The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/0262-1711.htm

The impact of family roles Employee’s

attitudes and
on employee’s attitudes behaviors
and behaviors
Scott L. Boyar 623
Collat School of Business, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Received 9 July 2015
Birmingham, Alabama, USA Revised 15 December 2015
Accepted 8 April 2016
Teresa A. Wagner
Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
Amanda Petzinger
Xavier University, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA, and
Ronald B. McKinley
The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, Galveston, Texas, USA

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine two important family roles, financial and caregiver,
and their impact on four relevant outcome variables: absenteeism, partial absences, employee
performance, and life satisfaction; they also explore the intervening impact of core self-evaluations
(CSE) among these relationships.
Design/methodology/approach – Data are collected using a questionnaire and actual employee
performance data. Hypotheses were assessed in a structural model using LISREL.
Findings – The results demonstrate the impact of family roles on important outcomes, such as
absenteeism and life satisfaction, as well as limited support of the moderating impact of CSE.
Further, life satisfaction was significantly impacted by family roles and influenced job performance.
Research limitations/implications – Although the measures were self-reported, actual job
performance data were collected from company records; such a design should limit the risk of common
method variance (Podsakoff et al., 2003).
Practical implications – Two family roles were shown to impact life satisfaction and these were
positively moderated by CSE. Therefore, organization can develop family-friendly programs and
policies to support employee’s multiple family roles in an effort to increase employee’s levels of life
satisfaction and job performance. Incorporating CSE in the hiring process or providing employees with
the skills and abilities to enhance their level of CSE should impact job performance.
Originality/value – The study contributes by assessing family roles using gender-neutral measures
that assess level of role engagement. It also incorporates a dispositional variable, CSE, and its relation
to family roles and job performance.
Keywords Performance, Attendance, Caregiver, Core self-evaluations, Financial provider
Paper type Research paper

The work (e.g. Bielby and Bielby, 1989) and family roles (Konrad et al., 2000) have been
popular topics. In fact, an entire body of research has been devoted to the study of
the work-family interface, which has been summarized in various reviews and
meta-analyses (Eby et al., 2005; Greenhaus and Allen, 2011; Maertz and Boyar, 2011).
Journal of Management
The research has predominately examined work-family conflict, work-family Development
Vol. 35 No. 5, 2016
pp. 623-635
This research was supported by a Type I grant from the University of Alabama at Birmingham, © Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0262-1711
Collat School of Business. DOI 10.1108/JMD-07-2015-0096
JMD engagement, and work-family balance (Edwards and Rothbard, 2000; Greenhaus and
35,5 Allen, 2011). However, specific family roles have received less attention (Duxbury et al.,
2007), yet have the potential to impact important work and life outcomes (Boyar et al.,
2014a; Eby et al., 2005). Family roles may be an important determinant in the work-family
interface affecting both employees and organizations.
Researchers have classified family roles into two dominant themes, breadwinner
624 and caregiver (Perry-Jenkins and Crouter, 2000). Traditionally, the breadwinner has
been the man while the caregiver the women (Hood, 1986; Konrad et al., 2000;
Perry-Jenkins and Crouter, 2000; Potuchek, 1992). Traditional views were based on
strong social norms and family role modeling within the family environment that
influenced traditional gender role allocation (Bussey and Bandura, 1999). However, if
this held, gender could be used to explain family roles; yet, results across work-family
research for gender are rarely consistent (Kinnunen et al., 2004). Further, demographic
changes suggest that fewer households consist of these traditional families
(Marks, 2006). Changing family dynamics and roles have shifted family
responsibilities; gender may not represent current family role configurations and
may be a poor proxy for family roles (Boyar et al., 2014a). In addition to changes to
traditional family structure, more women are entering the workforce, there is a growing
number of single parents, and an increase in dual-income and career couples
participating in the workforce (Duxbury et al., 2007). Our study focusses on medical
personnel since this is a growing and high-demand area within the service sector.
A measure assessing one’s responsibility as demonstrated by their level of
engagement in that role may be a better way to capture the phenomenon of interest,
such as family role configuration (Boyar et al., 2014a). Higher levels of engagement
should increase their identification with that particular role (Bielby and Bielby,
1989), fostering greater role satisfaction. Engaging in family roles, such as
breadwinner or caregiver, should support ones role identity, where individual’s will
take actions to maintain, support, and confirm these role allocations (Boyar et al.,
2014a). Capturing one’s engagement within a domain might provide critically needed
insight into differences between important work outcomes; this would have
implications for managers and human resource professionals, allowing for better
resolution efforts.
The main purpose of this study is to evaluate the impact of family role configuration,
which is financial and caregiver role responsibility (CRR), on important work outcomes.
An individual’s ability to manage such roles will be impacted by dispositional factors;
thus, we considering the intervening affect of core self-evaluations (CSE) on the family
role configuration and work outcome linkages. In particular, our model considers the
effect on two types absenteeism (i.e. missing a full day of work and a partial day of work),
employee performance and life satisfaction.

