Journal of Applied Psychology Copyright 2005 by the American Psychological Association

2005, Vol. 90, No. 1, 132–146 0021-9010/05/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.90.1.132

Rhythms of Life: Antecedents and Outcomes of Work–Family Balance in

Employed Parents

Samuel Aryee E. S. Srinivas

Hong Kong Baptist University Xavier Labor Relations Institute

Hwee Hoon Tan

National University of Singapore

This study examined antecedents and outcomes of a fourfold taxonomy of work–family balance in terms
of the direction of influence (work–family vs. family–work) and type of effect (conflict vs. facilitation).
Respondents were full-time employed parents in India. Confirmatory factor analysis results provided
evidence for the discriminant validity of M. R. Frone’s (2003) fourfold taxonomy of work–family
balance. Results of moderated regression analysis revealed that different processes underlie the conflict
and facilitation components. Furthermore, gender had only a limited moderating influence on the
relationships between the antecedents and the components of work–family balance. Last, work–family
facilitation was related to the work outcomes of job satisfaction and organizational commitment.

The global trend of increased female labor force participation,
coupled with the prevalence of dual-earner and single-parent fam-
ilies, has precipitated considerable research interest in how mem-
bers of these emergent family forms manage their work and family
responsibilities. In view of the different expectations that underpin
role performance in the work and family domains, the extant
research has overwhelmingly focused on the conflict that members
of these family forms experience in simultaneously performing
their work and family responsibilities. Greenhaus and Beutell
(1985) defined work–family conflict as “a form of interrole conflict
in which role pressures from the work and family domains are
mutually incompatible in some respect” (p. 77). In addition to
highlighting the bidirectional nature of work–family conflict in
terms of work interfering with family and family interfering with
work (Gutek, Searle, & Klepa, 1991), researchers have examined
the prevalence, antecedents, and outcomes of work–family conflict
(Barnett, 1998; Frone, Russell, & Cooper, 1992; Greenhaus &
Parasuraman, 1994; Perry-Jenkins, Repetti, & Crouter, 2000; Voy-
danoff, 2002; Zedeck, 1992).
Although this stream of research has illuminated researchers’
understanding of the work–family interface, there is recognition
that it represents a partial depiction of the experiences of individ-
uals who are involved in the daily negotiation of work and family
demands. In particular, the conflict and stress inherent in managing
work and family responsibilities have been shown to be counter-
balanced by the social psychological benefits that stem from
Samuel Aryee, Department of Management, Hong Kong Baptist Uni-
versity, Kowloon Tong, Hong Kong; E. S. Srinivas, Xavier Labor Rela-
tions Institute, Jamshedpur, C.H. Area (E), India; Hwee Hoon Tan, De-
partment of Management and Organization, National University of
Singapore, Singapore.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Samuel
Aryee, Department of Management, Hong Kong Baptist University, 34
Renfrew Road, Kowloon Tong, Hong Kong. E-mail: saryee@hkbu.edu.hk
participating in the work and family domains (Barnett, 1998;
Burke & McKeen, 1994; Thoits, 1983; Verbrugge, 1983). Conse-
quently, researchers have drawn attention to the need to comple-
ment the focus on conflict by examining how work and family
experiences enrich the lives of individuals through the conceptual
lens of work–family balance or integration (Barnett, 1998; Frone,
2003; Greenhaus & Parasuraman, 1999; Grzywacz & Marks,
2000; Kirchmeyer, 1992; Pittman, 1994). Barnett (1998) for ex-
ample, noted that work–family balance (fit) is the lived experience
of combining work and family and the resulting multiple dimen-
sions of compatibility and conflict. Operating within the work–
family balance perspective, Frone (2003) suggested that a com-
prehensive understanding of the work–family interface should
include both components of conflict and facilitation. He defined
work–family facilitation as “the extent to which participation at
work (home) is made easier by virtue of the experiences, skills,
and opportunities gained or developed at home (work)” (p. 145).
He further suggested a fourfold taxonomy of work–family balance
along the primary dimensions of (a) direction of influence between
work and family roles (work to family vs. family to work) and (b)
the type of effect (conflict vs. facilitation).
Although Frone’s (2003) fourfold taxonomy of work–family
balance provides a potential conceptual lens through which to
examine work and family not only as mutually constraining but
also as mutually reinforcing, a paucity of research has examined
his fourfold taxonomy (Grzywacz & Bass, 2003; Grzywacz &
Marks, 2000; Wayne, Musisca, & Fleeson, 2004). Given the em-
phasis on a balanced life, perhaps as a result of the career success–
personal failure syndrome (Evans & Bartolome, 1980; Kofodimos,
1993), it is important to understand how work and family roles can
be integrated. A balanced life conceives of work and family as
mutually reinforcing with family experiences as part of what
workers bring to enrich their contributions to work and organiza-
tions (Gallos, 1989), and vice versa. Against this background,
Greenhaus and Parasuraman (1999) urged researchers to go be-

