You are on page 1of 159

University of South Florida

Scholar Commons
Theses and Dissertations

6-1-2009

Personality and work-family conflict: The mediational role of coping styles
Rebecca H. Bryant
University of South Florida

Scholar Commons Citation
Bryant, Rebecca H., "Personality and work-family conflict: The mediational role of coping styles" (2009). Theses and Dissertations. Paper 1879. http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/1879

This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact scholarcommons@usf.edu.

Personality and Work-Family Conflict: The Mediational Role of Coping Styles

by

Rebecca H. Bryant, M. A.

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Psychology College of Arts and Sciences University of South Florida

Major Professor: Tammy D. Allen, Ph.D. Walter C. Borman, Ph.D. Paul E. Spector, Ph.D. Vicky Phares, Ph.D. Judith B. Bryant, Ph.D.

Date of Approval: March 13, 2009

Keywords: conscientiousness, extraversion, neuroticism, locus of control, problem solving, support seeking, cognitive restructuring, escape, rumination, WIF, FIW, WFC © Copyright 2009, Rebecca H. Bryant

Dedication To my parents, for their unconditional love and support, and for always encouraging me to reach for the stars. And to my husband, for believing in me more than I believe in myself; I would never have made it this far without his continual encouragement and patience. I am incredibly lucky to have all three of you in my life.

I really appreciate your time and willingness to help.Acknowledgements I would like to acknowledge the members of my dissertation committee. Finally. and guidance. Dr. . as well as those who assisted with recruitment efforts. feedback. deserves a special acknowledgement. and for being the best advisor that I could ever hope for. Tammy Allen. My advisor. for being a true mentor. for their time. thank you to all the people who participated in my study. for her constant encouragement and support.

and Neuroticism Locus of Control Coping Styles Work-Family Conflict i iii vi vii 1 2 5 5 6 7 8 9 10 10 12 15 17 18 18 21 27 27 28 30 31 35 38 41 41 43 43 45 46 51 .Table of Contents List of Tables List of Figures Abstract Chapter One – Introduction Work-Family Conflict: An Overview Personality and WFC: A Summary of Previous Research Conscientiousness Extraversion Neuroticism Locus of Control Overview Stress and Coping: An Overview Stress and Lazarus and Folkman’s (1984) Model Overview of Coping Styles Coping Styles Investigated in the Present Study Coping Styles Specific to the Work-Family Domain The Role of Personality in the Stress Process Personality and Coping Personality and Coping Relationships The Relationship between Coping and Strain Differential Effectiveness of Coping Styles Hobfoll’s (1989) Conservation of Resources Model Spillover Model Coping and Work-Family Conflict Relationships Coping as a Mediator between Personality and Work-Family Conflict Hypotheses Chapter Two – Method Participants Measures Big Five Personality Variables: Conscientiousness. Extraversion.

Demographics/Control Variables Procedure Chapter Three – Results Preliminary Analyses Hypothesis Testing Personality and Work-Family Conflict Personality and Coping Style Coping Style and Work-Family Conflict Coping Style as a Mediator between Personality and WorkFamily Conflict Supplementary Analysis Chapter Four – Discussion Personality and Work-Family Conflict Personality and Coping Style Coping Style and Work-Family Conflict Coping Style as a Mediator between Personality and Work-Family Conflict Supplementary Analysis Theoretical Implications Practical Implications Limitations Future Directions Conclusion References Appendices Appendix A: Hypothesized Relationships Appendix B: Big Five Personality Scale Items Appendix C: Locus of Control Scale Items Appendix D: Coping Scale Items Appendix E: Work-Family Conflict Scale Items Appendix F: Hypothesis Testing with Self-Reported Personality and with the Average of Self.and Significant Other-Reported Personality About the Author 51 54 56 56 62 64 64 73 80 83 92 93 95 98 100 100 103 107 109 111 116 117 132 133 134 136 137 139 140 End Page ii .

List of Tables Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6 Table 7 Table 8 Table 9 Table 10 Table 11 Table 12 Table 13 Table 14 Descriptive Statistics of Demographic Variables Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Coping Items: Goodness of Fit Indices Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Coping Items: Chi Square Difference Test Descriptive Statistics of Study Variables Intercorrelations among Study Variables Regression of WIF and FIW on Conscientiousness (Significant Other-Report) Regression of WIF and FIW on Extraversion (Significant OtherReport) Regression of WIF and FIW on Neuroticism (Significant OtherReport) Regression of WIF and FIW on Internal Locus of Control (SelfReport) Regression of Coping Style on Conscientiousness (Significant Other-Report) Regression of Coping Style on Extraversion (Significant OtherReport) Regression of Coping Style on Neuroticism (Significant OtherReport) Regression of WIF and FIW on Problem Solving for Work Stressors Regression of WIF and FIW on Problem Solving for Family Stressors iii 43 50 51 57 58 65 65 66 66 71 72 72 74 74 .

Table 15 Table 16 Table 17 Table 18 Table 19 Table 20 Table 21 Table 22 Table 23 Table 24 Table 25 Table 26 Table 27 Regression of WIF and FIW on Instrumental Support Seeking for Work Stressors Regression of WIF and FIW on Emotional Support Seeking for Work Stressors Regression of WIF and FIW on Instrumental Support Seeking for Family Stressors Regression of WIF and FIW on Emotional Support Seeking for Family Stressors Regression of WIF and FIW on Positive Cognitive Restructuring for Work Stressors Regression of WIF and FIW on Positive Cognitive Restructuring for Family Stressors Regression of WIF and FIW on Rumination for Work Stressors Regression of WIF and FIW on Rumination for Family Stressors Regression of WIF and FIW on Escape for Work Stressors Regression of WIF and FIW on Escape for Family Stressors Mediated Regression of WIF on Rumination for Work Stressors and Neuroticism (Significant Other-Report) Moderated Regression of FIW on Conscientiousness (Significant Other-Report) and Problem Solving for Work Stressors Moderated Regression of FIW on Conscientiousness (Significant Other-Report) and Positive Cognitive Restructuring for Family Stressors Moderated Regression of FIW on Conscientiousness (Significant Other-Report) and Escape for Family Stressors Moderated Regression of WIF on Extraversion (Significant OtherReport) and Escape for Family Stressors Moderated Regression of FIW on Neuroticism (Significant OtherReport) and Rumination for Family Stressors iv 75 75 76 76 77 77 78 78 79 79 83 86 86 87 87 88 Table 28 Table 29 Table 30 .

and Significant Other-Report) Mediated Regression of WIF on Rumination for Work Stressors and Neuroticism (Self-Report) Mediated Regression of WIF on Rumination for Work Stressors and Neuroticism (Average of Self.and Significant Other-Report) Regression of Coping Style on Extraversion (Self-Report) Regression of Coping Style on Extraversion (Average of Self.and Significant Other-Report) Regression of Coping Style on Neuroticism (Self-Report) Regression of Coping Style on Neuroticism (Average of Self.Table 31 Table 32 Table 33 Table 34 Table 35 Table 36 Table 37 Table 38 Table 39 Table 40 Table 41 Table 42 Table 43 Table 44 Table 45 Moderated Regression of WIF on Internal Locus of Control (SelfReport) and Instrumental Support Seeking for Family Stressors Regression of WIF and FIW on Conscientiousness (Self-Report) Regression of WIF and FIW on Conscientiousness (Average of Self.and Significant Other-Report) Regression of WIF and FIW on Extraversion (Self-Report) Regression of WIF and FIW on Extraversion (Average of Selfand Significant Other-Report) Regression of WIF and FIW on Neuroticism (Self-Report) Regression of WIF and FIW on Neuroticism (Average of Selfand Significant Other-Report) Regression of Coping Style on Conscientiousness (Self-Report) Regression of Coping Style on Conscientiousness (Average of Self.and Significant Other-Report) 88 140 140 141 141 142 142 143 143 144 144 145 145 146 146 v .

Figure 2. Escape for family stressors as a moderator between conscientiousness (significant other-report) and FIW. and work-family conflict. Figure 4. Rumination for family stressors as a moderator between neuroticism (significant other-report) and FIW. Positive cognitive restructuring for family stressors as a moderator between conscientiousness (significant other-report) and FIW. Hypothesized relationships between personality variables. 89 89 90 90 91 91 133 vi .List of Figures Figure 1. Figure 3. Escape for family stressors as a moderator between extraversion (significant other-report) and WIF. Problem solving for work stressors as a moderator between conscientiousness (significant other-report) and FIW. Figure 6. Instrumental support seeking for family stressors as a moderator between internal locus of control (self-report) and WIF. coping styles. Figure 7. Figure 5.

Bryant ABSTRACT Although an extensive body of literature exists on the consequences of workfamily conflict (WFC). support seeking. neuroticism. and neuroticism. though several cross-domain relationships were observed. extraversion. Two hundred and four participants. Of the four personality variables. was examined as a potential mediator between personality and both directions of WFC. recruited from a snowball approach. among the hypothesized relationships between coping and WFC. which was assessed separately for managing work stressors and for managing family stressors. Additionally. Research on two sets of antecedent variables. positive cognitive restructuring. significant others provided ratings of conscientiousness. though there was some evidence vii . comparatively little research has examined the construct’s antecedents. completed surveys. Thus. extraversion. Additionally.Personality and Work-Family Conflict: The Mediational Role of Coping Styles Rebecca H. personality and coping style. the present study found little support for coping as a mediator between personality and WFC. only rumination and escape for work stressors related to WIF. Overall. Furthermore. and locus of control) and five coping styles (problem solving. rumination. coping style. and escape) in relation to work-interference-with-family (WIF) and familyinterference-with-work (FIW) conflict. only neuroticism related to WIF and FIW. the present study expands the literature by examining four personality variables (conscientiousness. is particularly scarce.

As a supplementary analysis. coping was examined as a moderator between personality and WFC.that rumination mediated the relationship between neuroticism and WIF. Theoretical and practical implications. are discussed. viii . as well as future directions.

2005 for metaanalytic reviews). highlighting the potentially deleterious effects of WFC for both individuals and organizations. By identifying individual difference variables that relate to WFC. 2005 and Frone. Furthermore. & Sutton. & Brinley. In terms of antecedents. Bordeaux. Lockwood. and stress-related outcomes (see Allen.Chapter One Introduction Over the past two decades. an abundance of research on work-family conflict (WFC) has been conducted. though comparatively less research has been conducted on the latter. Bruck. Herst. Another relatively neglected set of variables is coping style. contributing to an extensive body of knowledge in the field. with less than one percent of work-family research examining coping as a predictor of WFC (Eby. non work-related outcomes. the present study focuses on the role that dispositions and coping styles play in the work-family conflict process. Thus. 2003 for reviews). including workrelated outcomes. 2000 and Mesmer-Magnus & Viswesvaran. researchers have found support for role-related variables as well as personality variables (see Byron. the present study aims to expand the construct’s nomological network and allow for the identification of individuals who may be at higher risk for experiencing conflict between the work and family domains. Researchers have identified numerous consequences of the construct. 2005). the present study aims to increase our understanding of how employees cope with the 1 . Casper.

. it is important to understand the mechanisms underlying these relationships. Edge. and Rosenthal’s (1964) research on role conflict. using a stress framework. Specifically. very little research has examined this proposition (see Andreassi. Allen. In addition to examining personality traits and coping styles that relate to WFC.demands associated with work and family life. 2007 and Smoot. 2003. Frone. 2003 for a review). Musisca. & Spector. providing a more thorough investigation of the role of coping styles in the relationship between personality and work-family conflict. Quinn. dispositional traits and coping styles. Wolfe. & Sherwood. personality is expected to relate to coping strategy both directly and indirectly via the appraisal process. & Fleeson. Greenhaus and Beutell (1985) defined work-family conflict as “a form of interrole conflict in which the role pressures from the work and family domains are 2 .g. 2005 for exceptions). coping strategy is expected to relate to work-family conflict. Furthermore. Greenhaus. The present study addresses this limitation. with the intention of providing insight into effective strategies for managing work-family conflict. the two dissertations that did investigate the mediational role of coping used taxonomies of coping that have been widely criticized in the literature (see Skinner. Although several researchers have suggested coping style as a mediator between dispositions and WFC (e. 2006. Snoek. Additionally. By examining two sets of relatively neglected antecedents to WFC. consistent with Hobfoll’s (1989) conservation of resources model and a spillover model of work and family. 2004). the present study represents an important contribution to the work-family conflict field. Work-Family Conflict: An Overview Drawing from Kahn. Altman. Wayne. as well as the processes underlying these relationships.

mutually incompatible in some respect. That is, participation in the work (family) role is made more difficult by virtue of participation in the family (work) role” (p. 77). Greenhaus and Beutell (1985) also identified multiple dimensions of WFC, stemming from the source of the conflict. Specifically, time-based WFC involves competing time requirements across the two roles; strain-based WFC occurs when pressures in one role impair performance in the second role; and behavior-based conflict involves an incompatibility of behaviors necessary for the two roles. Since Greenhaus and Beutell’s (1985) seminal article, researchers have identified other ways of conceptualizing the construct as well. For example, Greenhaus et al. (2006) supplemented the three forms of conflict with a fourth type: energy-based conflict, which results from a lack of energy for dealing with role demands. Conversely, Carlson and Frone (2003) conceptualized workfamily conflict as either external (representing outward behavioral interference) or internal (representing psychological preoccupation while in the other role), providing empirical support for the proposed factor structure. Despite these alternative ways of defining the WFC construct, the vast majority of research in the field has focused on only two forms: time- and strain-based conflict, often utilizing measures that combine both forms into one overall dimension (e.g., Netemeyer, Boles, & McMurrian, 1996). In addition to the various forms of work-family conflict, researchers have acknowledged the bidirectionality of the construct; specifically, work can interfere with family (WIF), and family can interfere with work (FIW; Frone, Russell, & Cooper, 1992). Furthermore, according to the domain specificity hypothesis, situational variables associated with a given domain relate to conflict originating from that domain (Frone, 2003; Frone et al., 1992). For example, the domain specificity hypothesis posits that work 3

stressors are related to WIF, while family stressors are related to FIW. Overall, empirical findings are consistent with these propositions, though the research is not uniformly supportive (see Ford, Heinen, & Langkamer, 2007 and Mesmer-Magnus & Viswesvaran, 2005 for meta-analytic reviews). A great deal of research in the WFC field has focused on identifying its consequences, and much insight has been gained as a result. In a meta-analytic summary of the literature, Allen et al. (2000) reviewed 67 articles published between 1977 and 1998, describing results in terms of three broad categories of outcomes: work-related (e.g. job satisfaction), non work-related (e.g., life satisfaction), and stress-related (e.g., general psychological strain). Significant relationships were reported for an array of variables across the three domains, highlighting the potentially damaging consequences of WFC to individuals, families, and organizations alike. For example, WFC was negatively related to such attitudes as job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and life satisfaction, and positively related to turnover intentions. Additionally, relationships between WFC and stress-related outcomes were consistently positive, including assessments of strain (e.g., burnout, work-related stress, family-related stress), somatic/physical symptoms, and depression. Although Allen et al.’s (2000) meta-analysis excluded studies examining FIW, other meta-analyses have reviewed research on both WIF and FIW, reporting similar findings (e.g., Mesmer-Magnus & Viswesvaran, 2005). Given that work-family conflict has been linked to a wide range of potentially deleterious consequences, it is important to understand its causes. To that end, researchers have investigated, and found support for, numerous antecedents of WFC, including those arising in the work domain (e.g., work time, role overload, schedule 4

flexibility, work support) and those arising in the family domain (e.g., family conflict, family support; see Byron, 2005 and Ford et al., 2007 for meta-analytic reviews). Additionally, a comparatively small amount of research has examined the role of individual differences, such as personality traits (e.g., Bruck & Allen, 2003). Because personality traits have been relatively neglected in the study of work-family conflict, the present study contributes to the work-family literature by examining their role in the process. Specifically, four personality variables are investigated: conscientiousness, extraversion, neuroticism, and locus of control. In the following section, previous research examining the relationship between these dispositional traits and WFC is summarized. Personality and WFC: A Summary of Previous Research Conscientiousness. Conscientiousness represents one of the five major variables in the five-factor model of personality, also known as the big five (Goldberg, 1990). The five-factor model has been empirically substantiated across numerous samples, cultures, and studies, using both natural language adjectives and theoretically developed personality surveys. Thus, the big five – comprised of conscientiousness, extraversion, neuroticism, agreeableness, and openness to experience – represents a successful attempt to conceptualize the personality domain into a small number of broad factors (McCrae & John, 1992). According to Costa and McCrae (1992), each of the big five personality traits can be sub-divided into six facets, highlighting the hierarchical nature of the fivefactor model. Conscientiousness can be defined in terms of its six facet scales, including competence, order, dutifulness, self-discipline, deliberation, and achievement striving 5

random sample. activity. 1992). For example. Extraversion. Additionally. and careless in working toward their goals (McCrae & John. other researchers have.’s (2004) study utilized a large. For example. while individuals low on extraversion are more 6 . random sample (N=2. (2004) found that conscientiousness was negatively related to both WIF and FIW using a national. high-extraverts tend to be outgoing and energetic. Wayne et al. respectively). FIW and conscientiousness were negatively related among a sample of 164 employees at the University of South Florida (Bruck & Allen. Although neither of these studies found a significant relationship between WIF and conscientiousness. while studies linking WIF and conscientiousness have found inconsistent results. the literature generally supports a negative relationship between work-family conflict and conscientiousness. 1992). Another one of the big five personality traits. Vermulst.17.20 and -. Thus. gregariousness. while individuals scoring low on conscientiousness tend to be lackadaisical. Gerris. assertiveness. Thus. highly conscientious individuals tend to be organized. their results may reflect a more accurate estimate of these relationships. Researchers examining conscientiousness as an antecedent to work-family conflict have generally reported a negative relationship. & Mäkikangas. Although the correlation between FIW and conscientiousness was slightly higher than that of WIF and conscientiousness. extraversion can be defined by its six facet scales: warmth. Smoot (2005) reported a negative relationship between a general measure of WFC and conscientiousness. and excitement seeking (Costa & McCrae. and efficient.(Costa & McCrae. positive emotionality. Thus. unreliable.130). they were both significant (rs=-. 1992). responsible. 2003). 2003) and a sample of 296 employed fathers in the Netherlands (Kinnunen. Given that Wayne et al.

g. Andreassi. Although the authors used the term “negative spillover. Kinnunen et al. While Grzywacz and Marks (2000) found that family-to-work spillover only held for women. neuroticism has received the most 7 . with some inconsistencies. tense. 1992). overall the literature supports the notion that individuals high on extraversion tend to report lower levels of work-family conflict. Grzywacz and Marks (2000) found that extraversion was negatively related to both negative spillover from work to family (among men and women) and negative spillover from family to work (among women only). and impulsiveness (Costa & McCrae. and even-tempered (McCrae & John.introverted and reserved (McCrae & John. researchers have reported a negative relationship between extraversion and WFC. For example. Another one of the personality variables in the five-factor model. relaxed.” the items measuring the construct mirrored work-family conflict items. neuroticism is comprised of the following six facets: anxiety. Compared to other dispositional antecedents examined in the work-family conflict literature. Similar to the research on conscientiousness. Additionally. and worrying. Smoot (2005) reported a negative relationship between extraversion and a general measure of WFC. 1992). Still.. while individuals low on neuroticism are described as emotionally stable. Bruck and Allen (2003) reported null findings among their sample of 164 university employees. 2003). vulnerability to stress. Though the majority of research in the field has supported a significant negative relationship between extraversion and WFC.. hostility. 2007. other researchers have reported a relationship between FIW and extraversion across the entire sample (e. Neuroticism. Individuals high on neuroticism tend to be self-pitying.986 employed adults participating in the National Survey of Midlife Development. 1992). using data from 1. self-consciousness. depression.

Wayne et al. researchers have found support for anywhere from one to nine factors comprising Rotter’s (1966) locus of control scale. including internal influences. Paulhus and Christie (1981) also proposed a three-factor solution. 2007. 2003). As a result. with the majority of studies reporting a two-factor solution (Ferguson. neuroticism has been positively linked to negative spillover from work to family and family to work (Grzywacz & Marks. and found support for. 2005). 2003. with internal and external LOC representing opposite poles on a continuum. 1993).research attention and support. Rotter.g. Levenson (1974) proposed. some researchers have defined LOC as a multi-faceted construct. and to a bidirectional measure of WFC (Smoot. fate. to time. the positive relationship between neuroticism and work-family conflict is well-supported. influence of powerful others. Bruck & Allen.. 1966). though they partitioned the 8 . 1999). a variable conceptually similar to neuroticism. Thus. 1985). Individuals high on NA tend to focus on the negative aspects of the world and are more likely to report distress and discomfort (Watson & Tellegen. Carlson. 2003. Negative affectivity (NA). to WIF and FIW (Andreassi. Bruck & Allen. Locus of Control. Bruck & Allen..and strain-based conflict (Andreassi. has been examined in the work-family literature as well. three independent dimensions of locus of control. Across various samples and studies. Several studies have found support for a positive relationship between NA and various forms/directions of WFC (e. 2007. Although Rotter (1966) conceptualized LOC as a unidimensional construct. For example. Locus of control (LOC) is a stable individual difference trait representing the extent that an individual attributes outcomes of events to his/her own behavior and actions (internal LOC) or to external circumstances such as powerful others or chance (external LOC. and effects of occurrences of chance. 2000). or luck. 2004).

504). 1990). representing both internal and external LOC. While both Andreassi and Thompson (2007) and Noor (2002) used a unidimensional measure of LOC. Similarly. including both internal and external LOC items may be important when assessing the relationship between LOC and WFC. Although relatively little research has examined the role of personality variables in relation to work-family conflict. the literature does offer some insight into the 9 . Among a sample of 291 employees in diverse industries. Noor (2002) found that internal locus of control was significantly related to WFC among a sample of 310 married women. in addition to a negative relationship between internal LOC and WFC. For example. Andreassi and Thompson (2007) reported a negative relationship between internal locus of control and both WIF and FIW using data from a nationally representative sample of employed adults (N=3. Overview. interpersonal. Andreassi (2007) found that internal LOC was negatively related to strain-based WFC and to FIW but unrelated to time-based WFC and to WIF. Andreassi (2007) used only the internal LOC scale from Levenson’s (1974) measure. their Spheres of Control Scale is comprised of three subscales: personal. Thus. and socio-political control (Paulhus & Van Selst. Perhaps the relationship between LOC and WFC is partially driven by the positive relationship between external LOC and WFC. Specifically.construct into primary behavioral spheres. Although the null results are surprising. while individuals higher on external LOC experience higher levels of WFC. highlighting the notion that perceived control may vary across different aspects of the individual’s life space. the divergent findings may reflect the different measures of LOC. Research examining locus of control in the work-family domain has generally found that individuals higher on internal LOC report less WFC.

a clinical/psychological approach.nature of these relationships. in order to understand why these relationships exist. Stress and Coping: An Overview Stress and Lazarus and Folkman’s (1984) Model. the literature supports a negative relationship between WIF/FIW and conscientiousness. and an organizational psychology approach (Jex. The present study utilizes a stress and coping framework. The following section provides a brief overview of the stress and coping process in order to provide a framework for these propositions. The present study views stress from an organizational psychology approach. Overall. thus endangering his/her wellbeing (Lazarus & Launier. To the extent that individuals are predisposed to use effective coping mechanisms in managing work and family stressors. ranging from a medical approach. mediating variables must be identified. they are less likely to experience work-family conflict. an engineering psychology approach. stress is defined as occurring when an individual appraises an event as about to tax or exceed that person’s resources. which focuses on psychosocial sources of stress and how they are cognitively appraised (Jex. extraversion. and internal locus of control. Although identifying personality variables related to WFC is important. Accordingly. in which stress is a type of force acting on a person (Jex. Additionally. stress is often viewed in terms of a stimulus-response process. Stress has been studied in multiple domains. 1978). 10 . Thus. 2002). arguing that the relationships between personality variables and work-family conflict can be explained via choice of coping strategy. it is also necessary to understand the mechanisms that underlie the relationships. The present study focuses on four dispositional traits that have been empirically linked to WFC. 2002). and a positive relationship between WIF/FIW and neuroticism.