Background
According to role theory, individuals occupy social roles in society (Oeser et al.,
1964) and these roles impact employee behavior and performance. Role theory argues
that these roles incorporate both dispositional and situational views in explaining
employee performance. Specifically, individuals develop roles to enact scripts to meet
social needs of the person and society, and this helps guide behavior (Thoits, 1991).
Within work and family domains, role demands may be the result of normative
expectations or one’s own values regarding work or family role obligations (Edwards
and Rothbard, 2000). Individuals will often enact multiple roles (e.g. employee,
supervisor, and colleague) in a given domain. However, the salience of specific family Employee’s
roles (e.g. caregiver) may impact both work and family domains. attitudes and
In addition to societal needs, individuals work to support their family
(Christiansen and Palkovitz, 2001), and this is consistent with the breadwinner
behaviors
role. Membership in family results in efforts to maintain and develop the family’s
well-being (Edwards and Rothbard, 2000). Family also has social significance and
may consist of several familial roles including spouse, sibling, parent, child, and 625
dependent. Therefore, families will allocate responsibility for meeting family
demands; these family role configurations include both financial and caregiving
responsibilities and can be allocated in various ways to family members. The result of
such arrangements may have implications for organizations (e.g. scheduling,
employee benefits, and performance).

Family role configuration

Researchers have identified two primary family roles (Boyar et al., 2014a; Hood, 1986;
Perry-Jenkins and Crouter, 2000; Potuchek, 1992), financial role responsibility (FRR)
and CRR. FRR is defined as “the extent to which the person generates income for the
family” (Boyar et al., 2014a, p. 121). CRR is defined as “the extent to which the person
spends time providing care for the physical and emotional needs of family members”
(Boyar et al., 2014a, p. 121). FRR and CRR are each identifiable and not limited to
social constraints or gender, men and women can engage in either or both roles.
These family roles are important in determining one’s family role configuration and
understanding the impact of how roles are distributed within a family unit as well as
the result of such role allocations. Individuals will value their family role and attach
meaning to its enactment; it will also help determine family role configurations.
Individuals will work to support and maintain one’s family role and thus it may have
discriminating impact on work outcomes.

FRR
FRR differs from breadwinner status in that it does not intentionally try to capture
social normative influence set forth by gender differences. It refers to employees
providing the financial resources needed to support the family and captures the family
role in which the individual engage. For example, a family member who accepts a job
or a promotion with the goal of sending their children to private schools or paying
the electric bill. Interestingly, there is a clear and identifiable link between work and
family and this should be apparent for those with FRR (Boyar et al., 2014a), because
their role is to provide for the financial well-being of the family (Rodman and
Safilios-Rothschild, 1984). Therefore, their commitment and dedication to work should
be evident in their positive work attitudes and behaviors.

