear, Westman and Vinokur (1998) offer several plausible
explanations. The first suggests that the experience of common stressors,
or life events, account for a significant amount of variance in crossover
effects of stress and strain between partners. The second mechanism,
social undermining, or a conflictual interaction style between partners,
may also explain crossover effects from one spouse to another. Specifi-
cally, Westman and Vinokur found that stress in one spouse contributed
to conflict between the spouses, which resulted in higher levels of strain
in the other spouse. A third mechanism suggests that direct transmis-
sion occurs between two partners who are closely related and have high
levels of empathy for one another.
Previous research on crossover effects has demonstrated the effects of
job stress on a spouse’s family stress and well-being (Bolger et al., 1989;
Jones & Fletcher, 1993; Morrison & Clements, 1997; Parasuraman, Green-
haus, & Granrose, 1992; Westman & Etzion, 1995). Likewise, the crossover
effects of one’s work and family involvement on a spouse’s level of work-
family conflict have also been demonstrated (Greenhaus, Parasuraman,
Granrose, Rabinowitz, & Beutell, 1989; Hammer et al., 1997). Further-
more, Hammer et al. showed that an individual’s work-family conflict ac-
counted for a significant amount of variance in his or her spouse’s work-
family conflict over and above other individual-level predictors (e.g., work
and family involvement). Thus, these studies support the idea that some
amount of stress “contagion” or crossover, is occurring between spouses’
work and family lives. Interestingly, no study to date has examined spou-
sal crossover effects on behavioral work-related outcomes.
Furthermore, some of the analytic strategies for examining cross-
over effects are questionable (e.g., examination of bivariate correlations
between spouses’ stress and strain levels) leaving room for alternative
explanations of findings (Westman & Vinokur, 1998). In addition, as
noted by Westman and Vinokur, most previous crossover studies have
failed to control for individual predictors of stress and strain when exam-
ining crossover effects. Controlling for such individual-level effects is
particularly crucial when assessing the effects of another’s stress on an
individual’s outcomes. Therefore, the present study responds to the lack
of research on work-family conflict crossover effects on spouse with-
drawal outcomes, while controlling for the individual-level effects, pro-
viding a stronger test of crossover effects than typically is conducted.
Finally, no known studies have assessed the spousal crossover ef-
 L. B. HAMMER, T. N. BAUER, AND A. A. GRANDEY 425

fects of the bi-directional measures of work-family conflict. Based on the

previous discussion about these work-family conflict measures, there is
reason to believe that both types of work-family conflict can affect an
individual’s work withdrawal outcomes. Likewise, it is expected that as
one spouse experiences more family-to-work conflict, the stress may
crossover causing the other spouse to withdraw from work to assist in
meeting family demands. Furthermore, it is also expected that as work-
to-family conflict increases for one spouse, the other spouse will experi-
ence greater strain in the shared family domain, and withdraw from
work in an attempt to meet the family demands. See Figure 1 for a repre-
sentation of the relationships to be tested in the present study.

H2a: There will be a positive relationship between one’s own work-

family conflict (work-to-family and family-to-work) and his or
her spouse’s family interruptions at work over and above the
spouse’s own work-family conflict.
H2b: There will be a positive relationship between one’s own work-
family conflict (work-to-family and family-to-work) and his or
her spouse’s lateness to work over and above the spouse’s own
work-family conflict.
H2c: There will be a positive relationship between one’s own work-
family conflict (work-to-family and family-to-work) and his or
her spouse’s absence from work over and above the spouse’s
own work-family conflict.

METHOD

Participants
The participants in the present study were also used in an earlier
study of crossover effects (Hammer et al., 1997). Although both studies

Figure 1
Model of Crossover Effects Between Spouses’ Work-Family Conflict
and Outcomes
426 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

shared common participants, they included different predictors and out-

come variables.
A random sample of 2,000 employees of a large bank-holding com-
pany was identified using a random number generator. This sample rep-
resented approximately 12% of the entire workforce of the company.
Both employees and their spouses/partners were surveyed. Surveys were
received from 999 (50%) bank employees and 486 of their spouses/part-
ners. Selection criteria for the present study included couples who (a)
had both partners working greater than or equal to twenty hours a week
(i.e., dual-earner couples), (b) shared a common residence for greater
than 3 years (to help establish that a committed relationship existed),
and (c) were heterosexual (work-family issues may be qualitatively dif-
ferent among gay and lesbian couples). The resulting sample was 359
dual-earner couples (n = 718).
Participants’ average age was 41 years old, with 58% having chil-
dren living at home. The mean number of hours worked per week for the
wives and husbands was 41 and 47, respectively. Couples in the sample
lived together for an average of 15 years.

