Work/Family Work/Family Conflict,

Conflict,
Psychological Psychological Well-Being,
Well-Being,
Satisfaction and
Social Support
Satisfaction and Social
Support: A Longitudinal Study
in New Zealand
by Michael P. O’Driscoll, University of Waikato, New Zealand; Paula
Brough, Griffith University, Australia and Thomas J. Kalliath, University
of Waikato, New Zealand
Abstract
A survey of employed workers was conducted at two time periods to assess
relationships between work-family conflict, well-being, and job and family
satisfaction, along with the role of social support from work colleagues and
family members. Levels of work-to-family interference (WFI) were found
to be uniformly higher than family-to-work interference (FWI). However, at
each time period FWI showed more consistent negative relationships with
well-being and satisfaction, indicating that family-to-work interference
may have a greater bearing on employees’ affective reactions. There were
few cross-time relationships between work-family conflict and these reac-
tions, which suggests that the association of work-family conflict with
well-being and satisfaction may be time-dependent. Although there was
some evidence that social support from work colleagues moderated the rela-
tionship of WFI with psychological strain and family satisfaction, family
support did not display a consistent moderator influence. Instead, both
forms of support tended to exhibit direct (rather than moderator) relation-
ships with the outcome variables. Implications of the findings for research
and interventions are discussed.
Introduction
Over the past 25 years or so, substantial concern has been expressed by re-
searchers, social commentators, organizational managers, and people gen-
erally, over the extent to which work and family roles have become
increasingly intertwined. In particular, there have been observations that the
degree of conflict or interference between work and family life has in-
creased dramatically in recent times (Edwards & Rothbard, 2000; Frone,
2003; Grzywacz & Marks, 2000). Many possible reasons for this escalation
in work-family conflict have been posited (see, for example, Burke &
Greenglass, 1987; O’Driscoll, 1996), including: greater participation of
women in the workforce, changing conditions of employment, family-role
expectations, and technological developments which have enhanced work

36 Equal Opportunities International

flexibility, but at the same time may place a greater expectation on individu-
als to ‘work anytime, anywhere’, and can blur the boundaries between work Work/Family
and life off the job. Conflict,
Psychological
Work-family conflict was defined by Greenhaus and Beutell (1985, p. Well-Being,
77) as “a form of inter-role conflict in which the role pressures from the work Satisfaction and
and family domains are mutually incompatible in some respect. That is, par- Social Support
ticipation in the work (family) role is made more difficult by virtue of partici-
pation in the family (work) role”. This definition suggests that interference
between the two domains can occur in both directions, that is, work-to-
family interference (WFI) and family-to-work interference (FWI). Most re-
search on work-family conflict has adopted the Greenhaus-Beutell differen-
tiation and recent studies have typically treated WFI and FWI as separate,
albeit inter-related, variables (Frone, 2003; O’Driscoll, Brough, & Kalliath,
in press). Here we will use the acronyms WFI and FWI when referring to a
specific direction of interference (e.g. work-to-family or family-to-work),
and reserve the term work-family conflict for more general reference to con-
flict between the two domains.

There have now been many explorations of the antecedents and conse-
quences of the two forms of inter-role conflict (see reviews by Allen, Herst,
Bruck, & Sutton, 2000; O’Driscoll et al., in press). The research presented in
this paper examined some of the potential consequences of work-family con-
flict, hence our discussion will focus on these variables rather than antece-
dents. In general, conflict outcomes can be grouped into two categories:
those dealing with attitudes concerning job and family life (e.g. satisfaction)
and those which represent some aspect of well-being (such as psychological
strain or physical health). Research evidence is consistent and overwhelming
– a perception that work and family life interfere with each other is associated
with dissatisfaction with both the job and family life, along with reduced
feelings of well-being (or, conversely, heightened psychological and physi-
cal strain) (e.g. Brough & O’Driscoll, in press).

Unfortunately, however, most research on this topic has employed a

cross-sectional design, which constrains our ability to make definitive state-
ments about the possible causal effects of work-family conflict. Only a hand-
ful of studies (e.g. Frone, Russell, & Cooper, 1997; Kelloway, Gottlieb, &
Barham, 1999) have been conducted longitudinally. Nevertheless, the con-
clusions from these investigations mirror those from cross-sectional studies.
A major aim of the present research was to determine whether relationships
between work-family conflict variables (WFI and FWI) and various ‘ou-
tcomes’ persist over time, or whether they are essentially time-dependent.
Specifically, we assessed WFI and FWI at two points in time, separated by a
three-month interval, and also measured four key criterion variables – psy-
chological strain, physical health symptoms, job satisfaction, and family sat-
isfaction.

Volume 23 Number 1/2 2004 37

 An advantage of longitudinal designs is that initial levels of the criterion
variable can be controlled for when estimating the contribution of the pre-
Work/Family
dictor to the criterion variable. A second advantage is that they enable com-
Conflict,
parison of same-time relationships between variables and across-time
Psychological
relationships. Following the results of previous research (such as Allen et
Well-Being,
al., 2000; Boyar, Maertz, Pearson, & Keough, 2003; Burke & Greenglass,
Satisfaction and
1999; Frone, Russell, & Cooper, 1992), our generic hypothesis was that at
Social Support
each time period both WFI and FWI would be linked with increased psycho-
logical strain, more symptoms of physical ill-health, and reduced job and
family satisfaction.

Hypothesis 1: WFI and FWI will be positively correlated with psychological

strain and physical health symptoms, and negatively correlated with job sat-
isfaction and family satisfaction.

