More Control, Less Con Ict? Job Demand-Control, Gender and Work-Family Con Ict

Gender, Work and Organization. Vol. 14 No.
5 September 2007
More Control, Less Conflict? Job

Demand–Control, Gender and
Work–Family Conflict
Anne Grönlund*
The connection between working hours and work-to-family conflict has

been established in a number of studies. However, it seems what is impor-
tant is not only the quantity of work but also its quality, as captured by the
job demand–control model. Survey data from 800 Swedish employees
show that job demands spill over negatively into family life, while job
control reduces work-to-family conflict. Interestingly, women in jobs with
high demands and high control — regarded as the prototype for modern,
flexible work life — do not experience more work-to-family conflict than
men, even when working the same hours.
Keywords: work-to-family conflict, job demand–control model, gender
Introduction
T he aim of this article is to study how the psychosocial work environment

influences the possibility of combining paid work and family life. It
presents a new approach, for most previous research on work and stress has
stopped at the company gates, while research on work–family conflict has
stayed on the other side of those gates, focusing on working hours and largely
ignoring the theories used in research on work stress.
The issue is important because the balancing of work and family is a
potential source of stress. To the extent that the work environment affects this
balancing act, it may have unacknowledged effects on health, as well as on
gender equality. Further integration of research on work and family may also
contribute to the development of theories that better describe a situation
where women’s participation in the labour force approaches that of men,
making the notion of separate spheres seem increasingly outdated.
Address for correspondence: *Department of Sociology, Umeå University, 901 87, Umeå Unver-
sity, Sweden, e-mail: Anne.Gronlund@soc.umu.se
© 2007 The Author(s)

Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
MORE CONTROL, LESS CONFLICT? 477
Two fields of research
This article brings together insights from two fields of research, the field of
work and stress and that of work–family conflict, in an empirical analysis of
how the psychosocial work environment, measured by the demand–control
model, affects family life for men and women.
The job demand–control model

Control has become a key word in both academic and public debate about the
relationship between work and stress. In the demand–control model, the
theoretical model that has dominated this research field for more than 25
years, the concept of control refers to the decision latitude employees have in
their job (Karasek, 1979; Karasek and Theorell, 1990). According to this
model, it is control (that is, the extent to which employees can control the pace
of work, decide when and how to perform different tasks and have a say in
policy decisions) that separates good jobs from bad ones. A job with high
demands and low control is ‘high strain’, while a job high in control and low
in demands is ‘low strain’. However, high job demands do not necessarily
lead to stress if the employee has a high degree of control. Such active jobs are
also optimal for learning and therefore employees will develop ever better
strategies for dealing with the job demands. By contrast, in high strain jobs
the constant stress inhibits learning, causing strain to accumulate. In the
fourth category of the model, the passive job, the problem is not stress but
passivity and learned helplessness (see Figure 1).
Over the years a number of researchers have used the job demand–control
model to analyse the relationship between the psychosocial work environ-
ment and different stress-related problems ranging from cardiovascular
disease to musculoskeletal symptoms, irritable bowel syndrome and psycho-
logical distress. A review of the research on psychological distress shows that
the model has been supported in many, but far from all, studies (van der Doef
and Maes, 1999).
The lack of unanimity may partly be due to the fact that different hypoth-
eses can be derived from the model. The strain hypothesis states that, because
job demands increase stress and job control reduces it, high strain jobs are the
Job demands
Low High
Job High Low strain work Active work
control Low Passive work High strain work
Figure 1: The demand–control model (Karasek and Theorell, 1990)
© 2007 The Author(s) Volume 14 Number 5 September 2007