Measures
Survey questionnaires were completed by employees and their
spouses to assess a number of work and family variables. Identical data
for employees and spouses were collected for all research variables used
in the study. All responses were given on a scale that ranged from 1 =
“strongly disagree” to 5 = “strongly agree.”

Demographic Data. Data on age, gender, marital status, number of chil-

dren, hours worked per week and years living together were collected.

Work-Family Conflict. The measure of work-family conflict was adapted

from Kopelman, Greenhaus, and Connolly (1983) by Goff et al. (1990),
and consisted of 16 items. Eight interrole conflict items measured work-
to-family conflict, and eight items to measure family-to-work conflict.
Items were recoded and all ranged along a scale from 1 = “strongly dis-
agree” to 5 = “strongly agree.” A sample item is “My family dislikes how
often I am preoccupied with my work while I am at home.” Internal con-
sistency reliability estimates for these measures in the present study
were .83 for work-to-family conflict and .82 for family-to-work conflict.

Withdrawal Behaviors. The frequency of three different work with-

drawal behaviors was assessed within the time frame of “the past four
weeks.” Participants responded to the following questions: “While at
 L. B. HAMMER, T. N. BAUER, AND A. A. GRANDEY 427

work, how many times have you been interrupted (e.g., telephone calls)
to deal with family/personal-related issues?” (i.e., Interruptions), “How
many times have you been late to work?” (i.e., Lateness), and “How many
days have you missed work due to family/personal-related issues?” (i.e.,
Absence). These items were modified from a measure of withdrawal be-
haviors developed by Neal, Chapman, Ingersoll-Dayton, and Emlen
(1993) and are very similar to the work withdrawal items used by Mac-
Ewen and Barling (1994).

Procedure
Participants were given two copies of the survey packets (delivered
through inter-office mail), one for themselves and one for their spouse/
partners, in separate envelopes with matching codes for each member of
the couple. Participants were asked to complete the survey indepen-
dently from their spouse and return in a sealed envelope to the re-
searchers.

RESULTS

Table 1 contains means, standard deviations, and correlations. Ta-

bles 2 and 3 contain the withdrawal outcomes for wives and husbands,
respectively. Hierarchical regression analyses were conducted with num-
ber of children entered as the control variable, individual work-to-family
and family-to-work conflict entered in the second step, and crossover ef-
fects of spouses’ work-family conflict as predictors entered in the third
step.
Confirmatory factor analyses were conducted on the work-family
conflict measures to ensure that they were measuring conceptually dif-
ferent constructs. Analyses showed that each item loaded greater than
.40 on its hypothesized factor.
Hypothesis 1 posited that Wives’ and Husbands’ own work-family
conflict (i.e., work-to-family and family-to-work conflict) would be posi-
tively related to their Interruptions (H1a), Lateness (H1b), and Absence
(H1c). This was partially supported at the correlational level as nine
of the twelve possible correlations were significant (75%) (see Table 1).
Hypothesis 1 was also partially supported at the multivariate level (see
Tables 2 & 3) as Wife work-to-family conflict was related to Wife Inter-
ruptions (β = .18, p < .01) and Wife Lateness (β = .14, p < .05). Wife fam-
ily-to-work conflict was related to Wife Interruptions (β = .20, p < .001),
as well. Both Husband work-to-family conflict (β = .14, p < .05) and fam-
 428

Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations for Study Variables

Study Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1. Number of Children .97 1.01 —