In addition to the same-time relationships, however, our research design

enabled us to explore whether WFI and FWI at one point in time contributes
to well-being and satisfaction at a later time. Frone and his colleagues
(Frone et al., 1997) found that only family-to-work interference (FWI) was
related longitudinally to increased depression and poorer physical health, al-
though in their study WFI was longitudinally associated with a behavioral
criterion variable, elevated levels of alcohol consumption. Kelloway et al.
(1999) also obtained a cross-time (6 months) relationship between FIW and
psychological strain, and no significant relationship between WFI and later
strain. These findings would suggest that, while WFI is typically reported as
occurring more frequently and with more intensity than FWI (Frone, 2003;
Williams & Alliger, 1994), the impact of FWI on individuals may be more
sustained than that of WFI. Indeed, Kelloway et al. (1999) speculated that
“FWI might be the operative variable in predicting individual strain” (p.
344). Consistent with their arguments, we predicted that:

Hypothesis 2: Across time, FWI will display stronger relationships with psy-
chological strain, physical health symptoms, and job and family satisfac-
tion, than will WFI.

A final component of the present research was exploration of the role of

social support (from work colleagues and family members). The stress-
strain literature suggests that social support can fulfill a variety of functions,
including a stress-buffering effect, whereby the availability of social sup-
port moderates (buffers) the impact of stressors on the resulting strain. Evi-
dence for the stress-buffering properties of social support is, however, not
totally conclusive (Cooper, Dewe, & O’Driscoll, 2001), and research find-
ings on the impact of social support in relation to work-family conflict are
similarly mixed (Carlson & Perrewe, 1999). In their research, Carlson and
Perrewe (1999) obtained more evidence for a ‘direct’ effect of social support
from work colleagues and family members than for a buffering effect. They
concluded that “social support may be best conceived of as an antecedent to

38 Equal Opportunities International

perceived stressors” (p. 513), rather than as a resource which alleviates the
negative effects of stressors such as work-family conflict. Work/Family
Nevertheless, there is evidence that social support may function as a Conflict,
buffering variable under certain conditions. For instance, it is important to Psychological
link the source of support with the direction of conflict or interference. Sup- Well-Being,
port from workmates would be anticipated to be more relevant to the allevia- Satisfaction and
tion of work-to-family interference (WFI) outcomes, whereas family Social Support
support could be expected to have more bearing on the consequences of
family-to-work interference (FWI). In the present study, therefore, we con-
strained our attention to the buffering role of social support within the do-
main where it is most likely to be pertinent. The longitudinal design utilized
in this research enabled us to examine the stability of moderator effects at
two time periods. Our predictions were:
Hypothesis 3: Social support from work colleagues will moderate the rela-
tionship between WFI and the criterion variables (psychological strain,
physical health symptoms, job satisfaction, and family satisfaction).
Hypothesis 4: Social support from family members will moderate the rela-
tionship between FWI and the criterion variables (psychological strain,
physical health symptoms, job satisfaction, and family satisfaction).
Method
Sample and procedure
A total of 23 large organizations in New Zealand participated in the research.
Participating organisations represented an array of industries, including fi-
nancial, retail, manufacturing, tourism and service industries. In each organi-
sation, approximately 50-100 employees were invited to complete the
research questionnaire. In addition, 300 members of the New Zealand Insti-
tute of Management were also invited to participate. Each sample consisted
of an approximately equal mix of genders, ethnicities, organisational levels
and geographic locations within the country.
Participants were required to complete two confidential questionnaires,
administered at a three-month interval. Completed questionnaires were re-
turned directly to the researchers in a reply-paid envelope. A total of 691 em-
ployees responded to the time 1 questionnaire, constituting a response rate of
39%. The second questionnaire was posted only to the 691 time 1 respon-
dents. Four hundred and fifteen individuals responded to the time 2 question-
naire, yielding a response rate of 60% for this data collection period.
At time 1, 54% of the respondents were female. Most (85%) were Euro-
pean, while 6% of the respondents were of Maori/Pacific Island descent. Re-
spondents ranged in age from 16-74 years, with an average of 38 years. The
majority of respondents (80%) indicated they currently had a partner or
spouse, and most of these respondents (75%) lived with their partner/spouse.
More than half (51%) of the respondents had dependants. Twenty percent of

Volume 23 Number 1/2 2004 39

 the respondents had a university (Bachelor) degree, with a further 15% also
having a higher tertiary qualification.
Work/Family
Conflict,
Psychological Further demographic details are displayed in Table 1. The average
Well-Being, number of reported working hours per week at time 1 was 44 (SD = 9.63).
Satisfaction and Tenure in their present job ranged from less than 1 year to 47 years, with an
Social Support average tenure of 5 years. Average organizational tenure was 8.5 years (SD
= 7.9). The majority of the respondents (66%) indicated that their partners
were also involved in paid employment, averaging 38 hours a week. Annual
family income ranged between NZ$10,000-120,000+ with an average of
NZ$81,000, which is somewhat higher than the $54,209 average family in-
come reported for that time by Statistics New Zealand (2001). Key respon-
dent characteristics at time 2 did not differ markedly from those at time 1
(see Table 1).

Table 1. Demographic characteristics of time 1 and time 2 samples

Time 1 Time 2

Variable Mean SD Mean SD

Working hours per week 43.5 9.63 42.7 9.68

Job tenure= 5.3 6.60 5.9 7.36

Organizational tenure= 8.5 7.90 9.5 8.52

a = years

Measures

Two questionnaire booklets were assembled to assess the research vari-

ables. The major variables of theoretical interest were measured at both time
periods. Scale scores for multi-item instruments were computed by averag-
ing across item responses.

Work/family conflict. The two dimensions of work/family conflict,

work-to-family interference (WFI) and family-to-work interference (FWI),
were assessed with an instrument adapted from Frone and Yardley (1996).
Each dimension contained five items reflecting time conflict, behavioral
conflict or emotional conflict between the respondent’s job and their family
life. Example items are: “The demands of my work (family) interfere with
my home and family life (job)”; “My job (family life) produces strain that
makes it difficult to fulfil family (job-related) duties”. A 7-point agree/dis-
agree response format was used for each item, with 1 = ‘strongly disagree’
and 7 = ‘strongly agree’. Internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) for the two
dimensions ranged from .87 to .92 (see Table 2).