1984). defined as maladaptive responses to stress (Jex. 1982). several studies (e. an evaluation of his/her ability to manage the event by assessing demands. 1999). work-family conflict is conceptualized as a strain that occurs when job and/or family stressors are not effectively managed. Dunkel-Schetter. Carlson & Perrewé. while an event that is appraised as challenging tends to elicit problem-focused coping (efforts to modify the source of the distress. Lazarus. two processes are critical to understanding the stress process: the appraisal process (the meaning the individual attaches to the encounter) and coping (his/her attempts to manage the encounter. This perspective is consistent with previous research (e. they posit that an individual faced with a stressor(s) undergoes two appraisal processes: primary appraisal. Research on coping is summarized in the following section. How the individual appraises the stressor affects his/her choice of coping strategy (Lazarus & Folkman. 1995) have found that when an event is appraised as threatening. to determine the implications of the stressor (e.g. Mikulincer & Victor.. and environmental resources. representing the interaction between the person and the environment (Folkman.. In the present study. Specifically. and secondary appraisal. 11 . & Gruen. For example. Thus. 1984). Though researchers have proposed numerous models of the stress process. constraints. Stressors. Lazarus & Folkman. individuals tend to respond with emotion-focused coping (efforts to manage the emotions arising from the stressor). may lead to strain. or environmental factors eliciting a response from the individual..2002). 2002).g.g. Lazarus & Folkman. 1986). DeLongis. the current study focuses on Lazarus and Folkman’s (1984) Cognitive Theory of Stress and Coping. whether the event is threatening or challenging).

versus problem-focused taxonomy as lacking conceptual clarity and mutual exclusiveness. seeking social support.Overview of Coping Styles. 1986) and primary control coping (change the stressor or emotions through problem solving or emotion regulation) versus secondary control coping (facilitate adaptation to stress via acceptance or cognitive restructuring. 1991. Moreover. including approach (responses that bring the individual in closer contact with the stressful encounter) versus avoidance (responses that allow the individual to withdraw. other popular distinctions have been utilized as well. For example. emotion-focused coping includes such divergent behaviors as relaxation. identifying over 400 different labels of coping styles. Poelmans. 1982). researchers have conceptualized coping in many different ways. Rothbaum. making a plan has been 12 . A summary of the various conceptualizations of coping is presented by Skinner et al. they criticized the emotion. For example. and avoidance. reviewing classification systems developed from both inductive/bottom-up and deductive/top-down approaches. However. & Andreassi. p. Weisz.and emotion-focused coping. 210). 2007). Allen. who reviewed over 100 category systems of coping. Coping is defined as “cognitive and behavioral efforts to manage specific external and/or internal demands that are appraised as taxing or exceeding the resources of the person” (Folkman & Lazarus. Their article covered 20 years worth of research on coping category systems. Although an immense amount of research on coping has been conducted. defined in the previous section. (2003). The review highlights the limitations of using broad distinctions of coping styles. Specifically. & Snyder. Roth & Cohen. modern coping research has been heavily influenced by Lazarus and Folkman’s (1984) distinction between problem. making it difficult to integrate research (Thompson.

13 . has led to an oversimple conception of the way coping works and is measured in much research” (p. ConnorSmith.. Saltzman. Lazarus (1996) commented that “distinguishing between the two functions.and emotion-focused measures have reported anywhere from two to nine factors.categorized into both types of coping. & Wadsworth. either may be beneficial depending on the situation. Thus. offering similar viewpoints (e. as results differed when analyzed at a specific versus global level of coping (Connor-Smith & Flachsbart. factor-analytic investigations of problem. but treating them as if they were distinctive types of coping actions. 292). Skinner et al. given that it orients the individual away from the stressor. Furthermore. it could also be categorized under avoidance coping. researchers tend to only include constructive behaviors under approachoriented coping and destructive behaviors under avoidance-oriented coping. 2001). the approach-avoidance distinction is overly simplistic. 2007). (2003) commented that although support seeking is commonly classified as an approach strategy.. In fact. (2003) pointed to lack of clarity in the definitions and the fact that the distinction is not exhaustive. Skinner et al. but in reality. With regard to the distinction between primary and secondary control coping. Thomsen. 2003). Other broad distinctions used in the coping literature have been criticized as well.g. Additionally. For example. with eight different factor structures being reported across eight different studies (Skinner et al. Compas. Other researchers have criticized these three coping distinctions as well. Additionally. meta-analytic results examining the relationship between coping styles and personality support the notion that broad distinctions do not tell the whole story.

Skinner et al. and delegation. support seeking.Because of the limitations of such broad classifications of coping styles. Therefore. escape. In order to identify such action tendencies. problem solving. Skinner et al. they supplemented the review by examining two rationally-based taxonomies developed from action tendencies. 232). the present study 14 . The last four potential families of coping were used less frequently. These four coping styles were selected based on the following criteria: appeared in two of the four empirically-derived systems and both of the rationallyderived systems. social withdrawal. information seeking. Similarly.” given that they appeared in 25 to 50 percent of all systems reviewed and were used with both children/adolescents and adults. as well as domain-specific and general stressors. Based on these six studies. opposition. Other “strong candidates” included rumination. Lazarus (1996) agreed that the development of an action typology is essential for identifying a higher order structure of coping. 229).versus problem-focused coping. (2003) advocated the identification of coping styles based on action types. defined as “higher order classes of actions. including negotiation. they identified 13 potential families of coping styles. while the vast majority of research in the coping literature has focused on such broad distinctions as emotion. and emotional regulation. Additionally. distraction. and appeared in scales used with different ages and types of stressors. were described as clearly “core. were in at least twenty of the systems reviewed. helplessness. and positive cognitive restructuring. Five of the coping styles. (2003) reviewed four category systems for classifying lower order ways of coping that have been empirically tested.” distinguished by a common “motivation underlying the actions” (p. representing “the state-of-the-art in the study of category systems” (p.

and rumination – to explain the relationship between personality and WFC. emotional support seeking) and help-seeking (approaching 15 . In relating problem solving behaviors to the work-family domain. sample actions include carefully planning one’s day to facilitate the accomplishment of role-related tasks in a timely manner. Coping Styles Investigated in the Present Study.’s (2003) comprehensive review of the literature.’s (2003) notion of action tendencies. the present paper focuses on five in particular – problem solving. it is appropriate to define each style in terms of the behaviors each one represents. The spillover model will be described in a subsequent section. escape.’s (2003) list of “core” action tendencies. strategizing. Given that the coping styles included in the present study were derived from Skinner et al. it is included here on the basis of its conceptual link with the work-family domain in general and the spillover model of work and family in particular. Although rumination was identified as a “strong candidate” rather than a “core” action tendency. planning. These five coping styles were chosen from Skinner et al. or deciding to work late in the evening one day in order to attend a child’s sporting event the following day. Although individuals may use a wide variety of coping strategies to deal with work and family stressors. it is important to clearly define the five coping strategies investigated in the present study.examines coping in terms of action tendencies.e.. These actions are intended to directly address the underlying problem or stressor. support seeking. positive cognitive restructuring. support seeking actions include both comfort-seeking (approaching others for consolation. with the exception of rumination. Problem solving includes such behaviors as taking direct action. First. The following descriptions stem from Skinner et al. Conversely. and decision making. i.

rather than viewing the event as a negative stressor. reconceptualizing it in a positive light. he/she may perceive the event as an opportunity to spend more time with his/her child. Although the instrumental component of support seeking overlaps with problem solving in the sense that they both attempt to directly tackle the problem. Thus. Individuals engaging in this coping style attempt to change their view of the stressful situation. positive cognitive restructuring represents a cognitive approach to managing the stressor. the distinction lies in whether the individual attempts to handle the problem him/herself or he/she approaches another person for assistance. 16 . or a minimization of the negative consequences. A more specific example of positive cognitive restructuring may occur when an employee must take off work to take care of his/her child during winter break. instrumental support seeking). Sample escape-related actions include avoiding the situation or engaging in denial. i. while problem solving and support seeking represent behavioral components of coping. Escape represents efforts to disengage or stay away from the stressful transaction. In the work-family domain.e. an individual facing work/family stressors may engage in self-talk.. An individual may seek comfort from his/her spouse when work pressures are overwhelming (emotional support seeking) or ask a co-worker to switch shifts with him/her to prevent a potential work-family conflict (instrumental support seeking). an individual may disengage from family stressors by visiting a friend’s house. Positive cognitive restructuring may involve positive thinking. For example. The third coping style investigated in the present study is positive cognitive restructuring. convincing him/herself that he/she can effectively manage work/family stressors.others for instrumental assistance with the problem. self-encouragement.

Similar to positive cognitive restructuring. personal role redefinition.or practice denial rather than admitting that work stressors are interfering with his/her ability to successfully accomplish family-related tasks.. rumination represents a cognitive approach to dealing with stressors. rumination may involve excessively worrying about family stressors while at work or vice versa. rumination involves “a passive and repetitive focus on the negative and damaging features of a stressful transaction” (Skinner et al. rather than focusing on the positive. they identified eight coping strategies: super at home and super at work (based on 17 . individuals who try to meet everyone’s expectations are engaging in reactive role behavior. while personal role redefinition involves changing one’s own attitudes and perceptions of role demands. emphasizing three coping strategies: structural role redefinition. structurally imposed expectations about one’s role. however. and reactive role behavior. p. After interviewing employed parents working in Israel. engaging in self-blame and/or worry. 2003. Coping Styles Specific to the Work-Family Domain. Another taxonomy for coping with work-family conflict was developed by Somech and Drach-Zahavy (2007). Hall (1972) developed a typology based on interviews with women. 242). Finally. However. it is also important to note that researchers have developed taxonomies of coping mechanisms specific to managing work-family conflict. Individuals engaging in rumination may have intrusive or negative thoughts. this coping style emphasizes the negative aspects of the situation. In the workfamily domain. Specifically. The present study focuses on action tendencies that individuals may use to respond to a range of stressors. Finally. Structural role redefinition involves altering external.

the action tendencies identified by Skinner et al. Throughout the history of coping research. it is reasonable to assume that they can be appropriately applied to job and family stressors. researchers have not examined personality variables in relation to Hall (1972) or to Somech and Drach-Zahavy’s (2007) taxonomies. Additionally. reflecting Freud and a psychoanalytic perspective (Suls & David. 1996). while the research on work-family-specific coping strategies is comparatively limited. elucidating the role that personality variables play in the stress and coping process. A second school of thought focused on 18 . Finally.the notion that one must achieve perfection in task accomplishment). the present study focuses on general coping strategies instead for several reasons. The Role of Personality in the Stress Process Personality and Coping. good enough at home and good enough at work (lowering one’s performance to a less-than-perfect level). Conversely. First. and priorities at home and priorities at work (prioritizing tasks and responding accordingly). (2003) and used in the present study were chosen based on their relevance to both general and domain-specific stressors. While coping taxonomies specific to the work-family domain are insightful and useful. there is a great deal of research on the coping styles included in the present study. The following section reviews such research. the presumed relationship between personality and coping has changed. Thus. there is both empirical and theoretical support for the relationship between the personality variables and coping styles examined in the present study. delegation at home and delegation at work (enlisting the help of others to accomplish role-related tasks). Early coping researchers considered personality and coping to be the same thing.

Specifically. Connor-Smith & Flachsbart. an individual’s appraisal of stressor severity and his/her perceived coping potential predicts the nature of the coping strategies he/she will use in managing the stressor. Vollrath. 2007. rather than the individual (Lazarus & Folkman.g. For example. the individual is likely to engage in effective coping strategies. Lazarus & Folkman. researchers have recently reconsidered the role of dispositions in the coping process. Bolger and Zuckerman (1995) suggested that personality may lead to “differential exposure” to stressors (the number or type of events that a person experiences and that can cause stress) and “differential reactivity” (individual 19 . The relationship between personality and coping can be explained via the role of personality on the appraisal process.g. Bolger & Zuckerman. 1984). reporting relationships between personality and coping in the mid-range (e.. As previously mentioned. viewing choice of coping style as a function of the situation. 1995. Thus. Torgersen. personality traits that affect these appraisal processes are likely to affect choice of coping strategy. & Alnæs. and modern researchers have generally taken the viewpoint that personality and coping are distinct but overlapping (Suls & David. However. To the extent that stressors are perceived as positive or challenging rather than threatening (primary appraisal). and to the extent that the individual believes he/she has the resources to cope with the threat (secondary appraisal).the situational specificity inherent in coping. 1995). Empirical research has supported this notion. 1996).. Lazarus and Folkman’s (1984) Cognitive Theory of Stress and Coping highlights the importance of an individual’s cognitive appraisal of a stressor for understanding the stress process. 1984). The notion that personality affects how an individual appraises stressors has been suggested by numerous researchers (e.

Furthermore. and feelings” (Carver & Scheier. the hypothesized relationships between the investigated personality variables and coping styles are described. 1992). 1984) elucidates why personality affects choice of coping style. they found support for the notion that participants high on neuroticism reported greater exposure and reactivity to the stressor of interpersonal conflicts. high neuroticism is associated with worry (McCrae & John. Personality involves “a person’s characteristic patterns of behaviour. it may also affect coping behavior directly (Connor-Smith & Flachsbart. offering support for the notion that perceived event stressfulness mediated the relationship between personality and emotion-focused coping. 2000. 5). Thus. In a 14-day daily diary study of 94 students. 1992). he/she is likely to engage in that coping mechanism. In the following section. so high-neurotics are likely to experience ruminating thoughts. 20 . While personality appears to affect choice of coping style indirectly via the appraisal process. along with the theoretical and empirical support underlying the proposed relationships.differences in the felt intensity or reaction to stress). Similarly. both directly and indirectly via the appraisal process. Lazarus & Folkman. p. conscientious individuals tend to be planful (McCrae & John. thoughts. 2007. 2001). Kulenovic and Buško (2006) empirically tested the hypothesis that cognitive appraisals mediate the relationship between stable dispositional traits and coping style. To the extent that the behavior underlying a given coping strategy coincides with an individual’s characteristic patterns of behavior. For example. the Cognitive Theory of Stress and Coping (Lazarus & Folkman. so it is not surprising that they tend to engage in problem solving behaviors such as planning (Vollrath. 1984).

rumination. In support of this proposition. 1996). This pattern of appraisal has been associated with an increased use of active coping (Lu & Chen. because of their preventative efforts. 2007). neuroticism. conscientiousness has been associated with reduced stress exposure (Connor-Smith & Flachsbart. Guillemette. Bouchard. and Landry-Leger (2004) found that conscientious individuals tended to appraise stressors as less threatening and were more likely to report having the resources to manage them. conscientiousness has been associated with the ability to focus. High-conscientious individuals tend to be reliable. Additionally. Each personality trait is expected to exhibit a unique pattern of relationships with the coping styles. 2007). they are likely to appraise stressors as manageable and controllable. Conscientiousness is also expected to be negatively related to 21 . positive cognitive restructuring. support seeking. Furthermore. such individuals are likely to engage in coping strategies that involve planning and selfdiscipline. Given that high-conscientious individuals are exposed to fewer stressors and tend to be organized and planful. even when engaged in unpleasant tasks (Connor-Smith & Flachsbart. Thus.Personality and Coping Relationships. because of the behaviors characteristic of conscientiousness. Specifically. 2007). such as problem solving (Connor-Smith & Flachsbart. planful. 2007). high-conscientious individuals are less likely to experience the intrusive thoughts characteristic of rumination and more likely to engage in positive cognitive restructuring (Connor-Smith & Flachsbart. and locus of control – and five coping styles – problem solving. 1992). extraversion. The present study examines four personality variables – conscientiousness. and escape. and dutiful (McCrae & John.

. Vollrath. and negatively related to rumination and escape. Bouchard et al. and venting emotions (e. given that such individuals have the self-discipline to face problems head on. & Jungo. Studies examining the relationship between conscientiousness and coping styles repeatedly report positive relationships with problem solving strategies that involve active. 1994) and the nature of conscientiousness. and a negative relationship between conscientiousness and both negative emotion focus (similar to rumination) and denial (subsumed by the escape coping strategy). Caviezel. rather than avoid the stressor. conscientiousness is expected to be positively related to problem solving and positive cognitive restructuring. in the present study.094). resorting to rumination and escape coping styles instead. 2004. and positive emotionality (Costa 22 . Thus. The proposed relationships have received empirical support. Banholzer. On the other hand. the relationship between conscientiousness and problem solving was among the highest correlations reported in the meta-analysis. In a meta-analysis of 124 studies conducted between 1980 and 2004 (N=33. rational planning and negative relationships with passive maladaptive coping styles such as distancing-avoidance. consistent with past research (Vollrath et al.30. activity. Connor-Smith and Flachsbart (2007) reported a positive relationship between conscientiousness and both problem solving and cognitive restructuring. with a mean correlation of .g. low-conscientious individuals are expected to engage in fewer problem solving behaviors and less positive cognitive restructuring. The second personality variable investigated in the present study. Fischli. Conversely. 1994). includes facets such as warmth.escape behaviors.. disengagement. extraversion. In fact.. 1995. gregariousness. no relationship is expected between conscientiousness and support seeking. Jelinek & Morf.

. are likely to display the opposite pattern of coping. they therefore created the “high confidence” data 23 . extraversion is expected to be positively related to support seeking behaviors. it was significant in the “high confidence” data subset. extraversion has been associated with low stress-reactivity and positive appraisals of coping resources (Bouchard et al. they may be more likely to engage in positive cognitive restructuring and less likely to engage in rumination. 2007). they are likely to engage in active coping (Lu & Chen. 2001). high-extraverts engage in more activity and have higher energy levels. 1985). there is less reason to suspect a link between extraversion and escape behaviors. leading to concerns of coding errors. 1992). Although the relationship between extraversion and negative emotion focus was not significant in the full sample. given that high-extraverts experience positive moods. Finally. Additionally. seeking social support. Connor-Smith & Flachsbart.. Low-extraverted individuals. characterized by studies with coping styles that could be unambiguously coded. 1996). Furthermore. thus.& McCrae. as Connor-Smith and Flachsbart (2007) point out. On the other hand. Because of the positive emotionality component. increased use of engagement coping does not imply decreased use of disengagement coping. 2004). Connor-Smith and Flachsbart’s (2007) meta-analysis reported that extraversion was positively related to problem solving. and cognitive restructuring. researchers have suggested that extraverted individuals are less likely to perceive stressful encounters as threatening (Wayne et al. 2004. Specifically. thus. (The authors were not always able to acquire the coping scale used in the original study. which they may utilize to engage in problem solving behaviors (Vollrath. given that high-extraverts tend to engage in more social interactions (Eysenck & Eysenck. or introverts.

Bouchard et al.subset for comparative purposes. extraversion is expected to be positively related to problem solving.) On the other hand. Additionally. hostile. 2007) and are prone to anxiety and fear responses (Eysenck & Eysenck.g.. Because of their nature. 1995. 1996. 1996). they are more likely to exhibit an escape coping style. 1992). participants high on neuroticism reported greater exposure and reactivity to the stressor of interpersonal conflicts (Bolger & Zuckerman... rather than challenging. and positive cognitive restructuring. Conversely. 1994. or withdrawal. and vulnerable to stress (McCrae & John. Vollrath et al. (2004) found support for this proposition. Watson & Hubbard. similar to the findings of the meta-analysis. high-neurotics are likely to appraise stressors as threatening. extraversion was not significantly related to avoidance. 1992). 1985). negatively related to rumination. one would expect a negative relationship between neuroticism and problem solving behaviors. High-neurotic individuals tend to be anxious. because high-neurotics are less able to deal with stress. support seeking. Such an appraisal pattern makes highneurotics less resistant to stress (Hobfoll. Thus. Vollrath et al. 1995). and unrelated to escape. while emotionally stable individuals (low-neurotics) are described as even tempered and relaxed (Costa & McCrae. As a result of the 24 . denial. Thus. Moreover. as well as the results reported by individual studies (e. Lu & Chen. individuals high on neuroticism tend to experience such negative emotions as worry and anxiety. 1992. along with the notion that high-neurotics are less likely to report having the resources to manage stress. behaviors analogous to the escape coping style. 1996). It is therefore no surprise that they have intense emotional and physical responses to stress (Connor-Smith & Flachsbart. 1989) and less likely to engage in active coping (Lu & Chen. McCrae & John.

because individuals with an internal LOC are likely to 25 . studies consistently report that high-neurotics tend to exhibit denial. While neuroticism is expected to be significantly related to problem solving. Vollrath et al. and escape in the present study. Bolger. 1984.. escapist behaviors. selfdoubt. 1996). in a longitudinal study conducted over six years. 1995.negative emotionality component associated with neuroticism. Several researchers have suggested that locus of control may affect whether a situation is perceived as threatening in the primary appraisal. denial. Neuroticism is one of the most studied personality variables in the coping literature.. no relationship is expected between neuroticism and support seeking. Schan & Abelson. defined as the extent that an individual attributes outcomes of events to internal or external causes (Rotter. Additionally. 1975. positive cognitive restructuring. 1990. and research supports the proposed relationships.g. In particular. Meta-analytic findings are consistent with these results. selfblame.. and negative emotion focus (Connor-Smith & Flachsbart. neuroticism was negatively related to problem solving and cognitive restructuring. specifically. The fourth and final personality variable investigated in the present study is locus of control. Moreover. Watson & Hubbard. Vollrath et al. 2007). 1966). (1995) found that neurotic traits (such as emotional instability. Vollrath et al. it is hypothesized that neuroticism will be positively related to rumination and negatively related to positive cognitive restructuring. and positively related to withdrawal. individuals with an internal locus of control are expected to appraise stressors as less harmful or threatening (Folkman. and insecurity) were negatively related to active coping and planning as well as positive reinterpretation. rumination. Rotter. 1977). and disengagement (e. 1994.

characteristic of rumination. However. Because these studies used broad 26 . because individuals with an external LOC believe that external circumstances are more influential than internal factors. they may be less apt to engage in self-blame. Thus. 1984. far fewer studies have examined the relationship between LOC and coping style. given their beliefs that their actions can affect the outcome. given that they believe that environmental conditions will dictate the outcome. while external LOC individuals are unlikely to have such thoughts. they are likely to engage in active coping (Lu & Chen. conversely. 1991). Petrosky & Birkimer. thereby relying on less effective coping strategies. which is also included in the rumination coping style. There is no reason to expect a relationship between LOC and support seeking. they may experience more negative and worrisome thoughts. external LOC individuals are likely to perceive stressors as uncontrollable and therefore threatening. On the other hand. Internal LOC individuals are likely to engage in self-encouragement.perceive stressors as controllable. 2007. no hypothesis is specified between LOC and rumination. For this reason. 1996). LOC is expected to be related to positive cognitive restructuring. Parkes. Compared to the big five personality variables. Those that have reported a positive relationship between internal LOC and direct/active coping strategies and a negative relationship between internal LOC and avoidance/passive coping strategies (Andreassi. because individuals with an external LOC are likely to feel helpless when dealing with stressors. individuals with an internal LOC are expected to engage in more problem solving and fewer escape behaviors. given their beliefs that their actions are likely to influence the situation. while external LOC individuals are expected to display the opposite pattern of behavior. Furthermore.

in a study of 233 French-Canadian university students. The Relationship between Coping and Strain The previous section focused on the relationship between personality variables and coping styles. as proposed in the present study. however. The first section addresses this notion. Conversely. Although no coping style is universally effective. Individuals may engage in a variety of coping behaviors. For example. they are generally supportive of the notion that internal LOC is likely to relate positively to problem solving and to positive cognitive restructuring and negatively to escape. disengagement. psychosomatic problems were negatively related to active coping and positively related to denial. and venting emotions.categorizations of coping behavior. relying on the conservation of resources model and the spillover model.. Still. disengagement coping and emotion-focused coping tend to have a detrimental effect on one’s health. describing relevant empirical research. this section addresses the relationship between coping and strain. Differential Effectiveness of Coping Styles. use of distancing-avoiding related to increased psychological distress. the last section reviews research on coping and WFC. they provide little insight into the relationship between LOC and more specific coping styles. 2001). The following two sections focus on why certain coping styles may be more effective than others. both concurrently and 27 . in terms of reducing strains in general and work-family conflict in particular. in a study of 217 Swiss high school students. Similarly. research tends to support the utility of problem-focused coping. and primary and secondary control coping in terms of improved physical and mental health outcomes (Compas et al. coping styles are likely to be differentially effective in managing stress. Finally. engagement coping.