478 GENDER, WORK AND ORGANIZATION
most stressful. This hypothesis has been confirmed in many studies, but the
comparison is generally with low strain jobs and is it not always clear whether
the outcome is produced exclusively by the high demands or the low control,
whether both contribute independently to the outcome or whether they have
a synergistic relationship, producing a strain greater than the additive effect
(van der Doef and Maes, 1999; Fletcher and Jones, 1993). The buffer hypoth-
esis, which can be regarded as a further specification of the strain hypothesis,
claims that control can moderate the negative effect of high demands or, in
other words, that the effect of demands varies with the level of control.
This hypothesis has received less support than tests of additative effects
(van der Doef and Maes, 1999; Fletcher and Jones, 1993; Ganster and Fusilier,
1989; Sauter et al., 1989; Wallace, 2005; Warr, 1990 — but see Wall et al., 1996)
and the question of how the stress-reducing power of control should be
tested has been debated at length (Fletcher and Jones, 1993; Ganster and
Fusilier, 1989; Karasek, 1979, 1989; Landsbergis et al., 1995; Spector, 1998;
Wall et al., 1996). However, the designer of the model, Robert Karasek, states
that ‘for the demand–control model, the existence of a multiplicative interac-
tion term is not the primary issue’, because ‘the practical implications for job
redesign are largely unchanged if two separate linear effects for control and
demand are observed’ (Karasek, 1989, p. 143).1
In this article, both hypotheses will be tested. Firstly, the independent,
additative effects of demand and control will be examined. As Karasek notes,
these are interesting in themselves and this is especially true when the model
is applied to a new area, in this case, work–family conflict. In a second step,
I will examine the interactive effects of demand and control, both by com-
paring the job types described in Figure 1 and by using a multiplicative
interaction term. Taken together, this should provide a quite comprehensive
test of the model.
Work–family conflict
Demands for presence and commitment do not come only from work but also
from the home, and increased female labour participation has meant that the
effort to combine the two spheres has become a daily challenge to a great
number of people.
The balancing of paid work and family is also an expanding field of
research, with two basic hypotheses. The role-strain hypothesis states that
multiple roles create stressful conflict. The basic premise is that people have
limited time and energy, and thus the more roles they have to fulfil, the
greater the need to set priorities and negotiate with other parties and, conse-
quently, the smaller the chance of meeting all expectations (Goode, 1960;
Greenhaus and Beutell, 1985). By contrast, the expansion hypothesis claims
that multiple roles can serve as a buffer against stress (Sieber, 1974; Thoits,
1983). In terms of this hypothesis, a role also brings privileges that are not
Volume 14 Number 5 September 2007 © 2007 The Author(s)

accompanied by requests for performance. One of these privileges is the

possibility to ‘role bargain’, trading off obligations in one role by invoking the
demands of another. Moreover, the feeling of being needed and appreciated
in different contexts can strengthen self-esteem and create a sense of security,
for problems and failures in one sphere can be compensated for by success
and satisfaction in the other.
These hypotheses have been competing for credibility and both have been
supported by empirical research. Several studies show that longer working
hours increase the perceived level of work–family conflict as well as psycho-
logical distress in general (Fenwick and Tausig, 2001; Fredriksen-Goldsen
and Scharlach, 2001; Grönlund, 2004; Kinnunen and Mauno, 1998; Voydanoff,
1988). A higher class position or income (Fenwick and Tausig, 2001;
Fredriksen-Goldsen and Scharlach, 2001; Grönlund, 2004; Kinnunen and
Mauno, 1998; Nordenmark, 2002; Voydanoff, 1988), as well as more or
younger children (Grönlund, 2004; Kinnunen and Mauno, 1998; Lundberg
et al., 1994; Lundberg and Frankenhaeuser, 1999; Moen and Yu, 1999;
Voydanoff, 1988), also increase conflict and distress. In each of these
instances, however, there are divergent results (for working hours see
Härenstam and Bejerot, 2001; Moen and Yu, 1999; Nordenmark, 2002; for
class position see Moen and Yu, 1999; for children see Karasek et al., 1987;
Nordenmark, 2002). The latter findings, as well as studies showing that
working wives experience less psychological distress than housewives
(Lennon and Rosenfield, 1992) or that more roles mean fewer mental prob-
lems (Thoits, 1983) may be regarded as support for the expansion hypothesis.
However, they could also be the result of selection in labour or family
‘markets’. In other words, people who successfully combine work and family
may have been functioning better to start with (Bolger et al., 1990).
The contradictory results also suggest that the ‘either–or’ argument of the
two hypotheses has become increasingly irrelevant, considering that the
number of dual-earner couples has grown dramatically in recent decades
(Pitt-Catsouphes et al., 2006). Also, as other researchers have pointed out, it
may be more reasonable to assume that multiple roles in paid work and
family are positive, up to the point when the demands grow too heavy
(Fredriksen-Goldsen and Scharlach, 2001; Härenstam et al., 2000). The inter-
esting issue, then, is under what circumstances multiple roles are stimulating
and when and how they become a problem.
A crucial question, however, is how to define ‘demands’. Whereas the
theory speaks of a role conflict, empirical studies present the problem largely
as a time conflict. Although measures of workload have been included in
several studies (see Byron, 2005; Fredriksen-Goldsen and Scharlach, 2001;
Moen and Yu, 1999; Voydanoff, 1988), the insights from research on work and
stress have not been thoroughly considered. Still, it seems reasonable to
assume that combining work and family is not only a question of time
(Greenhaus and Beutell, 1985). Although a heavy workload may cause a stress