132
 RHYTHMS OF LIFE
yond the study of work–family conflict to identify the mechanisms
that integrate work and family lives. Accordingly, in this study, we
examined the antecedents and outcomes of the facilitation and
conflict components of Frone’s taxonomy of work–family balance
in employed parents in India.
This study contributes to the literature in three ways. First, in
view of the growing number of organizations that have imple-
mented family-responsive human resource policies and practices
(Glass & Estes, 1997; Perry-Smith & Blum, 2000), a more com-
plete understanding of work–family balance should provide orga-
nizations with the knowledge base to design more effective poli-
cies to promote the work–family balance of the growing number of
employees who have family responsibilities. Second, by drawing
on a sample of employed parents in India, this study highlights the
influence of sociocultural variables on the operation of the work–
family interface and addresses the glaring underrepresentation of
samples from developing economies in the research literature on
work and family. Last, this study provides evidence for the con-
struct validity of Frone’s (2003) fourfold taxonomy of work–
family balance. Although the two primary dimensions of his four-
fold taxonomy (direction of influence between work and family
and type of effect) are conceptually plausible, a dearth of research
has examined the validity of the taxonomy (Grzywacz & Marks,
2000; Wayne et al., 2004). Given the importance of construct
validation in organizational research (Hinkin, 1995; Schwab,
1980), validation evidence for Frone’s fourfold taxonomy will
provide confidence in conclusions drawn from research that ex-
amines a more comprehensive model of the work–family interface.
Theoretical Framework and Literature Review
Role theory has provided the theoretical framework for research
on the work–family interface. Through role enactment, roles pro-
vide not only form and structure to social relationships among
individuals but also the means to achieve important internalized
life goals (Aneshensel & Pearlin, 1987). Two competing perspec-
tives, scarcity and expansion– enhancement, have been used to
examine the process of participation in multiple roles.
The scarcity perspective draws on research on resource drain
(Edwards & Rothbard, 2000) and conflict theory (Zedeck &
Mosier, 1990). The assumption is that individuals have a fixed
amount of psychological and physiological resources to expend on
their role obligations, and involvement in multiple roles will ex-
haust these resources and ultimately impair one’s functioning.
With a fixed amount of resources to meet the expectations of
multiple roles, individuals make trade-offs to reduce role strain.
Underlying much of the research on the conflict dimension of
work–family balance (Frone et al., 1992; Greenhaus & Beutell,
1985) is the notion that work and family domains have distinct
norms and requirements such that satisfaction or success in one
domain entails sacrifices in the other (Zedeck & Mosier, 1990).
In contrast, the expansion– enhancement perspective focuses on
the net positive gains to be obtained from involvement in multiple
roles (Marks, 1977; Sieber, 1974). In essence, this perspective
posits that instead of depleting an individual’s psychological and
physiological resources, involvement in multiple roles provides a
number of benefits that may outweigh the costs, leading to net
gratification rather than strain. In a study of the benefits of multiple
roles for managerial women, Ruderman, Ohlott, Panzer, and King
133
(2002) reported that managerial women found juggling multiple
personal responsibilities to promote efficiency, focus, and organi-
zation at work. This suggests that resources, learning opportuni-
ties, and support gained in the work (family) domain can be used
to enhance one’s psychological functioning in the family (work)
domain. Although the expansion– enhancement perspective fo-
cuses on the benefits of involvement in multiple roles and their
transfer from one role to another, it acknowledges the potential for
role overload and role conflict that stems from multiple roles.
Therefore, the expansion– enhancement hypothesis represents a
response to the overemphasis on the dysfunctions of negative
consequences.
Because conflict and enhancement are inherent in involvement
in multiple roles, a better understanding of the work–family inter-
face requires an integration of both the scarcity and the expansion–
enhancement perspectives (Edwards & Rothbard, 2000; Rothbard,
2001).
The Indian Context
The transition of gender inequality and gender roles away from
traditional to modern gender role expectations has been observed
to constitute cultural universals that affect the work–family inter-
face (Watanabe, Takahashi, & Minami, 1997). The growing num-
ber of educated women in India who participate in the urban,
organized, industrial sector in technical, professional, and mana-
gerial positions has been accompanied by a steady growth in
dual-earner families (Komarraju, 1997; Sekaran, 1992). Gender
role expectations and gender-based socialization have led men to
identify themselves in terms of the work role, whereas women
have identified themselves with the family role. The participation
of women in paid employment has therefore been hailed as a
harbinger of changes in gender relations within the family, re-
flected in the term new families. As a concept, new families
describes family systems defined by three characteristics: (a) egal-
itarian norms of family relationships, (b) equitable distribution of
domestic labor, and (c) shared decision-making patterns and
gender-free perceptions. In her review of the evidence for the
emergence of new families in terms of gender roles, domestic
division of labor, and decision making, Bharat (2003) noted that
working women and their spouses continue to regard breadwin-
ning as essentially a man’s job and home management as a
woman’s job (Bharat, 1995; Ramu, 1989). Hence, Indian women
continue to bear the burden of household responsibility regardless
of their employment status (Bharat, 1992; Ramu, 1989). Despite
evidence that men in dual-earner families have assumed household
responsibilities for less taxing and masculine responsibilities, such
as repairs and keeping monthly accounts (Bharat, 1992), Bharat
(2003) concluded that the emergence of new families in India is a
distant reality. Specifically, she noted that
While social, legal, and economic reforms have helped women in a
small measure to join the work force, the continuing influence of
normative attitudes and values have prevented them from altering
society’s and their own perceptions of sex roles and demand an equal
distribution of domestic responsibilities. (Bharat, 2003, pp. 168 –169)
Although emergence of new families may be a distant reality, the
direction of the changes suggests that family relations in India are
characterized by a coexistence of traditional and modern gender
134 ARYEE, SRINIVAS, AND TAN
role expectations. Consequently, compared to the West, there will
be similarities and differences in men’s and women’s experiences
of the work–family interface. Thus, the hypothesized relationships
we examined in this study are informed by the modern and
traditional gender role expectations that underpin the operation of
the work–family interface in India.
Antecedents of Work–Family Balance
We examined three sets of antecedents of work–family balance
in this study: (a) personality, (b) role environment comprising role
experiences, and (c) role involvement (Frone, 2003; Greenhaus &
Parasuraman, 1999). In this section, we discuss our hypotheses
relating role experiences and role involvement to the components
of work–family balance that reflect modern gender role expecta-
tions as encapsulated in egalitarian marriages.
Personality
Personality characteristics have been noted to not only influence
how individuals interpret and react to a situation but also to
proactively shape the environment (Parasuraman & Greenhaus,
2002; Watanabe et al., 1997). The three personality characteristics
we examine here are (a) proactive personality, (b) neuroticism, and
(c) optimism. Bateman and Crant (1993) asserted that a prototyp-
ical proactive personality is an individual who is relatively uncon-
strained by situational forces and who effects environmental
changes. Proactive individuals tend to identify opportunities and
act on them, show initiative, and persevere until meaningful
change occurs. In contrast, less proactive individuals are passive
and reactive, preferring to adapt to circumstances rather than to
change them. In the context of work–family balance, individuals
with proactive personalities will take steps to elicit support and/or
engage in role restructuring or negotiation to minimize work–
family conflict and promote work–family facilitation. We there-
fore expected that proactive personality would be negatively re-
lated to work–family conflict and positively related to work–
family facilitation.
Neuroticism, one of the Big Five personality dimensions, has
been noted to constitute the negative pole of self-esteem (Judge,
Locke, Durham, & Kluger, 1998) and represents the core trait of
negative affectivity (Watson & Clark, 1984). Costa and McCrae
(1988) described neurotic individuals as being prone to anxiety
and as possessing a tendency to be fearful of novel situations and
susceptible to feelings of dependence and helplessness. Empirical
research has linked neuroticism (Grzywacz & Marks, 2000;
Wayne et al., 2004) and negative affectivity (Carlson, 1999) to
work–family and family–work conflict and to work–family facil-
itation (Wayne et al., 2004). Neuroticism operates as a negative
cognitive lens through which life experiences are interpreted. The
negative cognitive style of neurotic individuals inhibits efforts to
elicit social support to cope with stress or initiate actions that will
facilitate the integration of work and family roles. Accordingly, we
expected that neuroticism would be positively related to work–
family conflict and negatively related to work–family facilitation.
The final personality characteristic we examined is optimism.
Zellars and Perrewé (2001) found extraversion to be related to
emotional support. On this basis, and given the natural tendency of
extraverted individuals to remain optimistic, they urged research-
ers to focus on optimism. As a disposition, optimism rests on the
expectation that one will have positive outcomes in life even if one
is at present facing adversity (Carver & Scheier, 1999). Optimism
has been shown to be related to problem-solving coping in that
stressful situations are perceived to be controllable, and positive
reframing in that such situations are perceived to be uncontrollable
(Scheier, Weintraub, & Carver, 1986). Central to dispositional
optimism is confidence, a generalized positive expectation about
outcomes that propels optimists into action and helps them remain
engaged in effort (Carver & Scheier, 1999). Consequently, we
expected that optimists would elicit social support and adopt
appropriate coping strategies to deal with stressful experiences. On
the basis of a meta-analysis of studies that used the Life Orienta-
tion Test (a measure of optimism), Anderson (1996) found opti-
mism to be positively related to coping and negatively related to
negative affect. Optimistic individuals experience more positive
emotions, repair mood more effectively, and are more adept at
regulating emotions and stress. For example, an individual who
agrees with the statement “I always look on the bright side of
things” may be more attuned to positive elements of conflicting
and ambiguous situations and may be better able to maintain
balance or manage conflict in such situations. Furthermore, a high
level of confidence has been noted to promote a high level of
psychological well-being, which in turn buffers one against life’s
stresses and strains (Baruch, Barnett, & Rivers, 1983). We there-
fore expected that optimism would be negatively related to work–
family conflict and positively related to work–family facilitation.
Hypothesis 1a: A proactive personality will be positively
related to facilitation and negatively related to the conflict
component of work–family balance.
Hypothesis 1b: Neuroticism will be negatively related to
facilitation and positively related to the conflict component of
work–family balance.
Hypothesis 1c: Optimism will be positively related to facili-
tation and negatively related to the conflict component of
work–family balance.
Role Environment
The role-related antecedents of work–family balance we exam-
ined are role overload, role involvement, and social support. Role
overload describes a perception of having too many things to do
and not enough time to do them (Caplan, Cobb, French, Harrison,
& Pinneau, 1975). Work overload has been found to be positively
related to work–family and family–work conflict (Aryee, Luk,
Leung, & Lo, 1999; Frone, Yardley, & Markel, 1997; Parasura-
man, Purohit, Godshalk, & Beutell, 1996). Similarly, parental
overload has been reported to be positively related to work–family
and family–work conflict (Frone et al., 1997). As a negative role
experience (stressor), role overload leads to a psychological pre-
occupation with uncompleted tasks even while one is responding
to the demands of other roles (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). Fur-
thermore, role overload may cause exhaustion or fatigue, which
may negatively influence one’s motivation to respond to the de-
mands of other domains. The influence of role overload on work–
family facilitation, however, has not been examined. As a negative
 RHYTHMS OF LIFE
role experience, role overload undermines an individual’s ability to
integrate his or her work and family roles. This is because the
fatigue and role-related dissatisfaction that role overload precipi-
tates will spill over from work (family) to family (work), thereby
preventing an individual from enjoying his or her participation in
that role. We therefore expected that role overload would be
positively related to work–family conflict and negatively related to
work–family facilitation.
Hypothesis 2a: Work overload will be positively related to
the conflict component, and negatively related to the facili-
tation component, of work–family balance.
Hypothesis 2b: Parental role overload will be positively re-
lated to the conflict component, and negatively related to the
facilitation component, of work–family balance.
Role involvement describes ego or psychological involvement
and entails a preoccupation with that domain, making one
unavailable to perform the demands or responsibilities of the
other domain. There is research evidence linking job involve-
ment to work–family conflict and family involvement to
family–work conflict (Adams, King, & King, 1996; Frone et al.,
1992). High involvement in a role may be related to work–
family conflict because it increases the focal person’s aware-
ness of and preoccupation with problems within that role,
thereby increasing the likelihood of perceiving that role as