The viewpoint among researchers and laypersons alike is that active coping. planning. personal characteristics. To the extent that individuals are able to effectively utilize and/or gain resources. and positive reinterpretation are the most effective. conditions.prospectively (10 weeks later. personal characteristics. Empirical research tends to support this notion. when an individual is under stress. 1999). they are less likely to experience strain following a stressful event.. Additionally. Hobfoll’s (1989) Conservation of Resources Model. Consequently. because studies have examined coping styles from a broad perspective. or energies that are valued by the individual or that serve as means for attainment of these objects. protect. or the lack of expected resource gain following resource expenditure. which encompasses several stress theories. 28 . offers insight into why some coping styles are more effective than others. while avoidance. stress is an environmental reaction to one of three circumstances: the potential net loss of resources. 515). resources are the “single unit necessary for understanding stress” (Hobfoll. one must infer the relationship between more specific coping styles and strain-related outcomes. or energies” (p. a central component of Hobfoll’s (1989) model is that individuals seek to maintain. p. According to the model. and disengagement are the least successful coping strategies (Ben-Zur. and acquire resources. conditions. seeking social support. 2004). denial. the actual net loss of resources. 515). Thus. Hobfoll (1989) defines resources as “those objects. Hobfoll’s (1989) conservation of resources model. 1989. However. Bouchard et al. he/she strives to minimize the net loss of resources by employing resources he/she already possesses or by calling upon any available environmental resources.

519). By focusing on potential gains rather than loses. when applied to work and/or family stressors. Accordingly. the individual is expected to protect valuable resources. Hobfoll (1989) describes social relationships as a resource. problem solving strategies allow the individual to efficiently fulfill his/her work/family demands. Hobfoll (1989) states that “one way individuals may conserve resources is by reinterpreting threat as challenge” (p. In terms of positive cognitive restructuring. rumination may reduce the individual’s energy. In this example. thereby providing him/her with more time and energy (Lapierre & Allen. 1989). thus minimizing work-family conflict. such a positive outlook may reduce the individual’s perceptions of WFC. ruminating thoughts are likely to detract from an individual’s resources. For instance. 2003). provided that they help the individual preserve his/her resources and fulfill situational needs. given that the stressors are perceived as manageable (Rotondo. thereby reducing the resultant strain. Additionally. taking valuable resources away from work and family role obligations. the individual gains the resources of time and energy. individuals who are ill-equipped to gain resources are particularly vulnerable to stress (Hobfoll. & Kincaid. The implications 29 . 2006). Additionally. Hence. Carlson. this coping strategy is likely to be negatively related to WFC. such negative thoughts are counterproductive to solving the problem and are likely taxing to the individual. which he/she can use to effectively manage role obligations. Conversely. Thus.Conversely. the conservation of resources model elucidates why some coping styles may be more or less effective in managing the stress process and reducing the resultant strain. to the extent that individuals engaging in support seeking behaviors receive the constructive help and/or comfort that they require.

Lapierre and Allen (2006) suggest that “failure to meet role demands may potentially threaten the individual’s ability to maintain or gain valued resources. Such research is summarized in a subsequent section. Spillover Model. and specifically on work-family conflict. thus. thereby generating the resources necessary to directly address the problem. it does not necessarily allow for a resource gain. On the one hand. affect. Thus. individuals engaging in escape behaviors do nothing to address the stressor at hand. Work-family spillover involves the transfer of thoughts. may experience higher WFC. Because the stressful event itself is taxing to the individual’s resources (Lazarus & Launier. While disengagement may not require resources. 1978). the spillover model provides further insight into the impact of various coping styles on strain. & Batt.. In support of the spillover model. such as close relationships at home or a promotion at work” (p. the research generally supports the former proposition. experiences in one domain impact experiences in the other domain (Roehling. 2003).” so to speak. The spillover model provides insight into the role of rumination and positive 30 . Furthermore. On the other hand. and behavior between the work and family domains. the result of avoidance may be a net loss of resources.g. Moen. disengagement could provide an opportunity for the individual to “recharge his/her batteries. individuals who escape or avoid work and family stressors. Rotondo et al. In addition to the conservation of resources model. Despite these conflicting hypotheses.of an escape coping strategy are less clear. with researchers reporting a positive relationship between avoidance coping and WFC (e. Williams and Alliger (1994) found that moods. rather than tackling the problem head-on. and thoughts generated in one domain influenced behavior and cognitions in the other domain. 2003).. stress. 172).

Ohsawa. and reactive role definition). Conversely. As suggested by the conservation of resources model and the spillover model. the individual is likely to experience less WFC. structural role redefinition. Additionally. For example. though there are some inconsistent findings.. spillover of thoughts and emotions from one domain to the other. to the extent that this positive emotionality transfers from one domain to the other.cognitive restructuring in the strain process.e. Coping and Work-Family Conflict Relationships. and passive coping tends to be related to higher levels of WFC (see Thompson et al. which was a combination of strategies from Hall’s (1972) three coping types) negatively related to 31 . positive cognitive restructuring involves positive thoughts and affect. the negative thoughts and affect associated with rumination are likely to spillover from one domain to the other. rather than negative.. active. while family role redefinition was positively related to WIF among a sample of 131 Japanese full-time married women. rather than the coping styles examined in the present study. finding that active coping (the dominant coping factor. Specifically. This is likely to exacerbate the extent to which work and family roles interfere with each other. problem-focused coping tends to be related to lower levels of WFC. Kirchmeyer (1993) surveyed Canadian managers. individuals are likely to experience less work-family conflict when they utilize coping strategies that increase their resources and/or allow for the positive. Matsui. results are generally supportive of these propositions. and Onglatco (1995) found that work role redefinition was positively related to FIW. personal role redefinition. Although relatively few researchers have examined the relationship between coping and WFC. However. Specifically. most research on coping and WFC has used Hall’s (1972) typology (i. 2007 for a review).

Andreassi (2007) found no relationship between active coping and work-family conflict. and following a plan of action) and strainbased FIW. including time-based FIW and time.and emotion-focused coping were positively related to WFC among a sample of university faculty (Smoot. though passive coping was positively related to strain-based WFC. (2003) examined four types of coping: direct action. both problem. asking for assistance. though the divergent results may be a function of the broad nature of the coping constructs. In one of the few studies to examine work-family conflict in relation to more specific coping styles.and strain-based WIF. Luk. Lapierre and Allen (2006) reported a negative relationship between problem-focused coping (including such behaviors as prioritizing. help-seeking. WIF. The inconsistent findings between coping and WFC are surprising. Problem-focused coping was unrelated to the other types of WFC investigated. and Lo (1999) found that problemfocused coping. A few studies have examined the relationship between WFC and coping using coping measures not specific to the work-family domain.FIW and positively related to positive spillover. Leung. Similarly. and FIW. but not emotion-focused coping. was significantly related to WIF and FIW. 2005).) Furthermore. which is likely to affect whether/how coping relates to other variables. Furthermore. such as workfamily conflict. Conversely. along with four types of 32 . positive thinking. time-based WFC. (WIF was not examined in Kirchmeyer’s 1993 study. Rotondo et al. coping strategies that involved altering one’s own attitude and increasing personal efficiency were rated as most effective for coping with multiple roles. Researchers often vary in their conceptualizations of active/problem-focused and passive/emotion-focused coping. and avoidance/resignation. Aryee.

avoidance/resignation for work stressors was positively related to strain-based WIF.and strain-based FIW. conversely. participants responded to the coping scale twice: once for managing work stressors and once for managing family stressors.e. 1992). direct action. (2003) did not include rumination. the spillover model.. In terms of positive thinking. Consistent with the domain specificity hypothesis (Frone et al. and a negative relationship between direct action for work stressors and time. and research on coping and other forms of strain. given the conservation of resources model. (2003) reported a negative relationship between help seeking used for family stressors and all types of WFC. and support seeking were negatively related to WFC. a negative relationship between help seeking for work stressors and time. though Rotondo et al. as well as lower strain-based WIF. positive thinking. Another notable finding is that. with some cross-domain relationships. time33 .and strain-based WIF.WFC: time. while avoidance/resignation was positively related to WFC. Finally. coping strategies used for work stressors tended to relate to WIF. Overall. while avoidance/resignation for family stressors was positively related to time-based and strain-based FIW.and strain based WIF and time.. positive thinking for work stressors was negatively related to strainbased WIF only.’s (2003) results are consistent with what one would expect. Rotondo et al. Additionally. while coping strategies used for family stressors tended to relate to FIW. These findings mirror the relationships hypothesized in the present study.and strain-based FIW. while coping styles exhibited relationships with both forms of conflict (i. Rotondo et al. individuals reported lower time.and strain-based FIW. a negative relationship between direct action used for family stressors and all types of WFC. Additionally. when used for family stressors.

and compensation (anticipating a loss of resources and responding with alternative means) at 34 . This was true for both avoidance/resignation and positive thinking. and to keep the number of statistical tests at a reasonable number. In terms of social support. only WIF and FIW are examined. In terms of behavioral strategies. research consistently supports a negative relationship between support at home and work and both WIF and FIW. these findings loosely support the notion that individuals who engage in support seeking coping styles are likely to experience reduced WFC. For this reason. Instead. and a few studies have examined the role of behavioral strategies to reduce WFC. Baltes and Heydens-Gahir (2003) found that use of selection (identifying/setting goals). the present study does not distinguish between the various forms of work-family conflict. While receipt of social support and seeking support are distinct. Aside from these two exceptions. In a metaanalysis of 61 studies. the results between coping styles and workfamily conflict were very similar for time.19 (work support and WIF). a great deal of research has examined the relationship between WFC and social support.11 (family support and WIF) to -. though again. it makes sense that positive thinking would be more effective in reducing strain-based conflict. The null finding between avoidance/resignation for work stressors and time-based WIF is more surprising. Conceptually. Byron (2005) reported weighted means ranging from -.and strain-based). given that positive thinking does not involve active steps to reduce time conflicts. there were more significant findings for strain-based WFC. Finally. compared to time-based conflict. optimization (using means to achieve a goal).and strain-based conflict. the conceptual link between this coping style and strain-based conflict is stronger than that of time-based conflict.

1999). and between coping styles and WIF/FIW. between personality and coping styles. 35 .’s (2003) study. Asking participants how they manage work stressors separately from how they handle family stressors is consistent with the notion that a situationally specific assessment of coping skills provides a more direct and accurate portrayal of individual behavior (Lazarus & Folkman.work and home was negatively related to FIW and WIF.. even though relatively few studies have examined coping and WFC. The present study goes a step further by contending that coping styles mediate the relationship between personality and workfamily conflict. optimization. support seeking. and time management behaviors overlap with problem solving coping strategies. Thus. compensation. 1984). and positive cognitive restructuring are expected to decrease WFC. Similarly. use of time management behaviors had a negative relationship with both WIF and FIW (Adams & Jex. in accordance with the domain specificity model (Frone et al. as well as the conservation of resources and spillover models. Additionally. Consistent with their findings. coping strategies used to manage work stressors are expected to relate to WIF. and coping strategies used to manage family stressors are expected to relate to FIW. is relevant to the present study. Rotondo et al. while rumination and escape are expected to increase WFC. respectively. Coping as a Mediator between Personality and Work-Family Conflict The previous sections underscore the rationale underlying the expected relationships between personality and WIF/FIW. 1992). problem solving. those that have provide important insight. in particular. so the findings in these two studies support the notion that problem solving and WFC are negatively related. Selection.

both researchers proposed coping styles as the mediating variable. 2007. no support was found for mediation. coping. 36 . and work-family conflict were related. First. Similarly. Although such findings are discouraging. This methodology ignores the possibility that coping styles vary by situation. As previously discussed. 1986. both studies had two noteworthy limitations. Smoot.and problem-focused coping as mediators between the big five personality traits and WFC. 2007). WIF.. the present study contributes to the literature by examining specific coping styles. and FIW). Thus. Similar to the present study. in both dissertations. and locus of control and various forms of work-family conflict (time.. 2005). either problem. coping was examined in terms of broad categorizations. two dissertations have addressed this research question (Andreassi. neuroticism. 1984). Lazarus & Folkman. The positive relationship between neuroticism and both strain-based WFC and FIW was mediated by passive coping. as proposed by numerous researchers (e. 2005) or active versus passive coping (Andreassi. but none of the other mediating tests were significant. Smoot (2005) examined emotion. in both dissertations. Using a sample of university faculty. Andreassi (2007) proposed that active and passive coping would mediate the relationship between extraversion. rather than asking participants how they cope with job-related stressors independently from how they cope with family-related stressors.Although very little research has examined the mechanisms by which personality and WFC are related. (2003)..and strain-based WFC. Although personality.g. Folkman et al. Additionally.versus emotion-focused coping (Smoot. such broad distinctions of coping are problematic (see Skinner et al. general coping behaviors were assessed. as advocated by Skinner et al. 2003 for a review).

neuroticism. and locus of control) and two dimensions of work-family conflict (WIF and FIW). Thus. finding stronger support for a mediation model. and escape) as mediators between four personality variables (conscientiousness.e. self-blame and wishful thinking mediated the positive relationship between neuroticism and distress (Bolger. support seeking. The present study addresses these limitations. and coping with family stressors relates to FIW). in a daily diary study of premedical students preparing for the medical school entrance examination. & Maglica. emotion-focused coping partially mediated the relationship between extraversion and physical symptoms. Brown. coping with work stressors relates to WIF. though coping has been studied as both a mediator and a moderator in the relationship between personality and strain. By examining the mechanisms by which personality relates to work-family conflict. and avoidance coping partially mediated the link between neuroticism and physical symptoms (Hudek-Knežević. thereby contributing to the work-family field. 1990). It is also worth noting that a few studies have examined coping as a mediator between personality and other types of strain. (1994) compared both models. it precludes an examination of domain-specific relationships (i.Additionally. and Ballarini (2006) offered tentative support for the mediating role of maladaptive coping in the relationship between asocial and anxious/dramatic personality and psychological distress. 2005). positive cognitive restructuring. Kardum. Vollrath et al. offering some support. extraversion. Ireland. rumination. For example.. including specific 37 . the present study examines five coping styles (problem solving. using a sample of adult male prisoners. Similarly. Finally. Additionally.

and rumination for work stressors (6d) and escape for work stressors (6e) will positively relate to WIF. Internal locus of control will positively relate to problem solving (5a) and to positive cognitive restructuring (5b) and negatively relate to escape (5c). Conscientiousness will positively relate to problem solving (2a) and to positive cognitive restructuring (2b) and negatively relate to rumination (2c) and to escape (2d). Hypotheses Hypothesized relationships are listed below. Appendix A presents a graphical depiction of hypotheses. with green arrows representing proposed positive relationships. Additionally. 6. 1. support seeking for work stressors (6b). Conscientiousness (1a). 2. Problem solving for work stressors (6a). 38 . and neuroticism (1d) will positively relate to WIF and to FIW.measures of coping styles. extraversion (1b). Extraversion will positively relate to problem solving (3a). and internal locus of control (1c) will negatively relate to WIF and to FIW. 4. the present study offers a unique contribution to the work-family literature. to support seeking (3b). 3. 5. and examining the process from a domain-specific perspective. Neuroticism will negatively relate to problem solving (4a) and to positive cognitive restructuring (4b) and positively relate to rumination (4c) and to escape (4d). and red arrows denoting proposed negative relationships. and positive cognitive restructuring for work stressors (6c) will negatively relate to WIF. and to positive cognitive restructuring (3c) and negatively relate to rumination (3d).

The relationship between extraversion and WIF will be mediated by coping styles used for managing work stressors. 11. rumination (8c). support seeking for family stressors (7b). Problem solving for family stressors (7a). The relationship between conscientiousness and FIW will be mediated by coping styles used for managing family stressors. 10. The relationship between conscientiousness and WIF will be mediated by coping styles used for managing work stressors. including: problem solving (12a). positive cognitive restructuring (8b). and rumination (10d). 12. 39 . The relationship between neuroticism and WIF will be mediated by coping styles used for managing work stressors. The relationship between neuroticism and FIW will be mediated by coping styles used for managing family stressors. rumination (9c). and escape (8d). including: problem solving (8a). and escape (13d). and rumination for family stressors (7d) and escape for family stressors (7e) will positively relate to FIW. including: problem solving (10a). and escape (12d). and escape (9d). 8. positive cognitive restructuring (12b). and rumination (11d). including: problem solving (11a). positive cognitive restructuring (13b). including: problem solving (13a). The relationship between extraversion and FIW will be mediated by coping styles used for managing family stressors. 9. support seeking (11b). positive cognitive restructuring (11c). and positive cognitive restructuring for family stressors (7c) will negatively relate to FIW.7. rumination (12c). rumination (13c). positive cognitive restructuring (9b). positive cognitive restructuring (10c). including: problem solving (9a). support seeking (10b). 13.

and escape (14c). 15.14. and escape (15c). positive cognitive restructuring (15b). positive cognitive restructuring (14b). including: problem solving (14a). including: problem solving (15a). The relationship between locus of control and FIW will be mediated by coping styles used for managing family stressors. 40 . The relationship between locus of control and WIF will be mediated by coping styles used for managing work stressors.

Because personality ratings were provided by spouses/significant others. the inclusion criteria were modified slightly. participants had to be either married or living with a significant other. a 41 .0 percent. Participants also had to be employed for pay for at least 20 hours a week. participants are typically only included if they are working at least 20 hours a week and are either married. In total.837). Girl Scouts. and 27 individuals responded that they did not meet the study’s inclusion criteria. resulting in an estimated response rate of 19. whom he/she had been dating for at least one year. However. 1. in order to participate. recruitment emails were sent to friends.Chapter Two Method Participants In work-family conflict research. living with a partner. PTA. Specifically. including Boy Scouts. the vast majority of which were to members of SIOP (N = 1. Participants were recruited via a snowball approach in which potential participants were contacted via email and asked to participate in the study and/or forward the survey link to interested individuals. In the present study. or a parent with a child living at home. Fifty-two emails were returned as undeliverable. and the Society for Industrial-Organizational Psychology (SIOP). family members. as well as members of various organizations. and acquaintances of the principal investigator.999 emails were sent. Three hundred and forty-nine participants filled out part or all of the survey.

6 percent had a doctoral degree. 1. 37.6%). and the number of emails that were forwarded to potential participants.3 percent were female. 32 had a substantial amount of missing data (more than 30 percent). 14. with 46. Four participants indicated a race of “other. did not have primary care giving responsibilities for an elderly relative (93. These 51 individuals were dropped from analysis.5%).determination of the “true” response rate is difficult. 4. 2. given the uncertainty in the number of emails that were never received.6 percent having at least one child living at home at the time the survey was completed.2%). 1.7 percent had a college degree. Of the 204 spouse/significant other participants.4 percent Asian or Pacific Islander.0 percent Black or African American. 62. Of the 204 primary participants.5 percent Hispanic or Mexican American. and .6%).5 percent American Indian or Alaskan Native.” While 85.9 percent Asian or Pacific Islander. Significant otherratings of personality were provided for 204 of the 298 participants (68. the sample size used to test study hypotheses was 204.2 percent White/Caucasian. Thus.5 percent Black or African American.000 or higher (73. and 2. with a race/ethnicity breakdown of 89. with a race/ethnicity breakdown of 90. One participant indicated a race of “other.7 percent were female. 4.7 percent had a master’s degree. resulting in 298 participants. and reported a household income of $100.5 percent had attended some college.0 percent had a high school degree. 2.0 percent Hispanic or Mexican American. 13. Approximately 60 percent of the sample had at least one child. and 67.” In terms of education. Of the 349 individuals who filled out the survey. and 19 did not meet the inclusion criteria. The majority of the sample was married (91.8 percent of the significant other sample was employed for 42 . the number of participants who were ineligible to participate.2 percent White/Caucasian. 2.

73 10. extraversion.96 .5 24 Obs. The Big Five Inventory (BFI) was used to measure conscientiousness. Scales are provided in Appendices B. and Neuroticism.90 46. Extraversion.11 204 4. Thus.17 1.5 68 203 204 204 201 40. 14. Descriptive Statistics of Demographic Variables Variable Primary Participants Age Tenure (years) Work Time (hrs/wk) # Children at Home N M SD Obs.51 7. D. rather than single adjective items. and Kentle (1991). Table 1. Developed by John.85 10.32 1 Responsibility for Dependents Index (Rothausen. and E. and neuroticism. Big Five Personality Variables: Conscientiousness. the BFI is a brief inventory that relies on short phrases.08 20 0 0 1. 68 40 80 6 24 46. 22 .41 Significant Other Participants Age 200 41. C.09 10. BFI items “retain the advantages of adjectival items (brevity and simplicity) while 43 .76 RFD Index1 Relationship Length (years) 204 14.52 5.95 10. and alpha coefficients for each scale are provided in Table 4. Min. Max.93 6. Additional demographic information for both the primary participants and the significant others is presented in Table 1. Donahue.pay.2 percent were unemployed or full-time homemakers. 1999) Measures Scores were calculated by averaging item responses.

and neuroticism were collected.90 (John & Srivastava. 1999). the BFI was chosen over the IPIP scale. Ashton. Johnson. 2006). 1999. It is also worth noting another readily available personality inventory – the 50-item measure of the big five personality factors available from the International Personality Item Pool (IPIP. the items do not tap several facets of interest. Cloninger.80 to . Eber. high alpha reliabilities. p. the extraversion items assess an individual’s sociability. The BFI scales demonstrate convergent and discriminant validity. both self. & Gough. 115). the BFI was selected for the present study. p. Responses to the personality items were on a five-point Likert-type scale that ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).avoiding some of their pitfalls (ambiguous or multiple meanings and salient desirability)” (John & Srivastava. Thus. For example. Correlations between 44 . Given that these aspects of extraversion are important in the present study. “represent the best-validated Big Five measures in the questionnaire tradition” (John & Srivastava. and three-month test-retest reliabilities ranging from . Although this scale has been used frequently in the field (Goldberg et al. 2006). the NEO questionnaires. and “Worries a lot” (neuroticism). extraversion.. 1999.and significant other-ratings of conscientiousness. Sample items are as follows: “Does things efficiently” (conscientiousness). Goldberg. but items measuring one’s positive emotionality and activity levels are lacking. 115). the BFI is optimal when participant time is limited. The BFI conscientiousness scale includes nine items. in order to minimize survey length. Although another set of personality scales. “Is full of energy” (extraversion). while the extraversion and neuroticism scales are each comprised of eight items. Hogan. To minimize common method variance.

and spouse-ratings for conscientiousness.63 between self.32) or extraversion (t(203) = -1. were examined for comparative purposes.01.14.91 for self-ratings.79 to . The Personal Control Scale is a subscale of the Spheres of Control Scale.and significant other-ratings of conscientiousness (t(203) = . such as low internal consistency of the Personal Control subscale.46 for neuroticism. self-ratings of personality. While there was no significant mean difference between self. and neuroticism. and .and partner-reports of personality were moderate to high in magnitude. significant other-ratings of neuroticism tended to be higher than self-ratings (t(203) = -3.and partnerratings of personality. To assess locus of control. addressed limitations of the original scale. as 45 .80 for the revised subscale. McCrae.and spouse-ratings of personality.74 for extraversion. Locus of Control. reporting uncorrected correlations of . Previous researchers have reported similar correlations between self. Additionally.self. For example. hypotheses were tested with partner-ratings of conscientiousness. Alpha coefficients ranged from . p < . Stone. and . The original scale was published by Paulhus and Christie (1981) but has since been revised. which is designed to assess components of perceived control. ranging from . Paulhus and Van Selst’s (1990) Personal Control Scale was used. Fagan. published in Paulhus and Van Selst (1990).57. respectively (Mutěn.87 for significant other-report and from .62. and neuroticism.and partner-reported neuroticism was . extraversion. The correlation between self. and Costa (1998) compared self. Paulhus and Van Selst (1990) report an alpha reliability of . as well as the average of self.86 and 2.49 for conscientiousness. 1991). extraversion.20).and significant other-ratings. Ms = 2. . . The revised scale.68 for extraversion. In the present study.46 for conscientiousness to .71).70. Another study reported correlations of .84 to .

’s (2003) review of the literature. and it is unclear whether significant others can accurately gauge the extent that their husbands/wives would endorse an internal versus external LOC. As such. the Personal Control Scale is moderately correlated with other measures of LOC (e.. the Ways 46 . the scale is significantly longer. and avoidance/resignation (based on Havlovic & Keenan’s. there is no existing coping scale that includes the five specific dimensions of coping examined here. with 29 items. Although Rotter’s (1966) I-E Scale is used more frequently in the literature. Parkes & Razavi. Thus. significant others did not provide ratings of locus of control. though several scales measure similar and/or overlapping constructs. rather than an existing taxonomy. Mitchelson. 1966. A sample item is “My major accomplishments are entirely due to my hard work and ability. The coping styles examined in the present study were selected based on Skinner et al.59 for the original subscale.70.’s (2003) study had four dimensions: direct action. Furthermore. Unlike the other three personality variables investigated in the present study. and the test-retest reliability at four weeks is . the coping scale used in Rotondo et al. 1981.g. Similarly. Rotter. Nguyen. 2004). for the purposes of brevity. Locus of control represents an individual’s internal beliefs. Levenson. the scale has been used numerous times in the literature to assess locus of control (e.90 (Paulhus.compared to . 1991 scale). positive thinking.. 2000. Dittmann. 1983). Moreover. Burns. For example. help seeking. The alpha coefficient was . as reported in Paulhus & Van Selst. Coping Styles.” Participants responded on a five-point Likert-type scale that ranged from 1 (totally inaccurate) to 5 (totally accurate).g. the Paulhus and Van Selst (1990) scale was used in the present study. 1990).