that invades private life, job control may provide a means to limit the prob-
lems. In fact, if job control can turn stressful demands into positive chal-
lenges, the level of control may determine whether a strong commitment to
both work and family will lead to strain or gain.
However, control may not have this beneficial effect. According to several
researchers, efforts to increase organizational flexibility have loosened the
regulation of work, leaving it up to individual employees to define their goals,
prioritize different tasks and draw the line between work and private life
(Allvin, 1997; Allvin and Aronsson, 2003; Allvin et al., 1999, Beck, 1998; Elvin-
Nowak, 1998; Garhammer, 1995; Hanson, 2004). This freedom can become a
burden, for personal responsibility for complex problems may cause feelings
of guilt and failure (Elvin-Nowak, 1998; Spector, 1998). The balancing of work
and family is a case in point. In the modern, ‘temporary negotiation family’
(Beck, 1998, p. 122) the roles, the division of labour and, ultimately, the
relationship itself are under constant scrutiny and negotiations are compli-
cated by the fact that many organizations expect strong commitment from their
employees (Hochschild, 1997). In fact, employee control and participation may
be used as a means to strengthen commitment and so, in the work–family
loyalty competition, control may contribute to a feeling of insufficiency.
Empirically, the effect of job control on work–family conflict has been little
investigated. In a study of married American women, Lennon and Rosenfield
(1992) show that women with a high degree of job control have fewer stress
symptoms than housewives and that control moderates the stressful effect of
having more children. In a few other studies, however, control has no sig-
nificant effect on work–family conflict (Fredriksen-Goldsen and Scharlach,
2001; Kinnunen and Mauno, 1998; Moen and Yu, 1999) and control has not
been considered in relation to job demands. Wallace (2005) discusses the
relevance of the demand–control model to work–family conflict, but only
measures the control of working time, a variable not included in the original
model. Voydanoff (1988) examines the interaction between job demands and
job control, but does not discuss the main effects of demand and control. Also,
with data from 1977, the study’s results may be affected by selection effects
(see data section in this article). At that time, female labour force participation
was considerably lower than today2 and women often did not work during
the child-rearing years (OECD, 2002). On a more general level, both work and
family life have gone through considerable changes over the past three
decades, as sketched out above. Therefore, it is of great interest to examine
how job control may influence work–family conflict in the 20th century and
whether control can moderate the negative effect of job demands.
The significance of gender

Another unexplored issue is whether job demands and job control have the
same impact on women and men. Some research has shown gendered effects