CRR
Caregivers are responsible for meeting the emotional and physical needs of family
members that require additional care and support (Thoits, 1992). While this
may involve spending time with family members and providing emotional support, it
may also include instrumental support and caregiving activities that require physically
attending to their needs, such as driving them to the doctor’s office or caring for them
while they are sick. Therefore, the caregiver role may incorporate both emotional and
physical support and assistance as well as the allocation of time in providing such care.
Engaging in CRR will have implications for both the employee and organization.
JMD Hypotheses
35,5 Direct effect
Employees who engage in their family role as the financial provider, would be less
likely to miss work because their role is to go to work and earn money for the family;
this applies to both missing a full day’s work or a partial day’s work. This is
particularly true for individuals who have FRR within the family, because missing
626 work could negatively impact the family. Therefore, we posit that individuals who
engage in FRR will miss work less than those with low FRR.
Life satisfaction captures an individual’s general attitude about life. Engaging
in the family role should positively impact individual’s satisfaction with that role and
life in general. While the employee may engage in FRR as a means for providing for the
family, its link with family and associated benefits of this family role may be more
tenuous and distal than other family roles that have more proximal and frequent family
involvement (e.g. caregiver). Therefore, individuals highly engaged in the FRR are
expected to experience lower levels of life satisfaction because they are meeting family
obligations through work rather than directly attending to the physical and
emotional needs of family members by being the caregiver. Thus, employees may not
attribute FRR with a primary family role, it might be too distal and thus perceiving less
life satisfaction:
H1. (a) FRR will result in lower rates of absenteeism, (b) lower rates of missing a
partial day’s work, and (c) less life satisfaction.
Individuals engaged in the caregiver role are responsible for providing care to their
family members, which includes transporting children to baseball practice, for
example. Their values and beliefs support their role as caregiver, and their identity is
strongly linked to this family role (Boyar et al., 2014a). They will work to support
such role allocations. Thus, they would be more likely to miss work to attend to family
obligations. This would include both missing a full day’s work and missing a
partial day’s work. Further, they would have higher levels of life satisfaction because
of the more obvious and proximal link between family responsibility and caregiving,
and the immediate gratification gained by providing direct care to one’s family
(Goff et al., 1990). That is, life satisfaction may be partially attributed to one’s explicit
and immediate impact on the family and that may be particularly salient in the
caregiver role:
H2. (a) CRR will result in higher rates of absenteeism, (b) higher rates of missing a
partial day’s work, and (c) greater life satisfaction.
Employee job performance may also be affected by the individual’s family role,
but mediated by attendance behavior and life satisfaction. An employee’s family
role configuration will likely have an immediate impact on attitudinal or behavioral
consequences such as missing work. Whereas the employee’s job performance
is the aggregate evaluation over the last 12 months. Thus, we would not expect a
direct link between family role configuration (i.e. FRR and CRR) and an employee’s
annual review. Specifically, missing a full day’s work will negatively impact
performance (Harrison and Martocchio, 1998); when employees are not present for an
extended period of time, job performance will likely be affected. However, missing a
partial day’s work will positively impact job performance; when organizations provide
flexible work arrangements allowing employees to meet family obligations, employees
will work hard to maintain such work arrangements by performing their job.
Additionally, employees who are satisfied with life, particularly because of family role Employee’s
configurations, will perform their job at a higher level than those not satisfied with life: attitudes and
H3. (a) Absenteeism will negatively, (b) partial absences will positively, and (c) life behaviors
satisfaction will positively impact job performance.