The initial coping scales included between eight and 10 items per coping style. living with a significant other. Therefore. a pilot study was conducted with eighty-six undergraduate students who were employed for pay and were either married. Thus. 2000. the COPE (Carver. confrontive coping. and participants were asked to respond to each item twice: once in terms of coping with work stressors and once in terms of coping with family/home stressors. use of emotional social support. 1980. including active coping. or a parent with a child living at home. “I talk to someone about how I 47 . Folkman & Lazarus. A subset of the initial coping items were selected for the present study on the basis of a factor analysis. 1986. seeking social support. Havlovic & Keenan. positive reinterpretation and growth. 1980. & Wadsworth..of Coping scale (Folkman & Lazarus.. and mental disengagement. and convergent/discriminant validity evidence. Folkman et al. planning. Another popular coping measure. 1991. 1989. none provide an exact match. Although existing scales include taxonomies similar to the one examined in the present study. The selected coping items are provided in Appendix D. Saffrey & Ehrenberg. numerous coping scales have conceptualized coping in slightly different ways. & Weintraub. 1986) includes scales for planful problem solving. use of instrumental social support. To guide the final selection of items. reliability analysis. Folkman et al. Sample items are as follows: “I make a plan of action” for problem solving. Participants also responded to personality and work-family conflict items. 1989) is comprised of 15 scales. and escape-avoidance. Scheier.. Connor-Smith. 2007) to develop a new measure. positive reappraisal. the present study used items from existing coping scales (Carver et al. behavioral disengagement. Compas. focus on and venting of emotions.

After deleting these two items. confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to assess model fit.72 to .17 for coping with family.90 for coping with family stressors. which included four items.51 versus .64 versus .82 for coping with family). Because of the relatively small 48 . with the exception of escape. However.76 versus .33 for coping with work and . resulting in a four-item scale for problem solving and a three-item scale for escape. “I think about every single detail of the event over and over again” for rumination. problem solving: . including the first escape item (“I hope a miracle will happen”) and the fourth problem solving item (“I try to work harder and more efficiently”).44 for coping with family).86 for coping with work stressors and . Thus. problem solving: . two of the items. the corrected item-total correlations were in the low to moderate range (escape: .63 to . and “I try to forget the whole thing” for escape. “I tell myself that everything will be alright” for positive cognitive restructuring.80 for coping with work and . the alpha coefficients ranged from . Specifically. Responses were on a five-point Likert-type scale that ranged from 1 (very rarely) to 5 (very often).64 for coping with work and . Participants were asked to respond to each coping item twice: once for coping with work stressors and once for coping with family stressors.09 for coping with work and . Additionally.feel” for support seeking.77 for coping at family. the initial alpha coefficients increased by deleting the two items (escape: .79 versus . using the PROC CALIS program within SAS 9. Because the coping scales were not psychometrically established and wellvalidated measures.1. these two items were dropped from analysis. The coping scales used in the present study initially included five items per coping style. exhibited poor itemtotal statistics.

RMSEA values around . Thus.05 or less indicate a good fit for the model. while values between . values less than 2 are often considered acceptable. positive cognitive restructuring. because support seeking is frequently divided into two factors (i.08 are generally considered acceptable (Browne & 49 . instrumental and emotional). while the last two items were considered emotional support seeking (e.e. including sample size and model complexity. CFI.sample size given the large number of items and parameters to be estimated. a one-factor model was also examined for comparative purposes. and it is important to consider other factors as well when assessing model fit. coping with work items were analyzed separately from coping with family items. Across all tested models. a six-factor model was tested as well. and escape being specified as factors. Moreover. the convergence criterion was satisfied.05 and .g. Small. I talk to someone about how I feel). Additionally. non significant chi-square values indicate that the model fits the data. while values of .g. and chi-square difference tests are presented in Table 3. A five-factor model was examined. I talk to someone who could do something concrete about the problem). Goodness of fit indices are provided in Table 2. the adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI)..95 or greater indicate good fit. and AGFI values of . rumination. Finally. the non-normed fit index (NNFI). and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). However. support seeking. Other goodness of fit indices include the comparative fit index (CFI). One criteria is the chi-square/df ratio..90 or greater are considered acceptable fit. with problem solving. chi-square values are influenced by several factors other than model fit.. The first three support seeking items were considered instrumental support seeking (e. a model may fit the data well yet have a significant chi-square value. NNFI.

29 0. respectively).and six-factor model was particularly strong for coping with work.40 to 16.Cudeck. 7. The average standard loading was .72 for coping with family.86 p< 0.92 AGFI 0. 1993. the six-factor model fit the data best for both coping with work and coping with family.37 and .94 NNFI 0.41 435.91 0.06 0. 1999.83 382. Hu & Bentler.13 df 209 199 194 209 199 194 χ2/df 4.50 (cognitive restructuring #3 and #4 = .06 CFI 0.50 0. only two values were less than . indicating the importance of differentiating between instrumental and emotional support seeking for coping with work-related stressors.31 544. For both coping with work and coping with family.80 0.32 to 17. Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Coping Items: Goodness of Fit Indices Model 1 Factor 5 Factor 6 Factor 1 Factor 5 Factor 6 Factor χ2 1030. all t-values were significant (p < .93 2.97 9.91 0.07 0.74 1.90 0.19 1. The improvement in fit between the five. and only one value was less than .84 0.08 0. T-values and standardized estimates of each path were also examined.17 0.47. the confirmatory factor analysis results provide support for the validity of the coping scale used in the present study. Kline.41 0.28 361.86 Coping with Work Stressors Coping with Family Stressors .01 0.43 0.01 0.02 2.89 0. For coping with work.01. As Tables 2 and 3 indicate.36 0. Table 2.47). Overall. 1998).50 for coping with family (cognitive restructuring #2 = .01 0.01 50 RMSEA 0.85 0. range: 5.01 0.14 0.35 0.67 for coping with work and .36 for coping with work. 1998.76 1885. The standardized loadings were moderate to high as well.21 for coping with family).83 0.81 0.01 0.

responses were on a five-point Likert-type scale that ranged from 1 (very rarely) to 5 (very often). Gender and age were included as potential 51 . Potential control variables that were collected include gender.01 0.” while a sample FIW item is “Familyrelated strain interferes with my ability to perform job-related duties. A sample WIF item includes “The demands of my work interfere with my home and family life. internal consistency.89 for FIW.’s (1996) WIF and FIW scales were used.and strain-based conflict. 5 Factor 1 vs.01 0. 6 Factor 5 vs. age.” The items in this scale represent a mixture of time. In the present study.28 74. (1996) offer support for the validity of the two scales. Alpha coefficients were . 5 Factor 1 vs. each of which is composed of five items.48 647. significant other’s employment status. number of children living at home.01 0.07 10 15 5 0. Netemeyer et al. 6 Factor Coping with Family Stressors 1 vs. Netemeyer et al. measurement invariance.14 10 15 5 0.01 0. including the scales’ dimensionality.01 ∆ χ2 ∆ df p< Work-Family Conflict. Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Coping Items: Chi Square Difference Test Model Comparison Coping with Work Stressors 1 vs. consistent with the majority of research on work-family conflict. 6 Factor 1450. work hours. Demographics/Control Variables. and whether the participant had primary care giving responsibilities for an elderly relative.55 162. and convergent/discriminant validity. 6 Factor 5 vs.14 1524.90 for WIF and .Table 3.01 485. household income.

. Specifically. Endler and Parker (1990) found that women tended to use emotion-focused coping more often than men. Kato & Pedersen. 2003). though findings are inconsistent (e. Age differences in coping style have been reported as well (e. and/or work more hours each week are likely to experience higher levels of WFC than those who have fewer children/caregiving responsibilities and/or work fewer hours. In addition to number of children living at home. Blanchard-Fields.. Blanchard-Fields et al. For example. individuals who have more children living at home. 52 .control variables for hypotheses in which coping is the dependent variable. given that some studies have found differences in choice of coping style across gender and age. and older children are given a smaller weight. Haren & Mitchell. the RFD index is a weighted sum of the number of children living at home. (1989) found that women reported greater use of focusing on/venting emotions and seeking social support. Stein. Heiman.g. 2005). Other studies have reported age differences as well (e. was calculated as well. (2004) found that middle-aged adults used more proactive emotion-regulation strategies and fewer passive emotionregulation strategies than older adults. and Carver et al. while men reported increased likelihood of using alcohol and drugs as a coping mechanism. 2004. 1999). Specifically. control variables typically include factors likely to affect the individual’s work and/or family demands. & Watson. In terms of work-family conflict.g. Specifically. an index that statistically combines the number and age of dependents according to level of responsibility (Rothausen. Responsibility for Dependents (RFD). while Heiman (2004) found that older participants reported more task-oriented coping and less emotional coping as compared to younger participants. have primary caregiving responsibilities for an elder relative. whereby younger children are weighted more heavily. 2004).g..

Kinnunen & Mauno.Although the majority of work-family research focuses solely on the number of children living at home and/or the age of the youngest child living at home. Asian or Pacific Islander. White/Caucasian. Byron. 1991. Household income and significant other’s employment status are also likely to affect work/family demands indirectly by providing the individual with the resources to manage WFC. creating a “second shift” for employed women (Hochschild & Machung. 1998). and the control variables listed above are frequently included in work-family studies. household income. number of children living at home. Participants were asked to identify themselves as American Indian or Alaskan Native. Gender is also frequently included as a control variable. Additional demographic information was collected as well.g. age.. those with a high household income may hire a cleaning service. Searle. other studies have found significant relationships (e. Black or African American. For example. 2003). 2005). Although research linking demographic variables to WFC has been inconsistent. the Responsibility for Dependents index provides a more thorough assessment by considering the age of each child.. Gutek. gender. thereby reducing demands in the family realm. with researchers frequently reporting null findings (e. Similarly. having a full-time homemaker as a significant other may reduce family demands as well. Hispanic or 53 .and household-related responsibilities often disproportionately fall on the woman’s shoulders. given that family. However. work hours. each variable was only included if it related to the dependent variable in question.g. Thus. & Klepa. and significant other’s employment status were included in the present study as potential control variables. Non Hispanic.

Upon completion of the survey. and a debriefing page was displayed. they were asked to forward the email to other interested individuals. Emails included a link to a website with survey instructions and informed consent. if willing. Each significant other was provided with the six to eight digit code generated by his/her significant other and instructed to enter the code in the beginning of the survey. Education. instructed that participation is voluntary. and length of relationship with significant other were also included. as well as a unique six to eight digit code (generated by the participant) to link the self and significant other responses. Significant others were sent reminder emails approximately two weeks after the initial email if they had not yet completed the survey. Participants were also provided with the option of receiving a paper version of the survey via postal mail. participants were instructed to submit their responses electronically. and gender. and two participants elected this option. were 54 . Significant others were asked basic demographic questions. Procedure Participants were contacted via email and asked to participate voluntarily in the study.Mexican American. Additionally. though they filled out hard copies of study materials. organizational tenure. These participants followed a similar procedure. Those who chose to continue were directed to the webpage with survey items. and provided with a link to their version of the survey. assuring participants that their responses would be confidential and anonymous. race/ethnicity. or other. including age. Significant others were contacted via email as well. Each participant was asked to provide his/her significant other’s email address so that the primary investigator could send him/her a similar survey (for another source of personality ratings).

55 . In order to link the two sources of data (self and significant other). and were provided with an envelope/prepaid postage for mailing studying materials back.asked to manually give their significant other the survey. The identification numbers were unrelated to participant data but rather generated randomly to protect the anonymity of the participants. hard copies of surveys were marked with a code number.

p < . including sample size. Before conducting the primary analyses.01). Ms = 4.29).95). while they reported similar use of emotional support seeking (t(203) = -.64). participants tended to use problem solving (t(203) = 2. p < . rumination (t(203) = -.04 and 3. p < . Scatterplots of variable pairs were inspected to test the assumptions of linearity and homoscedasticity. mean.77.55) across domains. the data were inspected to determine whether any regression assumptions had been violated.37 and 3. thus. t(202) = 15.60.79). The first assumption of regression.12. observed minimum/maximum.90) than FIW (M = 2. Ms = 3. and positive cognitive restructuring (t(202) = 4.05. The graphs did not indicate that non-linear relationships were present. Additionally.Chapter Three Results Preliminary Analyses Descriptive statistics for each study variable.05. the variance of the 56 . standard deviation.61.45 and 3. and alpha coefficient. this assumption was assumed to be met. instrumental support seeking (t(203) = 2. are provided in Table 4. The study design provides no reason to suppose that the responses of the primary participants depended upon each other. and escape (t(203) = -1. Additionally.18) more with work than with family stressors. is a methodological question. independence.01.01. participants reported higher levels of WIF (M = 2. Consistent with past research. Intercorrelations between study variables are provided in Table 5. Ms = 3. p < .

86 .00 1.93 .37 2. Descriptive Statistics of Study Variables Variable Personality: Self-Report Conscientiousness Extraversion Neuroticism Internal Locus of Control Personality: Significant Other-Report Conscientiousness Extraversion Neuroticism Coping Style with Work Stressors Problem Solving Support Seeking (Instrumental) Support Seeking (Emotional) Cognitive Restructuring Rumination Escape Coping Style with Family Stressors Problem Solving Support Seeking (Instrumental) Support Seeking (Emotional) Cognitive Restructuring Rumination Escape Work-Family Conflict WIF FIW 204 203 5 5 .75 5.50 .74 .70 .78 .29 3.80 204 204 204 204 204 204 4 3 2 5 5 3 . Obs.91 .78 .00 5.00 204 204 204 203 204 204 4 3 2 5 5 3 .87 .04 3.00 5.00 5.56 1.71 4.80 4.13 .86 .89 .25 1.79 .83 1.95 3.00 4.60 .13 1.07 3.89 2.45 3.67 2.90 .78 .86 .65 .18 2.00 5.88 1.00 2.00 1.00 5.00 1.75 1.86 .90 . Max.00 5.11 1.80 .82 .Table 4.43 3.77 2.72 .35 2.40 5.43 2.77 3.40 2.00 1. Min.00 1.80 1.00 1.00 204 204 204 9 8 8 .01 .00 204 204 204 204 9 8 8 10 .00 4.77 .00 5. Note: All variables are measured on a five-point scale 57 .80 .00 1.90 2.00 4.05 .00 1.13 5.84 .06 3.99 .87 .60 .78 2.70 4.87 4.00 5.84 .59 .82 .00 5.47 3.63 .00 5.00 4.00 5.79 1.00 5.40 1.38 1.00 N # of Items α M SD Obs.77 .64 4.00 5.

00 .07 .Table 5.46** .22** -. Restructure (w) 12 Rumination (w) 13 Escape (w) 14 Problem Solving (f) 15 Support Seeking .21** .15* . 3Yes=1.00 --.12 .20** .14* -.29** -.05 -.01 .01 -.01 .03 -.08 .04 -.06 -.01 -.06 -.03 .12 -.28** .09 -.36** .05 -.24** .02 -.24** .10 -.24** .17* .18** -.3 -.11 .23** -.09 .04 -.14* -.11 -.E (w) 11 Cog.09 .68** -.30** -.E (f) 17 Cog.24** -.15* -.31** .26** -.04 .16* -.05 .02 .18* .29** .03 -.04 -.07 -.02 --. **p<.03 -.39** .12 .02 -.23** .14* -.01 -.01 -.31** .21** -.07 -.12 -.15* -.10 .01 .08 -.22** .04 .31** -.23** .21** .07 . Restructure (f) 18 Rumination (f) 19 Escape (f) 20 WIF 21 FIW 22 Gender 23 Age 24 Work Time 25 Household Income 26 SO Employment 28 RFD 4 3 1.17* .05 .31** .30** -. Ns ranged from 191 to 204 1 SO=Significant other.09 .00 .06 .20** -.17* .08 27 # Children at Home 29 Elder Care *p<.16* .06 .09 -.05 -.23** -.29** -.05 .10 -.14* .02 -.03 .62** -.00 -.15* .05 -.58** .05. No=0.04 -.16* .09 -.19** .18* -.24** .19** .19** -.06 2 2 --.21** -.I (f) 16 Support Seeking .24** -.03 10 Support Seeking .03 -.11 -.05 3 4 5 6 7 Conscientiousness (self) Extraversion (self) Neuroticism (self) Internal LOC (self) Conscientiousness (SO)1 Extraversion (SO)1 Neuroticism (SO)1 Problem Solving (w) Support Seeking . 4Responsibility for Dependents Index 58 .04 .02 .26** .01.19** .05 .02 .39** .55** .18* .22** .06 .13 .09 -.16* -.05 .08 .23** -.11 . 2Male=1.00 .00 .00 -. Intercorrelations among Study Variables Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 -.13 .02 .21** -.I (w) --.06 .12 -.07 -.04 -.07 -.05 .16* .13 .05 -.14* .16* .04 .18* . Female=0.01 .09 -.05 .09 .09 .10 .28** .05 .01 -.06 -.07 -.19** -.24** -.04 -.20** .07 -.11 -.49** .

09 .12 2 -.10 -.33** -.09 -.45** -.06 .10 -.09 .07 .10 -.24** -.14* -.05 -.09 -.02 .28** .03 .16* -.E (w) -.15* -.05.63** .22** -.31** . No=0.09 11 Cog.01 .15* .07 -.09 .02 -.03 -.11 .3 .34** .21** .11 --.I (w) .01 .12 .12 --.07 .01.Table 5 (Continued) Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Conscientiousness (self) Extraversion (self) Neuroticism (self) Internal LOC (self) Conscientiousness (SO)1 Extraversion (SO)1 Neuroticism (SO)1 Problem Solving (w) -Support Seeking .70** .45** -.03 .25** .14 -.05 .36** .01 .11 .14 .00 -.18* -.21* .21** .01 .05 .00 . 3Yes=1.33** -. Restructure (w) 12 Rumination (w) 13 Escape (w) 14 Problem Solving (f) 15 Support Seeking .03 -.64** -.19** -.09 -.59** .20** .09 .13 .12 -.13 .00 .05 -.26** -.00 -.04 .05 .28** .10 . Female=0.06 -.24** .37** .03 -.08 .32** -. 2Male=1.02 -.03 .11 -.10 .10 .17* .04 .07 -.16* -.24** .24** -.03 .E (f) 17 Cog.02 -.14 -.15* -.18* -.36** .21** -.08 -.16* .42** .56** .01 .04 -. 4Responsibility for Dependents Index 59 .16* -.03 -.02 .11 -.11 -.02 .11 -.06 -.06 .00 .21** -. Restructure (f) 18 Rumination (f) 19 Escape (f) 20 WIF 21 FIW 22 Gender 23 Age 24 Work Time 25 Household Income 26 SO Employment 28 RFD 4 3 1. Ns ranged from 191 to 204 1 SO=Significant other.10 .43** .I (f) 16 Support Seeking .16* .37** -.20** .01 .03 -.03 27 # Children at Home 29 Elder Care *p<.04 10 Support Seeking .25** .06 -. **p<.

13 -.17* -.33** .17* .I (f) 16 Support Seeking .18* .09 -.14* -.37** -. **p<.03 .17* .01 .09 -. 3Yes=1.23** .47** .26** -.3 2 -.07 -.11 -.01.06 .01 .08 --.00 -.02 .03 .09 .13 -.09 -.13 .02 .14* -.02 .05 .52** .04 .08 .02 -. Restructure (f) 18 Rumination (f) 19 Escape (f) 20 WIF 21 FIW 22 Gender 23 Age 24 Work Time 25 Household Income 26 SO Employment 28 RFD 4 3 1. Restructure (w) 12 Rumination (w) 13 Escape (w) 14 Problem Solving (f) 15 Support Seeking .18* .31** .19** -.07 -.07 .07 -.01 .E (w) 11 Cog.07 -.19** .00 .27** -.29** .06 -.05 -.17* -.11 -.10 -. Ns ranged from 191 to 204 1 SO=Significant other.27** -.08 --.05 -. Female=0.02 -.E (f) 17 Cog.08 -.02 .02 .12 -.15* .10 -. 4Responsibility for Dependents Index 60 .59** .20** -.05 -.39** -.13 .01 .02 .07 -. No=0.05.I (w) 10 Support Seeking . 2Male=1.09 .06 .05 27 # Children at Home 29 Elder Care *p<.12 .12 .01 .03 -.Table 5 (Continued) Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Conscientiousness (self) Extraversion (self) Neuroticism (self) Internal LOC (self) Conscientiousness (SO)1 Extraversion (SO)1 Neuroticism (SO)1 Problem Solving (w) Support Seeking .

05 -.21** -.03 .18* --.05.01 -.06 27 # Children at Home 29 Elder Care *p<. Restructure (w) 12 Rumination (w) 13 Escape (w) 14 Problem Solving (f) 15 Support Seeking .E (w) 11 Cog.98** -. Restructure (f) 18 Rumination (f) 19 Escape (f) 20 WIF 21 FIW 22 Gender 23 Age 24 Work Time 25 Household Income 26 SO Employment 28 RFD 4 3 1.03 -.14 -.15* .02 --. **p<.E (f) 17 Cog.02 -.18* -. Ns ranged from 191 to 204 1 SO=Significant other. No=0.I (f) 16 Support Seeking .11 .27** -.07 .18** -. 2Male=1.01 -.Table 5 (Continued) Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Conscientiousness (self) Extraversion (self) Neuroticism (self) Internal LOC (self) Conscientiousness (SO)1 Extraversion (SO)1 Neuroticism (SO)1 Problem Solving (w) Support Seeking .3 2 -.17* -.16* .16* .01.16* .25** .I (w) 10 Support Seeking . 3Yes=1.07 -.08 --.14 -. Female=0. 4Responsibility for Dependents Index 61 .16* -.01 -.

given that linear regression is fairly robust with respect to the normality assumption. Two individuals had extreme scores for work hours.05 was used for all analyses. For the most part. supporting the assumption of homoscedasticity. defined as data points falling more than three times the interquartile range away from the upper or lower quartile. To preserve power. were kurtotic. An alpha level of . The data were also assessed for normality and outliers. the Sobel test was also used to test the mediation hypotheses. For each equation. Hypotheses 8 through 15 involve mediation and were tested following Baron and Kenny’s (1986) three-step procedure. Hypothesis Testing Hypotheses 1 through 7 were tested with zero-order correlations as well as with regression to determine whether relationships differed with and without control variables. These values are plausible and were thus kept in the data set.independent variables appeared relatively constant across all levels of the dependent variable. followed by the control variable(s) related to the dependent variable. skewness and kurtosis values were computed. Box plots were examined for extreme outliers. including locus of control and number of children living at home. and histograms and box plots were graphed. Specifically. independent variables were entered first. reporting working an average of 80 hours per week. it was deemed unnecessary to normalize the data. the skewness and kurtosis values were small (less than one). When sufficient support was found. and number of children living at home and the Responsibility for Dependents index were positively skewed. A few variables. Of the potential control variables for work62 . control variables were chosen based on their relationship with the dependent variable (DV) of interest. However.

p < .01). Given the nature of the RFD index. was related to instrumental (work: r = -. 63 .05. Number of children at home (r = . p < .01. participants with more children living at home.family conflict.05). given that it takes into account the age of each child living at home.31. p < .17. p < . Gender.39. cognitive restructuring. as well as the average of self.01) support seeking and to rumination (work: r = -. but it was not significantly related to any of the coping styles. unless otherwise specified. in addition to the overall number.33.and significant other-ratings. extraversion. and escape were tested with zero-order correlations only. the Responsibility for Dependents (RFD) index (r = . and neuroticism were used.01. both for work and for family stressors.21. p < . were examined as well.01). For hypotheses involving personality. Thus. The RFD index was chosen as a control variable over number of children at home. Neither potential control variable was significantly related to the other coping styles. p < . These results are provided in Appendix F. p < . and/or an employed significant other tended to experience higher levels of FIW. Only self-ratings of internal locus of control were collected. for comparative purposes.05).01) and to emotional (work: r = -. However. Age was included as a potential control variable for the coping variables. there was a high correlation between RFD and number of children at home (r = . family: r = -. Specifically. significant other-ratings of conscientiousness.15.27. p < . so hypotheses involving problem solving. gender was entered as a control variable for analyses in which support seeking or rumination was the dependent variable. family: r = -. p < . p < . on the other hand.98).17. only work time related to WIF (r = . a higher RFD index. family: r = -. females reported using these coping styles more frequently than men.01).37.45. self-ratings. and significant other’s employment status related to FIW (r = .