2. Wife W → F 3.27 .91 .07
3. Wife F → W 3.08 .83 .18** .33**
4. Wife Interruptions 3.49 5.14 .15** .25** .28**
5. Wife Lateness .72 2.89 .00 .16** .14** .17**
6. Wife Absence .39 1.10 .08 .01 .11* .06 .02
7. Husband W → F 3.08 .83 .18** .11* .13* .04 .08 .07
8. Husband F → W 2.01 .62 .15** .07 .33** .11* .19** .12* .33**
9. Husband Interruption 2.13 3.55 .01 .13* .19** .18** .25** −.02 .19** .21**
10. Husband Lateness .38 1.62 .02 .04 .00 −.01 .03 −.03 .03 .01 .04
11. Husband Absence .43 1.42 .07 −.08 −.05 .02 −.05 .02 .15** .22** .05 .12* —

Note. N = 359. Overall alphas are reported for each scale in the measures section of this paper rather than broken apart by gender here.
W → F = Work-to-Family Conflict, F → W = Family-to-Work Conflict.
JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

*denotes p < .05; **denotes p < .01.

 L. B. HAMMER, T. N. BAUER, AND A. A. GRANDEY 429

Table 2
Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Wife Withdrawal Outcomes

β R2 ∆R2 F

Wife Interruptions
Step 1: Number of Children .10* .02 .02 7.95**
Step 2: Wife W → F Conflict .18** .12 .09 18.84***
Wife F → W Conflict .20***
Step 3: Husband W → F Conflict −.04 .12 .00 .26
Husband F → W Conflict .02
Wife Lateness
Step 1: Number of Children −.04 .00 .00 .00
Step 2: Wife W → F Conflict .14* .04 .04 6.42**
Wife F → W Conflict .04
Step 3: Husband W → F Conflict .01 .06 .03 4.94**
Husband F → W Conflict .17**
Wife Absence
Step 1: Number of Children .05 .01 .01 2.12
Step 2: Wife W → F Conflict −.03 .02 .01 2.00
Wife F → W Conflict .09
Step 3: Husband W → F Conflict .02 .02 .00 1.16
Husband F → W Conflict .08

Note. Dyad N = 359 couples. Standardized beta coefficients are from the final step.
W → F (Work-to-Family Conflict), F → W (Family-to-Work Conflict).
*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

ily-to-work conflict (β = .13, p < .05) were related to Husband Interrup-

tions. Husband family-to-work conflict also predicted Husband Absence
(β = .23, p < .001), as expected. No other significant relationships were
found. The ∆R2 for work-family conflict over the control variable was
significant for Husband Interruptions, Husband Absence, Wife Interrup-
tions, and Wife Lateness (p < .01).
There was partial support for Hypothesis 2, that the crossover ef-
fects of a spouse’s work-family conflict would be positively related to
withdrawal behaviors. A total of five out of twelve (40%) of the crossover
effects were detected at the correlational level for the withdrawal out-
comes. At the multivariate level Husband family-to-work conflict was
related to Wife Lateness (β = .17, p < .01). Wife family-to-work conflict
was related to Husband Interruptions (β = .11, p < .05), and Wife family-
to-work conflict was related to Husband Absence (β = −.13, p < .05), but
in the direction opposite to that hypothesized. In each case the ∆R2 for
spouse work-family conflict over the control variable and over one’s own
work-family conflict was significant (p < .01).
430 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

Table 3
Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Husband Withdrawal Outcomes

β R2 ∆R2 F

Husband Interruptions
Step 1: Number of Children −.06 .00 .00 .02
Step 2: Husband W → F Conflict .14* .06 .06 12.03***
Husband F → W Conflict .13*
Step 3: Wife W → F Conflict .07 .08 .02 3.93*
Wife F → W Conflict .11*
Husband Lateness
Step 1: Number of Children .02 .00 .00 .14
Step 2: Husband W → F Conflict .03 .00 .00 .15
Husband F → W Conflict .00
Step 3: Wife W → F Conflict .04 .00 .00 .22
Wife F → W Conflict .01
Husband Absence
Step 1: Number of Children .05 .01 .01 1.87
Step 2: Husband W → F Conflict .08 .06 .05 9.60***
Husband F → W Conflict .23***
Step 3: Wife W → F Conflict −.07 .08 .02 4.45*
Wife F → W Conflict −.13*

Note. Dyad N = 359 couples. Standardized beta coefficients are from the final step.
W → F (Work-to-Family Conflict), F → W (Family-to-Work Conflict).
*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