interfering with the demands of other roles. Although role
involvement may lead to work–family conflict, it can poten-
tially enable individuals to integrate their work and family
roles. Greenhaus and Parasuraman (1999) argued that involve-
ment in a role provides an opportunity to learn new skills that
could be used in another role. Furthermore, individuals who are
involved in a role (family) may be able to obtain support from
members of that role set that will facilitate the integration of the
focal role with that individual’s other role (work). On the basis
of the evidence that involvement in one role is accompanied by
a reduced involvement in the less salient role, Greenhaus and
Parasuraman (1999) suggested that linkages between work and
family involvement offer stronger support for a conflict per-
spective than for an integration perspective. Although role
involvement is generally conceptualized as ego or psychologi-
cal involvement, it can denote an intrinsically motivated inter-
est in role activities, leading to absorption in a role (Rothbard,
2001). Role involvement will therefore motivate individuals to
acquire the necessary resources, such as skills and support, that
will enhance not only work role performance but also family
role performance. Accordingly, we expected that role involve-
ment would be positively related to the conflict and facilitation
components of work–family balance.
Hypothesis 3a: Work involvement will be positively related
to the conflict and facilitation components of work–family
balance.
Hypothesis 3b: Family involvement will be positively related
to the conflict and facilitation components of work–family
balance.
135
Social support describes an interpersonal transaction that in-
volves emotional concern, instrumental aid, information, or ap-
praisal (House, 1981), and is generally conceived of as a coping
mechanism in the stress literature (Gore, 1987). In the work
context, social support may be obtained from supervisors or co-
workers. Work support has been reported to be negatively related
to work–family conflict (Frone et al., 1997; Thomas & Ganster,
1995). Similarly, family support (e.g., from a spouse) has been
reported to be negatively related to family–work conflict (Adams
et al., 1996; Frone et al., 1997; Grzywacz & Marks, 2000). Social
support attenuates the deleterious consequences of stress and
therefore constitutes an important resource in stress prevention
(Cohen & Wills, 1985). Social support may also enhance the
integration of work and family roles. A supportive work environ-
ment may enhance flexibility, information, and direct help that will
facilitate the integration of work and family roles (Greenhaus &
Parasuraman, 1999). Likewise, support obtained from the family,
such as encouragement, information, and advice, can be used to
enhance one’s functioning in the work role. Indeed, Grzywacz and
Marks (2000) reported that social support was related to work–
family facilitation. Accordingly, we expected that social support
would be negatively related to work–family conflict and positively
related to work–family facilitation.
Hypothesis 4a: Work social support will be negatively related
to the conflict component, and positively related to the facil-
itation component, of work–family balance.
Hypothesis 4b: Family social support will be negatively re-
lated to the conflict component, and positively related to the
facilitation component, of work–family balance.
Outcomes of Work–Family Balance
Research on the work–family interface has been precipitated by
the negative consequences of work–family conflict on individual
and organizational outcomes (T. D. Allen, Herst, Bruck, & Sutton,
2000; Kossek & Ozeki, 1998). A second objective of the present
study was to examine the influence of work–family balance on job
satisfaction and affective organizational commitment. We focused
on the affective rather than the continuance and normative forms
of organizational commitment because of research evidence link-
ing affective commitment to job performance (Meyer, Paunonen,
Gellatly, Goffine, & Jackson, 1989). Although the conflict dimen-
sions of work–family balance have been reported to be negatively
related to job satisfaction, Kossek and Ozeki (1998) found work–
family conflict to be more strongly related to job satisfaction than
to family–work conflict. We, however, expected both conflict
dimensions to be negatively related to job satisfaction. This is
because interference between work and family roles will under-
mine one’s performance in the work domain, which will have
implications for one’s receipt of job rewards and, ultimately, job
satisfaction. Likewise, the conflict dimensions have been reported
to be negatively related to affective organizational commitment
(T. D. Allen et al., 2000). Individuals who experience difficulties
integrating their work and family roles will perceive their organi-
zations as unsupportive and will therefore not feel obligated to
reciprocate with commitment (Blau, 1964; Rhoades & Eisen-
berger, 2002). We therefore expected that work–family and
136 ARYEE, SRINIVAS, AND TAN
family–work conflict would be negatively related to job satisfac-
tion and organizational commitment.
In contrast to the conflict dimensions of work–family balance,
we expected the facilitation dimensions to be positively related to
the outcomes examined. Tompson and Werner (1997) reported
work–family facilitation to be related to job satisfaction and af-
fective organizational commitment. Although the influence of
family–work facilitation on the work outcomes has not been pre-
viously examined, the ability to integrate family and work roles
should positively enhance one’s emotional response to the work
role, leading to job satisfaction and affective organizational com-
mitment (Orthner & Pittman, 1986).
Hypothesis 5a: The conflict component of work–family bal-
ance will be negatively related to the work outcomes of job
satisfaction and affective organizational commitment.
Hypothesis 5b: The facilitation component of work–family
balance will be positively related to the work outcomes of job
satisfaction and affective organizational commitment.
Gender Differences
Much of the extant literature has highlighted the asymmetrical
permeability of work and family boundaries for men and women;
that is, the family-to-work spillover is stronger for women, and the
work-to-family spillover is stronger for men (Pleck, 1977). This
has resulted in gender differences in experiences of the work–
family interface (Crouter, 1984; Duxbury & Higgins, 1991;
Kossek & Ozeki, 1998; Rothbard, 2001). Underpinned by tradi-
tional gender role expectations, this section presents hypotheses on
the moderating influence of gender on the relationships between
role experiences and role involvement and the components of
work–family balance.
The primacy of the work role for men, and men’s dominance in
managerial and professional positions, suggests that men will
assume more work-related responsibility and experience more
work overload than women. In view of the influence of a patriar-
chal value structure of the family on women’s career aspirations
and motivations for work, Desai (1996) noted that Indian women
tend to impose restrictions on their career aspirations or personal
achievements for family reasons. Specifically, she argued that:
keeping a low profile in one’s career enables these women to be in
both the worlds of work and family. They are working, in a sense, to
use their education or training and to bring their salary home for the
family; that is, to look after the needs of the family and thus continue
to perform their traditional role. (Desai, 1996, p. 101)
The expectation that women give priority to the family suggests
that they will experience higher levels of parental role overload
than men. Rout, Lewis, and Kagan (1999) observed that women in
India experience considerable pressure in the morning to do all that
is necessary for the family before going out to work and after
work. Furthermore, Komarraju (1997) noted that “the relative
absence of an infrastructure that provides a reliable supply of
electricity, water, and time-saving, modern-day kitchen and other
household appliances” (p. 111) renders the performance of domes-
tic responsibilities a burden, particularly for women in dual-earner
families. The preceding discussion suggests that role overload will
influence men and women’s experience of the work–family inter-
face differently.
Hypothesis 6a: Gender will moderate the influence of work
overload on the conflict and facilitation components of work–
family balance such that the relationship will be stronger for
men than for women.
Hypothesis 6b: Gender will moderate the influence of paren-
tal role overload on the conflict and facilitation components
of work–family balance such that the relationship will be
stronger for women than for men.
The internalization of gender role ideology prescribes different
life options for men and for women. For men, this life option
implies a prioritization of work over family, whereas for women it
implies a prioritization of family over work. In the context of
India, Rajadhyaksha and Bhatnagar (2000) reported that men are
more committed to the work or occupational role than women are.
This has implications for the way men and women allocate time
and energy resources to work and family roles. Given that men
identify with the work role more than the family role, they will be
motivated to invest more time and resources to enhance their
performance in the work role. Although investment in the work
role will lead to conflict with the family role, it will also lead to
facilitation of the work and family roles. Similarly, in the West,
Rothbard (2001) reported that men but not women experienced
enrichment from work to family roles. She attributed it to men’s
high identification with work, which increases their self-esteem
and provides them with other material benefits so they can invest
more time in the family role. Women, on the other hand, are
expected to identify with the family and therefore invest more time
and energy resources to enhance performance in that role. Al-
though involvement in the family role may conflict with the work
role, it may generate benefits, such as self-esteem and enriching
experiences, that may benefit women’s performance in the work
role, leading to family–work facilitation (Ruderman et al., 2002).
Hypothesis 7a: Gender will moderate the relationship be-
tween work role involvement and the conflict and facilitation
components of work–family balance such that the relation-
ship will be stronger for men than for women.
Hypothesis 7b: Gender will moderate the relationship be-
tween family role involvement and the conflict and facilita-
tion components of work–family balance such that the rela-
tionship will be stronger for women than for men.
Etzion (1984) posited that social support from work buffers
stress experienced by men, whereas social support from the family
buffers women’s experience of stress. She attributed the gender-
based differences to the culturally prescribed roles for men and
women. Support from the culturally prescribed role or domain
helps reduce the threat to one’s self-identity. The male-oriented
culture that characterizes organizations in India, coupled with
inflexible work hours and the absence of child care facilities,
constitutes impediments rather than sources of support for em-
ployed mothers (Bharat, 2001). In addition to fitting into the
male-oriented culture, men’s inclusion in workplace networks
enables them to obtain the social support necessary to maintain
 RHYTHMS OF LIFE
their identity as employees and breadwinners. Work social support
will enhance men’s but not women’s work–family balance. Al-
though social support from the family has traditionally under-
pinned men’s participation in the workforce, it is more critical for
women. Rosenbaum and Cohen (1999) found that spousal support
was extremely important for women in societies where there is low
gender egalitarianism, such as India. Although Indian husbands are
supportive of their wives’ participation in the workforce, they have
yet to assume responsibility for sharing domestic chores (Ramu,
1989). Instrumental support for most employed mothers in India
come in the form of hired domestic helpers or female members of
the extended family. Although hired domestic helpers in urban
areas of India have been noted to be expensive and unreliable
(Sekaran, 1992), they still constitute a major source of support for
the growing number of nuclear families who live far from rela-
tives. Given the primacy of the family domain for women, family
support will be more critical to their experience of work–family
balance than men.
Hypothesis 8a: Gender will moderate the relationship be-
tween work support and the conflict and facilitation compo-
nents of work–family balance such that the relationship will
be stronger for men than for women.
Hypothesis 8b: Gender will moderate the relationship be-
tween family support and the conflict and facilitation com-
ponents of work–family balance such that the relationship
will be stronger for women than for men.
Method
Sample and Procedure
Data were obtained from parents working full time in eight organizations
located in five major cities in India. The participating organizations were
in the financial services, manufacturing, and telecommunications indus-
tries. The human resource department in each participating organization
provided us with a list of employees who were married with a child or had
children living at home, and survey packages were sent to randomly
selected individuals on the list with the assistance of the human resource
department. It is worth noting that because our focus was on within-
individual rather than cross-over effects of work and family experiences
among dual-earner couples, we did not explore the possibility that a
dual-earner couple working for the same organization might have partici-
pated in the study.
Attached to each questionnaire was a cover letter that explained the
objective of the survey, assured respondents of the confidentiality of their
responses, and informed them of the voluntary nature of participation in the
survey. Respondents were informed that the survey’s objective was to
examine working parents’ experience of combining work and family roles
and how it influences their well-being. Two weeks after the distribution of
the questionnaires, a reminder was sent to respondents. Completed ques-
tionnaires were returned to a designated box in the human resource de-
partment. The survey instrument was in English because it is an official
language and widely used in the Indian economy. However, because the
scales were primarily developed in North America, the survey instrument
was pilot tested with a sample of teachers. On the basis of feedback
obtained from the pilot test, we reworded a few of the scale items to ensure
clarity.
Of the 450 questionnaires distributed, 267 completed and usable ques-
tionnaires were returned, representing a response rate of 59%. The sample
was 57.6% female, with an average age of 36.5 years and an average