09. across both sources of ratings.01. respectively) or with FIW (rs = .09.05. -.01.24. Thus. βs = . Hypotheses 2 through 5 predicted that conscientiousness. and internal locus of control were not significantly correlated with WIF (rs = -. p < . -.and significant other-ratings were examined for conscientiousness. Regression results for neuroticism are presented in Table 8. Hypothesis 2 predicted that conscientiousness would positively relate to problem solving (2a) and to positive 64 . -.05. On the other hand. Specifically. and internal locus of control (1c) would negatively relate to WIF and FIW. extraversion. -.Personality and Work-Family Conflict. it was expected that conscientiousness (1a). and 1c were not supported while Hypothesis 1d was. respectively).01. Contrary to Hypothesis 1. and . extraversion (1b). For example. while neuroticism (1d) would positively relate to WIF and FIW. 1b. For comparative purposes.01. Personality and Coping Style. the results for self-ratings and average-ratings mirrored those found for significant other-ratings.01). and -. and internal locus of control would each relate to a subset of the five coping styles. and 9. neuroticism was significantly related to WIF (r = . Hypotheses 1a.00. neuroticism. as presented in Tables 6. p < .01) and to FIW (r = .17. the beta weights for conscientiousness.01. 7. The first hypothesis predicted that workfamily conflict would relate to the four personality variables under investigation.02. respectively for FIW).00.23. and neuroticism. and . p < . As demonstrated by both correlations and regression analysis (presented in Tables 32 through 37). conscientiousness. and internal locus of control were not significant after accounting for control variables (βs = -. respectively for WIF.05. extraversion. extraversion. p < .00. Additionally.26. extraversion. β = . β = . self-ratings and the average of self. and .

14 .51** *p<.05. Regression of WIF and FIW on Conscientiousness (Significant Other-Report) Dependent Variable WIF FIW Independent Variable Conscientiousness -. **p<. Regression of WIF and FIW on Extraversion (Significant Other-Report) Dependent Variable WIF FIW Independent Variable Extraversion -.17 2 Adjusted R .14 .16 ∆ in R 2 Overall R .09 Control Variables Work Time .05 .13 .15 Overall F 16.01. βs are standardized regression weights from the final equation 1 Significant Other.05.14 .37** 1 SO Employment . 2Responsibility for Dependents Index 65 .23** 2 RFD .16 Overall R2 .13 .47** 13.13 . 2Responsibility for Dependents Index Table 7.22** 2 RFD .15 Overall F 16.52** 12.22** *p<.38** 2 .Table 6.01 Control Variables Work Time .05 -. **p<.16 2 Adjusted R .37** 2 ∆ in R .01. βs are standardized regression weights from the final equation 1 Significant Other.38** SO1 Employment .

27** 12. Regression of WIF and FIW on Neuroticism (Significant Other-Report) Dependent Variable WIF FIW Independent Variable Neuroticism .30** *p<.02 .37** 1 SO Employment .16 2 Adjusted R .Table 8.05.16 ∆ in R 2 Overall R .51** *p<.14 . Regression of WIF and FIW on Internal Locus of Control (Self-Report) Dependent Variable WIF FIW Independent Variable Internal Locus of Control -.39** SO1 Employment .13 .01.89** 15.14 .15 Overall F 16.05.01.37** 2 .21 .23** 2 RFD . βs are standardized regression weights from the final equation 1 Significant Other. 2Responsibility for Dependents Index 66 .26** .18 Overall F 25.17** Control Variables Work Time . 2Responsibility for Dependents Index Table 9.19** 2 RFD . **p<.00 Control Variables Work Time .14 Overall R2 .15 .35** 2 ∆ in R .19 2 Adjusted R . **p<. βs are standardized regression weights from the final equation 1 Significant Other.20 .

though results differed by coping style. p < . p < . On the other hand. 67 . However. limited support was found for Hypothesis 2. The multiple regression results for rumination. provide support for a relationship between conscientiousness and rumination for work (β = -. p < .05) for family stressors. both with and without control variables (see Tables 38 and 39 for regression results). Additionally.14.and average-ratings of conscientiousness.and to average-ratings of conscientiousness.and average-ratings of personality only). only rumination was significantly related to conscientiousness (r = -.03) or to escape (r = . p < .05).and average-ratings of conscientiousness were significantly related to problem solving for work stressors.and to average-ratings of conscientiousness (r = . selfratings (though not average-ratings) of conscientiousness significantly related to positive cognitive restructuring (r = . p < .08). Thus. respectively).16.05) and for family (β = -. unlike the significant other-ratings. Specifically Hypothesis 2a was supported for coping with work stressors (both rating sources of conscientiousness) and for coping with family stressors (self. p < . p < . p < .cognitive restructuring (2b) and negatively relate to rumination (2c) and to escape (2d). Hypothesis 2 was also examined using self. p < . with a couple of noteworthy differences.01) and to rumination (r = -.30. self.05) but not to positive cognitive restructuring (r = -. problem solving for family stressors significantly related to self.01) stressors after controlling for gender. for coping with family stressors.39. Consistent with the significant other-ratings. rating source.18.22. In terms of coping with work stressors.18. conscientiousness significantly related to problem solving (r = . The results were similar.01. presented in Table 10. rumination for work and for family stressors were negatively related to self. Additionally.05) and to escape (r = -.18.01 and r = . and coping style context.17.

though self-ratings of conscientiousness related to coping with family stressors for both coping styles. though not hypothesized. p < .09. While the relationship between instrumental support seeking for work and extraversion remained significant after controlling for gender (β = . Additionally.24.19.10) or to instrumental support seeking for family stressors (r = . p < .16. rumination for work (r = -. significant other-ratings of conscientiousness negatively related to instrumental support seeking for family stressors (r = -. p < . but there was no support for the relationship between extraversion and positive cognitive restructuring for work (r = .13). p < .05). extraversion was significantly related to problem solving for work (r = . Regression results for Hypothesis 3 are presented in Table 11. Extraversion was also significantly related to positive cognitive restructuring for family stressors (r = .11).15. Hypotheses 3a was supported.05) and to emotional support seeking for family stressors (r = . p < . p < . and Hypotheses 2b and 2d were largely unsupported. β = -. while self-ratings of conscientiousness positively related to instrumental support seeking for work stressors (r = .01).01) and to emotional support seeking for family stressors (r = .05). extraversion was significantly related to instrumental support seeking for work stressors (r = .05) but not to emotional support seeking for work stressors (r = .12).Hypothesis 2c was fully supported.16. Additionally. the relationship between emotional support seeking for family and extraversion did not (β = . p < .18. and to positive cognitive restructuring (3c) and negatively relate to rumination (3d). p < .01).05) and for family stressors (r = . Hypothesis 3 predicted that extraversion would positively relate to problem solving (3a).01).20. p < .12).19. or rumination 68 . to support seeking (3b).14.

The results using self. r = . p < .01 for self. respectively) remained significant.01 and β = .01 for self. p < . r = .05. p < .and average-ratings only).16. r = . As expected. p < .01 for average).05.01 and β = .22. p < .01) or for family (r = -. Overall.01.and average-ratings of extraversion were significantly related to rumination for work stressors. p < .19.15. full support was found for Hypothesis 3a.11).01 for average. respectively). instrumental for family: r = . both self.21.05 and β = . after controlling for gender (β = -.05 for average). instrumental support seeking for family stressors (β = .01 for self.15. As shown in Tables 40 and 41 (see Appendix F for regression results using self. Additionally.01 for average. β = -.19. unlike the significant other-ratings. and Hypothesis 3c was supported for coping with family stressors (both rating sources of extraversion) and for coping with work stressors (self.21. as well as to cognitive restructuring for work stressors (r = .24. p < . 69 .17. the relationships between self.15.for family (r = -. p < .14.16. after controlling for gender. r = .09. p < .23. respectively).23.05. self. p < .20. p < . and emotional support seeking for family stressors (β = . Hypothesis 3d was largely unsupported.01) stressors. partial support was found for Hypothesis 3b (depending on type of support seeking and source of personality ratings). p < . However. p < . p < . p < . emotional for family: r = . p < .05 and β = -.and average-ratings of extraversion significantly related to all forms of social support seeking (instrumental for work: r = . respectively). r = .and average-ratings of extraversion and instrumental support seeking for work stressors (β = .16. emotional for work: r = . p < . p < .and average-ratings of extraversion were very similar.and average-ratings of personality).05 for self.15. there was no significant relationship between extraversion and escape for work (r = -.05 for self.05 for average.

Hypotheses 4a. though not to escape (r = . emotional: r = .05). p < .and average-ratings of neuroticism significantly related to problem solving for family stressors (r = -. β = .and average-ratings of neuroticism.20. only rumination was significantly related to neuroticism (r = . As expected. However.29. For coping with work stressors.01). p < .05.and average-ratings of neuroticism and coping are presented in Tables 42 and 43.01 for work.05) stressors were not significant. and 4c were fully supported. (Regression results for self. p < . and self-ratings (though not average-ratings) of neuroticism significantly related to positive cognitive restructuring for family stressors (r = -. 4b. the relationship between neuroticism and rumination remained significant after controlling for gender (β = .17. p < . p < .38.05).01 and r = -.14. or to escape (r = -. while neuroticism was not significantly related to problem solving (r = -.) Overall.05). p < . 70 .31.03. to positive cognitive restructuring (r = -. As presented in Table 12. for coping with family stressors.01).05).39.Hypothesis 4 predicted that neuroticism would negatively relate to problem solving (4a) and to positive cognitive restructuring (4b) and positively relate to rumination (4c) and to escape (4d). respectively). full support was found for Hypothesis 4c. In terms of self. p < . the relationships between neuroticism and support seeking for work (instrumental: r = .01 for family).26. Hypothesis 4d received no support.15.04.05) and for family (instrumental: r = .02). while Hypotheses 4a and 4b were supported for coping with work stressors (both rating sources of neuroticism) and for coping with family stressors (self-ratings only). neuroticism significantly related to problem solving (r = . p < . p < . to positive cognitive restructuring (r = -. and to rumination (r = . the only differences were that self. emotional: r = .01).04).

05 . the relationship between internal locus of control and rumination was significant for both work (r = -.21. r = .18* 2 ∆ in R .01. Although not hypothesized. **p<. p < .18* -.05 for work. For both work and family stressors.05) stressors.15. p < .70** 6.01 for family) and to positive cognitive restructuring (r = . Hypotheses 5a and 5b were fully supported.03 2 Overall R .31. Moreover.19. p < . p < .14. r = .01 for work. p < .36.12 for family). r = -.01) and emotional support seeking for family (r = .18** Control Variable Gender -.05). Table 10.01 for work.60** *p<.06 2 Adjusted R .05 Overall F 5.30. Regression of Coping Style on Conscientiousness (Significant Other-Report) Dependent Variable Rumination (work) Rumination (family) Independent Variable Conscientiousness -. Thus. p < .01 for family) but unrelated to escape (r = -.16* -. internal locus of control was significantly related to problem solving (r = .Hypothesis 5 predicted that internal locus of control would positively relate to problem solving (5a) and to positive cognitive restructuring (5b) and negatively relate to escape (5c).01) and family (r = -. while no support was found for Hypothesis 5c. internal locus of control was also related to instrumental support seeking for work (r = . p < . p < .05.02 .24. βs are standardized regression weights from the final equation 71 .04 .

06 .03 Overall R2 .06 -.18* 2 ∆ in R .21** 3.01.45** 8.06 .05.21 .03 .04 2 Adjusted R .45** -. 2Emotional Support Seeking Table 12.20** -.11 Control Variable Gender -.07 .15 .10 2 .20 .00 . Regression of Coping Style on Extraversion (Significant Other-Report) Dependent Variable Support Support Rumination Seeking Seeking (w) 1 2 – I (f) – E (f) Support Support Rumination Seeking Seeking (f) 1 2 – I (w) – E (w) Independent Variable Extraversion .05.10 .14 .17 .38** .01.02 . Regression of Coping Style on Neuroticism (Significant Other-Report) Dependent Variable Rumination (work) Rumination (family) Independent Variable Neuroticism .16 .39** 26.46** 11.18* *p<. βs are standardized regression weights from the final equation 72 . **p<.38** -. **p<.20 .10 Overall F 18.08 .07 .01 ∆ in R 2 Overall R .80** 20.26** -.16* -.04 .03 . βs are standardized regression weights from the final equation 1 Instrumental Support Seeking.11 2 Adjusted R .29** Control Variable Gender -.87** *p<.16* .Table 11.12 -.51* 4.07 .03 Overall F 7.16 .11 -.

21. and Hypotheses 6a.11. coping with family and FIW) were hypothesized. and escape (β =. and 6c were unsupported. the beta weights for problem solving (β = -.e.. r = 73 . The next two hypotheses predicted that coping for work stressors would relate to WIF (Hypothesis 6). or to positive cognitive restructuring (r = -.06).09). β = . support seeking (6b and 7b).05). coping with family and WIF) are also presented in these tables for exploratory purposes..07).e. While Hypothesis 6 received some support. r = -.14).16. support seeking (instrumental: β = -.08). p < . only rumination for work stressors remained significant after controlling for work time (β = . Specifically. Hypothesis 7 did not. Thus. None of the coping styles for family stressors were significantly related to FIW.09 for problem solving.07. with or without accounting for the control variables: r = -. coping with work and FIW.21. while coping for family stressors would relate to FIW (Hypothesis 7).01) and to escape (r = . and positive cognitive restructuring (6c and 7c) were expected to negatively relate to work-family conflict. to support seeking (instrumental: r = -.Coping Style and Work-Family Conflict. β = -.09 for instrumental support seeking. Hypothesis 6e was partially supported. problem solving (6a and 7a). r = -.09) were not significant.05) but not to problem solving (r = -. emotional: r = -. WIF was significantly related to rumination (r = . β = -. coping with work and WIF. 6b. In terms of coping with work stressors. Hypothesis 6d was fully supported.05.01). cross-domain relationships (i. cognitive restructuring (β = -.05.02.08 for emotional support seeking. p < . Additionally. Regression results for Hypotheses 6 and 7 are provided in Tables 13 through 24. while rumination (6d and 7d) and escape (6e and 7e) were expected to positively relate to work-family conflict. p < . emotional: β = . Although domainspecific relationships (i.

15 Overall F 17. Regression of WIF and FIW on Problem Solving for Family Stressors Dependent Variable WIF FIW Independent Variable Problem Solving (family) -. **p<.05.01.01.68** 13.75** *p<.17 2 Adjusted R .36** 1 SO Employment .16 ∆ in R 2 Overall R .16 Overall R2 .37** 2 ∆ in R .15 .Table 13.09 Control Variables Work Time .16 Overall F 16.22** 2 RFD .13 . Regression of WIF and FIW on Problem Solving for Work Stressors Dependent Variable WIF FIW Independent Variable Problem Solving (work) -.06 -. **p<. 2Responsibility for Dependents Index Table 14.11 -.12 .74** 13.38** 2 .14 .05.37** SO1 Employment .17 2 Adjusted R . 2Responsibility for Dependents Index 74 .27** *p<. βs are standardized regression weights from the final equation 1 Significant Other.14 .22** 2 RFD . βs are standardized regression weights from the final equation 1 Significant Other.11 Control Variables Work Time .14 .

15* Control Variables Work Time .25** SO Employment 2 RFD . **p<.18 2 Adjusted R .05.13 .23** 2 RFD .38** 2 ∆ in R .05 -. βs are standardized regression weights from the final equation 1 Significant Other. 2Responsibility for Dependents Index 75 .17 2 Overall R .Table 15.16 ∆ in R 2 Overall R .36** 1 .34** *p<.29** 14. Regression of WIF and FIW on Instrumental Support Seeking for Work Stressors Dependent Variable WIF FIW Independent Variable Instrumental Support Seeking (work) -.17 Overall F 17.15 .05.13 .36** 2 .01. 2Responsibility for Dependents Index Table 16.18 2 Adjusted R .51** *p<.14 .51** 14. βs are standardized regression weights from the final equation 1 Significant Other. **p<.01.37** 1 SO Employment .09 -.14 . Regression of WIF and FIW on Emotional Support Seeking for Work Stressors Dependent Variable WIF FIW Independent Variable Emotional Support Seeking (work) -.14* Control Variables Work Time .17 Overall F 16.13 .

14 . 2Responsibility for Dependents Index Table 18. Regression of WIF and FIW on Emotional Support Seeking for Family Stressors Dependent Variable WIF FIW Independent Variable Emotional Support Seeking (family) -.11 .12 -. 2Responsibility for Dependents Index 76 .17 2 Adjusted R .08 Control Variables Work Time .37** 2 ∆ in R .09** *p<.14 .15 Overall F 18.15 Overall F 17. Regression of WIF and FIW on Instrumental Support Seeking for Family Stressors Dependent Variable WIF FIW Independent Variable Instrumental Support Seeking (family) -.01. **p<. βs are standardized regression weights from the final equation 1 Significant Other.16 2 Overall R .Table 17.37** 2 ∆ in R .05.17 2 Adjusted R .09 Control Variables Work Time .22** *p<. **p<.10 -.36** 1 SO Employment .15 .05** 13.15 .25** SO Employment 2 RFD .16 2 Overall R . βs are standardized regression weights from the final equation 1 Significant Other.01.05.35** 1 .24** 2 RFD .72** 13.12 .

01.14 .05.16 Overall F 16.39** 2 ∆ in R .22** 2 RFD .37** 1 SO Employment .13* Control Variables Work Time .Table 19.12 Control Variables Work Time .13 .18 2 Adjusted R . Regression of WIF and FIW on Positive Cognitive Restructuring for Work Stressors Dependent Variable WIF FIW Independent Variable Cognitive Restructuring (work) -.06 -. Regression of WIF and FIW on Positive Cognitive Restructuring for Family Stressors Dependent Variable WIF FIW Independent Variable Cognitive Restructuring (family) -.48** 14.01. βs are standardized regression weights from the final equation 1 Significant Other.13 .76** *p<. 2Responsibility for Dependents Index 77 .14 .16 2 Overall R .37** 2 ∆ in R . 2Responsibility for Dependents Index Table 20.69** 13.17 2 Adjusted R .16 Overall F 16. **p<.05 -.36** 1 .17** *p<.17 2 Overall R . **p<.14 .13 .05. βs are standardized regression weights from the final equation 1 Significant Other.23** SO Employment 2 RFD .

05. βs are standardized regression weights from the final equation 1 Significant Other. 2Responsibility for Dependents Index 78 .16 Overall F 22.18 .22** 2 RFD .34** *p<.37** SO1 Employment .36** 2 .14 .38** 1 SO Employment .01.50** 13.Table 21. Regression of WIF and FIW on Rumination for Family Stressors Dependent Variable WIF FIW Independent Variable Rumination (family) . Regression of WIF and FIW on Rumination for Work Stressors Dependent Variable WIF FIW Independent Variable Rumination (work) .01.18 .22** 2 RFD .15 .16 .09 Control Variables Work Time .36** 2 ∆ in R .11 Control Variables Work Time .16 Overall R2 .17 2 Adjusted R .16 Overall F 19.56** *p<. **p<. 2Responsibility for Dependents Index Table 22.15 .16 ∆ in R 2 Overall R .15* .39** 13. βs are standardized regression weights from the final equation 1 Significant Other.05.21** .17 2 Adjusted R . **p<.

05. Regression of WIF and FIW on Escape for Family Stressors Dependent Variable WIF FIW Independent Variable Escape (family) .37** 2 . 2Responsibility for Dependents Index 79 .16 Overall F 17.22** 2 RFD .14* Control Variables Work Time .05.14 .15 .37** 1 SO Employment .Table 23.01.88** *p<.06 Control Variables Work Time .34** 12.35** SO1 Employment .15 Overall F 17.16 2 Adjusted R . **p<.09 .16 ∆ in R 2 Overall R .37** 14.15 . βs are standardized regression weights from the final equation 1 Significant Other.14 . 2Responsibility for Dependents Index Table 24.36** 2 ∆ in R . **p<.24** *p<. Regression of WIF and FIW on Escape for Work Stressors Dependent Variable WIF FIW Independent Variable Escape (work) . βs are standardized regression weights from the final equation 1 Significant Other.12 .16 Overall R2 .23** 2 RFD .13 .09 .18 2 Adjusted R .01.

15. and the relationship between WIF and rumination for family stressors was significant after controlling for work time (β = . Although not hypothesized.14. β = .05).05) for work stressors significantly related to FIW.-.13. p < .19. β = -. p < . p < . p < . p < . and (3) the dependent variable is regressed onto both the IV and the mediator.05). and escape (β = . β = .12 for positive cognitive restructuring. p < . (3) a significant relationship between the mediator and the DV. Coping Style as a Mediator between Personality and Work-Family Conflict.14. Following the strategy outlined in Baron and Kenny (1986). p < .06.05).05) and support seeking (instrumental: r = . p < . p < . cross-domain relationships were also examined for exploratory purposes. instrumental support seeking (β = -. Hypotheses 8 through 15 predicted that coping style would mediate the relationship between personality and work-family conflict. three regression equations are required to demonstrate support for mediation: (1) the mediator (coping style) is regressed onto the independent variable (personality). Additionally. positive cognitive restructuring (β = .16. the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable becomes non-significant 80 .05).17. (2) a significant relationship between the IV and the mediator. emotional: r = -.06 for escape. emotional support seeking (β = -. after controlling for significant other’s employment status and for the RFD index.12. (2) the dependent variable (WIF/FIW) is regressed onto the IV.11 for rumination. problem solving (r = -. r = .05.15.01) for family stressors significantly related to WIF. Furthermore.05.05). The relationship between FIW and escape for work stressors was significant (r = .14. and r = . and (4) after controlling for the mediator (step 3). Support for mediation requires four conditions: (1) a significant relationship between the IV and the DV.

only rumination was significantly related to WIF. thereby satisfying condition one for Hypotheses 12 and 13. in step three. escape was not related to neuroticism. neuroticism was significantly related to WIF and to FIW. Similarly. which predicted that coping style would mediate the relationship between neuroticism and work-family conflict. On the other hand. the third condition was not satisfied for Hypotheses 12a or 12b. as the correlation could be a result of the IV causing both the mediator and the outcome (thus indicating a spurious relationship). and rumination for work stressors significantly related to neuroticism. Baron & Kenny. conscientiousness. extraversion. rumination for work (12c) and for family (13c). none of 81 . For both work and family stressors and across all sources of personality ratings. Thus. the second condition was not satisfied for Hypotheses 12d and 13d. Additionally. and no subsequent analyses were performed. and escape for work (12d) and for family (13d) were hypothesized to function as mediators between neuroticism and WIF (Hypothesis 12) or between neuroticism and FIW (Hypothesis 13). and internal locus of control were not related to WIF or to FIW. 1986). positive cognitive restructuring for work (12b) and for family (13b). the first condition was not satisfied for Hypotheses 8 through 11 and 14 through 15. Specifically. Although problem solving. As previously mentioned. the relationship between the mediator and the DV should be established after controlling for the effect of the IV. positive cognitive restructuring. problem solving for work (12a) and for family (13a).(full mediation) or decreases in strength (partial mediation. Therefore. and no subsequent analyses were performed. Showing a correlation between the mediator and the DV is not sufficient in and of itself. Thus.

p < . The hypothesis was also tested without control variables. but the beta weight decreased from .and average-ratings of neuroticism. As shown in Table 25. as presented in Tables 44 and 45. and rumination for work stressors entered in step three.13). 1982).the coping styles for family stressors related to FIW.74.01). the relationship between self-reported neuroticism and WIF was 82 . thus providing partial support for Hypothesis 12c. 2004. the Sobel test was performed (Preacher & Hayes. Hypothesis 12c was also examined using both self. neuroticism (significant other-ratings) entered in step two.01). 2008). As an additional test of mediation. after controlling for neuroticism (β = . Hierarchical regression was performed to test conditions three and four. after rumination was added. Thus. Thus.26 to . but the results were the same. However. that rumination for work stressors would mediate the relationship between neuroticism and WIF. neuroticism remained significant in step three.21 (ps < . with control variables entered in step one. Sobel. Unlike the results for significant otherratings of neuroticism. the only mediation hypothesis that met Baron and Kenny’s (1986) first two conditions and was significantly related to the DV (indicating initial support for condition three) was Hypothesis 12c. so they are not presented here. The Sobel test provided support that rumination for work stressors mediated the relationship between neuroticism and WIF (z = 2. Baron and Kenny’s (1986) third condition was not met. This method provides a single test of the significance of the indirect effect and is recommended as an alternative and/or supplement to Baron and Kenny’s (1986) method (Kenny. rumination for work stressors was not significantly related to WIF. so no additional analyses were conducted for Hypothesis 13.