on psychological wellbeing as well as on cardiovascular disease, but the

results are inconclusive: while some studies show that the effect is weaker
among women, others find it to be stronger (van der Doef and Maes, 1999;
Karasek et al., 1987; Karasek and Theorell, 1990). In either case, the standard
explanation is that the gendered division of unpaid work complicates the
work–health relationship for women. The fact that women still carry the main
responsibility for childcare and housework (Bianchi et al., 2000; Statistiska
Centralbyrån SCB, 2003) is also cited when women report more stress, show
higher levels of stress hormones and experience more work–family conflict
than men who have the same number of working hours (Fenwick and Tausig,
2001; Fredriksen-Goldsen and Scharlach, 2001; Greenhaus et al., 1987;
Grönlund, 2004; Gutek et al., 1991; Härenstam and Bejerot, 2001; Lundberg
and Frankenhaeuser, 1999; Lundberg et al., 1994; Nordenmark, 2002; Shinn
et al., 1989). However, such gender differences may also be influenced by the
fact that women generally have lower positions and less control over their
own work (Karasek and Theorell, 1990). Therefore, it is a shortcoming that
work stress and family stress have been considered two separate fields of
research.
The perception of work–family conflict may also, as other researchers have
pointed out, be shaped by stereotypical notions of gender roles (Barnett and
Baruch, 1987; Gutek et al., 1991). Traditionally, men have fulfilled their family
responsibilities by being good providers. To some extent, therefore, the com-
bination of work and family could have a synergistic effect for men, as ‘having
a job makes it possible to discharge family responsibilities; having a family
makes work meaningful’ (Barnett and Baruch, 1987, p. 130). Women may have
less scope for such role bargaining, both because they generally have a lower
position and income than their partner and because the social construction of
gender makes motherhood less negotiable than fatherhood. While the tradi-
tional nuclear family has been portrayed as a greedy organization for women
(Coser, 1974), the modern construction of motherhood does not exclude a
professional career. Still, the implicit condition seems to be that the family
should not receive less service and attention (Barnett and Baruch, 1987; Elvin-
Nowak, 1998).
As mentioned above, a number of studies show that women experience
more work–family conflict than men when spending the same time in paid
work. There are also some studies reporting similar levels of work–family
conflict among women and men (see, for example, Eagle et al., 1997;
Kinnunen and Mauno, 1998). However, research designs vary considerably
and to some extent, these inconsistencies may explain the inconsistent results.
Considering that many women adjust their behaviour (notably, their involve-
ment in paid work) precisely to avoid such a conflict, the issue of selection
effects and sampling strategies needs further attention.3 Also, it seems impor-
tant to examine whether work and family obligations have gender-specific
effects. For example, there are studies showing that income and working

hours have gendered effects on the amount of time spent on housework

(Brines, 1994; Greenstein, 2000; Grönlund, 2004), as well as on work–family
conflict (Gutek et al., 1991).
In this article, I examine whether job demands and job control have
gender-specific effects on work–family conflict. More precisely, I focus on
work-to-family conflict, because, increasingly, researchers recognize that
work–family conflict consists of two distinct but related concepts: work inter-
ference with family (or work-to-family conflict) and family interference with
work. However, work-to-family conflict is the most common, and the most
commonly studied, type (Allen et al., 2000; Byron, 2005; Frone, 2003; Gutek
et al., 1991).
Regarding gendered effects of job demands and job control, different
hypotheses can be formulated. On the one hand, both could have a stronger
impact among women. Because of the gendered division of housework, high
job demands may be more burdensome for a woman, while job control may
provide a way to juggle the obligations of the two spheres. However, job
control may also raise expectations that this juggling act could and should be
impeccably handled and so contribute to feelings of inadequacy and if this is
the case, control may be less positive for women (Elvin-Nowak, 1998). In
either case, gender differences are likely to be most pronounced in a situation
of high demands.
Aim, data and variables
The aim of this article is twofold. The first aim is to study the applicability of the
demand–control model to research concerning the possibility of combining
paid work and family. This will be done by analysing (a) whether job demand
increases and job control reduces the perceived level of work-to-family conflict
and (b) whether control can moderate the effect of high demands.
The second aim is to examine whether job demands and job control have
gender-specific effects on work-to-family conflict. Women’s greater responsi-
bility for housework could make job demands more of a burden and control
more of a relief. However, control may also induce feelings of personal
responsibility and guilt, especially in women, who are normatively required
to balance their work against family needs. In either case, gender differences
are likely to be most pronounced in a situation of high demands.
The sample
The article is based on Swedish data from a survey conducted by the Euro-
pean Social Survey (ESS) in 2004. The questionnaires were distributed to
representative samples of the population in different European countries. In
Sweden they were completed by 1948 individuals, or 66 per cent of those