Interaction effect
Judge et al. (1997) introduced the concept of CSE in an attempt to explain employee 627
attitudes and behaviors. CSE is defined as “the fundamental assessments that people
make about their worthiness, competence, and capabilities” ( Judge et al., 2005, p. 257).
CSE is a composite of four personality dimensions: self-esteem, neuroticism, locus of
control, and general self-efficacy. Numerous studies have been conducted in developing
( Judge et al., 2003) and modeling its relationship to job and life satisfaction ( Judge et al.,
2005) and performance ( Judge and Bono, 2001); these results have been supported by
a recent meta-analysis (see, Chang et al., 2012). Individuals’ CSEs influence their
perceptions, attitudes, beliefs, decisions, and actions in their work and family domains.
Those with high CSEs are predisposed to perceive aspects of work and family domains
in a positive manner. They may view life events positively and seek situations that
enhance positive role fulfillment ( Judge et al., 2000), and may work to minimize
negative situations ( Judge et al., 2005). Individuals with high CSE should be able to
successfully manage their family role configuration.
CSE will have a positive impact on the posited relationship between FRR and both
absenteeism and partial absences, where higher levels of CSE will result in fewer full
and partial day absences. Individuals with high FRR and high CSE will see their family
role as the financial provider and will support that role by going to work and
minimizing absences. Moreover, individuals with high FRR and high CSE will
experience higher levels of life satisfaction than those with low CSE. As mentioned
earlier, the distal link between the work and family role will result in lower levels of
life satisfaction, but this will be to a lesser degree for those with high CSE; their
self-concept and understanding of their family role should enhance their identification
with their role as the financial provider:
H4. (a) The posited relationship between FRR and absenteeism, (b) partial absences,
and (c) life satisfaction will be stronger when individuals are high on CSE rather
than low.
We posit that the relationship between CRR and both absenteeism and partial
absences will be negative and result in more absences with higher levels of CRR.
This relationship should be positively affected by CSE, where higher levels of CSE will
result in fewer full and partial day absences. Individuals with high CSE will understand
their family role, and while they will work to support that role, will be more successful
in managing multiple roles. Thus, they should be absent less than those with low CSE.
The link between CRR and life satisfaction should be self-evident to those highly
engaged in the caregiver role, but this will be stronger for those with high CSE. Thus,
individuals with high CRR and high CSE will experience higher levels of life
satisfaction than those with low CSE:
H5. (a) The posited relationship between CRR and absenteeism, (b) partial absences,
and (c) life satisfaction will be positively impacted by CSE, where individuals
with high CSE will experience less absenteeism, less partial absences, and
greater life satisfaction.
JMD Methods
35,5 Sample
Medical personnel, which mostly included nursing staff, were invited to participate in
the study (n ¼ 2,321); 441 completed the on-line survey and included their employee
identification, providing a 19 percent response rate. The average age was 41 with
average tenure at ten years. For those who reported, 95 percent were female and
628 5 percent were male. Totally, 1 percent of the sample had completed junior high school
(0.5 percent), 6.1 percent had a high school degree, 39.5 percent had some college,
39.2 percent had college degrees, and 14.3 percent had graduate or higher degrees.
Totally, 76 percent were married, 22.9 percent were single, and 1.1 percent did not
identify their marital status. Totally, 91 percent (95.7 percent) were Caucasian,
2.3 percent were African-American, three were Hispanic, one was Indian, and five were
Asian. In an effort to assess nonresponse bias and provide some confidence in the
representativeness of the sample, we compared the demographics of respondents and
nonrespondents and found they were not significantly different for education (t ¼ 0.85,
p ¼ 0.36), race (t ¼ 0.14, p ¼ 0.71), or sex (t ¼ 0.45, p ¼ 0.50).

Procedure
Employees were sent an e-mail requesting their confidential participation in the study.
They were asked to enter their employee ID number allowing us to match their survey
data with personnel records.
Structural equation modeling (SEM) using LISREL 8 ( Joreskog and Sorbom, 1996)
was used to test direct and moderated effects. Pairwise deletion method was employed.
If the direct path is significant, then moderating effect were considered. In testing
interactions, we divided the sample into high CSE and low CSE based on mean score of
CSE. In SEM, procedures outlines by Jaccard et al. (1990) were followed using multi-group
comparisons. The χ2 statistics were compared to determine if they were statistically
different. If the models were different, and interaction effect exists, then significant
interactions were graphed to allow for proper interpretation (Cohen and Cohen, 1975).

Measures
Family role configuration. There are two general constructs that constitute one’s family
role configuration (Boyar et al., 2014a): FRR with three items and CRR with two items.
Items were adapted from Potuchek (1992). An example item for FRR is “In my family,
I’m the financial provider.” An example item for CRR is “I have considerable
responsibility for providing emotional and physical care to family members.”
Attendance behavior. Two types of attendance behavior were assessed, absenteeism,
and partial absences. Absenteeism is missing a full day’s work and was assessed with
the following item: “In the last six months, how many times have you missed a full
day’s work?” Partial absences is the extent an employee misses a partial day’s work
and was measured with the following item: “In the last six months, how many times
have you missed a partial day of work?” According to a recent meta-analysis,
self-report absenteeism can be a reliable and valid method for collecting absence data
from employees ( Johns and Miraglia, 2015). Due to the data being right skewed, we
transformed the absenteeism variables using the square-root transformation as
suggested by Clegg (1983).
Job performance. Employee job performance were captured through personnel
records, which is preferred over self-report data to limited common method variance
(Podsakoff’s et al., 2003). The organization provides an annual review for each Employee’s
employee with a single overall score. The supervisor ratings ranged from 0 to 4 and are attitudes and
anchored with the following: does not meet requirements (0), needs improvement (1),
contributes (2), achieves (3), and excels (4).
behaviors
Life satisfaction. A five-item general measure of life satisfaction was used,
which was developed by Diener et al. (1985). A sample item is “In most ways, my life is
close to my ideal.” 629
CSE. CSE was measured using the 12-item scale developed by Judge and Hurst
(2007). A sample is “I have little control over the things that happen to me.”