coping style can also be conceptualized as a moderator.21** .01) and for average-ratings (z = 2.21 .05.12) or for the average-ratings (β = .14 .(β =.60** .01) of neuroticism. Thus. **p<. after rumination was added.37** . the beta weights for rumination were not significant for either the self. Mediated Regression of WIF on Rumination for Work Stressors and Neuroticism (Significant Other-Report) Dependent Variable: WIF Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Control Variable Work Time Independent Variable Neuroticism Mediator Rumination (work) ∆ in R2 Overall R2 Adjusted R2 Overall F *p<.20 25. p < . 83 . the Sobel test was significant for both self. Thus. as a supplementary analysis.89** . p < .98.21 18.non-significant in step three of the regression equation.38** . the five coping styles.22 . thereby meeting Baron and Kenny’s (1986) fourth condition for mediation.70** -.07 .(z = 2. consistent with the results for significant other-ratings of neuroticism.26** .14 32. On the other hand.09) of neuroticism. also consistent with the results using significant other-reported neuroticism. condition three was not met. Table 25.01 Supplementary Analysis Although the present study hypothesized that coping style would mediate the relationship between personality and work-family conflict.90. However.39** .13 .01 .

p < . A similar pattern emerged for positive cognitive restructuring used to cope with family stressors. p < . significant other-ratings of personality were used. Specifically.09. escape for family stressors moderated the relationship between conscientiousness and FIW (β = -1. see Table 28). see Table 27 and Figure 2). at high levels of conscientiousness. there was little difference in levels of FIW.01. and the interactions are depicted graphically in Figures 1 through 6.44. The moderated regression results for these six equations are presented in Tables 26 through 31. regardless of the use of escape to cope with family stressors. 84 . p < .05). however. On the other hand. individuals who used escape to cope with family stressors tended to experience higher levels of FIW than individuals who did not. Additionally. were examined as potential moderators between the four personality variables and both WIF and FIW.41.for both work and for family stressors. Moderated regression was used. only six had a significant interaction term. (Note that the figures do not include control variables. at high levels of conscientiousness. Of the 96 possible regression equations. use of problem solving for work stressors was not related to the degree of FIW reported. while individuals who used problem solving tended to report lower levels of FIW.05. with the independent variables entered in step one and the interaction term entered in step two. at low levels of conscientiousness. at low levels of conscientiousness. individuals who did not use problem solving to manage work stressors tended to report higher levels of FIW.) As presented in Table 26. as shown in Figure 1. With the exception of internal locus of control. which interacted with conscientiousness to explain variance in FIW (β = -1. As shown in Figure 3. problem solving for work stressors moderated the relationship between conscientiousness and FIW (β = -1.

high use of instrumental support seeking for family stressors was associated with lower levels of WIF.74. Extraversion interacted with escape for family stressors to explain variance in WIF (β = -. This interaction is shown graphically in Figure 5. at high levels of neuroticism. individuals with an internal locus of control experienced similar levels of WIF. internal locus of control interacted with instrumental support seeking for family stressors to explain variance in WIF (β = 1. see Table 29).53. irrespective of the amount of instrumental support seeking used to cope with family stressors.Extraversion. see Table 31). low rumination for family stressors was associated with lower levels of FIW. as shown in Table 30. for individuals low on neuroticism. 85 . Finally. there was little relationship between rumination for family stressors and FIW. and internal locus of control were each involved in one significant interaction. Conversely. Additionally. The nature of this interaction is depicted in Figure 4 and is consistent with that of conscientiousness and escape for family stressors. while low use of instrumental support seeking for family stressors was associated with higher levels of WIF. On the other hand.05. while high rumination was associated with higher levels of FIW. p < . p < . neuroticism. for individuals with an external locus of control. As depicted in Figure 6.05.

Table 26.00 -.01 1.09* -.02 .02 .48 .05 -.01 .02 2.95* .89* -1. Moderated Regression of FIW on Conscientiousness (Significant Other-Report) and Positive Cognitive Restructuring for Family Stressors Dependent Variable: FIW Step 1 Step 2 Independent Variables Conscientiousness Cognitive Restructuring (family) Interaction Term Conscientiousness X Cognitive Restructuring (family) ∆ in R2 Overall R2 Adjusted R2 Overall F *p<.01 1.03 .12 .05 .03 .64* .44* -. Moderated Regression of FIW on Conscientiousness (Significant Other-Report) and Problem Solving for Work Stressors Dependent Variable: FIW Step 1 Step 2 Independent Variables Conscientiousness Problem Solving (work) Interaction Term Conscientiousness X Problem Solving (work) ∆ in R2 Overall R2 Adjusted R2 Overall F *p<.03 -.255 .05 .02 .78 -1.71 86 .00 -.32 Table 27.

Table 28. Moderated Regression of FIW on Conscientiousness (Significant Other-Report) and Escape for Family Stressors Dependent Variable: FIW Step 1 Step 2 Independent Variables Conscientiousness Escape (family) Interaction Term Conscientiousness X Escape (family) ∆ in R2 Overall R2 Adjusted R2 Overall F *p<.05; **p<.01 -.00 .06 .46* 1.35** -1.41** -.00 -.01 .36 .04 .04 .02 2.66*

Table 29. Moderated Regression of WIF on Extraversion (Significant Other-Report) and Escape for Family Stressors Dependent Variable: WIF Step 1 Step 2 Independent Variables Extraversion Escape (family) Interaction Term Extraversion X Escape (family) ∆ in R2 Overall R2 Adjusted R2 Overall F *p<.05 -.09 .12 .27 .75* -.74* .02 .04 .03 2.98*

-.02 .01 2.34

87

Table 30. Moderated Regression of FIW on Neuroticism (Significant Other-Report) and Rumination for Family Stressors Dependent Variable: FIW Step 1 Step 2 Independent Variables Neuroticism Rumination (family) Interaction Term Neuroticism X Rumination (family) ∆ in R2 Overall R2 Adjusted R2 Overall F *p<.05; **p<.01 .21** .05 .65** .59* -.80* -.06 .05 5.86** .02 .07 .06 5.32**

Table 31. Moderated Regression of WIF on Internal Locus of Control (Self-Report) and Instrumental Support Seeking for Family Stressors Dependent Variable: WIF Step 1 Step 2 Independent Variables Internal Locus of Control Instrumental Support Seeking (family) Interaction Term Internal Locus of Control X Instrumental Support Seeking (family) ∆ in R2 Overall R2 Adjusted R2 Overall F *p<.05; **p<.01 .02 -.17* -.48* -1.56*

1.53*

-.03 .02 3.04*

.03 .05 .04 3.82*

88

4

3 FIW

2

Low Problem Solving for Work Stressors High Problem Solving for Work Stressors

1 1 2 Conscientiousness
Figure 1. Problem solving for work stressors as a moderator between conscientiousness (significant other-report) and FIW.

4

3 FIW

Low Cognitive Restructuring for Family Stressors High Cognitive Restructuring for Family Stressors

2

1 1 2 Conscientiousness
Figure 2. Positive cognitive restructuring for family stressors as a moderator between conscientiousness (significant other-report) and FIW. 89

90 2 . Escape for family stressors as a moderator between conscientiousness (significant other-report) and FIW. 4 3 WIF 2 Low Escape for Family Stressors High Escape for Family Stressors 1 1 Extraversion Figure 4. Escape for family stressors as a moderator between extraversion (significant other-report) and WIF.4 3 FIW 2 Low Escape for Family Stressors High Escape for Family Stressors 1 1 2 Conscientiousness Figure 3.

Instrumental support seeking for family stressors as a moderator between internal locus of control (self-report) and WIF. Rumination for family stressors as a moderator between neuroticism (significant other-report) and FIW. 2 4 3 WIF 2 Low Instrumental Support Seeking for Family Stressors High Instrumental Support Seeking for Family Stressors 1 1 2 Internal Locus of Control Figure 6.4 3 FIW 2 Low Rumination for Family Stressors High Rumination for Family Stressors 1 1 Neuroticism Figure 5. 91 .

Finally. the present study aimed to expand this line of research by examining coping styles as action tendencies. differentiating between coping with work and coping with family stressors. 2007. as problem solving. as well as Hobfoll’s (1989) conservation of resources model and a spillover perspective of WFC. Smoot. offering support for the notion that certain dispositional variables do play a role in the WFC experience.Chapter Four Discussion The present study aimed to contribute to the literature by examining two relatively neglected sets of variables in the work-family literature. and collecting dual-source data. Although two dissertations recently examined this proposition (Andreassi. as well as the mechanisms by which these variables are related. There was also some support for the role of coping in the process. Using a stress and coping framework. personality and coping styles. neuroticism related to both directions of work-family conflict. 2005). and escape each related to at least one direction of work-family conflict. Consistent with past research. limited support was found for the moderating role 92 . Furthermore. rumination. The present study offers several key findings. support seeking. coping was proposed as a mediator between personality and workfamily conflict. in that some support was found for the mediating role of rumination. the present study provides some insight into the process underlying the relationship between neuroticism and WIF.

Personality and Work-Family Conflict While work-family conflict was expected to relate to conscientiousness. 2003. 2007. Wayne et al. and type of work-family conflict (e. 2004). Bruck & Allen. Andreassi & Thompson. Kinnunen et al. with results varying across study. the relationship between coping and WFC. neuroticism and locus of control. The inconsistent findings may suggest the presence of moderators. In the following sections. 2004). extraversion. Bruck & Allen. the relationship between personality and coping. 2003. 2007. 2007. followed by study limitations and future directions. Smoot. and locus of control with work-family conflict are less consistent. Although research examining personality as an antecedent to WFC is limited.. extraversion. gender..g. and the mediating role of coping in the relationship between personality and WFC. 93 .. the results for each set of study hypotheses are examined in more detail. Wayne et al.. involving the relationship between personality and WFC. along with the results from the supplementary analysis.. Andreassi. Andreassi. 2005.of coping in the relationship between personality and WFC. consistent with the present study’s findings.g. the relationship between neuroticism and WFC has received the most support (e. 2003. an analysis performed for exploratory purposes only. only neuroticism was significantly related to WIF and FIW. Theoretical and practical implications are then discussed. Four sets of study hypotheses were proposed. Research findings linking conscientiousness. Potential moderators of the personality-WFC relationship are discussed subsequently in the Future Directions section.

6% had a doctoral degree). extraversion. However. It is unclear why the BFI would be less apt to yield significant relationships in these cases. highly driven. One possible explanation for the null findings is range restriction of some of the personality variables. 2000.60) on a five-point scale. several researchers have reported significant associations between conscientiousness. Similarly. and locus of control and work-family conflict (e. including the positive emotionality and activity components of extraversion. 2003. The high means and small standard deviations for these variables may help explain the null findings in the present study. as compared to other measures of the Big Five.43). and neuroticism: the Big Five Inventory (John et al.06 (SD = . the relationship between both conscientiousness and extraversion and work-family conflict may only hold for certain personality measures. the mean rating for locus of control was 4. Thus. The BFI 94 .13 (SD = . Thus. no other studies have examined the relationship between personality and WFC using the BFI.. Grzywacz & Marks. This measure was selected because of its brevity and simplicity (John & Srivastava. Andreassi & Thompson. 2004). the mean conscientiousness rating (significant other-report) was 4. 2007.. to the researcher’s knowledge.. it is perhaps not surprising that the conscientiousness ratings were so high.Despite some inconsistencies in the literature. 1999). 1991). For example. Kinnunen et al. along with the fact that the items tap several facets of interest. Additionally. Given the highly educated nature of the sample (67. the null relationships in the present study are surprising.g. Wayne et al.. Another potential explanation for the null findings is the personality measure used in the present study to assess conscientiousness. extraversion. motivated individuals may be particularly likely to have an internal locus of control and perceive that they are in control of their own destiny.

self-reported personality yielded the highest number of significant relationships. followed by partner-reported personality. by context of coping (i. and unrelated to escape for work stressors (across all ratings sources of personality) and negatively related to escape for family stressors (self-ratings of personality only). depending on whether background/demographic variables were included as controls. Personality and Coping Style The hypothesized relationships between personality and coping style received mixed support.. a few general trends emerged. For example. but there are slight differences in item content. and. While mixed support was found for hypotheses linking personality and coping style. impression management may 95 . in that source of personality ratings and the context of coping style affected the pattern of findings. the BFI may be tapping aspects of conscientiousness and extraversion that are less related to WFC. negatively related to rumination for both work and family stressors (across all ratings sources of personality). unrelated to positive cognitive restructuring for work stressors and positively related to positive cognitive restructuring for family stressors (self-ratings of personality only).and average-ratings of personality only). conscientiousness was positively related to problem solving for work stressors (across all ratings sources of conscientiousness) and for family stressors (self.e. as compared to other scales. This trend may reflect common method variance. with results differing by source of personality ratings. work or family).items are similar to other personality scales. For example. For example. to a lesser degree. thus. The other three personality variables exhibited similar results.and significant other-reported personality. followed by the average of self.

individuals may be in a position to provide more accurate ratings of their own personalities. such as coming up with multiple solutions to the problem and taking action to fix the problem. problem solving behaviors.g.g. Another general trend was that some relationships held for one domain but not the other (e.. In the present study. and the higher correlations may reflect this. and positive cognitive restructuring more for work than for family stressors. as they may be considered particularly appropriate and/or effective. at least in part. while use of emotional support seeking. situationally driven has been suggested by numerous researchers (e. given the task-oriented nature of work demands. but they may perceive that such thoughts/behaviors will be more effective for managing family stressors than for managing work stressors. For example. Alternatively. as compared to significant other-ratings. personality and situation may interact to determine which coping style an individual will choose. given the socially desirable (and undesirable) nature of some of the variables. Thus. some coping styles may lend themselves for use in certain situations. rumination. participants tended to use problem solving.. significant other-ratings of conscientiousness related to problem solving for work but not for family stressors. may be 96 . individuals high on extraversion may be predisposed to use positive cognitive restructuring in stressful situations. 1984. Thus. significant other-ratings of extraversion related to positive cognitive restructuring for family but not for work stressors).play a role in self-ratings of both personality and coping style. Lazarus & Folkman. For example. 1984). and escape were similar across domains. instrumental support seeking. McCrae. The notion that coping style is. thereby explaining the divergent results.

personality may dictate how an individual responds to stressors at a broad level. Thus. This speaks to the importance of tapping a wide range of behaviors within each coping style. but the relationship may manifest itself differently across various types of situations. While the effectiveness of each coping style may vary across different situations. but the type of support seeking differed across domains. A third general trend among the observed personality-coping relationships was that some coping styles were consistently related to personality. but the specific behaviors he/she chooses may depend on what he/she considers most effective for the given situation. and escape for family stressors was only related to self-reported conscientiousness. extraversion was significantly related to support seeking for both work and family stressors. For example. in order to adequately measure the full construct. For example.particularly effective. while others were not. Accordingly. in order to reveal such behavioral differences. On the other hand. Certain coping 97 . as well as the importance of ensuring that our dimensionality of coping is accurate and at the appropriate level. it is also possible that individuals simply rely on different behavioral responses within each coping style as a function of the situation. escape for work stressors was not significantly related to any of the personality variables. problem solving for work stressors significantly related to all four personality traits across both sources of ratings. thereby affecting choice of coping style. personality may play a role in choice of coping style. Specifically. The same behaviors may be less effective when managing family demands. extraversion related to instrumental support seeking for managing work stressors and to emotional support seeking for managing family stressors.

and only rumination and escape for work stressors related to WIF. work and family demands). while other coping styles. and/or inadequacies in the measurement of escape. escape may be influenced by personality in some domains but not those assessed in the present study (i. rumination for work stressors was the only coping style that significantly related to WIF after controlling for work time. may be particularly influenced by dispositional differences. particularly as it was conceptualized in the present study. these results differ from that of Rotondo et al. such as problem solving. may be more situationally driven. positive thinking. Another noteworthy finding was that the mean ratings for escape were substantially lower than the mean ratings for the other coping styles. Although very little research has examined the relationship between work-family conflict and coping style.. Contrary to expectations. helpseeking. the fact that escape is. and WIF/FIW. 98 . rarely used to manage these types of stressors. such as escape. Moreover. in fact. such that the three items did not sufficiently tap the full construct. Coping Style and Work-Family Conflict The third set of hypotheses predicted that coping styles for managing work stressors would relate to WIF and that coping styles for managing family stressors would relate to FIW. (2003). Alternatively.e. none of the coping styles for family stressors related to FIW.styles. which found relationships between four types of coping (direct action. The low ratings may reflect reluctance by participants to admit to using escape as a coping style. differentiated by work and family stressors. and avoidance/resignation). Additional research is needed to determine which reason(s) is applicable.

Because the coping styles examined in the present study were selected based on Skinner et al. Rotondo et al. 2005. a few of the coping styles (i. 2006) and family (Lapierre & Allen. Another notable finding was the mixed support for a relationship between support seeking and WFC.. Lapierre & Allen. rather than an existing taxonomy. additionally. The inconsistent results between support seeking and WFC are surprising. which was more psychometrically established than the measure used in the present study. Thus. these scales may have been deficient in assessing the intended constructs.e. The divergent results most likely reflect the difference between support seeking (assessed in the present 99 . Although both types of support seeking for family stressors related to WIF. given that several studies have found a link between WFC and support in both the work (e. (2003) may reflect the different coping scales used.. Although the measure was pilot tested before use. there was no existing scale that included the five specific dimensions of coping examined here. which may have affected the study results. though both types of support seeking for family stressors related to FIW after controlling for significant other’s employment status and the Responsibility for Dependents index. emotional support seeking.The divergent findings between the present study and that of Rotondo et al.’s (2003) review of the literature. support seeking for work stressors was not significantly correlated with either direction of work-family conflict. Given the small number of items. 2006) domains. because a few items were dropped and because support seeking was divided into two sub-scales. Additionally. and escape) were only measured with two or three items. (2003) used Havlovic and Keenan’s (1991) measure of coping. Behson. Allen. a new measure was developed. they did not relate to FIW. instrumental support seeking. 2001. there is relatively little support for its validity.g.

based on the Sobel test.1220 and 1. Specifically. or average-ratings of personality. Coping Style as a Mediator between Personality and Work-Family Conflict The final set of hypotheses predicted that coping would mediate the relationship between personality and work-family conflict.0100 for small effect sizes and . Six of the 96 possible interactions were significant. West. respectively. Given that each test of mediation has unique advantages and disadvantages.5200 for medium effect sizes using Baron and Kenny’s (1986) approach. Supplementary Analysis For exploratory purposes. Conversely. 100 . for a sample size of 200. Baron and Kenny’s (1986) third condition of mediation was not met for self-. On the other hand. it is beneficial to use multiple methods to test for mediation. Hoffman. Based on a Monte Carlo study comparing 14 methods used to test mediation. However. there was some evidence that rumination for work stressors mediated the relationship between neuroticism and WIF.study) and receipt of support (assessed in other studies) and highlight the notion that individuals who seek support may not always receive it. empirical estimates of statistical power for the Sobel test were .000 for small and medium effect sizes. significant other-. MacKinnon. in that the relationship between rumination for work stressors and WIF was not significant after controlling for neuroticism. The divergent results between the two methods of testing for mediation may reflect the fact that the Sobel test tends to have higher power than Baron and Kenny’s (1986) method. and Sheets (2002) found that. coping style was examined as a moderator between personality and work-family conflict. Lockwood. only one hypothesized relationship received support. empirical estimates of statistical power were .

While highly conscientious individuals may report using escape to cope with stressors. while at low levels of conscientiousness. given their less planful nature and the fact that they may be less apt to view stressors as a challenge (versus a threat). A similar argument can be made for the fourth interaction. given their desire to persevere and follow through. individuals high on conscientiousness experienced similar levels of FIW. which may explain the interaction between conscientiousness and escape for family stressors in explaining variance in FIW.three of which involved conscientiousness. Low-conscientious individuals may not have this problem. high use of escape was associated with higher FIW than low use of escape. Just as individuals high on conscientiousness may be unsuccessful at escaping from stressors due to their driven 101 . they may have difficulty implementing this strategy. successful implementation of escape may actually result in higher levels of FIW. On the other hand. making them particularly adept at escaping from stressors. Individuals low on conscientiousness may try to use problem solving and/or positive cognitive restructuring. at low levels of conscientiousness. One possible explanation for this finding is that highly conscientious individuals have the skills to effectively apply these coping styles. between extraversion and escape for family stressors. but they may not be as successful in implementation. On the other hand. For this interaction. highly conscientious individuals who tended to use either of these coping styles experienced lower WIF than those who did not. Specifically. Because escape may be a less effective strategy for minimizing subsequent work-family conflict. neither problem solving for work stressors nor positive cognitive restructuring were related to FIW. which followed a similar pattern. individuals low on conscientiousness may be particularly effective at escaping from their stressors.

which results in higher levels of WIF. while at low levels of neuroticism. At high levels of neuroticism. individuals high on extraversion may be unsuccessful at escaping from stressors due to their desire to be surrounded by other people. use of instrumental support seeking was associated with lower levels of WIF. given that neuroticism items include “Is relaxed. at low levels of neuroticism. the last interaction involved locus of control and instrumental support seeking for family stressors. On the other hand. The fifth interaction involved neuroticism and rumination for family stressors.nature. significant relationship between neuroticism and both WIF and FIW in the present study. as evidenced by the positive. high use of rumination was associated with higher FIW than low use of rumination. For individuals high on internal locus of control. rumination explained little variance in FIW. this coping strategy may be less influential to the WFC experience as it is for someone 102 . for individuals with an external locus of control. Thus. use of instrumental support seeking did not relate to WIF. handles stress well” and “Remains calm in tense situations” (both reverse coded). Conversely. Finally. Individuals high on neuroticism may be predisposed to experience WFC regardless of their choice of coping strategy. even though they may choose to use support seeking for managing stress. given their belief that they have control over outcomes of events. with high use of rumination resulting in more conflict. This predisposition may reflect the fact that neuroticism is partially defined by an individual’s ability (or inability) to handle stress. rumination may play more of a role in the experience of WFC. low-extraverts (or introverts) may be particularly effective at escaping. Individuals with an internal LOC may be less reliant on the support of others for handling stressors. On the other hand.