contacted (ESS, 2004). The subsample used in this analysis consists of 800
employees who were living with a partner and/or children.
In research on work–family conflict, the possibility that women with a
strong work commitment might differ from women in general is so often
discussed that such selection is sometimes put forward as a third hypoth-
esis, beside the role strain and role expansion hypotheses (Bolger et al.,
1990). Because of this, Sweden, which is considered to be a dual breadwin-
ner society (Lewis, 1992), provides a good case to study. The labour partici-
pation and the average tenure of Swedish women are equal to those of men
and the difference in working time is only 5 hours per week (Boje and
Grönlund, 2003; SCB, 2005, 2006). While the unpaid work at home is con-
siderably more gendered, Swedish men do more housework than men in
other countries (Esping-Andersen, 1999).4 Combining multiple roles in
work and family is thus the normal situation for Swedish women and, to
some extent, for Swedish men. Consequently, selection effects should be
smaller in Sweden than elsewhere.
Measures
The dependent variable is work-to-family conflict. It is measured with an
index of four questions, asking how often the respondents (a) keep worrying
about work problems when they are not working; (b) feel too tired after work
to enjoy the things they would like to do at home; (c) find that their job
prevents them from giving the time they want to their partner or family and
(d) find that their partner or family gets fed up with the pressures of their job
(never, hardly ever, sometimes, often, always) (alpha 0.71, also see Table 1).
The concept of job demands refers to psychological stressors, primarily
related to work load and time pressure (Karasek, 1979; Karasek and Theorell,
1990). Here, the job demand index is built from two items: ‘My job requires
that I work very hard’ and ‘I never seem to have enough time to get every-
thing done in my job’ (agree strongly, agree, neither agree nor disagree,
disagree, strongly disagree) (alpha 0.53, see Table 1).
Job control is measured by an index combining three items where respon-
dents have estimated, on scales from zero to ten, the extent to which they are
allowed to (a) decide how their own daily work is organized (b) influence
policy decisions about the activities of the organization and (c) choose or
change the pace of work (alpha 0.68).
Although self-reports are commonly used to measure job demands and
control, their use is potentially problematic, especially when the dependent
variable has a subjective character. Theoretically, correlations can be overes-
timated as both dependent and independent variables may be biased by
personality factors.5 However, earlier research shows that self-reported mea-
sures of demands and, especially, control are highly correlated with expert
ratings (Karasek, 1979; Karasek and Theorell, 1990). Also, as there is no reason

to believe that self-report bias would affect men and women differently, the
gender patterns discussed here are not likely to be affected by validity prob-
lems (Karasek et al., 1987).
To isolate the effects of job demands and job control, I control for working
hours, class position, children and gender ideology. The primary reason is
that they may confound the relationship between job demands and job
control and work-to-family conflict. Class position may influence the levels of
job demands and control (Karasek and Theorell, 1990) and several studies
show that a higher position or income is associated with more work-to-family
conflict (see above). Therefore, if class is not controlled for, we run the risk of
attributing to job demand/control what are in fact effects of different class
positions. Similarly, respondents with demanding jobs may put in more
hours at work and since longer working hours are associated with more
work-to-family conflict, their influence should be controlled for. As noted
above, parenthood is a common indicator of demands from the home sphere.
Here, it could also be a confounder, since parents with preschool children
may choose jobs with lower demands and more control. Finally, I include
gender ideology, because people’s attitudes towards combining work and
family may influence their willingness to take a demanding job, as well as
their perceived level of work-to-family conflict.
The analyses in this article may also shed new light on results presented in
previous studies on work-to-family conflict, and this is another reason for
including variables that have been central in those studies. For example, if the
well-established effect of working hours can be attributed to job demands,
this has both practical and theoretical implications. Also, because previous
research has shown mixed results for most of these variables, it seems impor-
tant to establish their effects in this sample. As mentioned above, the risk for
selection effects should be smaller in this sample than in samples gathered
Table 1: Variable statistics
Cronbach’s
Min–max Median Mean SA alpha
Work–family conflict (n = 790) 0.00–1.00 0.37 0.39 0.17 0.71