Results
The means, standard deviations, correlations, and α’s are presented in Table I. Figure 1
provides a summary of standardized path coefficients and significance levels for the
structural model. The model produced a χ2 with 58 degrees of freedom of 150.32 ( p ¼ 0.00)
and a GFI of 0.95, an AGFI of 0.92, and an RMSEA of 0.06. As per Bollen (1989), the χ2
statistic may be adversely affected by a large sample size. Thus, he recommends dividing
the χ2 statistic by the degrees of freedom ( χ2/df), and if it is less than 5, model fit is deemed
acceptable. The estimate for model fit is 2.59, suggesting adequate fit.
The main effects hypotheses between FRR and work outcomes were partially
supported. Specifically, the relationship between FRR and absenteeism (t ¼ 2.72,
p o 0.01) and partial absences were significant (t ¼ 2.37, p o 0.05), but both in the
opposite direction as posited by the hypotheses. FRR and life satisfaction was
negatively related (t ¼ −4.98, p o 0.01) as posited. The main effects hypotheses
between CRR and work outcomes were partially supported. CRR was not significantly
related to either absenteeism or partial absences. However, CRR and life satisfaction
was positively related (t ¼ 2.02, p o 0.05) as posited.
The main effects hypotheses between work outcomes and performance were
partially supported. Absenteeism (t ¼ 2.90, p o 0.01), partial absences (t ¼ 1.93,
p o 0.10), and life satisfaction (t ¼ 2.19, p o 0.05) were related to performance;
however, partial absences was not significant at the p ¼ 0.05 level of significance.
The interaction hypotheses were only tested for those paths between FRR and
CRR and work outcomes that were statistically significant and in the posited direction.

Variable Mean SD n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Job performance 3.49 0.66 390 n/a

2. Absences (full day) 0.90 1.01 439 −0.14* n/a
3. Partial absence 0.42 0.69 432 0.07 0.14** n/a
4. Life satisfaction 3.67 0.75 439 0.11* −0.17* −0.12* (0.87)
5. Core self-evaluation 4.18 0.45 441 0.13** −0.16* −0.07 0.46** (0.78)
6. Financial provider role 3.83 0.84 439 −0.06 0.16** 0.11* −0.24** −0.04 (0.76)
7. Caregiver role
responsibility 4.33 0.68 438 −0.06 0.05 0.09 0.00 0.04 0.25** (0.64)
Notes: PA, performance appraisal; ABS1, days absent from work; ABS2, days missing partial day’s Table I.
work; LS, life satisfaction; CSE, core self-evaluations; FR, financial role responsibility; and CR, caregiver Means, standard
role responsibility. Reliability coefficients are in parentheses. Spearman’s rank-order correlation was used deviations,
rather than Pearson’s product-moment correlations for ABS1 and ABS2; Spearman’s nonparametric correlations, and
correlation is preferred for non-normally distributed data. *po0.05; **po0.01 reliability coefficient
JMD
Core
35,5 Self-evaluations

Absenteeism
(Full day)
0.17**
630
Financial Role 0.01
Responsibility –0.15**
0.15*

Absenteeism 0.10*** Job

0.02 (Partial day) Performance

0.12*
Caregiver Role
Responsibility
–0.32**
0.13*
Figure 1.
Life
Standardized Satisfaction
path loadings for
structural model
Notes: *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.10

The moderating effect for CSE was only statistically significant between FRR and life
satisfaction (Δχ2 ¼ 4.33 (1), p ¼ 0.05), and between CRR and life satisfaction (Δχ2 ¼ 5.29
(1), p ¼ 0.05). These interactions were graphed to help identity the direction of the effect
(see, Figures 2 and 3). As posited, the FRR-life satisfaction link was positively impacted
by CSE. Individuals with high FRR experienced greater levels of life satisfaction when
they were high on CSE rather than low. The CRR-life satisfaction link was also
positively impacted by CSE. As with FRR, individuals with high CRR experienced
greater levels of life satisfaction when they were high on CSE rather than low.