137
organizational tenure of 5.7 years. With respect to marital status, 99.6%
were married, and 86% reported having a working spouse (dual-earner
status). In terms of educational attainment, 52% of respondents had ob-
tained a bachelor’s degree, 20% had earned a postgraduate degree, 15%
had a polytechnic or technical college diploma, and the rest had completed
high school. Of those who indicated their occupational status, 38% were in
professional/managerial positions; 46% were in administrative positions;
and 15% were in skilled trades, such as technicians. The average number
of children was 1.41 (range: 1– 4).
Measures
Work–family balance. We used a 16-item scale developed by
Grzywacz and Marks (2000) to measure work–family balance. Response
options ranged from 1 (never) to 5 (all the time). Respondents indicated the
frequency with which they had experienced each of the items, such as
“Your job reduces the effort you can give to activities at home,” “Respon-
sibilities at home reduce the effort you can devote to your job,” “The things
you do at work help you deal with personal and practical issues at home,”
and “Your home life helps you relax and feel ready for the next day’s
work.”
Proactive personality. We used an abbreviated eight-item version of
Bateman and Crant’s (1993) scale to measure proactive personality. Re-
sponse options ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
Sample items are “I am constantly on the look out for new ways to improve
my life” and “If I see something I do not like, I fix it.”
Neuroticism. We used the 12-item scale component of the NEO Five-
Factor Inventory (Form S; Costa & McCrae, 1991) to measure neuroticism.
Response options ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
Sample items are “I often feel inferior to others”; “I often get angry at the
way people treat me”; and “Too often when things go wrong, I get
discouraged and feel like giving up.”1
Optimism. We used the eight-item Life Orientation Test (LOT; Scheier
& Carver, 1985) to measure optimism. Response options ranged from 1
(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Sample items are “I always look
on the bright side of things,” “Things never work out the way I want them”
(reverse scored), and “I feel good about my future.”
Parental overload. We used a five-item scale, one item of which was
developed by Frone et al. (1997) and the others by Aryee et al. (1999), to
measure parental overload. Response options ranged from 1 (never) to 5
(always). Sample items are “How often do you feel you have too much
work to do as a parent?” and “How often do you feel that your child(ren)
is(are) making too many demands on you?”
Family involvement. We used a four-item scale modeled after Lodahl
and Kejner’s (1965) job involvement scale to measure family involvement.
Response options ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
Sample items are “The most important things that happen to me involve my
family” and “The major satisfactions in my life come from my family.”
Family support. We used a nine-item adaptation of a scale created by
Etzion (1984) to measure family support. Following Carlson and Perrewé
(1999), the last three items correspond to the quality of the relationships
respondents have with spouses, family, and friends. For the other items,
respondents indicated the amount (ranging from 1 [very little] to 5 [very
much]) of support they receive from their family in terms of feedback,
appreciation, emotional support, and recognition.
Work overload. We used a five-item scale, of which two items were
from Beehr, Walsh, and Taber (1976) and the remaining three from
Cammann, Fichman, Jenkins, and Klesh (1979), to measure work overload.
1
Reproduced by special permission of the publisher, Psychological
Assessment Resources, Inc., 16204 North Florida Avenue, Lutz, Florida
33549, from the NEO Five-Factor Inventory by Paul Costa and Robert
McCrae. Copyright 1978, 1985, 1989, 1991 by PAR, Inc. Further repro-
duction is prohibited without permission of PAR, Inc.
138 ARYEE, SRINIVAS, AND TAN
Response options ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
Sample items are “I never seem to have enough time to get everything done
in my job” and “I have too much work to do in my job to do everything
well.”
Job involvement. We used Lodahl and Kejner’s (1965) four-item scale
to measure job involvement. Response options ranged from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Sample items are “The most important
things that happen to me involve my work” and “The major satisfactions in
my life come from my work.”
Work support. We used a nine-item version of Etzion’s (1984) scale to
measure work social support. Respondents were asked to indicate the
extent to which each of several support features is present in their work,
such as “appreciation,” “recognition,” “feedback,” and the “opportunity to
take it easy at work when [you] need to.” Response options ranged from 1
(very little) to 5 (very much).
Job satisfaction. We used a five-item abbreviated version of a scale
developed by Brayfield and Rothe (1951) to measure job satisfaction.
Response options ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
Sample items are “Most days, I am enthusiastic about my job” and “I am
seldom bored with my job.”
Organizational commitment. We used a six-item revised version of an
affective commitment scale (Meyer, Allen, & Smith, 1993) originally
developed by N. J. Allen and Meyer (1990) to measure organizational
commitment. Response options ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5
(strongly agree). Sample items are “I really feel as if this organization’s
problems are my own” and “This organization has a great deal of personal
meaning for me.”
Controls. We measured with separate single items the control variables
of gender, age, spouse’s employment status, and number of children under
12 years of age. Gender was coded 1 for male and 2 for female. Age was
measured with one item that asked respondents to write in their age at their
last birthday. A single item that asked respondents to indicate whether their
spouse has normally worked was used to measure spouse employment
status. Responses were coded 0 for no and 1 for yes. We measured spouse
employment status this way rather than asking whether the respondent’s
spouse was currently working because it reflects a recognition and accep-
tance of participation in paid employment and the concomitant modern
gender role expectations that are supposed to characterize dual-earner
families. Last, in response to the question “How many of your children are
aged 12 years or below?” respondents wrote in the number of their children
in this age bracket. Although having a preschool-aged child is different
from having a school-aged child, there is a lack of agreement about the
point at which the age of a child increases parental role demands. We
focused on preteen children because parental role demands are generally
highest at this stage of the family life cycle (cf. Parasuraman et al., 1996).
Table 1
Results of the Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Model ␹2(N ⫽ 267) df CFI NFI PNFI RMSEA
Null model 1,227.21 136
One-factor model 624.71 104 .52 .49
Two-factor Model 1
(WF–FW) 579.56 103 .56 .53
Two-factor Model 2
(Con–Fac) 358.46 103 .77 .71
Four-factor model 209.20 98 .90 .83
Note. CFI ⫽ comparative fit index; NFI ⫽ normed fit index; PNFI ⫽ parsimonious normed fit index; RMSEA
⫽ root-mean-square error of approximation; diff. ⫽ difference; WF ⫽ work–family balance; FW ⫽ family–
work balance; Con ⫽ conflict; Fac ⫽ facilitation.
Data Analysis
We analyzed the data in stages. In the first stage, we performed a
confirmatory factor analysis to evaluate the factor structure of the work–
family balance items. We compared the fit of four plausible alternative
models. Specifically, we compared the fit of a hypothesized four-factor
model to a one-factor model (all items loaded on a single latent construct),
two-factor Model 1 (facilitation and conflict are different but work–family
and family–work items loaded on the same latent construct) and two-factor
Model 2 (work–family and family–work are distinct but facilitation and
conflict items loaded on the same latent construct). In addition to chi-
square difference tests, we assessed model fit with commonly used indi-
cators of fit: the comparative fit index, the nonnormed fit index, and the
root-mean-square error of approximation. In general, fit indices of .90 and
above (Bentler & Bonett, 1980), and root-mean-square error of approxi-
mation of .08 or below (Browne & Cudeck, 1993), are considered indica-
tors of good fit.
In the second stage, we performed t tests to examine significant gender
differences. In the third stage, we used moderated regression analysis to
examine the hypothesized relationships. Each of the components of work–
family balance was regressed onto the control variables and the hypothe-
sized antecedents. The control variables were first entered into the regres-
sion equation and, following an assumed order of causal priority, we then
entered gender, personality, work, and family variables (Parasuraman et al.,
1996) and, last, the interaction terms of gender and the hypothesized
antecedents. Following Aiken and West (1991), we centered the variables
used in the interaction terms.
In the last stage of analysis, we used a similar order of variable entry to
examine the hypothesized influence of the work–family balance compo-
nents on the work outcomes. Specifically, the four components of work–
family balance were entered as a block controlling for the demographics
(including gender), personality, work, and family domain variables. We
used regression analysis to examine the hypothesized influence of the
components of the work–family balance on the work outcomes, because we
did not have a compelling rationale to expect gender differences in these
relationships.
Results
The results of the confirmatory factor analysis are presented in
Table 1. The chi-square difference test revealed that the hypothe-
sized four-factor model fit the data significantly better than the
one-factor model (⌬␹2 ⫽ 415.51, ⌬df ⫽ 6, N ⫽ 267, p ⬍ .01),
two-factor Model 1 (⌬␹2 ⫽ 370.36, ⌬df ⫽ 5, N ⫽ 267, p ⬍ .01),
and two-factor Model 2 (⌬␹2 ⫽ 149.26, ⌬df ⫽ 5, N ⫽ 267, p ⬍
Model ␹2 diff. df
comparison (N ⫽ 267) diff. p ⬍
.17
.38 .14 1&4 415.51 6 .01
.40 .13 2 (WF–FW) & 4 370.36 5 .01
.54 .10 2 (Con–Fac) & 4 149.26 5 .01
.60 .07
 RHYTHMS OF LIFE
.01). The hypothesized four-factor model fit better than the three
alternative models, and the comparative fit index was .90, the
recommended level for a good fit (see Table 1). Together these
results suggest that the components of the work–family balance are
distinct constructs. The standardized parameter estimates for the
item loadings are presented in Figure 1. As shown in the figure,
loadings ranged from .40 to .89, except for two items. These two
items cross-loaded in Grzywacz and Mark’s (2000) article and
were deleted from their scale. The items were “Talking with
someone at home helps you deal with problems at work” and
“Providing for what is needed at home makes you work harder at
your job.” Further inspection of the modification indices revealed
that no item loaded onto more than one factor and an absence of
correlated measurement error. Collectively, these results provide
Figure 1. Factor loadings from the confirmatory factor analysis. Stan-
dardized parameter estimates are shown for each numbered scale item; all
except those marked with a plus symbol (⫹) are significant at p ⬍ .001.
139
evidence for the construct validity of Frone’s (2003) fourfold
taxonomy of work–family balance.
The results of t tests that examined gender differences in the
study variables revealed significant differences in only four of the
variables. First, women reported higher levels of work–family
facilitation than men (Mmen ⫽ 3.01, Mwomen ⫽ 3.26), t(261) ⫽
2.68, p ⬍ .05, d ⫽ ⫺0.32. Second, women scored higher on
neuroticism than men (Mmen ⫽ 2.58, Mwomen ⫽ 2.74), t(262) ⫽
–2.42, p ⬍ .05, d ⫽ ⫺0.30. Third, men reported higher levels of
job involvement than women (Mmen ⫽ 3.45, Mwomen ⫽ 2.74),
t(261) ⫽ 2.75, p ⬍ .05, d ⫽ 0.34. Last, women scored higher on
family involvement than men (Mmen ⫽ 3.74, Mwomen ⫽ 3.96),
t(262) ⫽ –2.50, p ⬍ .05, d ⫽ 0.31. According to Cohen (1988),
effect sizes of .20 in magnitude are small, .50 are moderate, and
above .80 are large. Following this rule-of-thumb interpretation,
the effect sizes reported in this study are small.
The descriptive statistics, zero-order correlations, and Cron-
bach’s alphas for the study variables are presented in Table 2. As
shown in this table, although the correlation between work–family
facilitation and family–work conflict was not significant, the mag-
nitude of the correlation between the conflict components was high
(r ⫽ .59, p ⬍ .01) whereas that between the facilitation compo-
nents was only moderate (r ⫽ .19, p ⬍ .01). The Cronbach’s
alphas for the conflict and facilitation components range from .73
to .75.
Results of the moderated regression that tested the hypothesized
antecedents of the components of work–family balance are pre-
sented in Table 3. Neuroticism was positively related to work–
family conflict (␤ ⫽ .24, p ⬍ .01) and family–work conflict (␤ ⫽
.29, p ⬍ .01), providing partial support for Hypothesis 1b.
Hypothesis 2a received partial support, as work overload was
positively related to work–family conflict (␤ ⫽ .19, p ⬍ .01) and
family–work conflict (␤ ⫽ .16, p ⬍ .05). Job involvement was
positively related to work–family facilitation (␤ ⫽ .23, p ⬍ .01)
and negatively related to family–work conflict (␤ ⫽ ⫺.18, p ⬍
.05), providing partial support for Hypothesis 3b.
The positive relationship between family support and family–
work facilitation (␤ ⫽ .47, p ⬍ .01) provided partial support for
Hypothesis 4b, whereas the negative relationship between family
involvement and family–work facilitation (␤ ⫽ .15, p ⬍ .05)
provided partial support for Hypothesis 3b.
Of the interaction terms, only the interaction of gender with
optimism (␤ ⫽ ⫺.24, p ⬍ .01) and of gender with job involvement
(␤ ⫽ .20, p ⬍ .01) were related to family–work facilitation
(Hypothesis 7a), accounting for 9% (⌬R2, p ⬍ .01) of the ex-
plained variance in family–work facilitation. The limited moder-
ating influence of gender is consistent with modern gender role
expectations and therefore reflects similarities more than differ-
ences in the influence of the antecedents on the work–family
balance of men and women.
The results of regression analysis that examined the outcomes of
the components of work–family balance are presented in Table 4.
As shown in this table, only work–family facilitation was signif-
icantly related to job satisfaction (␤ ⫽ .19, p ⬍ .01) and organi-
zational commitment (␤ ⫽ .20, p ⬍ .01). It is worth noting that of
the antecedent sets used as controls, optimism was related to both
job satisfaction (␤ ⫽ .16, p ⬍ .05) and organizational commitment
(␤ ⫽ .23, p ⬍ .01), neuroticism was related to organizational
commitment (␤ ⫽ .17, p ⬍ .05), work support was related to job
 140