40 Equal Opportunities International

 Psychological strain. The General Health Questionnaire, GHQ-12
(Goldberg, 1972), designed to detect the prevalence of minor psychiatric Work/Family
disorder in non-clinical samples, was used to assess levels of psychological Conflict,
strain. Respondents were asked to reflect their psychological well-being over Psychological
the previous three months. A six-point response format (Kalliath, O’Dris- Well-Being,
coll, & Brough, in press) was employed for each of the twelve items, with re- Satisfaction and
sponses ranging from 0 = ‘never’ to 5 = ‘all the time’. Item scores were Social Support
averaged to obtain a total psychological strain index for each respondent.
High scores indicate elevated levels of psychological strain. The GHQ-12
consists of six positively worded items (e.g., “Felt capable of making deci-
sions about things”) and six negatively worded items (e.g., “Feeling unhappy
or depressed”). The instrument was found to have acceptable levels of inter-
nal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha coefficient) of .91 (time 1) and .90 (time
2) (see Table 2).

Physical health symptoms. General physical health was measured with

an 18-item scale of physical ill-health symptoms developed by (Spector &
Jex, 1998). Respondents indicated the degree to which they had experienced
each health symptom over the previous three months, on a three-point scale
where 1= ‘symptom not experienced’, 2= ‘yes, but no doctor visited’, and 3=
‘yes, and a doctor visited’. A high score therefore indicates greater physical
ill-health. The mean scores for this measure (see Table 2) showed that major-
ity of respondents did not report physical health symptoms, and the Cron-
bach’s alpha was .77 at time 1 and .75 at time 2 for the 18-item scale.

Job and family satisfaction. Job and family satisfaction were each as-
sessed using the Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire (Sea-
shore, Lawler, Mirvis, & Cammann, 1982), which contains a three-item
satisfaction scale. Respondents indicated how much they agreed with each
item, within both their job and family lives, on a seven-point Likert scale,
where 1= ‘strongly disagree’ and 7= ‘strongly agree’. A high score indicates
a greater sense of job/family satisfaction. Cronbach’s alpha for the two scales
ranged from .85 to .91.

Social support. The extent to which respondents experienced social sup-

port from their work colleagues and from their family was measured with
two separate sets of items. They were asked how often, over the previous
three months, they had received four different types of support from their
colleagues and from their family: helpful information or advice (informa-
tional support), sympathetic understanding and concern (emotional sup-
port), clear and helpful feedback (feedback support), and practical assistance
(practical support). A 6-point frequency response scale was used, where 1 =
‘never’ and 6 = ‘all the time’. For analytical purposes, responses to the four
items were averaged to yield an overall work colleague support score and
family support score for each respondent. Alpha coefficients for colleague
support and family support ranged between .89 and .91 (Table 2).

Volume 23 Number 1/2 2004 41

 Results
Work/Family Descriptive statistics and correlations
Conflict,
Means, standard deviations (SD’s) and alpha coefficients correlations for
Psychological
the derived variables are presented in Table 2. Time 1 and time 2 means and
Well-Being,
SD’s for each variable were very similar, illustrating a degree of consistency
Satisfaction and
in responses across the two time periods. In respect of work-family conflict,
Social Support
it is evident that respondents reported higher levels of WFI than FWI (at both
time periods), which is consistent with other research where both directions
of conflict have been investigated (e.g. Allen et al., 2000; Carlson & Frone,
2003; Kelloway et al., 1999). In this study, levels of WFI were moderate,
whereas the degree of FWI reported was relatively low on average.
Considering the criterion variables of interest here, average levels of
both psychological strain and physical health symptoms were quite low in
the present sample, which needs to be taken into account when assessing the
contribution of the work-family conflict factors to these criteria. By the
same token, mean job and family satisfaction scores were moderate, with
family satisfaction being slightly higher than job satisfaction. Finally, fam-
ily support was reported to be experienced reasonably often, whereas sup-
port from work colleagues was somewhat lower. Standard deviations for the
support variables indicate some variance in experienced levels of support in
the sample overall.

Table 2. Means, standard deviations and alpha coefficients of major variables

Time 1 (n = 690) Time 2 (n = 412)
Variable Mean SD Alpha Mean SD Alpha

WFI= 4.2 1.65 .91 4.0 1.61 .92

FWI= 2.5 1.35 .87 2.6 1.37 .88

>
Colleague support 3.5 1.14 .89 3.4 1.13 .90
>
Family support 4.1 1.21 .91 4.0 1.14 .89

Strain? 1.4 .77 .91 1.3 .71 .90

Physical health@ 1.4 .24 .77 1.4 .22 .75

=
Job satisfaction 5.5 1.28 .85 5.5 1.31 .89

Family satisfaction= 6.0 1.13 .87 6.0 1.14 .91

WFI = Work-to-family interference

FWI = Family-to-work interference
=
= 1-7 response scale
>
= 1-6 response scale
?
= 0-5 response scale
@
= 1-3 response scale

42 Equal Opportunities International

 Correlations between all the major variables are displayed in Table 3. As
with the means and SD’s, the patterns of inter-correlations between variables Work/Family
were quite similar across the two measurement periods. Before describing Conflict,
cross-time relationships, inter-correlations at each time period will be sum- Psychological
marized. Well-Being,
Satisfaction and
Table 3. Correlations between major variables at time 1 and at time 2 Social Support
WFI FWI CS FS Strain PH JS FS