The observed interactions are theoretically and practically interesting and highlight that certain personality and coping styles may interact to explain variance in work-family conflict. Theoretical Implications Theoretically. these results should be interpreted with caution. and emotions were not directly measured in the present study.with an external LOC. it is unclear whether the lack of findings has any implications for these models. with the exception of neuroticism. However. Given external LOC individuals’ perceived lack of control for handling situations in general. use of instrumental support seeking may play a larger role in their ability to manage stress than it does for individuals with an internal LOC. who believes that outcomes are caused by external circumstances. but none of the other hypothesized relationships between coping and work-family conflict were significant. the present study aimed to contribute to the literature by expanding the nomological network of work-family conflict and by shedding light on the processes by which individual differences relate to the WFC experience. Because resources. and stressors in particular. given the exploratory nature of these analyses. the conservation of resources and spillover models would suggest that individuals are likely to experience less work-family conflict when they utilize coping strategies that increase their resources and/or allow for the positive. as well as the potential for type one error given the large number of analyses. 103 . rather than negative. As previously discussed. thoughts. rumination and escape for work stressors related to WIF. Additionally. spillover of thoughts and emotions from one domain to the other. no support was found for a relationship between the personality variables examined in the present study and either direction work-family conflict. However.

escape for work stressors was negatively related to FIW. while escape for family stressors did not relate to FIW. the present study does have implications for the domain specificity hypothesis. Similarly. the present study cannot speak to the veracity of these assertions. Frone et al. instrumental support seeking. such that an individual experiencing work-family conflict may 104 . 2003. after controlling for partner employment status and the RFD index. and support seeking were conceptualized as coping styles that provide the individual with resources to manage his/her work-family conflict. For example.For example.. while problem solving. 1992). positive cognitive restructuring. and escape for work stressors related to FIW. positive cognitive restructuring. However. and rumination and escape were conceptualized as coping styles that serve to deplete the individual’s resources. and rumination related for WIF after controlling for work time. crossdomain relationships were observed in several cases. none of these coping styles related to WIF. On the other hand. and emotional support seeking related to WIF. which states that situational variables associated with a given domain relate to conflict originating from that domain (Frone. emotional support seeking. One possibility is reverse causality. while coping with family stressors was expected to relate to FIW. Similarly. Based on this hypothesis. In terms of coping with family stressors. because the present study did not assess thoughts and emotions. The reason for the observed cross-domain relationships is unclear. coping with work stressors was expected to relate to WIF. instrumental support seeking. problem solving. it is unclear whether positive cognitive restructuring and rumination affect the spillover process by leading to the transfer of positive or negative affect.

after experiencing FIW. we cannot ascertain whether the relationship between personality and coping can be explained directly and/or indirectly via the appraisal process. Greenhaus et al. Conversely. Because the present study did not assess how individuals appraise stressors. However. Very little research has examined the underlying mechanisms linking personality and work-family conflict. which is consistent with Lazarus and Folkman’s (1984) Cognitive Theory of Stress and Coping. non-experimental nature of the present study’s design. he/she may use problem solving to proactively manage his/her home stressors in order to prevent.. the results are still theoretically meaningful. Although support was only found for one of the proposed mediated relationships. For example. coping style may play a role in the process by which personality and WFC are related. the results 105 . in certain cases.. despite the fact that several researchers have suggested potential mediating variables and discussed the importance of this line of research (e. The present study also has implications for the stress and coping literature. 2004).respond by modifying his/her coping style accordingly. if an individual’s work is interfering with his/her home life. Future research is necessary to examine other potential mediators of these relationships as well. there is no way to determine the direction of the relationships. an individual may mentally escape from his/her work stressors.g. though this may be limited to certain personality-coping pairings. Given the crosssectional.. future conflict. Frone. in order to deal with the experienced conflict. For example. The present study provides support for the idea that. 2006. the results provide general support for a relationship between personality and coping style. that of rumination for work stressors between neuroticism and WIF. Wayne et al. 2003. or minimize the extent of.

an interesting finding was that the improved fit between the five. as each style exhibited a unique pattern of relationships with other variables. On the other hand. the study’s findings point to the importance of considering both dispositional and contextual factors when studying coping. as well as the relationship between coping and other 106 . Furthermore. versus five-factor. For example. the results emphasize the importance of differentiating between instrumental and emotional support seeking. in the family domain. First of all.g. This observation highlights the situational nature of coping. the CFA results demonstrated superior fit for a six-factor. Still.. for some coping styles. the relationship between instrumental and emotional support seeking was much stronger for coping with family stressors than for coping with work stressors (r = . particularly when considered in conjunction with studies that did directly measure individual appraisals of stress (e. while certain coping styles. such as support seeking. Bolger & Zuckerman. may operate differently across domains. 2006). this distinction may be less clear cut. Overall.70).34). solution. 1995. Kulenovic & Buško. In terms of the coping construct in particular.59 versus .are consistent with this notion. rumination for work stressors highly correlated with rumination for family stressors (r = . The distinction between emotional and instrumental support seeking may be more important in the work domain. the dimensionality of the construct. Additionally. given the taskoriented nature of work and the fact that there are likely norms regarding whom the individual may approach for instrumental help and to whom he/she should turn for sympathy and understanding. Moreover. others may be less context-dependent.and six-factor solutions was more evident for coping with work stressors as compared to coping with family stressors. the present study provides important insight.

and modesty in self-report (McCrae et al. the consideration of different specific behaviors. That is not to say that 107 . the present study underscores the value of having multiple raters provide personality ratings. seems to vary across situations. Dispositional variables explained little variance in work-family conflict in the present study. Practical Implications The present study has practical implications as well.. On the other hand. While there was a substantial degree of overlap between self. the results differed. depending on whether self. Regardless of the reason. with work time relating to WIF and significant other’s employment status. these findings highlight the role-related nature of work-family conflict.variables. and the Responsibility for Dependents index relating to FIW. the present study highlights the importance of collecting personality ratings from multiple sources.or significant other-ratings were analyzed. and mean ratings of self-reported neuroticism were significantly lower than mean ratings of significant other-reported neuroticism. number of children living at home. From a practical standpoint. The discrepancies may reflect numerous factors. Additionally. contextual factors may play a smaller role. From a methodological standpoint.and significant other-ratings of personality. including the differential interpretation of items. 1998). Other potential explanations include differences between one’s self-concept and his/her observable behavior. and the fact that some personality traits are more readily observable than others. consistent with past research. in several cases. correlations were far from unity. while for other coping styles. the relationships between work-family conflict and rolerelated variables were in the moderate range. impression management motives.

but it does reinforce the notion that individuals (and organizations) should be mindful of the demands that they place on themselves (and on their employees) and the implications of these demands for employees’ levels of WFC. and to positive cognitive restructuring for work stressors (after controlling for significant other’s employment status and the RFD index). high-neurotics can take active steps to mitigate future conflict. individuals may benefit from training programs that elucidate which coping styles are particularly effective for managing work and family demands and that provide tips on 108 . and they may benefit from this knowledge. By understanding their predisposition to experience WFC. to emotional support seeking. Though highly neurotic individuals may particularly benefit from such training. and to emotional support seeking for family stressors. interventions that target certain coping styles may be helpful to other individuals as well. to instrumental support seeking. the present study found some support for the hypothesis that rumination mediates the relationship between neuroticism and WIF. Thus. such cognitions by engaging in self-talk and other emotion/cognition regulation techniques. Similarly. Highly neurotic individuals may be predisposed to experience WFC. The present study found that WIF was positively related to rumination.individual difference variables are unimportant. Although dispositional variables were largely unrelated to WFC. FIW was positively related to escape for work stressors and negatively related to instrumental support seeking. the relationship between neuroticism and work-family conflict was significant. and to rumination for family stressors (after controlling for work time) and negatively related to problem solving. or minimize. For example. Individuals high on neuroticism can be trained to avoid. to escape for work stressors.

with 73. the majority likely held professional. organizational commitment. rather than through random sampling.6 percent reporting a household income of $100. Similarly. the sample was highly educated. each of which has implications for the generalizability and interpretation of the study’s findings. etc. First. lawn care services. depression) and organizational (e. 90. job satisfaction. such training programs have the potential for widereaching effects..g. the type of family/home 109 .. white collar positions. a professional organization for I/O psychologists. so the sample is not necessarily representative of the larger population. given that participants with a high household income may have the means to utilize quality childcare. turnover intentions) consequences of WFC (Allen et al. Moreover.6 percent having a doctoral degree. housecleaning services. Additionally. the vast majority of participants were identified based on their affiliation with SIOP. with 67. 2000. Organizations could develop and implement such interventions to help employees effectively manage work and family stressors. Given the deleterious individual (e. and. 2005)..g.how to effectively implement certain styles while minimizing the use of other styles. given that participants were largely recruited from a professional organization. and of high socio-economic status. MesmerMagnus & Viswesvaran. The type of work stressors associated with such jobs are clearly very different than those experienced by a blue collar worker. Limitations The present study has several limitations. burnout.. stress. which may have implications for the type of coping strategy that will be selected and effective for managing work demands. As a result.2 percent of the sample was White/Caucasian.000 or higher. participants were recruited via a snowball approach.

Thus.stressors that they experience may differ as well. Common method bias is of particular concern for variables that are considered socially desirable or undesirable. based on poor item-level statistics. Another concern is common method variance. While the present study hypothesized that personality leads to coping style. self-reports of coping style are subject to memory and reporting biases (Smith. a few items were removed. Hickcox. 1998). a new measure was developed to assess coping style. Another limitation is the cross-sectional. correlational nature of the study design. Given the non-representativeness of the sample. While the majority of constructs were measured with existing. retrospective. To the extent that participants were motivated to use impression management techniques for reporting both coping style and work-family conflict. as elucidated by Spector (2006). the study design precludes any statements of causality. Additionally. While the alpha coefficients for 110 . the observed relationship between these variables may be inflated. 1999. psychometrically established scales. Marco. and a pilot study was used to guide item selection. Schwartz. no such measure was available for coping style. based on the taxonomy used in the present study. & Ptacek. On the other hand..e. Specifically. it is unclear the extent that these findings generalize to the broader population. the influence of common method bias may be smaller than is often suggested. Shiffman. Stone. the coping measure used in the present study was not without problems. resulting in a three-item measure for escape. Even though significant other-ratings of personality were collected. several of the study hypotheses relied solely on self-reported variables (i. Neale. et al. which leads to work-family conflict.. Although most of the coping items came from existing scales. Leffingwell. relationships between coping style and work-family conflict).

such as the availability of resources to manage work and family demands and/or the level of role demands experienced by the individual. confirmatory factor analysis results indicated improved fit for differentiating between instrumental and emotional support seeking. for exploratory purposes. a longer measure would have been preferable. Future researchers should use a theoretically-driven approach to explore the notion that coping style moderates the relationship between personality and work-family conflict. the AGFI indices were not optimal. As the present study demonstrates. Similarly.64 for work stressors and .77 for family stressors). Individual differences such as personality may play less of a role in explaining variance in work-family conflict when the individual is able to rely on other types of 111 .the escape scale were acceptable (. Finally. these analyses were done post hoc. though the initial intention was to use a singular scale to assess support seeking. in order to adequately assess the construct. However. Another possible moderator is situational factors. there is some support for the notion that certain coping styles interact with personality to explain variance in WFC. research investigating the presence of moderators is warranted. Given the inconsistent results in the literature between several personality variables and work-family conflict. Future Directions There are several theoretically important and practically relevant avenues available for future research. Thus. additional research is necessary to refine the scale and provide more psychometric support and construct validity evidence. The result of the breakdown was a two-item measure for emotional support seeking and a three-item measure for instrumental support seeking. though the CFA results revealed acceptable fit for a six-factor solution.

On the other hand. 1996). to help manage his/her work and family demands. individual differences in characteristic patterns of behavior may do little to alleviate (or intensify) the felt experience of WFC when one’s objective workload is extremely high or low. in an attempt to understand the inconsistent findings in the literature between work-family conflict and personality. extraversion. One important variable to consider in this line of research is situational strength. personality may be less influential to one’s level of work-family conflict. Similarly. when work and/or family demands are at extreme levels. Future research should examine this supposition. the coping literature would benefit from an enhanced understanding of the circumstances in which coping styles do and do not generalize across situations. 112 . In terms of future research directions involving the link between personality and coping style. such as quality childcare and housecleaning services. when such resources are unavailable and/or demands are at a moderate level. Specifically. it is important to further examine why personality and coping style are related in some situations but not others. whereby responses may be relatively similar across individuals. while the role of personality may become increasingly important in “weaker” situations (Suls & David. in other words. Personality differences are likely to play a smaller role in responding to “strong” problem situations.resources. Future research is necessary to explore this supposition. taking an interactionist approach. To fully understand the nature of these relationships. and locus of control. and particularly conscientiousness. researchers must simultaneously consider individual differences and situational variables. the individual’s personal dispositions may play a larger role in the work-family conflict experience.

more research is necessary to fully explore these relationships. in that positive thinking for work stressors was negatively related to strain-based. positive cognitive restructuring. coping styles that rely on affective responses to stress (e. the relationship between coping and work-family conflict may vary by type of conflict. 1995). Thus.g. simply by adding “at work” to several of the items (Hunthausen.It may also be fruitful to assess personality using a context-specific approach in order to more accurately estimate the relationship between personality and coping with work and family stressors. Rotondo et al. and it may be fruitful to use a measure of WFC that assesses behavior-based conflict as well. In support of this notion. & Powell. (2003) found some support for this notion. & Hammer. future research should examine the relationship between personality in the work context and coping with work demands. Bauer. as well as the relationship between personality in the family/home context and coping with family demands. Additional research examining the relationship between coping and WFC is also warranted. For example. or conditional dispositions.g. Ryan. 113 . when assessing the relationship between personality and coping style for managing work and family demands. Truxillo. Such research may yield more significant findings than using a general measure of personality. Stierwalt. problem solving. As demonstrated by Rotondo et al. Wright and Mischel (1987) suggested that although people may demonstrate stable patterns of behaviors. but not timebased. such behaviors may be contingent on situational conditions. (2003). Schmit. researchers have found significant increases in the validity of personality measures. However.. while behaviors aimed at directly tackling the problem (e. 2003. rumination) may relate to strain-based conflict. instrumental support seeking) may have a stronger association with time-based conflict. WIF..

and/or pretending that the event has not occurred. while emotion-focused coping is likely to relate to internal WFC. and researchers have found some support for a link between coping and WFC using this distinction (Aryee et al. 1999. which differentiates between external (representing outward behavioral interference) and internal (representing psychological preoccupation while in the other role) conflict. participants were asked how often they engage in each coping behavior and/or experience each affective/cognitive response. while several individuals may try to work harder and more efficiently or attempt to see the problem in a positive light. To some extent.versus emotion-focused coping taxonomy. 2005). Alternatively. In the present study. future research could examine the link between coping and the WFC experience using Carlson and Frone’s (2003) conceptualization of work-family conflict. and Williams’s (2000) six-dimension measure. However. some individuals may be more successful than others in implementing these behaviors/cognitions. Smoot. Similarly. Specifically. For example. it is possible that there are also individual differences in how effectively each coping style is carried out.. Despite the limitations of the problem. 2006. Lapierre & Allen. Another viable and important future direction is to examine coping effectiveness in relation to work-family conflict. in that some items 114 . The internal-external distinction aligns well with Lazarus and Folkman’s (1984) problemfocused and emotion-focused coping. some individuals may be more effective than others in making a plan of action. Kacmar. problem-focused coping is likely to relate to external WFC. this issue gets at the measurement of coping style. seeking out individuals who are particularly supportive and/or knowledgeable in the problem at hand.such as Carlson. the majority of coping research still uses these broad conceptualizations.

g. Lapierre & Allen. Frone (2003) distinguished between two types of strategies: personal initiatives (e. as well as organizational norms and policies. The present study focused on coping in particular. 115 . family-friendly organizational policies and benefits. and individual tactics (use of problem-focused coping).g. individuals. Future research should tease apart these differences and examine how both frequency and effectiveness of coping style relate to work-family conflict and other types of strain. Lapierre and Allen (2006) described three types of conflict avoidance tactics. Researchers may benefit from applying a systems approach in order to fully consider how the actions of the individual. With few exceptions (e. such as flexible work arrangements and dependent care assistance). in reality. 2006). Additional research in this area is clearly warranted. reducing the psychological importance of one role) and organizational initiatives (e. and coworkers. coping. families. interact to affect the work-family conflict experience. Coping represents one strategy for managing work and family demands. researchers have not examined coping strategies in conjunction with other types of initiatives to determine their simultaneous effect on work-family conflict.. I try to forget the whole thing).g. those in the family domain (emotional sustenance and instrumental assistance).g... use of telework and flextime). but it is important to examine a variety of strategies simultaneously in order to understand the full picture. and organizations often utilize multiple strategies to reduce workfamily conflict.. I spend too much time focusing on the stressful situation). supervisor. including those in the work domain (family supportive supervision.g. while others are more descriptive of what the individual actually experiences (e. family.. Similarly.represent an attempt to act (e.

families. organizations. 116 . the WFC experience. and experience sampling approaches. allowing for a more dynamic assessment of the coping process and how coping relates to work-family conflict over time. as well as the processes underlying these relationships. Such research would help bridge the gap between coping research in general and the few studies that have developed coping taxonomies specific to the workfamily domain. personality and coping style. Conclusion By examining two relatively neglected types of antecedents to WFC. the present study makes an important contribution to the work-family literature. how individuals. such as qualitative. Finally. using alternative methodologies. and society work together to mitigate. longitudinal. and coping may help explain the relationship between personality and WFC for certain variables. or exacerbate. in particular. While the present study has important theoretical and practical implications. Qualitative research would shed additional light on the particular coping styles individuals use to manage work and family demands and the extent to which they overlap and diverge from coping strategies used in other domains.The field would also benefit from an exploration of the study’s relationships. additional research is clearly needed to gain a better understanding of how individual differences relate to work-family conflict and. Results support the notion that certain personality traits and coping styles relate to work-family conflict. well-validated coping measure. future research should replicate the present study with a more representative sample and a psychometrically established. Longitudinal and experience sampling methodologies would provide insight into how individuals cope with work and family stressors on a daily basis and over an extended period of time. and the coping domain in particular.

S. & Jex. & Sutton. 5. T. 259-278. T. Luk. work-family conflict. D. 54. Relationships between time management. 58. S. (1999). 22(8). A. The role of personality and coping in work-family conflict: New directions. 72-77. C. Role stressors. & Thompson. and well-being: The moderating influence of spousal support and coping behaviors among employed parents in Hong Kong.. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. C. M. Family-supportive work environments: The role of organizational perceptions. 117 . control. interrole conflict. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Dispositional and situational sources of control: Relative impact on work-family conflict and positive spillover. Andreassi. Allen. Andreassi.. S. (2007). 722-740. Journal of Managerial Psychology. K. Leung. Journal of Vocational Behavior. V. D. (2001). Journal of Vocational Behavior. & Lo. (1999)... A.. and strain. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. Aryee. Bruck. A. D. S. City University of New York. (2000). Allen. 414-435. M..References Adams. Consequences associated with work-to-family conflict: A review and agenda for future research. Herst. 278-308.. J.. K. 4. G. J. (2007).

. Bolger. 487-500. (2003). 1005-1018. Age differences in emotionregulation strategies in handling everyday problems. H. and compensation behaviors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Behson. G. S. Reduction of work-family conflict through the use of selection. R. Baron. A. (1995). Ben-Zur. cognitive appraisals. (2004).. A. 221-238. & Zuckerman.. B. 261-269. A framework for studying personality in the stress process. European Journal of Personality. F.. T. 66. 18. B. and psychological distress. (1986). H. 59. J. 923-939. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences. D. 26. 51. strategic and statistical considerations. emotional correlates and cognitive performance. (2005). Situational and dispositional coping: An examination of their relationship to personality. (2004). The relative contribution of formal and informal organizational work-family support.. Stein. Journal of Applied Psychology. 525-537. The effectiveness of coping meta-strategies: Perceived efficiency. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual. 118 . 1173-1182. M. A. & Kenny. (1990). N. Coping as a personality process. 890-902.. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. R. Bouchard. optimization. 69.. Journal of Vocational Behavior.Baltes. Blanchard-Fields. N. L. Personality and Individual Differences. Guillemette. (1999). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 88. 59. & Landry-Leger. N. & Watson. A. Bolger. A prospective study. & Heydens-Gahir.

Journal of Vocational Behavior. M. 63. Journal of Business and Psychology. D. (2000). W. Journal of Management. Burns. & Williams. (1993). A. D. K. J. (1999). 457-472. D. Journal of Vocational Behavior. & Cudeck. D. K. C. Journal of Vocational Behavior. perfectionism. A meta-analytic review of work-family conflict and its antecedents. 15. type A behavior. 212-535. S. 55.. Carlson. R. Dittman. K. Bollen & J. Bruck. T. & Frone. 169-198. and control: Associations with vigilant and avoidant coping. & Mitchelson. 35-46. M. and work-family conflict. The role of social support in the stressor-strain relationship: An examination of work-family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 25. Carlson.Browne. D. 67.. Kacmar. 136–142).. Construction and initial validation of a multidimensional measure of work family conflict. Carlson. 249-276. L. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Byron. (2000). 17... M. The relationship between big five personality traits. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality. Carlson. L. Academic procrastination. R.). L. 119 . Nguyen. 56. S. Testing structural equation models (pp.. (2003). Newbury Park. negative affectivity. CA: Sage. & Allen. 513-540. (1999).. S. J. (2003). P. Long (Eds. (2005). R. S. In K. N. & Perrewé. 236-253. Personality and role variables as predictors of three forms of workfamily conflict.. K. S. Relation of behavioral and psychological involvement to a new four-factor conceptualization of work-family interference.

B.. 120 . C. E. & Parker. T. S. Work and family research in IO/OB: Content analysis and review of the literature (19802002). J... Eysenck. New York: Plenum Press. L. M. J. problems. Personality and individual differences: A natural science approach. 976-992. T. 56(2). Eby.. S. J.. Responses to stress in adolescence: Measurement of coping and involuntary stress responses. 58(5). & Brinley.)..Carver. (1992). K.. & McCrae. M. 127. Compas. Connor-Smith. Psychological Bulletin. (2000). J. Connor-Smith. F. D. M. (1985). 124-197. & Wadsworth. Carver. (1990). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. & Scheier. & Flachsbart. M. A. FL: Psychological Assessment Resources... E. J.. 267-283. Compas. 844-854. Saltzman. P. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. W. H. Connor-Smith. Lockwood. (2005). A. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Relations between personality and coping: A meta-analysis. J. J. Perspectives on personality (4th ed. C. & Wadsworth. K. H... (2000). Endler. 66. K. E. Odessa. K. W. 10801107. (2001).. C. (1989). N. Bordeaux. Scheier.. Multidimensional assessment of coping: A critical evaluation. E. 93(6). F. H.. & Eysenck. Journal of Vocational Behavior. Coping with stress during childhood and adolescence: Progress. Assessing coping strategies: A theoretically based approach. Jr. S. Casper... Thomsen. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. & Weintraub. A.. Costa. 68(6). R. B. C. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. (2007). 87-127. Inc. NEO PI-R professional manual. and potential in theory and research. R. M. A.

M.. (2003). In J. Frone. (1984). S. An analysis of coping in a middle-aged community sample. Russell. S. 59. DC: American Psychological Association. A. Monet & R. Psychological Reports. Lazarus. E.). R. Work and family satisfaction and conflict: A meta-analysis of cross-domain relations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Lazarus (Eds. S. L. Tetrick (Eds. M. R. and encounter outcomes. (1980). C. R. M. Ford. R. (1986). 46. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. A. Rotter’s locus of control scale: A ten-item two-factor model. coping.. S. Antecedents and outcomes of workfamily conflict: Testing a model of the work-family interface. Personal control and stress and coping processes: A theoretical analysis. 207-227). Journal of Applied Psychology.. Journal of Applied Psychology. Handbook of Occupational Health Psychology (pp.Ferguson. DeLongis. (1991). Folkman. B. Frone.. R. & Cooper. L. Washington. Coping and emotion. 121 . 219-239. 50. C. 1216-1229. S.. 65-78. Folkman. Work-family balance. Heinen. Folkman. R. 992-1003. (1992). 1267-1278. T. 77(1).. & Lazarus. 92. 143-162).. 839-852. & Lazarus. Folkman.. Dunkel-Schetter. (1993). (2007).. S. 73(3). New York: Columbia University Press. L. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. S. K. An alternative “description of personality”: The big-five factor structure. Goldberg. S. 21. R. & Langkamer. E.). M. Quick & L.. Stress and coping (pp. The dynamics of a stressful encounter: Cognitive appraisals. In A. & Gruen. (1990). M. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 57-80.

R. P. J.. (2006). & Gough. J. (1985). G. G. Administrative Science Quarterly. Haren. (2006).. Grzywacz. L. C. (1991). Greenhaus. H. Research in Occupational Stress and Well Being. R. Cloninger. Hall. Psychology and Education: An Interdisciplinary Journal. C. & Klepa. Coping with work stress: The influence of individual differences. D. Greenhaus. 40. Journal of Applied Psychology. 122 . E. 17. (2000). The Academy of Management Review. Johnson. & Marks. P. & Beutell. Eber.. S. Ashton. 40(1). S. 38-49. J. J. 61–99.. 471-486. T. W. (2003). 5. D. 76.. T. L. 6. Journal of Research in Personality. C. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality. Allen. 199-212. (1972).. A. 111126. & Mitchell.. B..Goldberg. N.. & Keenan. F. Relationships between the five-factor personality model and coping styles. A model of coping with role conflict: The role behavior of college educated women.. Havlovic. Hogan. H. J. Rational versus gender role expectations for work-family conflict. E. C. Sources of conflict between work and family roles. H. Reconceptualizing the work-family interface: An ecological perspective on the correlates of positive and negative spillover between work and family. J. N. 76-88. 10. 560-568.. 8496.. Gutek. M.. 5.. R. (1991). W. H. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. & Spector. Health consequences of work– family conflict: The dark side of the work–family interface. Searle. A. The International Personality Item Pool and the future of public-domain personality measures. J.

& Bentler. M. Journal of Applied Psychology. L. K. T. (1999). 6. The sources of stress and coping styles as mediators and moderators of the relationship between personality traits and physical symptoms.. S. Hudek-Knežević. P. Maladaptive personality traits. (2005). L. coping style. Retrieved March 7. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives.redorbit. L. and stressors among Israeli university students. J. Review of Psychology. Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. 41(3). 1–55.. & Hammer. A field study of frame of reference effects on personality test validity. 513-524. S. Hu. American Psychologist. L. 88. & Maglica. http://www. A. R. A.. E. The second shift (2nd ed. M. Structural Equations Modeling. Hochschild. & Ballarini. (2003). B. New York: Penguin Books. 123 .. & Kardum. Brown. Bauer. 561-573. J. (2006). M. I. Ireland. Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparametized model misspecification. & Bentler. Hu. Psychological Methods. The Journal of Psychology. T. 2008 from. (1989).. (1998). Examination of the salutogenic model. B. J. L. M.. (2003)... support resources.Heiman. 545–551.. 424–453. 44.). P. 3. N.com/news/health/112504/examination_of_the_salutogenic_m odel_support_resources_coping_style_and/ Hobfoll.. coping styles and psychological distress: A study of adult male prisoners. 91-101. S. & Machung. (2004). D. 12(2). Hunthausen. Personality and Individual Differences. Truxillo.