Table 2
Means, Standard Deviations, Cronbach’s Alphas, and Correlations of Study Variables (N ⫽ 267)

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

1. Proactive
personality 5.55 0.77 (.82)
2. Optimism 5.00 0.77 .42*** (.72)
3. Neuroticism 2.68 0.54 ⫺.31*** ⫺.48*** (.74)
4. Work
overload 2.90 0.81 ⫺.05 ⫺.12** .17** (.82)
5. Work
support 3.25 0.74 .21*** .28*** ⫺.19*** ⫺.19*** (.89)
6. Job
involvement 3.29 0.81 .36*** .19** ⫺.09 .04 .29*** (.85)
7. Parental
work
overload 2.40 0.91 ⫺.04 ⫺.17*** .06 .25*** ⫺.07 .15** (.83)
8. Family
support 3.83 0.79 .23*** .27*** ⫺.21*** ⫺.19*** .28*** .12 ⫺.17*** (.92)
9. Family
involvement 3.87 0.71 .07 .07 ⫺.02 ⫺.03 .04 ⫺.03 ⫺.07 .28*** (.86)
10. Gender 1.58 0.50 ⫺.12 ⫺.08 .15** ⫺.11 .01 ⫺.17*** .03 ⫺.02 .15** (—)
11. Age 36.52 7.78 .06 .18*** ⫺.14** ⫺.12 .22*** .13** ⫺.18*** .03 .15** ⫺.17*** (—)
12. Spouse paid
employment 1.86 0.35 ⫺.05 .02 .02 .04 .08 ⫺.08 .02 .00 .11 .28*** .03 (—)
13. Children
ARYEE, SRINIVAS, AND TAN

under 12 1.41 0.55 ⫺.06 ⫺.02 .02 ⫺.002 .05 ⫺.07 .19*** ⫺.06 ⫺.01 ⫺.05 .08 ⫺.06 (—)
14. Work–family
conflict 2.75 0.72 ⫺.19*** ⫺.26*** .38*** .32*** ⫺.31*** ⫺.07 .18*** ⫺.24*** ⫺.06 ⫺.05 ⫺.13** ⫺.07 ⫺.01 (.75)
15. Work–family
facilitation 3.16 0.78 .21*** .16*** ⫺.09** ⫺.15** .11 .24*** .01 .11 ⫺.04 .16*** ⫺.07 .03 .04 ⫺.15** (.75)
16. Family–work
conflict 2.32 0.72 ⫺.21*** ⫺.24*** .39*** .29*** ⫺.19*** ⫺.14** .22*** ⫺.22*** ⫺.07 ⫺.01 ⫺.11 .03 .07 .59*** ⫺.04 (.76)
17. Family–work
facilitation 4.09 0.79 .17** .26*** ⫺.20*** ⫺.13** .14** .11 ⫺.19** .49*** .12** .08 .06 ⫺.09 ⫺.04 ⫺.16*** .19*** ⫺.17*** (.73)
18. Job
satisfaction 3.69 0.74 .37*** .43*** ⫺.33*** ⫺.08 .44*** .37*** ⫺.13** .31*** .10 ⫺.02 .26*** .06 ⫺.02 ⫺.26*** .28*** ⫺.21*** .25*** (.82)
19. Org.
commitment 5.06 1.23 .21*** .41*** ⫺.34*** ⫺.19*** .29*** .32*** ⫺.07 .21*** .00 ⫺.11 .22*** ⫺.05 .05 ⫺.24*** .21*** ⫺.27*** .17*** .55*** (.86)

Note. Cronbach’s alphas are in parentheses. Dashes represent variables with single-item measures, for which alphas cannot be computed. Org. ⫽ organizational.
** p ⬍ .05. *** p ⬍ .01.
 RHYTHMS OF LIFE 141

Table 3
Antecedents of Work–Family Balance Moderated by Gender

Standardized betas

Work–family Work–family Family–work Family–work

Antecedent conflict facilitation conflict facilitation

Control
Age ⫺.05 ⫺.05 .02 .07
Spouse employment ⫺.13* ⫺.02 ⫺.05 ⫺.13**
Children under 12 ⫺.07 .10 .01 ⫺.04
Gender ⫺.02 .20*** ⫺.00 .18**
Personality
Proactive personality ⫺.03 .13* ⫺.02 ⫺.03
Optimism ⫺.00 .12 ⫺.03 .07
Neuroticism .24*** ⫺.18 .29*** ⫺.13*
Work domain
Work overload .19*** ⫺.09 .16** .07
Work support ⫺.11 ⫺.11 ⫺.05 ⫺.03
Job involvement ⫺.07 .23*** ⫺.18** .06
Family domain
Parental work overload .03 .04 .11 ⫺.07
Family support ⫺.05 .10 ⫺.02 .47***
Family involvement .00 ⫺.15** ⫺.02 ⫺.05
Interactions
Proactive Personality ⫻ Gender ⫺.12 .10 ⫺.02 .12
Optimism ⫻ Gender .11 ⫺.09 ⫺.03 ⫺.24***
Neuroticism ⫻ Gender .14* ⫺.09 .07 .01
Work Overload ⫻ Gender .00 .05 .07 .09
Work Support ⫻ Gender ⫺.01 .06 ⫺.02 .11
Job Involvement ⫻ Gender .05 .11 .02 ⫺.20***
Parental Work Overload ⫻ Gender .12* ⫺.09 .11 ⫺.11
Family Support ⫻ Gender ⫺.03 ⫺.14* .09 .04
Family Involvement ⫻ Gender .09 .04 .07 ⫺.00
R2 .30 .23 .29 .37
Adjusted R2 .21 .13 .20 .29
Fa 3.46*** 2.36*** 3.26*** 4.71***
a
dfs ⫽ 22, 179 for each family–work facilitation, for which dfs ⫽ 22, 174.
* p ⬍ .10. ** p ⬍ .05. *** p ⬍ .01.