WFI .44* -.11 -.01 .12* .16* -.14* -.01

FWI .42* -.00 -.13* .18* .18* -.05 -.22*

CS -.12* -.02 .36* -.10 .05 .33* .05

FS -.11* -.22* .34* -.23* -.04 .16* .44*

Strain .27* .18* -.13* -.21* .33* -.34* -.43*

PH .21* .08 .03 -.05 .47* -.12* -.14*

JobSat -.17* -.01 .32* .07 -.49* -.19* .22*

FamSat -.12* -.23* .15* .39* -.50* -.22* .36*

* p<.01
Time 1 correlations are below the diagonal; Time 2 correlations are above the diagonal
Time 1 N’s range from 663 – 682; Time 2 N’s range from 401 – 409
WFI = Work-to-family interference
FWI = Family-to-work interference
CS = Support from work colleagues
FS = Support from family
PH = Physical health
JobSat = Job satisfaction
FamSat = Family satisfaction

Time 1 inter-correlations. As anticipated, there was a substantial and

significant correlation between the two directions of work-family conflict,
WFI and FWI. WFI was also significantly related to each of the criterion
variables, although the coefficients with psychological strain and physical
health symptoms were somewhat larger than those with job and family satis-
faction. There were relatively low but nevertheless statistically significant
negative correlations with the two forms of social support.

FWI showed a less consistent pattern of correlations with the criterion

variables. It was significantly related to psychological strain (positively) and
family satisfaction (negatively), but not with physical health symptoms nor
job satisfaction. With one exception (family satisfaction), the correlations
for WFI with criterion variables were somewhat larger than those for FWI. In

Volume 23 Number 1/2 2004 43

 contrast to WFI, FWI was significantly linked with just one form of social
support, that from family members; greater family support was associated
Work/Family
with reduced levels of FWI.
Conflict,
Psychological Among the criterion variables themselves, psychological strain exhib-
Well-Being, ited the strongest correlations with other criteria. As expected, strain was
Satisfaction and positively related to physical health symptoms and negatively related to
Social Support both job and family satisfaction. It is of interest that these correlations were
almost identical in magnitude. Job and family satisfaction were positively
connected with each other, and negatively associated with physical health
symptoms. The direction and significance of all these correlations con-
firmed our expectations.
With the exception of physical health symptoms, social support (from
family and work colleagues) was also linked with the criterion variables in
the predicted manner. As might be expected, work colleague support was
more closely associated with job satisfaction than with family satisfaction,
whereas the converse held for family support. Both supports were nega-
tively correlated with psychological strain, suggesting a direct relationship
between these variables.
Time 2 inter-correlations. A similar pattern of inter-relationships to that
found at time 1 was obtained at the second measurement period, although
some of the coefficients were reduced in magnitude. As at time 1, WFI and
FWI were positively and substantially inter-related, illustrating that people
experiencing conflict in one direction (e.g. WFI) are more likely to also re-
port it occurring in the other direction (e.g. FWI). Relationships between
WFI and the criterion variables were somewhat lower than at time 1, and at
this time period there was no linkage between WFI and family satisfaction
(whereas at time 1 a small but statistically significant negative correlation
had been obtained). Also contrary to time 1, there was no significant correla-
tion between WFI and either form of social support. All other coefficients
were in the predicted direction.
FWI also displayed significant connections with ¾ criterion variables,
but (as at time 1) not with job satisfaction. Again consistent with the time 1
findings, FWI was negatively associated with social support from the family
at time 2. Also of interest is the relative magnitude of correlations for WFI
and FWI at time 1 and time 2. Whereas at time 1 WFI had shown somewhat
greater relationships with the criteria, this pattern was not evidenced as
clearly at time 2.
Patterns of relationships among the criterion variables were again simi-
lar to those found at time 1. All the criterion variables were significantly in-
terrelated, with psychological strain again displaying the most sizable
correlations with other variables. The direction of these coefficients con-
firms the anticipated negative association of psychological strain/physical
health with the two satisfaction variables.

44 Equal Opportunities International

 The two social support variables displayed similar patterns of relation-
ships with the criterion variables as they had at time 1, although there were a Work/Family
couple of notable differences. Specifically, colleague support was not sig- Conflict,
nificantly related to psychological strain (at time 1 these two variables exhib- Psychological
ited a significant, though not substantial, negative correlation) and family Well-Being,
support and job satisfaction were significantly correlated at time 2. Again, Satisfaction and
however, domain-specific relationships were evident, with colleague sup- Social Support
port being more closely linked with job satisfaction and family support with
family satisfaction. As at time 1, there was no significant correlation between
either form of support and physical health symptoms.
In summary, most of the anticipated direct relationships between vari-
ables were confirmed at both time periods. Given the central role posited for
work-family conflict in this research, establishing significant linkages be-
tween WFI and FWI with the criterion variables was a first step toward ex-
amining the longitudinal contributions of the two forms of work-family
conflict. The next section examines these contributions in more specific de-
tail.
Longitudinal regressions
A major aim of this research was to explore cross-time linkages of work-
family conflict with psychological strain, physical health symptoms, and job
and family satisfaction. To examine these relationships, hierarchical regres-
sion analyses were conducted using time 1 and time 2 WFI and FWI as pre-
dictors of time 2 criterion variables, while controlling in each case for the
time 1 score on the criterion. To assess the longitudinal contribution of WFI
and FWI, time 2 scores on these variables were entered as predictors prior to
entry of time 1 WFI and FWI scores. Results of these regressions are shown
in Table 4.