Women (n = 389) 0.00–0.88 0.38 0.40 0.18 0.73
Men (n = 401) 0.00–1.00 0.38 0.38 0.17 0.70
Job demands (n = 799) 0.00–1.00 0.62 0.60 0.19 0.53
Women (n = 393) 0.00–1.00 0.62 0.60 0.19 0.55
Men (n = 406) 0.13–1.00 0.62 0.60 0.19 0.50
Job control (n = 788) 0.00–1.00 0.67 0.65 0.20 0.68
Women (n = 386) 0.00–1.00 0.67 0.65 0.21 0.68
Men (n = 402) 0.00–1.00 0.70 0.66 0.20 0.67

decades ago or in countries where women are less established on the labour
market.
In the analyses, the work time variable is divided in short working hours
(1–39 hours), normal full-time hours (40 hours) and long working hours (41
hours or more, which in Sweden means paid or unpaid overtime). Class
position is measured using the Goldthorpe class scheme (Erikson and
Goldthorpe, 1992). Here, five categories of employees are identified: service
classes 1 and 2, routine non-manual workers, skilled manual workers and
unskilled manual workers. In this sample, 19 per cent of the male respon-
dents, but only ten percent of the women, belong to service class 1. The
routine non-manual workers are predominantly women, while nine out of ten
skilled manual workers are men. Regarding working hours, one-fourth of the
women and almost half the men have long working hours, while 46 per cent
of the women but only 19 per cent of the men work short hours.
For parenthood, I use variables measuring whether there are preschool
children (0–6 years) and older children (7–18 years) in the home. In the latter
case, the family has at least one older but no younger child, while in the first
case there might also be older children at home. About three out of ten
respondents belong to each group. Gender ideology is an index of three
items: ‘A woman should be prepared to cut down on her paid work for the
sake of the family’, ‘Men should take as much responsibility as women for the
home and the children’ (negated) and ‘When jobs are scarce, men should have
more right to a job than women’ (agree strongly, agree, neither agree nor
disagree, disagree, strongly disagree) (alpha 0.60, higher score = more equal
attitudes). The mean value is high (0.76 on a 0–1 scale) and dispersion is low
(SD 0,14), indicating that Swedes in general have gender-equal attitudes. Also,
there is no significant difference between men and women.
Results
The first step in the analysis is to analyse how job demands and job control
influence work-to-family conflict and whether the effects are the same for
women and men. In a second step, the joint effect of demand and control will
be examined.
Work environment and family

The regression results for the total sample in Table 2 show that both job
demands and job control have the predicted effects on work-to-family con-
flict. For employees with high job demands, work spills over negatively on
private life, regardless of working hours, gender, class position and the age of
the children, while a high level of job control reduces work-to-family conflict.

486
Table 2: The effect of job demand, job control and control variables on work-to-family conflict. Multivariate linear regression,
B-coefficients and R2 contribution
R2 without the variable

Total sample Women Men (women–men)
Job demands 0.33*** 0.33*** 0.34*** 12.4e (13.2–15.4)

Job control -0.11*** -0.10** -0.10* 22.3e (23.0–25.9)
Volume 14 Number 5 September 2007

Working hours (ref: 40 hours) 21.5 (20.7–24.9)
-39 hours -0.02a -0.05** 0.00
41-hours 0.05** 0.04a 0.05**
Class position (ref: unskilled manual workers) 23.2 (23.9–24.5)
Skilled manual workers 0.01 -0.01 0.01
Routine non-manual workers 0.01 0.01 -0.02
Service class 2 0.01 -0.01 0.04a
Service class 1 0.03 -0.03 0.06*
Woman (ref: man) 0.03* — — 22.9
Children (ref: no children) 22.8 (23.2–25.8)
0–6 years 0.03* 0.03 0.03a
7–18 years 0.02a 0.04* 0.00
Gender ideology 0.00 0.12* -0.10a 23.6 (23.6–25.7)
Constant 0.21*** 0.18** 0.27***
R2 as per cent (n) 23.5 (773) 24.3 (378) 26.4 (395)
T-value significant at *** 0.001 level, ** 0.01 level, * 0.05 level (a 0.10 level).
GENDER, WORK AND ORGANIZATION
© 2007 The Author(s)