satisfaction (␤ ⫽ .21, p ⬍ .01), and job involvement was related to
job satisfaction (␤ ⫽ .18, p ⬍ .01) and organizational commitment
(␤ ⫽ .22, p ⬍ .01).
Discussion
In this study, which is underpinned by the scarcity and
expansion– enhancement perspectives, we examined antecedents
and outcomes of Frone’s (2003) fourfold taxonomy of work–
family balance in employed parents in India. Results of the con-
firmatory factor analysis provided evidence for the discriminant
validity of the taxonomy. Specifically, work–family balance may
be conceptualized in terms of the direction of the influence be-
tween work and family roles (work to family vs. family to work)
and the type of effect (conflict vs. facilitation), as Frone hypoth-
esized. Previous research that has examined the factor structure of
the fourfold taxonomy of work–family balance used exploratory
factor analysis (Grzywacz & Marks, 2000; Wayne et al., 2004).
The use of confirmatory factor analysis to examine the factor
structure of the taxonomy provided an opportunity to compare our
hypothesized four-factor model to theoretically plausible alterna-
tive models, thereby yielding a more conclusive evidence for the
fourfold taxonomy of work–family balance. Given that the previ-
ous research that examined the factor structure of Frone’s fourfold
taxonomy was based on Western—specifically, U.S.—samples,
the findings of this study demonstrate the generalizability of
Frone’s taxonomy of work–family balance to India.
Work–Family and Family–Work Facilitation
Although we examined conflict and facilitation components of
work–family balance, our emphasis is on facilitation because of
the relative absence of research on this component of work–family
balance. We found job involvement to be positively related, and
family involvement to be negatively related, to work–family fa-
cilitation. It appears that job involvement constitutes a source of
intrinsic motivation that leads individuals to invest time and effort
in their job. Similarly, Grzywacz and Marks (2000) reported
decision latitude, a source of intrinsic motivation, to be related to
work–family facilitation. The increased investment in the job that
involvement engenders leads to enhanced work role performance
and positive moods. This positive mood then spills over into the
family domain, enhancing performance in that domain and thereby
fostering work–family facilitation (Greenhaus & Parasuraman,
1999). The negative influence of family involvement on work–
family facilitation, a cross-role effect, suggests that in a collectiv-
142 ARYEE, SRINIVAS, AND TAN