Discussion
The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of family role configuration on
important work outcomes. Two measures of family role configuration, FRR and CRR,
were considered and their impact on two types of attendance behavior, life satisfaction
and job performance in a structural model. Additionally, the moderating effect of CSE
was assessed for FRR and CRR on work outcomes.
We posited negative relationships for FRR and two types of attendance behavior,
yet they were significant and positive. The rationale that employees who are engaged
in their job will identify with work and consider work a central life role, may not hold
for this population. Employees may engage in work to provide for the family, yet
identify with the caregiver role. The mean for CRR was 4.33, yet the mean for FRR was
3.83. FRR may be a secondary role to CRR, where caregiving may be more salient for
this sample. This is consistent with role theory that suggests role identities may be
arranged hierarchically in that individuals identify with some roles more than others
(Thoits, 1991). Thus, organizations may consider ways to incentivize employee
attendance or provide benefits supporting employees with FRR. Future research can
assess the relative value of employees’ role configuration and their identification with
each role. As posited, FRR is negatively related to life satisfaction. Thus, working on a
 Employee’s
5.00
CSE
attitudes and
Low
behaviors
High

4.00
631
Life Satisfaction

3.00

2.00

Low: R 2 Linear = 0.128 Figure 2.

High: R 2 Linear = 0.034 Graph of interaction
1.00 effect for CSE on
family financial role
responsibility and
1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00
life satisfaction
Financial Role Responsibility

job to meet family responsibilities will result in less overall life satisfaction. It may be
that as more organizations support the integration of the family role (e.g. flexible work
arrangement) within the work domain, then life satisfaction may increase.
CRR did not predict attendance behavior. This may simply be a problem with the
CRR measure itself, which had a low standard deviation and coefficient α, limiting its
power to predict. However, the link between CRR and life satisfaction was positive and
significant, suggesting that CRR relates to life satisfaction. This is an important finding
for organizations wanting to positively impact their employees’ lives. Specifically,
understanding and supporting employees caregiving role within the family and
developing a supportive work culture that incorporates both emotional and instrumental
support for family, should result in positive individual and organizational outcomes
(Boyar et al., 2014b). Future research can model various types of social support,
particularly those that capture family-related support from the organization to
demonstrate the positive impact on the CRR-outcome relationship.
The path for absenteeism and job performance was negative and significant, suggesting
that more absences result in lower job performance. The path for partial absence was not
significant, but the direction was positive as posited. The significant path for life
satisfaction suggests that life satisfaction positively impacts employee job performance.
Thus, organizations that increase employee life satisfaction levels should experience higher
levels of job performance, which should impact organizational performance.
The intervening effect of CSE was not significant for FRR and CRR on attendance
behaviors. These linkages may be better explained by situational factors such as
work/family demand levels or number of children. Future research can incorporate a
JMD
5.00
35,5 CSE
Low
High

4.00
632
Life Satisfaction

3.00

2.00

Low: R 2 Linear = 0.017

Figure 3.
Graph of interaction High: R 2 Linear = 0.003
effect for CSE on 1.00
caregiver role
responsibility and
1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00
life satisfaction
Caregiver Role Responsibility

variety of situational and dispositional variables in explaining attendance behaviors