DISCUSSION

Overall, these results provide partial support for our hypotheses and
are the first to demonstrate crossover effects of work-family conflict on
organizational withdrawal outcomes. Specifically, these results suggest
that both directional measures of work-family conflict for husbands and
wives were related to interruptions at work. Lateness to work was pre-
dicted by work-to-family conflict for wives, but not for husbands. Lastly,
husbands missing work (absence) was predicted by their own family-to-
work conflict. Several crossover effects were found such that (a) husband
interruptions were predicted by wife family-to-work conflict, (b) wife
lateness was predicted by husband family-to-work conflict, and (c) hus-
band absence was predicted by wife family-to-work conflict, however, in
the opposite direction to that expected. More specifically, wives’ family-
to-work conflict was negatively related to their husbands’ absences. Al-
though contrary to our hypotheses, one plausible explanation is that in-
stead of wives’ family-to-work conflict predicting husbands’ absences,
what may actually be happening is that higher levels of family-to-work
 L. B. HAMMER, T. N. BAUER, AND A. A. GRANDEY 431

conflict for wives are the result of husbands refusing to, or not being able
to, miss work to help with family demands.

Implications and Future Research

Taken together, this study adds to the literature that supports pre-
vious findings of work- family conflict as a predictor of work-related be-
haviors. These findings also extend the body of work-family research by
examining a wide variety of withdrawal behaviors, and most notably, by
examining crossover effects of work-family conflict on spouse job-related
outcomes. The results of this study have implications for both theory and
practice.
One interpretation of these findings is that employees with high lev-
els of work-family conflict, or those whose spouses’ work-family conflict
is affecting them in some way, may in fact use work withdrawal as a
way of managing their conflict. In this sense, withdrawal from work may
be viewed as more of an adaptive mechanism that these highly stressed
individuals are using to cope with their own, and their spouses’ work-
family conflict. Considering withdrawal behaviors as “adaptive” takes a
very different perspective from the traditional idea that withdrawal is
negative. Perhaps such withdrawal helps employees deal more effec-
tively with their work-family conflict, leading to lower levels of conflict
and more positive work attitudes and behaviors in the future. Of course,
these issues can only be fully explored using longitudinal research de-
signs.
Interruptions at work were the most frequently explained outcomes
for both Husbands and Wives. This is an important finding as interrup-
tions are an early indicator of withdrawal behaviors (Koslowsky et al.,
1997). They are also a withdrawal behavior that is not easily monitored
or documented by employers. Therefore, our findings have implications
for employees and employers alike. For employees, frequent interrup-
tions on the job can be seen as an early warning sign. If dealt with effec-
tively these may not be a problem, but the potential exists for interrup-
tions to escalate and interfere with both their work and family spheres.
The key is to manage the interruptions. For employers, it is clear that
interruptions are related to work and family conflict. Any steps that or-
ganizations can take to alleviate pressures or to build in ways to help
families cope with work-family conflict have the potential to pay for
themselves in a decrease in interruptions and its escalation to more seri-
ous lateness and absenteeism withdrawal behaviors.
The present study suggests an integration of systems theory and
research on crossover effects to better understand how work-family con-
flict of one spouse affects work-related behaviors of the other spouse in
dual-earner couples. Theoretically, this study adds to the work-family
432 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