Table 4 cally, gender moderated the influence of optimism and job in-
Outcomes of Work–Family Balance Moderated by Gender volvement on family–work facilitation such that the relationships
were stronger for men than for women. In view of the centrality of
Standardized betas
confidence to dispositional optimism, men may have positive
Organizational expectations and may cope better in conflict situations, leading to
Outcome Job satisfaction commitment facilitation. That this was observed for family–work facilitation
rather than work–family facilitation may be indicative of the
Controls
Age .18*** .07 greater discretion that men enjoy in the family domain relative to
Spouse employment .07 .01 women in India (Bharat, 2003; Ramu, 1989). The influence of job
Children under 12 .00 .07 involvement on family–work facilitation for men rather than
Gender .07 ⫺.05 women is again explicable in terms of traditional gender role
Personality
Proactive personality .08 ⫺.06 expectations. Intrinsically motivated interest in work activities
Optimism .16** .23*** may enhance the work role performance of men. The rewards
Neuroticism ⫺.14 ⫺.17** consequent to work role performance may enable men to ensure
Work domain
the financial security of their families. Given that Indian men
Work overload .06 ⫺.01
Work support .21*** .09 (much like men elsewhere) tend to define themselves in terms of
Job involvement .18*** .22*** the breadwinner role (Bharat, 1995), the ability to satisfactorily
Family domain perform this role will lead to family–work facilitation.
Parental work overload ⫺.09 .01
Family support .09 ⫺.03
We found only weak support for the impact of personality
Family involvement .00 ⫺.02 variables on the facilitation component of work–family balance.
Work–family balance Although previous findings in the Western literature (Grzywacz &
Work–family conflict ⫺.01 .00 Marks, 2000; Wayne et al., 2004) have revealed that personality
Work–family facilitation .19*** .20***
Family–work conflict .05 ⫺.12 variables are related to the facilitation component of work–family
Family–work facilitation .03 .05 balance, with the exception of Neuroticism, the personality vari-
2
R .42 .39 ables examined in the present study had not been previously
Adjusted R2 .36 .33 examined. Wayne et al. (2004) reported a rather weak relationship
Fa 7.46*** 6.75***
between Neuroticism and work–family facilitation but a strong
a
dfs for job satisfaction ⫽ 17, 178; dfs for organizational commitment ⫽ relationship between three of the Big Five personality dimensions
17, 179. (Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness) and family–
** p ⬍ .05. *** p ⬍ .01.
work facilitation and between Agreeableness and work–family
facilitation. Similarly, Grzywacz and Marks (2000) reported Neu-
roticism to be unrelated but Extraversion to be related to both types
istic society like India, where the family role takes precedence over of work–family facilitation. It may be that the Big Five offers a
the work role, family involvement may lead individuals to limit conceptually rich perspective for examining the influence of per-
involvement in the work role, resulting in work–family facilitation. sonality on the facilitation component of work–family balance.
In this sense, accommodation (Lambert, 1990) serves as a strategy Taken together, the findings of this study and those reported in the
for ensuring work–family facilitation in India. extant Western literature (Grzywacz & Marks, 2000; Wayne et al.,
Consistent with findings in the Western literature (Grzywacz & 2004) underline the utility of examining personality, role involve-
Marks, 2000), we found that family support was significantly ment, and role experiences as antecedents of the facilitation com-
related to family–work facilitation. A global measure of family ponent of work–family balance across cultures. Furthermore, our
support, as used in this study, may encompass instrumental (e.g.,
findings suggest that family–work facilitation may be susceptible
direct assistance and advice) and emotional (empathic understand-
to traditional gender role expectations, whereas work–family fa-
ing, listening, and sensitivity) sources of support. Instrumental
cilitation is susceptible to modern gender role expectations or
support in India takes the form not only of household help but also
egalitarian norms and values. The susceptibility of family–work
of child care assistance by elderly relatives (Rajadhyaksha &
facilitation to traditional gender role expectations in this study has
Bhatnagar, 2000). Supportive family experiences may allow indi-
viduals to work longer hours and avail themselves of developmen- been attributed to “the sociocultural reality of Indian society which
tal opportunities (Greenhaus & Parasuraman, 1999), leading to is hierarchically arranged and in the complex network of family
family–work facilitation. Contrary to Grzywacz and Marks’s find- bonds and obligations in which women’s position is governed by
ings (2000), work support was not related to work–family facili- a set of traditional values and patriarchal norms” (Bharat, 2003, p.
tation in our study. Perhaps in a high power distance society like 168). If successfully replicated, this latter finding (i.e., suscepti-
India, a global measure of work support does not adequately reflect bility of work–family facilitation to egalitarian norms) will debunk
the relationship employees have with their coworkers and super- the view that organizational family-friendly initiatives constitute
visors that may differentially influence work–family facilitation. benefits for employed mothers. Accordingly, the implementation
Future research may need to examine specific sources of support, of these initiatives will need to be pursued in tandem with the
such as supervisor and coworker. promotion of a family-supportive culture to enhance the utilization
The moderated regression found gender differences to be of these initiatives by employed parents in general (Thompson,
present for antecedents of family–work facilitation only. Specifi- Beauvais, & Lyness, 1999).
 RHYTHMS OF LIFE
Work–Family and Family–Work Conflict
The results pertaining to work–family and family–work conflict
corroborated evidence relating work overload and neuroticism to
the conflict component of work–family balance (Aryee et al.,
1999; Carlson, 1999; Wayne et al., 2004) and revealed job in-
volvement to be negatively related to family–work conflict. The
positive influence of neuroticism on the conflict component of
work–family balance led Wayne et al. (2004) to assert that the
conflict component is primarily related to negative stimuli. The
negative influence of job involvement on family–work conflict is
consistent with the view that in collectivistic societies such as
India job involvement is considered instrumental to the perfor-
mance of the family role: that of ensuring the material well-being
of the family. As earlier noted, this is more the case for men than
for women. The nonsignificance of the relationship between the
antecedents of parental role overload, work and family support,
and the conflict component of work–family balance is inconsistent
with findings in the extant literature (Aryee et al., 1999; Frone et
al., 1997). Future research may need to examine how contextual
factors act on these variables to shape their influence on the
conflict component of work–family balance.
Outcomes
Our findings that work–family facilitation was positively related
to job satisfaction and affective organizational commitment echoes
Tompson and Werner’s (1997) study, which was based on a U.S.
sample. However, their conceptualization of work–family facilita-
tion was not informed by Frone’s (2003) fourfold taxonomy of
work–family balance, and they did not control for the other com-
ponents of work–family balance. Control over work and family
roles may enhance performance, leading to self-esteem and the
receipt of valued material rewards and, ultimately, job satisfaction.
The influence of work–family facilitation on organizational com-
mitment is explicable in terms of social exchange (Blau, 1964). It
describes reciprocal acts between two interacting individuals. A
social exchange mechanism in an organizational context is per-
ceived organizational support. Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchi-
son, and Sowa (1986) defined POS as “employee beliefs concern-
ing the extent to which the organization values their contributions
and cares about their well-being” (p. 501). If employees attribute
integration of their work and family roles to a demonstration of the
organization’s care and concern for their well-being (POS), then
they will feel an obligation to reciprocate with commitment to the
organization (Aryee, Tan, & Debrah, 2003; Rhoades & Eisen-
berger, 2002). POS and its underlying principle of reciprocity have
been noted to influence work outcomes across cultures (Aryee et
al., 2003; Yoon & Thye, 2002).
In view of the demonstrated negative consequences of work–
family conflict on work outcomes (T. D. Allen et al., 2000),
organizational family-friendly initiatives have focused on reducing
work–family conflict. However, if our finding that work–family
facilitation rather than work–family conflict is related to work
outcomes is replicated, particularly in a Western context, it would
have implications for organizational efforts to assist employed
parents balance their work and family roles. In essence, these
family-friendly initiatives may need to focus not only on reducing
work–family conflict but also on increasing work–family balance
143
by enhancing work–family facilitation. Together with Grzywacz
and Marks’s (2000) finding that decision latitude was related to
work–family facilitation, our finding that job involvement was
related to work–family facilitation suggests that organizational
family-friendly initiatives should be combined with intrinsically
motivating jobs as a way of enhancing work–family facilitation.
Limitations and Future Research
Although we examined a comprehensive model of work–family
balance, this study has a number of limitations that should be borne
in mind when interpreting the findings. First, the cross-sectional
data constrain inferences about causality. A longitudinal study
design has traditionally been suggested for demonstrating causal-
ity. However, it has been noted that such data are useful only when
one knows a priori the optimal time lag for a given relationship.
Otherwise, longitudinal data can lead to more biased estimates
than those obtained from cross-sectional data (Frone et al., 1992;
Gollub & Reichardt, 1987; Rothbard & Edwards, 2003).
Second, the use of self-report data has implications for method
variance and consistency bias. However, alternative methods of
data collection, such as an interview, in an area as sensitive as the
work–family interface are likely to be problematic (Duxbury &
Higgins, 1991).
A final limitation is the “implicit assumption that the predictors
of work–family conflict and work–family facilitation are similar”
(Frone, 2003, p. 152). Unlike Grzywacz and Marks (2000), we
examined parallel work and family predictors. This notwithstand-
ing, our findings suggest that different processes may underlie the
conflict and facilitation components of work–family balance. Fol-
lowing Frone (2003), future research should develop integrative
models of work–family facilitation that do not simply substitute
work–family conflict with work–family facilitation. In addition,
given the demonstrated consequences of the conflict and facilita-
tion components of work–family balance, future research should
examine job characteristics and organizational and individual ini-
tiatives that enhance control over the work and family roles lead-
ing to facilitation. Research should also examine the individual-
and organizational-relevant outcomes of facilitation.
These limitations notwithstanding, the present study adds to the
sparse research that has examined the conflict and facilitation
components of work–family balance (Kirchmeyer, 1992; Roth-
bard, 2001; Wayne et al., 2004). Our findings, which are based in
a non-Western context, attest to the generalizability of the multi-
dimensionality of the work–family balance construct. Further-
more, these findings demonstrate the utility of examining person-
ality and parallel work and family variables as antecedents of
work–family balance and should constitute a basis for developing
integrative models of the construct (Frone, 2003; Greenhaus &
Parasuraman, 1999). Last, the coexistence of traditional and mod-
ern gender role expectations in a transitional society like India
suggests similarities and differences in the processes leading to
work–family balance for men and women.
We join Greenhaus and Parasuraman (1999) in urging
researchers
to supplement our study of work–family conflict with an equally
vigorous effort to understand work–family integration: such an ap-
proach will provide a more balanced view of the linkages between the
worlds of work and family for both women and men. (p. 412)
144 ARYEE, SRINIVAS, AND TAN
Increased globalization, coupled with the recognition that balanc-
ing work and family is a challenge for employed parents in almost
all modern societies, suggests that this program of research should
be conducted in different cultural contexts. This is necessary if
researchers are to understand the culture-specific and universal
influences on the operation of the work–family interface and
thereby develop the knowledge base to assist multinational com-
panies to design effective family-friendly initiatives that enhance,
across cultures, employed parents’ work–family balance and, ul-
timately, the work outcomes that it engenders.
References
Adams, G. A., King, L. A., & King, D. W. (1996). Relationships of job and
family involvement, family social support, and work–family conflict
with job and life satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 411–
420.
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and
interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of
affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization.
Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 1–18.
Allen, T. D., Herst, D. E. L., Bruck, C. S., & Sutton, M. (2000). Conse-
quences associated with work-to-family conflict: A review and agenda
for future research. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5,
278 –308.
Anderson, G. (1996). The benefits of optimism: A meta-analytic review of
the Life Orientation Test. Personality and Individual Differences, 21,
719 –725.
Aneshensel, C. S., & Pearlin, L. I. (1987). Structural contexts of sex
differences in stress. In R. C. Barnett, L. Biener, & G. K. Baruch (Eds.),
Gender and stress (pp. 75–95). New York: Free Press.
Aryee, S., Luk, V., Leung, A., & Lo, S. (1999). Role stressors, interrole
conflict, and well-being: The moderating influence of spousal support
and coping behaviors among employed parents in Hong Kong. Journal
of Vocational Behavior, 54, 259 –278.
Aryee, S., Tan, H. H., & Debrah, Y. (2003). Family-supportive work
environment and perceived organizational support: Mechanisms and
outcomes. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Barnett, R. C. (1998). Toward a review and reconceptualization of the
work/family literature. Genetic, Social and General Psychology Mono-
graphs, 124, 125–182.