for dual-income, dual-career, single parents, and single-earner families. Interestingly,
CSE moderated both FRR and CRR for life satisfaction. That is, individuals with high
FRR and high CSE had higher levels of life satisfaction than those with low CSE.
Moreover, individuals with high CRR and CSE had higher life satisfaction as
compared to those with low CSE. These findings are consistent with the overall CSE
research that shows CSE has a positive influence on employee attitudes and
behaviors (Chang et al., 2012). Overall, life satisfaction was a significant variable, one
that is influenced by FRR and CRR, as well as CSE. It also positively impacts job
performance. Organization can develop family-friendly programs and policies to
support employee’s multiple family roles in an effort to increase levels of life
satisfaction and job performance.
This is study is not without limitations. First, the sample was predominately female;
while this is common in the nursing field, it limits generalizability. Future studies can
incorporate other service sectors that are more diverse as well as manufacturing.
Second, the α for CRR did not meet the minimum 0.70 standard (Nunnally and
Bernstein, 1994); yet using the αs standard error (Duhachek and Iacobucci, 2004), the
confidence interval (0.51 ⩽ 0.64 ×⩽ 0.70) does include 0.70. The α could also be
adversely affected by having just two items. Thus, future research can reassess and
possibly further develop the scale. Third, most of the responses were self-reported,
which may be prone to bias. Capturing attitudinal data with a single survey may result
in common method bias. However, this is less of a concern because we included actual
performance ratings and interaction effects (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Finally, while the
response rate was only 19 percent, this is not uncommon in survey research. Future Employee’s
studies might consider offering incentives to encourage a higher participation rate. attitudes and
The results of the study provide insight into the relationship between family role
configuration and important work outcomes. Assessing FRR and CRR directly, rather
behaviors
than through gender-based measures, can shed light onto their unique effect. Also,
attendance and life satisfaction relate to job performance. Finally, CSE moderates
family roles and life satisfaction, which has important implications for organizations. 633
References
Bielby, W.T. and Bielby, D.D. (1989), “Family ties: balancing commitments to work and family in
dual earner households”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 54 No. 5, pp. 776-789.
Bollen, K. (1989), Structural Equations with Latent Variables, Wiley, New York, NY.
Boyar, S.L., Huang, X. and Xu, N. (2014a), “The role of work-family role incongruence important
work and family outcome variables”, Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, Vol. 26
No. 2, pp. 115-133.
Boyar, S.L., Campbell, N.S., Mosley, D.C. and Carson, C.M. (2014b), “Development of
a work/family social support measure”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 29 No. 7,
pp. 901-920.
Bussey, K. and Bandura, A. (1999), “A social cognitive theory of gender development and
differentiation”, Psychological Review, Vol. 106 No. 4, pp. 676-713.
Chang, C., Ferris, D.L., Johnson, R.E., Rosen, C.C. and Tan, J.A. (2012), “Core self-evaluations:
a review and evaluation of the literature”, Journal of Management, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 81-128.
Christiansen, P. and Palkovitz, R. (2001), “Why the ‘good provider’ role still matters: providing as
a form of paternal involvement”, Journal of Family Issues, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 84-106.
Clegg, C. (1983), “Psychology of employee lateness, absence, and turnover: a methodological
critique and an empirical study”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 68 No. 1, pp. 88-101.
Cohen, J. and Cohen, P. (1975), Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral
Sciences, LEA, Hillsdale, NJ.
Diener, E., Emmons, R.A., Larsen, R.J. and Griffin, S. (1985), “The satisfaction with life scale”,
Journal of Personality Assessment, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 71-75.
Duhachek, A. and Iacobucci, D. (2004), “Alpha’s standard error (ASE): an accurate and precise
confidence interval estimate”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 89 No. 5, pp. 792-808.
Duxbury, L., Lyons, S. and Higgins, C. (2007), “Dual-income families in the new millennium:
reconceptualizing family type”, Advances in Human Resources, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 472-486.
Eby, L.T., Casper, W.J., Lockwood, A., Bordeaux, C. and Brinley, A. (2005), “Work and family
research in IO/OB: content analysis and review of the literature (1980-2002)”, Journal of
Vocational Behavior, Vol. 66 No. 1, pp. 124-197.
Edwards, J.R. and Rothbard, N.P. (2000), “Mechanisms linking work and family: clarifying
the relationship between work and family constructs”, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 178-199.
Goff, S.J., Mount, M.K. and Jamison, R.L. (1990), “Employer supported child care, work/family