literature by demonstrating a) that both family-to-work conflict and

work-to-family conflict affect work withdrawal behaviors, b) the cross-
over effects of work-family conflict as a stressor, and c) crossover effects
on withdrawal behavioral outcomes. Therefore, future research should
integrate these findings into further examination of work-family conflict
among dual-earner couples.
Due to common method bias, we would expect the relationship be-
tween work-family conflict and one’s own attitudes and behaviors to
have a greater relationship than the crossover effects of a spouse’s work-
family conflict. This is an issue of concern in most research on work and
family issues that typically uses the individual as the only source of data.
A major contribution of the present study is the use of data from two
different sources (i.e., spouse and self). The fact that spouse work-family
conflict had an additional significant effect on several withdrawal behav-
ior outcomes over and above one’s own work-family conflict is notable,
as these relationships could not be due to common method bias. Future
studies should examine other sources in one’s work and family lives (e.g.,
supervisors, co-workers, elderly parents) who may impact the way indi-
viduals respond to work-family issues.
It is possible that crossover effects may be moderated by the quality
of the relationship between the two people examined. For example, if a
couple has poor communication, it is possible that they may not be aware
of the full extent of each others’ work-family conflict and thus, might not
demonstrate significant crossover effects. This idea is similar to explana-
tions for the crossover phenomenon noted by Westman and Vinokur
(1998), that partners who have close relationships may also have high
degrees of empathy for one another which facilitates the direct transmis-
sion of strain. Therefore, future research on crossover effects should ex-
amine indicators of the quality of the relationship between the two peo-
ple as a moderator of such effects.
Future research should also seek to better understand crossover ef-
fects on work-related attitudes and behaviors. The only other study ex-
amining crossover effects on work-related outcomes found job-related
strain was transmitted from teachers to principles and visa versa (West-
man & Etzion, 1999). In addition, Westman and Vinokur (1998) suggest
that future research on crossover effects should not only incorporate lon-
gitudinal designs, but should also include measures of life events that
are probable sources of common stressors for both members of the dyad.
Finally, different findings for work-to-family conflict and family-to-work
conflict suggests continued examination of the two dimensions of work-
family conflict.
Overall, these findings suggest several practical implications. One
possible way to decrease employee withdrawal is to diminish the work-
family conflict experienced by both members of dual-earner couples. The
 L. B. HAMMER, T. N. BAUER, AND A. A. GRANDEY 433

bottom-line effect of work-family conflict on organizations can be seen

most clearly when the relationship between work-family conflict and
withdrawal from work is demonstrated. Other research also suggests
that high levels of work-family conflict are related to lower performance
(Netemeyer et al., 1996). If work-family conflict relates to withdrawal
and performance, then management may try to decrease withdrawal and
improve performance by offering organizational ways to help employees
meet family needs. While there is much discussion that “family-friendly
policies” might help alleviate this form of conflict, there has been little
empirical work to provide evidence for such a relationship (Grandey,
2001; Kossek & Ozeki, 1998). A few studies have suggested that family
policies such as flexible work schedules improve job satisfaction (e.g.,
Marshall & Barnett, 1994) and decrease absenteeism (Dalton & Mesch,
1990; Pierce & Newstrom, 1983). Such policies are also expected to re-
duce work-family conflict. Future research is needed to integrate the hu-
man resource policy and work-family conflict bodies of literature using a
systems theory perspective.

Limitations
First, since this is correlational data, we cannot assume the direc-
tions of our relationships. It is possible that being late to work creates a
greater perception of work-family conflict. Second, crossover effects may
be more readily assessed with longitudinal data than crossectional de-
signs. For example, Barnett, Raudenbush, Brennan, Pleck, and Marshall
(1995) analyzed longitudinal data from dual-earner couples, demonstrat-
ing that changes in distress over time for one partner were related to
changes in distress over time for the other partner. Although longitudi-
nal studies in work-family research are rare, such research designs are
necessary to enhance understanding of the direction of relationships and
crossover effects that occur. Furthermore, longitudinal designs would
allow for better assessment of work-family conflict effects on the progres-
sion of withdrawal behaviors (Koslowsky et al., 1997). Finally, self-reports
of withdrawal measures may be biased due to memory limitations or
social desirability effects, however, Johns (1994) argued that they are
not necessarily as problematic as once was thought. There has been some
debate in the literature, however, about what actually constitutes with-
drawal behaviors and whether such measures should be used individu-
ally or aggregated into withdrawal scales (e.g., Blau, 1998; Hanisch,
Hulin, & Roznowski, 1998). These issues surrounding withdrawal mea-
sures should be considered in more detail in future research on work-
family conflict and work-related withdrawal.
Although the variance accounted for in the withdrawal outcomes
was small to moderate, not exceeding 12 percent, these findings are con-
434 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

sistent with previous research on predictors of withdrawal behaviors.