Table 4. Regressions of time 1 and time 2 WFI and FWI as predictors of time 2
criterion variables

Criterion variable Predictors Beta t R change

Time 2 Strain

Step 1 Strain (T1) .75 22.63** .57**

Step 2 WFI (T2) -.07 -1.77

FWI (T2) .12 3.23** .01*

Step 3 WFI (T1) -.03 -.56

FWI (T1) -.05 -1.17 .00

Time 2 Physical Health

Step 1 PH (T1) .62 15.44** .38**

Volume 23 Number 1/2 2004 45

 Step 2 WFI (T2) -.03 -.62
Work/Family FWI (T2) .12 2.76* .01*
Conflict,
Step 3 WFI (T1) .01 .24
Psychological
FWI (T1) -.05 -.95 .00
Well-Being,
Satisfaction and Time 2 Job Satisfaction
Social Support
Step 1 JobSat (T1) .60 15.04** .36**

Step 2 WFI (T2) -.07 -1.65

FWI (T2) -.04 -.99 .01*

Step 3 WFI (T1) -.00 -.08

FWI (T1) .05 1.01 .00

Time 2 Family Satisfaction

Step 1 FamSat .60 15.13** .36**

(T1)

Step 2 WFI (T2) .06 1.42

FWI (T2) -.15 -3.39** .02**

Step 3 WFI (T1) -.14 -2.50*

FWI (T1) .11 2.17* .01*

* p<.05 ** p<.01

WFI = Work-to-family interference

FWI = Family-to-work interference
T1 = Time 1 scores
T2 = Time 2 scores

As anticipated, time 1 scores for each criterion variable were highly pre-
dictive of time 2 scores on the same variable, accounting for between 36%
and 57% of the variance in the time 2 score. Indeed, after controlling for ini-
tial levels on the criterion, the proportion of variance explained by the
work-family conflict variables was uniformly low, ranging from 0-2%. Sig-
nificant R change values for work-family conflict variables at time 2 were
obtained in respect of psychological strain, physical health symptoms and
family satisfaction but not for job satisfaction (see final column in Table 4).
It is clear, however, that the major predictor was time 2 FWI, which made a
significant contribution to three criteria, being associated with increased
strain and physical health symptoms and reduced family satisfaction. On the
other hand, WFI at time 2 was not a significant predictor in any of the regres-
sions.

After controlling for time 2 work-family conflict scores, time 1 levels of

WFI and FWI were significant predictors only in the case of family satisfac-

46 Equal Opportunities International

tion, which suggests that the longitudinal impact of these variables was not
pervasive. Furthermore, only time 1 WFI was linked with reduced time 2 Work/Family
family satisfaction, as was hypothesized. The beta weight for time 1 FWI was Conflict,
positive, which is counter-intuitive and inconsistent with the single-time cor- Psychological
relations shown in Table 3. This finding may be indicative of a suppressor ef- Well-Being,
fect in the longitudinal regressions, whereby the significant correlation Satisfaction and
between WFI and FWI influenced the contribution of FWI to family satisfac- Social Support
tion.
Overall, it would appear that while levels of WFI were somewhat higher
than FWI, the latter was more closely associated with well-being and satis-
faction at each time period. Simultaneous inspection of Tables 3 and 4 sug-
gests that linkages between work-family conflict variables and the criterion
variables were largely time-dependent; only for family satisfaction was there
a significant impact of work-family conflict over time. It is evident that the
strongest predictor of well-being and satisfaction was the degree to which re-
spondents currently experienced interference from their family life with
their job (FWI).
Moderating effects of social support
Another aim of the present research was to investigate the stress-buffering
hypothesis that social support would function as a moderator of relationships
between work-family conflict and respondents’ well-being and satisfaction.
Hierarchical regressions were conducted to assess the moderating influence
of colleague support (Table 5) and family support (Table 6). In step 1 of each
regression, the predictor (WFI or FWI) and the moderator (social support)
were entered simultaneously; at step 2 the interaction term (predictor X mod-
erator) was entered. Prior to conducting these regressions, scores on the pre-
dictor and moderator variables were standardized, as the response scales for
the work-family conflict variables and the social support variables were of
different magnitudes (see Table 2).

Table 5. Moderating effects of colleague support (CS) on the relationship between

work-to-family interference (WFI) and criterion variables at time 1 and time 2

Criterion variables Predictors Beta t R

change

Time 1

Strain Step 1 WFI . 25 6.71**

Colleague Support -.11 -2.84** 08**
Step 2 WFI x CS -.11 -2.91** .01**

Physical Health Step 1 WFI .22 5.68**

Colleague Support .05 1.31 05**
Step 2 WFI x CS .03 .74 .00

Volume 23 Number 1/2 2004 47

 Job Satisfaction Step 1 WFI -.13 -3.59**
Work/Family Colleague Support .30 8.82** .12**
Conflict, Step 2 WFI x CS .06 1.60 .00
Psychological
Well-Being, Family Satisfaction Step 1 WFI -.10 -2.66**
Satisfaction and Colleague Support .14 3.57** .03**
Social Support Step 2 WFI x CS .09 2.36** .01**

Time 2

Strain Step 1 WFI .11 2.14*

Colleague Support -.10 -2.04* .02**
Step 2 WFI x CS -.11 -2.18* .01*

Physical Health Step 1 WFI .16 3.29**

Colleague Support .06 1.17 03**
Step 2 WFI x CS -.02 -.36 .00

Job Satisfaction Step 1 WFI -.10 -2.13*

Colleague Support .32 6.73** .12**
Step 2 WFI x CS .02 .43 .00

Family Satisfaction Step 1 WFI .01 .10

Colleague Support .05 .94 .00
Step 2 WFI x CS .11 2.10* .01*

* p <.05 ** p<.01

Direct and buffering effects of work colleague support are depicted in

Table 5. At time 1, colleague support contributed directly to ¾ criteria, and it
was a significant moderator of the relationship between WFI and both psy-
chological strain and family satisfaction, but not physical health symptoms
and job satisfaction. A similar pattern emerged from the time 2 hierarchical
regressions, where again colleague support moderated the relationship of
WFI with strain and with family satisfaction. The signs of the beta weights
(see step 2 in each equation) indicate that colleague support served to allevi-
ate the negative impact of WFI.