conflict, and absenteeism: a field study”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 43, pp. 793-809.
Greenhaus, J.H. and Allen, T.D. (2011), “Work-family balance: a review and extension of the
literature”, in Quick, J.C. and Tetrick, L.E. (Eds), Handbook of Occupational Health
Psychology, 2nd ed., American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, pp. 165-183.
Harrison, D.A. and Martocchio, J.J. (1998), “Time for absenteeism: a 20-year review of origins,
offshoots, and outcomes”, Journal of Management, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 305-350.
JMD Hood, J.C. (1986), “The provider role: its meaning and measurement”, Journal of Marriage and the
Family, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 349-359.
35,5
Jaccard, J., Turrisi, R. and Wan, C.K. (1990), Interaction Effects in Multiple Regression,
Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Johns, G. and Miraglia, M. (2015), “The reliability, validity, and accuracy of self-reported
absenteeism from work: a meta-analysis”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,
634 Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 1-14.
Joreskog, K. and Sorbom, D. (1996), LISREL 8 User’s Guide, University of Uppsala, Uppsala.
Judge, T.A. and Bono, J.E. (2001), “Relationship of core self-evaluations traits – self-esteem,
generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability – with job satisfaction
and job performance: a meta-analysis”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 1,
pp. 80-92.
Judge, T.A. and Hurst, C. (2007), “Capitalizing on ‘one’s advantages”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 5, pp. 1212-1227.
Judge, T.A., Bono, J.E. and Locke, E.A. (2000), “Personality and job satisfaction: the mediating
role of job characteristics”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 85 No. 2, pp. 237-249.
Judge, T.A., Locke, E.A. and Durham, C.C. (1997), “The dispositional causes of job satisfaction:
a core evaluations approach”, Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 19, pp. 151-188.
Judge, T.A., Bono, J.E., Erez, A. and Locke, E.A. (2005), “Core self-evaluations and job and life
satisfaction: the role of self-concordance and goal attainment”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 90 No. 2, pp. 257-268.
Judge, T.A., Erez, A., Bono, J.E. and Thoresen, C.J. (2003), “The core self-evaluations scale:
development of a measure”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 56 No. 2, pp. 303-331.
Kinnunen, U., Geurts, S. and Mauno, S. (2004), “Work-to-family conflict and its relationship
with satisfaction and well-being: a one-year longitudinal study on gender differences”,
Work and Stress, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 1-22.
Konrad, A.M., Ritchie, J.E., Lieb, P. and Corrigall, E. (2000), “Sex differences and similarities in job
attribute preference: a meta-analysis”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 126 No. 4, pp. 593-641.
Maertz, C.P. Jr and Boyar, S.L. (2011), “Work-family conflict, enrichment, and balance under
‘levels’ and ‘episodes’ approaches”, Journal of Management, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 68-98.
Marks, S.R. (2006), “Understanding diversity of families in the 21st century and its impact on
the work-family area of study”, in Pitt-Catsouphes, M., Kossek, E.E. and Sweet, S. (Eds),
The Work and Family Handbook: Multi-Disciplinary Perspectives, Methods, and
Approaches, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 41-65.
Nunnally, J.C. and Bernstein, I.H. (1994), Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Oeser, O.A., Repetti, R. and Harary, F. (1964), “A mathematical model for structural role theory,
II”, Human Relations, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 3-17.
Perry-Jenkins, M. and Crouter, A.C. (2000), “Work and family in the 1990s”, Journal of Marriage
and the Family, Vol. 62 No. 4, pp. 981-998.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.-Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases
in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.
Potuchek, J.L. (1992), “Employed wives’ orientations to breadwinning: a gender theory analysis”,
Journal of Marriage and the Family, Vol. 53 No. 3, pp. 548-559.
Rodman, H. and Safilios-Rothschild, C. (1984), “Weak links in men’s worker-earner roles:
a descriptive model”, in Brinkerhoff, M.B. (Ed.), Family and Work: Comparative
Convergence, Greenwood, Westport, CT, pp. 55-77.
Thoits, P.A. (1991), “On merging identity theory and stress research”, Social Psychology Quarterly, Employee’s
Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 101-112.
attitudes and
Thoits, P.A. (1992), “Identity structures and psychological well-being: gender and marital status
comparisons”, Social Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 55 No. 3, pp. 236-256.
behaviors
Further reading
Kossek, E.E. (1990), “Diversity in child care assistance needs: employee problems, preferences, 635
and work-related outcomes”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 769-791.

Corresponding author
Scott L. Boyar can be contacted at: slboyar@uab.edu

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.