For example, Blau (1995) found that the combination of job satisfaction,
organizational commitment, leisure-income trade-offs, work-family con-
flict, transportation concerns, illness or accidents, and weather, together
only explained 5–6% of the variance in employee lateness behaviors.
Furthermore, Blau (1995) notes the lack of research and theory on em-
ployee lateness compared to that of absenteeism. Blau’s research pro-
vided a contextual understanding of the antecedents to lateness by dem-
onstrating significant positive effects of group lateness on individuals’
lateness behaviors. The present study expands this contextual perspec-
tive to the family, by demonstrating the effects of a spouse’s work-family
conflict on an individual’s withdrawal behaviors at work.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the study contributes to the work-family literature in sev-

eral important ways. First, the study replicates and extends previous
findings concerning work-family conflict and work-related attitudes and
behaviors at the individual level, examining both the effects of work-
to-family conflict and family-to-work conflict on work-related outcomes.
Second, this study shows that the relationships with withdrawal behav-
iors extend to spouse work-family conflict (i.e., crossover effects), and
that these findings were significant over and above individual-level ef-
fects. Third, the results of this study provide support for the examination
of the crossover effects of work-family conflict as a stressor in dual-earner
couples. Thus, this study provides evidence for a systems perspective in
studying work-family conflict, and suggests new relationships between
work-family conflict and workplace withdrawal behaviors. These results
offer implications for researchers and practitioners alike.

REFERENCES

Adams, G. A., King, L. A., & King, D. W. (1996). Relationships of job and family involve-
ment, family social support, and work-family conflict with job and life satisfaction.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 411–420.
Barling, J., MacEwen, K. E., Kelloway, E. K., & Higginbottom, S. F. (1994). Predictors and
outcomes of elder-care-based interrole conflict. Psychology and Aging, 9, 391–397.
Barnett, R. C., Raudenbush S. W., Brennan, R. T., Pleck, J. H., & Marshall, N. L. (1995).
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 839–850.
Blau, G. (1995). Influence of group lateness on individual lateness: A cross-level examina-
tion. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1483–1496.
Blau, G. (1998). On the aggregation of individual withdrawal behaviors into larger multi-
item constructs. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 437–451.
 L. B. HAMMER, T. N. BAUER, AND A. A. GRANDEY 435

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.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. Amer-
ican Psychologist, 32(7), 513–531.
Dalton, D. R., & Mesch, D. J. (1990). The impact of flexible scheduling on employee atten-
dance and turnover. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 370–387.
Day, R. D. (1995). Family-systems theory. In R. D. Day, K. R. Gilbert, B. H. Settles, and
W. R. Burr (Eds.) Research and theory in family science (pp. 91–101). Pacific Grove,
CA: Brooks/Cole.
Edwards, J. R., & Rothbard, N. P. (2000). Mechanisms linking work and family: Clarifying
the relationships between work and family constructs. Academy of Management Re-
view, 25, 178–199.
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 Psy-
chology, 77, 65–78.
Frone, M. R., Yardley, J. K., & Markel, K. S. (1997). Developing and testing an integrative
model of the work-family interface. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50, 145–167.
Gignac, M. A. M., Kelloway, E. K., & Gottlieb, B. H. (1996). The impact of caregiving on
employment: A mediational model of work-family conflict. Canadian Journal on Aging,
15, 525–542.
Goff, S. J., Mount, M. K., & Jamison, R. L. (1990). Employer supported child care, work/
family conflict, and absenteeism: A field study. Personnel Psychology, 43, 793–809.
Grandey, A. (2001). Family-friendly policies: Organizational justice perceptions of need-
based allocations. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the Workplace: Applications, Vol.
2. Earlbaum-Mahwah.
Grandey, A., & Cropanzano, R. (1999). The conservation of resources model and work-
family conflict and strain. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 350–370.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family
roles. Academy of Management Review, 10, 76–88.
Greenhaus, J. H., Parasuraman, S., Granrose, C. S., Rabinowitz, S., & Beutell, N. J. (1989).
Sources of work-family conflict among two-career couples. Journal of Vocational Be-
havior, 34, 133–153.
Hammer, L. B., Allen, E., & Grigsby, T. D. (1997). Work-family conflict in dual-earner
couples: Within-individual and crossover effects of work and family. Journal of Voca-
tional Behavior, 50, 185–203.
Hanisch, K. A., Hulin, C. L., & Roznowski, M. (1998). The importance of individuals’ reper-
toires of behaviors: the scientific appropriateness of studying multiple behaviors and
general attitudes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 463–480.
Hanson, B. G. (1995). General systems theory beginning with wholes. Washington, D.C.:
Taylor and Francis.
Hayden, L. C., Schiller, M., Dickstein, S., Seifer, R., Sameroff, A. J., Miller, I., Keitner,
G., & Rasmussen, S. (1998). Levels of family assessment: I. Family, Marital, and Par-
ent-Child Interaction. Journal of Family Psychology, 12, 7–22.
Hepburn, C. G., & Barling, J. (1996). Eldercare responsibilities, interrole conflict, and em-
ployee absence: A daily study. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 1, 311–318.
Johns, G. (1994). How often were you absent? A review of the use of self-reported absence
data. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 574–591.
Johns, G. (1998). Aggregation or aggravation? The relative merits of a broad withdrawal
construct. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 453–462.
Jones, F., & Fletcher, B. C. (1993). An empirical study of occupational stress transmission
in working couples. Human Relations, 46, 881–903.
Judge, T. A., Boudreau, J. W., & Bretz, R. D., Jr. (1994). Job and life attitudes of male
executives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 767–782.
Kopelman, R., Greenhaus, J. H., & Connolly, T. F. (1983). A model of work, family, and
interrole conflict: A construct validation study. Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, 32, 198–215.
Koslowsky, M., Sagie, A., Krausz, M., & Singer, D. A. (1997). Correlates of employee late-
ness: Some theoretical considerations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 79–88.
436 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