Table 6 presents the hierarchical regressions for family support. In this

case there is less evidence for a moderating effect. At time 1 there were no
significant interactions between FWI and family support, and at time 2 only
2/4 interaction terms were statistically significant. Family support func-
tioned to reduce the linkage of FWI with psychological strain and physical
health symptoms at the second time period. Overall, there is greater evi-
dence of a ‘direct’ effect for family support, in that it was directly associated
with criterion variables in 5/8 regressions.

48 Equal Opportunities International

Discussion
Levels of WFI and FWI Work/Family
Conflict,
Respondents in this study reported experiencing higher levels of WFI than Psychological
FWI, confirming previous findings that work-to-family conflict is experi- Well-Being,
enced to a greater extent than family-to-work conflict (see, for example, Satisfaction and
Frone, 2003; Williams & Alliger, 1994). The moderate correlations between Social Support
WFI and FWI also suggest that both types of conflict are typically experi-
enced together, as has also been observed elsewhere (O’Driscoll et al.,
2003). Although we did not examine the effects of gender specifically in this
paper, it is pertinent to note that some research suggests that female employ-
ees traditionally experience higher levels of WFI, whilst male employees ex-
perience higher levels of FIW (Frone et al. 1996; MacEwen & Barling,
1994). However, this point is also subject to some debate (see Brough &
O’Driscoll, in press). Differentiation of the experiences of work-family con-
flict between the genders is recommended for further investigation.

Table 6. Moderating effects of family support (FS) on the relationship between

family-to-work interference (FWI) and criterion variables at time 1 and time 2
Criterion variables Predictors Beta t R
change
Time 1

Strain Step 1 FWI .14 3.53**

Family Support -.18 -4.75** .06**
Step 2 FWI x FS -.02 -.53 .00

Physical Health Step 1 FWI .08 1.99*

Family Support -.03 -.76 .01
Step 2 FWI x FS .02 .42 .00

Job Satisfaction Step 1 FWI .01 .22

Family Support .07 1.81 .01
Step 2 FWI x FS -.02 -.62 .00

Family Satisfaction Step 1 FWI -.15 -4.19**

Family Support .36 9.77** .17**
Step 2 FWI x FS .03 .73 .00

Time 2

Strain Step 1 FWI .16 3.18**

Family Support -.22 -4.48** .08**
Step 2 FWI x FS -.11 -2.18* .03*

Physical Health Step 1 FWI .18 3.63**

Family Support -.02 -.42 .03**
Step 2 FWI x FS -.10 -2.07* .01*

Volume 23 Number 1/2 2004 49

 Job Satisfaction Step 1 FWI -.03 -.56
Work/Family Family Support .16 3.23** .03**
Conflict, Step 2 FWI x FS -.04 -.71 .00
Psychological Family Satisfaction Step 1 FWI -.16 -3.58**
Well-Being, Family Support .41 9.17** .21**
Satisfaction and Step 2 FWI x FS .06 1.25 .00
Social Support
* p <.05 ** p<.01

Associations with the criterion measures

The correlation results confirmed hypothesis 1 - both WFI and FWI were as-
sociated with physical health symptoms and psychological strain and re-
duced job and family satisfaction. Work-family conflict is therefore clearly
linked with a variety of adverse outcomes. The magnitude of these associa-
tions were largely similar, although both strain and physical health were
more strongly associated with WFI at Time 1, but not at Time 2. It is of inter-
est to note the significant associations between FWI and family satisfaction,
and between WFI and job satisfaction. These results imply that the source of
work-family conflict is more strongly associated with satisfaction within the
same domain. This finding is somewhat intuitive: work demands which in-
terfere with family life reduce job satisfaction, while family demands which
interfere with paid employment reduce levels of family satisfaction. Consid-
erable support for these domain-specific relationships exists within the lit-
erature (e.g. Allen et al., 2000; Boyar et al., 2003; Greenhaus, Parasuraman,
& Collins, 2001). Methods by which employers can improve various work
outcomes such as absenteeism, turnover and employee well-being by reduc-
ing levels of WFI, have also been discussed in this literature (see for
example, Brough & O’Driscoll, in press).
Longitudinal effects of work family conflict
Work-family conflict failed to produce any enduring effects over time. The
longitudinal regression analyses indicated that previous experiences of WFI
had negative consequences for family satisfaction only. Hypothesis 2 was
therefore not supported by this research. Respondents consistently reported
experiencing greater amounts of WFI than FWI at both time periods. Intui-
tively one might therefore expect that WFI would be a stronger predictor of
the criterion measures than would FWI. However, as observed by other re-
searchers (e.g. Frone, 2003; Williams & Alliger, 1994), we found that FWI
was the stronger predictor, although neither WFI nor FWI exhibited sub-
stantial effects over time. That is, our results indicate that FWI was predic-
tive of adverse consequences experienced at the same time point only. The
lack of any enduring effects for FWI is somewhat surprising and requires
further investigation.
Direct effects of social support

50 Equal Opportunities International

FWI and family support were significantly correlated at both time points, in-
dicating that FWI and reduced levels of family support are consistently asso- Work/Family
ciated. In contrast, the associations between WFI and both sources of social Conflict,
support were weak and inconsistent. Family support was also consistently re- Psychological
lated with decreased symptoms of psychological strain and increased family Well-Being,
satisfaction, while support from work colleagues was consistently associated Satisfaction and
with high levels of job satisfaction. These associations were replicated Social Support
within the regression analyses, where colleague support significantly pre-
dicted increased job satisfaction and (to a lesser extent) reduced strain, while
family support strongly predicted increased family satisfaction and reduced
strain.
These domain-specific findings substantiate recent research that recom-
mends differentiating the sources of social support for a more accurate pre-
diction of various criterion measures (Brough & Frame, 2004). This
differentiation of the sources of social support seems especially relevant
within the work-family arena, where for example the experience of work
support (from colleagues and/or supervisors) has been found to reduce the
consequences of work-family conflict (Brough & O’Driscoll, in press; Har-
vey, Kelloway, & Duncan-Leiper, 2003; Nielson, Carlson, & Lankau, 2001).
A fruitful area for future investigations is to examine the impact of the differ-
ent types of social support (for example, instrumental and emotional support)
received from both supervisors and colleagues, and the impact of this support
on levels of work-family conflict and psychological outcomes (Jimmieson &
Terry, 1998; Pears, 2003).