Baruch, G. K., Barnett, R. C., & Rivers, C. (1983). Lifeprints: New patterns
of love and work for today’s women. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1993). The proactive component of
organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 103–
118.
Beehr, T. A., Walsh, J., & Taber, T. (1976). Relationship of stress to
individually and organizationally valued states: Higher order needs as a
moderator. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 41– 47.
Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of
fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88,
588 – 606.
Bharat, S. (1992). The two pay cheque couples: An analysis of their
housework, decision-making, sex-role perceptions and attitudes. Unpub-
lished manuscript, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Bombay, India.
Bharat, S. (1995). Attitudes and sex-role perceptions among working
couples in India. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 26, 371–388.
Bharat, S. (2001). On the periphery: The psychology of gender. In J.
Pandey (Ed.), Psychology in India revisited: Developments in the dis-
cipline. Vol. 2: Personality and health psychology (pp. 300 –355). New
Delhi, India: Sage.
Bharat, S. (2003). Women, work, and family in urban India: Towards new
families? In J. W. Berry, R. C. Mishra, & R. C. Tripathi (Eds.),
Psychology in human and social development: Lessons from diverse
cultures (pp. 155–169). New Delhi, India: Sage.
Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.
Brayfield, A. H., & Rothe, H. F. (1951). An index of job satisfaction.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 35, 307–311.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model
fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation
models (pp. 136 –162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Burke, R. J., & McKeen, C. A. (1994). Work, career and life experiences
associated with different career patterns among managerial and profes-
sional women. In G. P. Keita & J. J. Hurrell Jr. (Eds.), Job stress in a
changing workforce: Investigating gender, diversity, and family issues
(pp. 301–310). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, D., & Klesh, J. (1979). The Michigan
organizational assessment questionnaire. Unpublished manuscript, Uni-
versity of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Caplan, R. D., Cobb, S., French, J., Harrison, R., & Pinneau, R. (1975). Job
demands and worker health (DHEW Publication No. 75–160). Wash-
ington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Carlson, D. S. (1999). Personality and role variables as predictors of three
forms of work–family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 55,
236 –253.
Carlson, D. S., & Perrewé, P. L. (1999). The role of social support in the
stressor–strain relationship: An examination of work–family conflict.
Journal of Management, 25, 513–540.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1999). Optimism. In C. R. Snyder (Ed.),
Coping: The psychology of what works (pp. 182–204). New York:
Oxford University Press.
Cohen, S. (1988). Psychological models of the role of social support in the
etiology of physical disease. Health Psychology, 7, 269 –297.
Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support and buffering
hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 98, 310 –357.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1988). Personality in adulthood: A six–year
longitudinal study of self-reports and spouse ratings on the NEO Per-
sonality Inventory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54,
853– 863.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1991). NEO Five-Factor Inventory (Form
S). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Crouter, A. C. (1984). Spillover from family to work: The neglected side
of the work–family interface. Human Relations, 37, 425– 442.
Desai, N. (1996). Women’s employment and their familial role in India. In
A. M. Shah, B. S. Baviskar, & E. A. Ramaswamy (Eds.), Social
structure and change: Vol. 2. Women in Indian society (pp. 98 –112).
New Delhi, India: Sage.
Duxbury, L. E., & Higgins, C. A. (1991). Gender differences in work–
family conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 60 –74.
Edwards, J. R., & Rothbard, N. P. (2000). Mechanisms linking work and
family: Specifying the relationships between work and family con-
structs. Academy of Management Review, 25, 178 –199.
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Per-
ceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500 –
507.
Etzion, D. (1984). Moderation effect of social support on the stress–
burnout relationship. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 615– 622.
Evans, P., & Bartolome, F. (1980). The relationship between professional
life and private life. In C. B. Derr (Ed.), Work, family and the career (pp.
281–317). New York: Praeger.
Frone, M. R. (2003). Work–family balance. In J. C. Quick & L. E. Tetrick
(Eds.), Handbook of occupational health psychology (pp. 143–162).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M. L. (1992). Antecedents and
outcomes of work–family conflict: Testing a model of the work–family
interface. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 65–75.
 RHYTHMS OF LIFE
Frone, M. R., Yardley, J. K., & Markel, K. (1997). Developing and testing
an integrative model of the work–family interface. Journal of Vocational
Behavior. 50, 145–167.
Gallos, J. V. (1989). Exploring women’s development: Implications for
career theory, practice and research. In M. B. Arthur, D. T. Hall, & B. S.
Lawrence (Eds.), Handbook of career theory (pp. 110 –132). Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.
Glass, J. L., & Estes, S. B. (1997). The family responsive workplace.
Annual Review of Sociology, 23, 289 –313.
Gollub, H. F., & Reichardt, C. S. (1987). Taking account of time lags in
causal models. Child Development, 58, 80 –92.
Gore, S. (1987). Perspectives on social support and research on the stress
moderating process. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management,
8, 85–101.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work
and family roles. Academy of Management Review, 10, 76 – 88.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Parasuraman, S. (1994). Work–family conflict, social
support and well– being. In M. J. Davidson & R. J. Burke (Eds.), Women
in management: Current research issues (pp. 213–229). London:
Chapman.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Parasuraman, S. (1999). Research on work, family, and
gender: Current status and future directions. In G. N. Powell (Ed.),
Handbook of gender and work (pp. 391– 412). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Grzywacz, J. G., & Bass, B. L. (2003). Work, family, and mental health:
Testing different models of work–family fit. Journal of Marriage and
Family, 65, 248 –262.
Grzywacz, J. G., & Marks, N. F. (2000). Reconceptualizing the work–
family interface: An ecological perspective on the correlates of positive
and negative spillover between work and family. Journal of Occupa-
tional Health Psychology, 5, 111–126.
Gutek, B. A., Searle, S., & Klepa, L. (1991). Rational versus gender role
expectations for work–family conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology,
76, 560 –568.
Hinkin, T. R. (1995). A review of scale development in the study of
behavior in organizations. Journal of Management, 21, 967–988.
House, G. S. (1981). Work stress and social support. Reading, MA:
Addison–Wesley.
Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., Durham, C. C., & Kluger, A. N. (1998).
Dispositional effects on job and life satisfaction: The role of core
evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 17–34.
Kirchmeyer, C. (1992). Nonwork participation and work attitudes: A test of
scarcity vs. expansion models of personal resources. Human Relations,
45, 775–795.
Kofodimos, J. (1993). Balancing act: How managers can integrate suc-
cessful careers and fulfilling personal lives. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Komarraju, M. (1997). The work–family interface in India. In S. Parasura-
man & J. H. Greenhaus (Eds.), Integrating work and family: Challenges
for a changing world (pp. 104 –114). Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
Kossek, E. E., & Ozeki, C. (1998). Work–family conflict policies and the
job–life satisfaction relationship: A review and directions for future
organizational behavior– human resources research. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 83, 139 –149.
Lambert, S. J. (1990). Processes linking work and family: A critical review
and research agenda. Human Relations, 43, 239 –257.
Lodahl, T. M., & Kejner, M. (1965). Definition and measurement of job
involvement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 49, 24 –33.
Marks, S. R. (1977). Multiple roles and role strain. American Sociological
Review, 42, 921–936.
Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Smith, C. A. (1993). Commitment to orga-
nizations and occupations: Extension and test of a three-component
conceptualization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 538 –551.
Meyer, J. P., Paunonen, S. V., Gellatly, I. H., Goffine, R. D., & Jackson,
D. N. (1989). Organizational commitment and job performance: It’s the
145
nature of the commitment that counts. Journal of Applied Psychology,
74, 152–156.
Orthner, D. K., & Pittman, J. F. (1986). Family contributions to work
commitment. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48, 573–581.
Parasuraman, S., & Greenhaus, J. H. (2002). Toward reducing some critical
gaps in work–family research. Human Resource Management Review,
12, 299 –312.
Parasuraman, S., Purohit, Y. S., Godshalk, V. M., & Beutell, N. J. (1996).
Work and family variables, entrepreneurial career success, and psycho-
logical well-being. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 48, 275–300.
Perry-Jenkins, M., Repetti, R. L., & Crouter, A. C. (2000). Work and
family in the 1990s. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62, 981–998.
Perry-Smith, J. E., & Blum, T. C. (2000). Work–family resource bundles
and perceived organizational performance. Academy of Management
Journal, 43, 1107–1117.
Pittman, J. F. (1994). Work–family fit as a mediator of work factors on
marital tension: Evidence from the interface of greedy institutions.
Human Relations, 47, 183–209.
Pleck, J. H. (1977). The work–family role system. Social Problems, 24,
417– 427.
Rajadhyaksha, U., & Bhatnagar, D. (2000). Life role salience: A study of
dual-career couples in the Indian context. Human Relations, 53, 489 –
511.
Ramu, G. N. (1989). Indian husbands: Their role perceptions and perfor-
mance in single- and dual-earner households. Journal of Marriage and
the Family, 49, 903–915.
Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support:
A review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 698 –714.
Rosenbaum, M., & Cohen, E. (1999). Equalitarian marriages, spousal
support, resourcefulness, and psychological distress among Israeli work-
ing women. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 102–113.
Rothbard, N. P. (2001). Enriching or depleting? The dynamics of engage-
ment in work and family roles. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46,
655– 684.
Rothbard, N. P., & Edwards, J. R. (2003). Investment in work and family
roles: A test of identity and utilitarian motives. Personnel Psychology,
56, 699 –730.
Rout, U. R., Lewis, S., & Kagan, C. (1999). Work and family roles: Indian
career women in India and the West. Indian Journal of Gender Studies,
6, 91–108.
Ruderman, M. N., Ohlott, P. J., Panzer, K., & King, S. N. (2002). Benefits
of multiple roles for managerial women. Academy of Management
Journal, 45, 369 –386.
Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1985). Optimism, coping, and health:
Assessment and implications of generalized outcome expectancies.
Health Psychology, 4, 219 –247.
Scheier, M. F., Weintraub, J. K., & Carver, C. S. (1986). Coping with
stress: Divergent strategies of optimists and pessimists. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 51, 1257–1264.
Schwab, D. P. (1980). Construct validity in organization behavior. In B. M.
Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior
(Vol. 2, pp. 3– 43). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Sekaran, U. (1992). Middle-class dual-earner families and their support
systems in urban India. In S. Lewis, D. N. Izraeli, & H. Hootsmans
(Eds.), Dual-earner families: International perspectives. (pp. 46 – 61).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Sieber, S. D. (1974). Toward a theory of role accumulation. American
Sociological Review, 39, 567–578.
Thoits, P. A. (1983). Multiple identities and psychological well– being: A
reformulation and test of the social isolation hypothesis. American
Sociological Review, 48, 174 –187.
Thomas, L. T., & Ganster, D. C. (1995). Impact of family-supportive work
variables on work–family conflict and strain: A control perspective.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 6 –15.
146 ARYEE, SRINIVAS, AND TAN
Thompson, C. A., Beauvais, L. L., & Lyness, K. S. (1999). When work–
family benefits are not enough: The influence of work–family culture on
benefit utilization, organizational attachment, and work–family conflict.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 392– 415.
Tompson, H. B., & Werner, J. M. (1997). The impact of role conflict/
facilitation on core and discretionary behaviors: Testing a mediated
model. Journal of Management, 23, 583– 601.
Verbrugge, L. M. (1983). Multiple roles and physical health of women and
men. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24, 16 –30.
Voydanoff, P. (2002). Linkages between the work–family interface and
work, family, and individual outcomes. Journal of Family Issues, 23,
138 –164.
Watanabe, S., Takahashi, K., & Minami, T. (1997). The emerging role of
diversity and work–family values in a global context. In P. C. Earley &
M. Erez (Eds.), New perspectives on international industrial/ organiza-
tional psychology (pp. 319 –332). San Francisco: New Lexington Press.
Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1984). Negative affectivity: The disposition to
experience aversive emotional states. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 465–
490.
Wayne, J. H., Musisca, N., & Fleeson, W. (2004). Considering the role of
personality in work–family experience: Relationships of the Big Five to
work–family conflict and facilitation. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
64, 108 –130.
Yoon, J., & Thye, S. R. (2002). A dual process model of organizational
commitment: Job satisfaction and organizational support. Work and
Occupations, 29, 97–124.
Zedeck, S. (1992). Introduction: Exploring the domain of work and family
concerns. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), Work, families, and organizations (pp.
1–32). San Francisco: Jossey–Bass.
Zedeck, S., & Mosier, K. L. (1990). Work in the family and employing
organization. American Psychologist, 45, 240 –251.
Zellars, K. L., & Perrewé, P. L. (2001). Affective personality and the
content of emotional social support: Coping in organizations. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 86, 459 – 467.
Received July 9, 2003
Revision received January 16, 2004
Accepted January 21, 2004 䡲