Kossek, E. E. (1990). Diversity in child care assistance needs: Employee problems, prefer-
ences, and work-related outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 43, 769–791.
Kossek, E. E., & Nichol, V. (1992). The effects of on-site child care on employee attitudes
and performance. Personnel Psychology, 45, 485–509.
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 re-
search. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 139–149.
MacEwan, K. E., & Barling, J. (1994). Daily consequences of work interference with family
and family interference with work. Work and Stress, 8, 244–254.
Marshall, N. L., & Barnett, R. C. (1994). Family-friendly workplaces, work-family interfer-
ence, and worker health. In G. P. Keita & J. J. Hurrell (Eds.), Job stress in a changing
workforce: 253–264. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
Milkovich, G. T., & Gomez, L. R. (1976). Day care and selected employee work behaviors.
Academy of Management Journal, 19, 111–115.
Morrison, D. L., & Clements, R. (1997). The effect of one partner’s job characteristics on
the other partner’s distress: A serendipitous, but naturalistic, experiment. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 70, 307–324.
Neal, M. B., Chapman, N. J., Ingersoll-Dayton, B., & Emlen, A. C. (1993). Balancing work
and caregiving for children, adults, and elders. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Netemeyer, R. G., Boles, J. S., & McMurrian, R. (1996). Development and validation of
work-family conflict and family-work conflict scales. Journal of Applied Psychology,
81, 400–410.
Parasuraman, S., Greenhaus, J. H., & Granrose, C. S. (1992). Role stressors, social support,
and well-being among two-career couples. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13,
339–356.
Pierce, J. L., & Newstrom, J. W. (1983). The design of flexible work schedules and employee
responses: Relationships and process. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 4, 247–262.
Rosse, G. J. (1988). Relations among lateness, absence, and turnover: Is there a progression
of withdrawal? Human Relations, 41, 517–531.
Thomas, L. T., & Ganster, D. C. (1995). Impact of family supportive-work variables on
work-family conflict and strain: A control perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology,
80, 6–15.
Westman, M. (2001). Stress and strain crossover. Human Relations, 54, 557–591.
Westman, M., & Etzion, D. (1995). Crossover of stress, strain and resources from one
spouse to another. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 169–181.
Westman, M., & Etzion, D. (1999). The crossover of strain from school principals to teach-
ers and vice versa. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 4, 269–278.
Westman, M., & Piotrkowski, C. S. (1999). Introduction to the special issue: Work-family
research in occupational health psychology. Journal of Occupational Health Psychol-
ogy, 4, 301–306.
Westman, M., & Vinokur, A. D. (1998). Unraveling the relationship of distress levels within
couples: Common stressors, empathic reactions, or crossover via social interaction?
Human Relations, 51, 137–156.
Zedeck, S. (1992). Introduction: Exploring the domain of work and family concerns. In
Zedeck (Ed.) Work, families, and organizations. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco.
Zedeck, S., & Mosier, K. L. (1990). Work and family and employing organization. American
Psychologist, 45, 240–251.