Moderating effects of social support

Colleague support consistently moderated the relationship between WFI and

both psychological strain and family satisfaction. This source of support
clearly acts as a buffer, reducing the negative effects of WFI on these two cri-
terion measures. These results confirm hypothesis 3 in relation to psycho-
logical strain and family satisfaction,, though not for physical health and job
satisfaction. Less evidence was obtained for the moderating influence of
family support, which displayed a buffering influence only at time 2 and only
on psychological strain and physical health symptoms. Overall, therefore,
hypothesis 4 was not strongly supported, since the moderating influence of
family support between FWI and the criterion measures is inconclusive.

The mixed findings in relation to the stress-buffering properties of social

support reflect similar inconsistencies reported elsewhere (Carlson & Per-
rewe, 1999; (Cooper et al., 2001). The direct effects of social support appear
to be the most consistent finding within the stressor-strain literature (Carlson
& Perrewe, 1999). However, our research illustrates the value of investigat-
ing specific sources of social support as potential buffering variables. The
ability of colleague support to reduce the consequences of WFI in some

Volume 23 Number 1/2 2004 51

 situations is an important finding and, as noted above, contributes to recent
discussions concerning the measurement of social support in the work-
Work/Family
family literature (e.g. Brough & Frame, 2004; Brough & O’Driscoll, in
Conflict,
press).
Psychological
Well-Being, Research implications
Satisfaction and
Social Support We found work-family conflict has the greatest influence on the criterion
measures within the concurrent (cross-sectional) analyses. Minimal effects
of any enduring (longitudinal) qualities of work-family conflict were identi-
fied. This is an interesting point for further investigation, and suggests that
work-family conflict is perhaps based on spontaneous/short-term demands
rather than any enduring family/work characteristics. It is also important to
note, however, that the overall contribution of WFI and FWI to each crite-
rion measure was relatively low, once initial levels of the criterion variables
were controlled for. What best predicts the outcomes are the previous levels
of those variables themselves.

It is clear that in order to improve levels of satisfaction and well-being,

individuals and organisations should continue to work to alleviate work-
family conflict. The provision of adequate social support is one mechanism
that may assist in improving such outcomes, although social support may
not have substantial buffering effects within this stressor-strain relationship.
Identification of the specific sources of work support (colleagues, supervi-
sor, etc.), as well as the type of support (e.g. instrumental, emotional) re-
ceived from these sources, instead of simply measuring a generic work
support construct, is of value and should be considered by subsequent inves-
tigations.

Research limitations

We did not examine any specific sub-groups of our respondents. It is feasi-

ble that different sub-groups have specific needs that could influence their
degree of both work-family conflict and the criterion measures. For exam-
ple, specific population groups such as dual earners, parents, and single par-
ents, have recently been investigated (e.g. Baker & North, 1999; Brough &
Kelling, 2002; Nielson et al., 2001). Obtaining adequate numbers of respon-
dents with these specific demographic characteristics should be a considera-
tion for future investigations of work-family conflict.

A second limitation of the reported research is the focus on only the con-
sequences of work-family conflict. Although we succeeded in identifying
the deleterious effects of work-family conflict on psychological, physical
and attitudinal outcomes, evaluation of the actual causes of work-family
conflict would also be fruitful. The mechanisms by which the negative im-
pact of work-family conflict may be alleviated would also be of value to both
individuals and organisations (see for example, O’Driscoll, Brough, & Kal-
liath, in press).

52 Equal Opportunities International

 In conclusion, the present research based on a longitudinal design in-
volving respondents from 25 New Zealand organizations found that percep- Work/Family
tions of interference between work and family life were associated with Conflict,
dissatisfaction with the job and family life and reduced feelings of well- Psychological
being, as reflected by increased psychological and physical strain. However, Well-Being,
contrary to our expectation, neither WFI nor FWI produced any longitudinal Satisfaction and
effects, which suggests that both variables failed to influence satisfaction or Social Support
well-being over time. The present study also found that direct effects of so-
cial support from work colleagues and family were stronger than their buffer-
ing effects.