M. (1964)... P. (2005). 35(2). A. O. Donahue. D. John. Personality and coping: A study of twins reared apart and twins reared together. (1998). E. (1995).. Berkeley.. Retrieved December 28. Organizational psychology: A scientist practitioner apporach. 157-177. M. N. Quinn. 51(2). A.net/cm/mediate.. O. P. R. S.. 2008. & Mäkikangas. L. A. Wolfe.. 147-158. (1991). Jex. The Big Five Inventory – Versions 4a and 54. Human Relations.).. S. & Rosenthal. Kato. E. L. pp. 1669-1683. measurement.. (2002). Berkeley: University of California. Kenny. John (Eds. Kinnunen. A. D. M. & Mauno. In L. (2003). Pervin & O. 959-962. Behavior Genetics. New York: Guilford. from http://davidakenny. L. J.. D. & Kentle. Vermulst. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Personality and Individual Differences. (1999). Gerris. A.. P. J. K. & Srivastava. Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed. and theoretical perspectives. Institute of Personality and Social Research. R. J.. Psychological Reports. Organizational stress. R. 76.Jelinek. 35(7). 124 . M. Work–family conflict and its relations to well-being: The role of personality as a moderating factor. & Morf. U. Snoek. Accounting for variance shared by measures of personality and stress-related variables: A canonical correlation analysis. Kahn. S. The big-five trait taxonomy: History. R. Antecedents and outcomes of work-family conflict among employed women and men in Finland. & Pedersen. 102-138). New York: John Wiley & Sons. U. John.. Mediation. (2008).htm Kinnunen..

S.Kirchmeyer. & Buško. R.). (1974). Principles and practices of structural equation modeling. 289-306). 169-181. family-supportive supervision. New York: Guilford. T. D. New York: Guilford. Lewis (Eds).. (1984). I. In W. and aging (pp. (2006) Work-supportive family. Handbook of emotion. Levenson. 377-385. Perspectives in interactional psychology.. (1982). 103-112. and problem-focused coping: Implications for work-family conflict and employee well-being. Lazarus. Journal of Personality Assessment. H. Activism and powerful others: Distinctions within the concept internal-external control. D. Maletesta-Magni & S. Kulenovic. 531-552. Review of Psychology.. McFadden (Eds. In L. & Folkman. (1996). B. Appraisal and Coping. 11(2). and coping relationships. S. 28. Lazarus. (1993). S. Lapierre. Stress-related transactions between person and environment. L. R. (1978). use of organizational benefits. 13(2). R. In C. Stress. H. R. New York: Academic Press. A. Nonwork-to-work spillover: A more balanced view of the experiences and coping of professional women and men. 125 . V. Lazarus. adult development.. The handbook of behavioural medicine. R. Gentry (Ed. Structural equation analyses of personality. S. S. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. Kline. (2006). & Folkman.). New York: Plenum. & Allen. appraisals. S. Pervin & M. New York: Springer. Lazarus. R. 38. C. The role of coping in the emotions and how coping changes over the life course. A. M. Coping and adaptation. (1998). & Launier.. Sex Roles.

. J. New York: Academic Press. powerful others. Journal of Personality. Work-family conflict and the stressbuffering effects of husband support and coping behavior among Japanese married working women. A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. O. P.... P. Journal of Personality. (1992). I): Assessment methods (pp. C. West. V... V. & Sheets. 15-63).). (2002). J. (1981). 919–928. 126 .. Mesmer-Magnus. T. (1996). G. L. McCrae.Levenson. Identifying causes of disagreement between self-reports and spouse ratings of personality. & Viswesvaran. Correlates of coping behaviours: Internal and external resources. C. 178-192. Matsui. Ohsawa. Hoffman. Fagan. 285-313. 66(3). M. (1998). S. 297-307.. In H. M.. 9(3). S. R. Convergence between measures of work-to-family and family-to-work conflict: A meta-analytic examination.. P. & Costa. R. Lefcourt (Ed. Journal of Vocational Behavior. Stone. and chance. (1984). An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. Lu... McCrae. R. 60. D. T. & John. 175-215. J. M. 215-232. T. 47. R. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 83-104. McCrae. 67. Differentiating among internality. (2005). and challenge. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. P. Lockwood. 7(1). R. & Chen. Jr.. Psychological Methods. Counseling Psychology Quarterly. R. threat.. MacKinnon. Research with the locus of control construct (Vol. 46. & Onglatco. R. C. S. Situational determinants of coping responses: Loss. M. H. (1995).

406-415. G. S. R. Research with the locus of control construct (Vol. R. Lefcourt (Ed. D. B. & Razavi. and women’s well-being: Tests of alternative pathways. 127 . (1995). Development and validation of work-family conflict and family-work conflict scales. K. Personality and attitudinal variables as predictors of voluntary union membership.. T. 81(4). M.. Work–family conflict. The Journal of Social Psychology. I. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 44. (1981). R. 655-668. Parkes. 645– 662. Netemeyer. N. cognitive appraisal. Journal of personality assessment. R. L. E. M. Appraisal of and coping with real-life stressful situation: The contribution of attachment styles. D. 37. J. New York: Academic Press. & McMurrian. Mutěn. Boles.). R. 46. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 161-188).Mikulincer. Paulhus. & Victor. spouse ratings. In H. D.): Assessment methods (pp. K. and coping in stressful situations. 57(3). 1253–1265.. Paulhus. Self-reports. 333-347. & Christie.. Personality and Individual Differences. Parkes. (1996). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Sphere-specific measures of perceived control. F. Spheres of control: An interactionist approach to assessment of perceived control. L. 21(4). (2004). (1983). 142(5). (1984). locus of control. Journal of Applied Psychology. 400-410. and psychophysiological assessment in a behavioral medicine program: An application of the five-factor model. (1991). (2002). M. Locus of control. 449-464. Noor.

Ithaca. Spillover. A. M. 5-37. (1991). M. (2003). Carlson. The relationship among locus of control. 1029-1036. Rotter. Roth. C. T. & Van Selst.. and psychological symptom reporting. Psychological Monographs General and Applied. & Kincaid. Instruments. Rotondo. American Psychologist. M. J. S. & Batt. & Computers. (1986). D. avoidance. S. (1999).. SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. F. Changing the world and changing the self: A two process model of perceived control. ‘Family’ in organizational research: A review and comparison of definitions and measures. (2004).. Coping with multiple dimensions of work-family conflict.. General expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. and coping with stress.. J. 41.Paulhus. Behavior Research Methods. 11(10). J. F. S. 128 . Petrosky. J. & Hayes. D. (1990).. 717-731. F. 101-121). 336-345. 32. Personnel Review. 1-28. Roehling. NY: Cornell University Press..). Journal of Organizational Behavior. Journal of Clinical Psychology. L. (1966). & Birkimer. P. Rothausen. P. 47. 817-836. Weisz.. 42. Approach. & Cohen. 80. B. 36(4). Moen. 20(6). & Snyder. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. K. R. J. S. J. Moen (Ed. Personality and Individual Differences. (1982). R. D. The Spheres of Control Scale: 10 years of research. Rothbaum. Preacher. J.. In P. L. 275-296. It’s about time (pp.. (2003). coping styles. 813-819.

& Powell.). (2005). T. J. 80. Schan. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology.. rumination. (2007). When thinking hurts: Attachment.. & Ptacek. C.. E. Auburn University. (1995).Rotter. 56-67. & Sherwood. K. 1050–1061.. M. 43. 129(2). J. Schmit. R. and understanding: An inquiry into human knowledge structures. 76. Skinner. The mediational role of coping in the relationship between personality and work-family conflict. B. & Ehrenberg. 290312). J. Ryan. Some problems and misconceptions related to the construct of internal versus external control of reinforcement. E. (2003). goals. Psychological Bulletin. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 351-368. Saffrey.. Scripts. Smoot. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. B. Can people remember how they coped? Factors associated with discordance between same-day and retrospective reports. (1975). Personal Relationships. 14. Stierwalt. Sobel.. M... S. Altman. A. 216-269. A. (1999). A. Hillsdale. In S. M. Frame-of-reference effects in personality scale scores and criterion-related validity. & Abelson. T. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. Leinhart (Ed. L. R. S. 129 . plans. M. (1977). 607–620. (1982). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Leffingwell.. J. Smith. Journal of Applied Psychology.. Searching for the structure of coping: A review and critique of category systems for classifying ways of coping. M. H. R. Edge. Sociological methodology 1982 (pp. E. and postrelationship adjustment. R.

6.. C. Vollrath. (1995). Van Heck (Eds. J. 12(1). S. Allen. 335-347. pp. Hofstee. Coping and personality: Third time’s the charm? Journal of Personality. A. & Drach-Zahavy. 1670– 1680. On the importance of coping: A model and new directions for research on work and family. Spector. E. K. 5. M. J. Raad.. 221-232. D. Strategies for coping with work-family conflict: The distinctive relationships of gender role ideology. et al. 130 . S. A. (1996). & Alnæs. A. Caviezel. K. A. Tilburg: Tilburg University Press. (1994). P. Fischli. Shiffman. D. Marco. P.. 74. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 64(4).. Method variance in organizational research: Truth or urban legend? Organizational Research Methods. Vollrath. A. (2007). Y. 1-19. 42. Personality and Individual Differences. M. & David. 262-273).. R. Coping as a mediator or moderator of personality in mental health? In B. 9. Research in Occupational Stress and Well Being. C. M. (2007). M. J. (2006). 73-113. M.... Poelmans. & Jungo.. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. L. W. Scandanavian Journal of Psychology. (2001). & G.).. Stone. Thompson. 117-125. Banholzer. Hickcox. Neale. Vollrath. 18.. Personality as long-term predictor of coping. Personality psychology in Europe (Vol.Somech. Suls. & Andreassi. C. E.. A. E. A comparison of coping assessed by ecological momentary assessment and retrospective recall.. J. Schwartz.. B.. Torgersen. D. A. 993-1005. T. (1998). J. C. M. Personality and stress. S...

W. Psychological Bulletin. & Fleeson. Williams. Considering the role of personality in the work-family experience: Relationships of the big five to work-family conflict and facilitation. & Mischel. 108-130. & Tellegen. (2004). Watson. D.Watson. J. M. 37(4). 64. N. B. (1987). Toward a consensual structure of mood.. and perceptions of work-family conflict in employed parents. 1159-1177.. 64. J... W. Adaptational style and dispositional structure: Coping in the context of the five-factor model. 837-868.. D. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Musisca. Journal of Personality. (1985). Wright. & Hubbard. J. C. 131 . 219-235. The Academy of Management Journal. Role stressors.. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 98. Wayne. H. (1996). & Alliger. 737-774. (1994). G. A. 53. K. A conditional approach to dispositional constructs: The local predictability of social behavior. mood spillover.

Appendices

132

Appendix A: Hypothesized Relationships
Coping Styles that Increase the Individual’s Resources

Problem Solving (direct action, planning, decision-making) Conscientiousness Support Seeking (comfort seeking, help seeking) Extraversion Cognitive Restructuring (positive thinking, self-encouragement)

WIF/FIW

Internal Locus of Control

Neuroticism

Rumination (intrusive/negative thoughts, self-blame, worry)

Escape (avoidance, disengagement, denial)

Coping Styles that Do Not Increase the Individual’s Resources

Figure 7. Hypothesized relationships between personality variables, coping styles, and work-family conflict. 133

Appendix B: Big Five Personality Scale Items (Conscientiousness, Extraversion, and Neuroticism; John et al., 1991)

Directions: Here are a number of characteristics that may or may not apply to you [your spouse/significant other]. For example, do you agree that you are someone [your spouse/significant other is someone] who likes to spend time with others? For each item below, indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with that statement.

Conscientiousness Items 1. Does a thorough job 2. Can be somewhat careless (R) 3. Is a reliable worker 4. Tends to be disorganized (R) 5. Tends to be lazy (R) 6. Perseveres until the task is finished 7. Does things efficiently 8. Makes plans and follows through 9. Is easily distracted (R)

Extraversion Items 1. Is talkative 2. Is reserved (R) 3. Is full of energy 134

blue 2. Is emotionally stable. Has an assertive personality 7. Can be tense 4. Is relaxed. Worries a lot 5. not easily upset (R) 6. Can be moody 7. Is depressed. Generates a lot of enthusiasm 5. sociable Neuroticism Items 1. inhibited (R) 8. Gets nervous easily 135 . Is outgoing. Tends to be quiet (R) 6.Appendix B: (Continued) 4. handles stress well (R) 3. Is sometimes shy. Remains calm in tense situations (R) 8.

I usually do not set goals because I have a hard time following through on them. Bad luck has sometimes prevented me from achieving things. I can usually achieve what I want when I work hard for it. (R) 136 . Most of what will happen in my career is beyond my control. 9. (R) 10. 1990) Directions: For each statement below. (R) 7. I can learn almost anything if I set my mind to it.Appendix C: Locus of Control Scale Items (Paulhus & Van Selst. Almost anything is possible for me if I really want it. 2. Once I make plans I am almost certain to make them work. 3. 5. (R) 4. (R) 8. 1. 6. I prefer games involving some luck over games of pure skill. indicate how accurately or inaccurately each statement describes you. I find it pointless to keep working on something that is too difficult for me. My major accomplishments are entirely due to my hard work and ability.

1991. or support from someone. I do something to try to fix the problem or take action to change things. 2000. understanding. Havlovic & Keenan. 1986. 3.Appendix D: Coping Scale Items (Adapted from Carver et al. I talk to someone about how I feel. Folkman et al. I ask people who have had similar experiences what they did. 1989. I talk to someone to find out more about the situation. think of stressful situations you have faced at work [home]. Folkman & Lazarus. indicate how often you react in each of the following ways in response to such situations. and Saffrey & Ehrenberg.. Connor-Smith et al. 2007) Directions: In this section. 2. Support Seeking 1. I make a plan of action. 3. I concentrate my efforts on doing something about it. 137 . I try to work harder and more efficiently. 1980. 5. I come up with a couple of different solutions to the problem. Using the scale below.. Problem Solving 1.1 5. I talk to someone who could do something concrete about the problem. 4. 4. 2. I get sympathy.

4. I think about the challenges I can find in this situation. 5. 4. 3. I hope a miracle will happen. 2. Thoughts about the stressful situation just pop into my head. I pretend that it hasn't really happened.1 2. I think about every single detail of the event over and over again. 4. I tell myself that everything will be alright. I go on as if nothing happened. 2. Escape 1. I dwell on my feelings following the stressful event. 138 . to make it seem more positive. I try to forget the whole thing. 5. I remind myself that other people have been in this situation and that I can probably do as well as they did. I try to see it in a different light. 3. I think of ways to use this situation to show what I can do. I spend too much time focusing on the stressful situation. 3.Appendix D: (Continued) Positive Cognitive Restructuring 1. I get so caught up with thinking about the stressful event that it’s hard to focus on anything else. Rumination 1. 1 Item not used in analysis.

accomplishing daily tasks.. 5. 4. The demands of my work interfere with my home and family life. Things I want to do at home do not get done because of demands my job puts on me. Family-related strain interferes with my ability to perform job-related duties. Please read the following items and indicate how often you experience each statement. and working overtime. Things I want to do at work don't get done because of the demands of my family or spouse/partner. WIF Items 1.Appendix E: Work-Family Conflict Scale Items (Netemeyer et al. My home life interferes with my responsibilities at work such as getting to work on time. 139 . 2. The demands of my family or spouse/partner interfere with work-related activities. I have to make changes to my plans for family activities. My job produces strain that makes it difficult to fulfill family duties. 3. I have to put off doing things at work because of demands on my time at home. 2. 3. FIW Items 1. Due to work-related duties. 5. 1996) Directions: This section asks questions about balancing work and family demands. 4. The amount of time my job takes up makes it difficult to fulfill family responsibilities.

Appendix F: Hypothesis Testing with Self-Reported Personality and with the Average of Self- and Significant Other-Reported Personality

Table 32. Regression of WIF and FIW on Conscientiousness (Self-Report) Dependent Variable WIF FIW Independent Variable Conscientiousness -.13 -.09 Control Variables Work Time .38** 1 SO Employment .23** 2 .37** RFD 2 ∆ in R .15 .16 2 Overall R .16 .17 2 Adjusted R .15 .15 Overall F 18.41** 13.19** *p<.05; **p<.01; βs are standardized regression weights from the final equation 1 Significant Other; 2Responsibility for Dependents Index

Table 33. Regression of WIF and FIW on Conscientiousness (Average of Self- and Significant Other-Report) Dependent Variable WIF FIW Independent Variable Conscientiousness -.10 -.04 Control Variables Work Time .38** 1 SO Employment .23** 2 RFD .37** 2 .15 .16 ∆ in R 2 Overall R .15 .16 2 Adjusted R .14 .15 Overall F 17.51** 12.66** *p<.05; **p<.01; βs are standardized regression weights from the final equation 1 Significant Other; 2Responsibility for Dependents Index 140

Appendix F: (Continued)

Table 34. Regression of WIF and FIW on Extraversion (Self-Report) Dependent Variable WIF FIW Independent Variable Extraversion -.07 -.04 Control Variables Work Time .37** 1 SO Employment .23** 2 .37** RFD 2 ∆ in R .13 .16 2 Overall R .14 .16 2 Adjusted R .14 .15 Overall F 16.86** 12.66** *p<.05; **p<.01; βs are standardized regression weights from the final equation 1 Significant Other; 2Responsibility for Dependents Index

Table 35. Regression of WIF and FIW on Extraversion (Average of Self- and Significant Other-Report) Dependent Variable WIF FIW Independent Variable Extraversion -.06 -.07 Control Variables Work Time .37** 1 SO Employment .22** 2 RFD .37** 2 .13 .16 ∆ in R 2 Overall R .14 .16 2 Adjusted R .13 .15 Overall F 16.73** 12.95** *p<.05; **p<.01; βs are standardized regression weights from the final equation 1 Significant Other; 2Responsibility for Dependents Index 141

Appendix F: (Continued)

Table 36. Regression of WIF and FIW on Neuroticism (Self-Report) Dependent Variable WIF FIW Independent Variable Neuroticism .22** .16* Control Variables Work Time .37** 1 SO Employment .20** 2 .37** RFD 2 ∆ in R .14 .15 2 Overall R .19 .18 2 Adjusted R .18 .17 Overall F 23.36** 14.86** *p<.05; **p<.01; βs are standardized regression weights from the final equation 1 Significant Other; 2Responsibility for Dependents Index

Table 37. Regression of WIF and FIW on Neuroticism (Average of Self- and Significant Other-Report) Dependent Variable WIF FIW Independent Variable Neuroticism .27** .19** Control Variables Work Time .38** 1 SO Employment .19** 2 RFD .36** 2 .14 .14 ∆ in R 2 Overall R .21 .19 2 Adjusted R .20 .18 Overall F 26.70** 15.72** *p<.05; **p<.01; βs are standardized regression weights from the final equation 1 Significant Other; 2Responsibility for Dependents Index 142

08 2 .24** Control Variable Gender -.09 .08 Overall F 10.19** 2 .29** -. **p<.09 2 Adjusted R . **p<.04 2 Overall R .09 .03 .07 Adjusted R Overall F 11.03 .10 .04 ∆ in R 2 Overall R . βs are standardized regression weights from the final equation 143 .01.05.91** *p<.10** 9.23** Control Variable Gender -.34** *p<.17* -.and Significant Other-Report) Dependent Variable Rumination (work) Rumination (family) Independent Variable Conscientiousness -.27** -.01. βs are standardized regression weights from the final equation Table 39.36** 8.20** 2 ∆ in R . Regression of Coping Style on Conscientiousness (Self-Report) Dependent Variable Rumination (work) Rumination (family) Independent Variable Conscientiousness -.05.Appendix F: (Continued) Table 38.18** -. Regression of Coping Style on Conscientiousness (Average of Self.08 .

19** 2 ∆ in R .37** -.03 2 Overall R .03 .55** 4.18* 2 ∆ in R .17* -.21** .17 .19 . **p<.03 .41* 4.07** 10.10 .08 .24** -.41** 11.09 Control Variable Gender -.06 .21 .17 .03 Overall F 9.01.03 Overall F 9.44** -.17* -.15* -.61** 21.06 .05.01.13 .05 .19 .09 .08 .66* 3.22 .44** -.18* -.14* -.11 Control Variable Gender -.79* *p<. Regression of Coping Style on Extraversion (Self-Report) Dependent Variable Support Support Rumination Rumination Seeking Seeking (w) (f) – I1 (f) – E2 (f) Support Support Seeking Seeking – I1 (w) – E2 (w) Independent Variable Extraversion .05.13 . Regression of Coping Style on Extraversion (Average of Self.18** 27.39** 4.92** 21.15* -. βs are standardized regression weights from the final equation 1 Instrumental Support Seeking.04 2 Adjusted R .03 .21 .03 2 Overall R .16* .18 .09 .59** 27.Appendix F: (Continued) Table 40.18 .17* *p<.11 .20** .09 . 2Emotional Support Seeking Table 41.08 .03 . 2Emotional Support Seeking 144 .21 .37** -.03 .04 . **p<.04 .10 .16* -. βs are standardized regression weights from the final equation 1 Instrumental Support Seeking.18** -.04 2 Adjusted R .19** .25** -.10 .and Significant Other-Report) Dependent Variable Support Support Rumination Rumination Seeking Seeking (w) (f) 1 2 – I (f) – E (f) Support Support Seeking Seeking – I1 (w) – E2 (w) Independent Variable Extraversion .

20 Overall F 41.08 2 .05. **p<.10 2 ∆ in R .01 ∆ in R 2 Overall R .34 .90** 33.29 .Appendix F: (Continued) Table 42.25 2 . **p<.34 .05.01.35** 25. Regression of Coping Style on Neuroticism (Self-Report) Dependent Variable Rumination (work) Rumination (family) Independent Variable Neuroticism .29 .01 2 Overall R . βs are standardized regression weights from the final equation 145 .24 Adjusted R Overall F 51.20 2 Adjusted R .06 -.57** .43** Control Variable Gender -.65** *p<.and Significant Other-Report) Dependent Variable Rumination (work) Rumination (family) Independent Variable Neuroticism .03 -.48** Control Variable Gender -.53** . βs are standardized regression weights from the final equation Table 43.01.00 . Regression of Coping Style on Neuroticism (Average of Self.00 .54** *p<.

37** -.60** .01 . Mediated Regression of WIF on Rumination for Work Stressors and Neuroticism (Self-Report) Dependent Variable: WIF Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Control Variable Work Time Independent Variable Neuroticism Mediator Rumination (work) ∆ in R2 Overall R2 Adjusted R2 Overall F *p<.22** .19 16.01 .09 .14 .49** -.37** .18 23.37** .38** .19 .60** 146 .01 .15 .20 26.05.14 .21 .38** . **p<.36** Table 45.14 32.20 18.20 .05 .and Significant Other-Report) Dependent Variable: WIF Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Control Variable Work Time Independent Variable Neuroticism Mediator Rumination (work) ∆ in R2 Overall R2 Adjusted R2 Overall F *p<.37** . Mediated Regression of WIF on Rumination for Work Stressors and Neuroticism (Average of Self.22** .07 .27** .70** .05.22 .12 .Appendix F: (Continued) Table 44. **p<.01 .37** .14 32.

She also held positions at both Personnel Decisions Research Institutes. organizational citizenship behavior. program at the University of South Florida in 2004 and received her Master’s Degree in Industrial and Organizational Psychology in 2006. . and work team effectiveness. Bryant received a Bachelor’s Degree in Psychology from Emory University in 2002. and Bank of America. She has also presented at several professional conferences. Ms. Inc. Bryant has co-authored two book chapters and numerous technical reports. including managing work and family roles.About the Author Rebecca H. including the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology and American Psychological Society. While enrolled at the University of South Florida.D. developing and validating selection tools. Ms. and implementing and evaluating interventions to reduce attrition. Bryant conducted research in various topics. with a minor in Sociology. She entered the Ph. where she gained experience in such areas as project management.