Volume 23 Number 1/2 2004 53

 References
Work/Family Allen, T. D., Herst, D. E. L., Bruck, C. S., & Sutton, M. (2000). Conse-
Conflict, quences associated with work-to-family conflict: A review and agenda for
Psychological future research. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, pp. 278-
Well-Being, 308.
Satisfaction and
Social Support Baker, D., North, K. (1999). Does employment improve the health of lone
mothers? Social Science and Medicine, 49, 1, pp. 121-131.
Boyar, S. L., Maertz, C. P., Pearson, A. W., & Keough, S. (2003). Work-
family conflict: A model of linkages between work and family domain vari-
ables and turnover intentions. Journal of Managerial Issues, 15(2), pp.
175-190.
Brough, P. & Frame, R. (2004). Predicting police job satisfaction, work
well-being and turnover intentions: The role of social support and police or-
ganisational variables. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 33, pp. 9-16.
Brough, P. & Kelling, A. (2002). Women, work and well-being: An analysis
of the work-family conflict. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 31, pp.
29-38.
Brough, P. & O’Driscoll, M. (in press). Work-family conflict and stress. In
Antoniou, A. and Cooper, C. (Eds.). A Research Companion to Organiza-
tional Health Psychology. Edward Elgar Publisher.
Burke, R. J., & Greenglass, E. (1987). Work and family. In C. L. Cooper & I.
Robertson (Eds.), Occupational stress and organizational effectiveness (pp.
273-320). New York: Praeger.
Burke, R. J., & Greenglass, E. R. (1999). Work-family conflict, spouse sup-
port and nursing staff well-being during organizational restructuring. Jour-
nal of Occupational Health Psycholgy, 4(4), pp. 327-336.
Carlson, D. S., & Frone, M. R. (2003). Relation of behavioral and psycho-
logical involvement to a new four-factor conceptualization of work-family
interference. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17(4), pp. 515-535.
Carlson, D. S., & Perrewe, P. L. (1999). The role of social support in the
stressor-strain relationship: An examination of work-family conflict. Jour-
nal of Management, 25(4), pp. 513-540.
Cooper, C. L., Dewe, P. J., & O’Driscoll, M. P. (2001). Organizational
stress: A review and critique of theory, research and applications. Thou-
sand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
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(1), pp. 178-199.

54 Equal Opportunities International

Frone, M. R. (2003). Work-family balance. In J. C. Quick & L. E. Tetrick
(Eds.), Handbook of Occupational Health Psychology, pp. 143-162. Wash- Work/Family
ington, D.C.: American Psychological Association. Conflict,
Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M. L. (1992). Antecedents and out- Psychological
comes of work-family conflict: Testing a model of the work-family inter- Well-Being,
face. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(1), pp. 65-78. Satisfaction and
Social Support
Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M. L. (1997). Relation of work-family
conflict to health outcomes: A four year longitudinal study of employed par-
ents. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 70, pp. 325-
335.
Frone, M. R., & Yardley, J. K. (1996). Workplace family-supportive pro-
grammes: Predictors of employed parents’ importance ratings. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 69(4), pp. 351-366.
Goldberg, D. P. (1972). The Detection of Psychiatric Illness by Question-
naire. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Greenhaus, J., & Beutell, N. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and
family roles. Academy of Management Review, 10, pp. 76-88.
Greenhaus, J. H., Parasuraman, S., & Collins, K. M. (2001). Career involve-
ment and family involvement as moderators of relationships between work
and family conflict and withdrawal from a profession. Journal of Occupa-
tional Health Psychology, 6(2), pp. 91-100.
Grzywacz, J. G., & Marks, N. F. (2000). Reconceptualizing the work-family
interface: An ecological perspective on the correlates of positive and nega-
tive spillover between work and family. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 5, pp. 111-126.
Harvey, S., Kelloway, E. K., & Duncan-Leiper, L. (2003). Trust in manage-
ment as a buffer of the relationship between overload and strain. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 8, pp. 306-315.
Kalliath, T. J., O’Driscoll, M. P., & Brough, P. (in press). A confirmatory
factor analysis of the General Health Questionnaire-12. Stress and Health.
Jimmieson, N. L. & Terry, D. J. (1999). The moderating role of task charac-
teristics in determining responses to a stressful work simulation. Journal of
Organizational Behaviour, 20, pp. 709-736.
Kelloway, E. K., Gottlieb, B. H., & Barham, L. (1999). The source, nature,
and direction of work and family conflict: A longitudinal investigation. Jour-
nal of Occupational Health Psychology, 4(4), pp. 337-346.
MacEwen, K. E. & Barling, J. (1994). Daily consequences of work interfer-
ence with family and family interference with work. Work and Stress, 8, pp.
244-254.

Volume 23 Number 1/2 2004 55

 Nielson, T. R., Carlson, D. S., & Lankau, M. J., (2001). The supportive men-
tor as a mean of reducing work-family conflict. Journal of Vocational Be-
Work/Family
havior, 59, pp. 364-381.
Conflict,
Psychological O’Driscoll, M. P. (1996). The interface between job and off-job roles: En-
Well-Being, hancement and conflict. In I. T. R. C.L. Cooper (Ed.), International Review
Satisfaction and of Industrial and Organisational Psychology. Chichester: Wiley.
Social Support
O’Driscoll, M. P., Brough, P., & Kalliath, T. (in press). Work-family con-
flict and facilitation. In F. Jones, R. Burke & M. Westman (Eds.), Managing
the work-home interface. Hove, Sussex, UK: Psychology Press.
O’Driscoll, M. P., Poelmans, S., Spector, P. E., Kalliath, T., Allen, T. D.,
Cooper, C. L., & Sanchez, J. I. (in press). Family responsive interventions,
perceived organizational and supervisor support, work-family conflict and
psychological strain. International Journal of Stress Management.
Pears, J. (2003). Keeping people at work: Supervisor support and its influ-
ence on the outcomes of work-related stress. Unpublished MSc thesis,
School of Applied Psychology, Griffith University.
Seashore, S., Lawler, E., Mirvis, P., & Cammann, C. (Eds.). (1982). Observ-
ing and measuring organizational change: A guide to field practice. New
York: Wiley.
Spector, P., & Jex, S. (1998). Development of four self-report measures of
job stressors and strain: Interpersonal conflict at work scale, organizational
constraints scale, quantitative workload inventory and physical symptoms
inventory. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 3, pp. 356-367.
Williams, K., & Alliger, G. (1994). Role stressors, mood spillover, and per-
ceptions of work-family conflict in employed parents. Academy of Manage-
ment Journal, 37, pp. 837-868.

56 Equal Opportunities International