Also long working hours are associated with more conflict and when
working hours are entered into the regression, the job demand coefficient
decreases. However, only a minor part of the effect of job demands is
explained by longer working hours. At the same time, the effect of job control
increases, indicating an interaction between control and working hours.
Further analysis shows that the conflict-reducing effect of control tends to be
lower when working hours are long, but the interaction term is only signifi-
cant at the 0.10 level. On entering class position, the effect of job control again
increases slightly, but there is no significant interaction.
Women experience more work-to-family conflict than men, even when
they are in the same class position, have children in the same age group and
put in the same number of working hours. In fact, the difference becomes
significant only when working time is controlled for. This suggests that the
length of working hours affects men and women differently, but the interac-
tion is not significant. Further, we note that parents, at least those with
preschool children, experience more conflict than non-parents, while gender
ideology has no significant effect. The coefficients of the main variables
change only negligibly when these variables are controlled for.
In sum, the effects of job demands and job control on work-to-family
remain significant when we control for working hours, class position, gender,
gender ideology and children. The coefficient for job control increases from
0.08 to 0.11 when control variables are included, but no significant interac-
tions are found. Meanwhile, the coefficient for demands decreases from 0.40
to 0.33, mainly because jobs with high demands imply longer working hours.
The results also show that some of the impact attributed to working
hours in previous research can in fact be explained by job demands. In
bivariate regressions, short working hours dampen work-to-family conflict,
but when job demands are controlled for, this effect becomes insignificant,
while the negative effect of long working hours is almost halved. Compar-
ing the variables’ contribution to R2 — the share of variance explained by
the model — we find that job demands have by far the biggest impact.
When demands are excluded, R2 drops from 23.5 to 12.4 per cent. In
comparison, the unique contribution of the other variables is marginal.
However, time and intensity are also connected, as high job demands tend
to be less problematic when working hours are short (interaction significant
at 0.052 level). In relation to previous research, it is also interesting to note
that although service class employees have a higher conflict level than
workers in bivariate regressions, this difference is explained by their higher
job demands.6
The hypotheses of gender-specific effects are not supported. As the sepa-
rate regressions in Table 2 show, job demands and job control have similar
effects for men and women. However, closer analysis reveals that the effect of
control appears at different levels for men and women. If the control index is
divided into four parts (by the quartiles) we find that men with the lowest

level of control experience more work-to-family conflict than other men,

while for women conflict is not reduced until their job control reaches the
highest level. The difference is confirmed by a significant interaction
(gender*control) effect at the two middle levels of control. No such gender
difference is found as regards job demands. For both men and women, the
level of conflict increases at every step, although the difference between the
middle levels is insignificant in both cases.
Regarding the other variables, we note that gender role attitudes have
gender-specific effects. Even with the same working hours and class posi-
tions, women with visions of equality experience more work-to-family con-
flict than women with traditional attitudes. The reason may be that women
who believe men should take an equal share of housework and childcare
are more frustrated by the actual, rather unequal, division of work (see
Greenstein, 1995). For men, there is an opposite tendency and interaction
terms (not presented in the Table) confirm that these gender differences are
significant. The gender differences regarding the effects of working hours
and children, however, are not. Still, the analysis suggests that part-time work
is an effective means for Swedish women to reduce work-to-family conflict.
Women with short working hours experience less conflict, despite the fact
that they do more housework than full-timers.7 Presumably, the fact that
many mothers of preschool children shift to part-time work can also explain
why only school-age children affect work-to-family conflict.
Job control as a buffer

The results presented so far are consistent with the predictions of the job
demand–control model, as high demands are more stressful than low
demands, and high control less stressful than low control. But it is now time
to investigate the joint effect of these two variables.
As noted earlier, different hypotheses can be formulated on the basis of the
demand–control model. The strain hypothesis postulates that high demands
increase stress and low control reduces it and therefore, high strain jobs
(Figure 1) are particularly stressful. The buffer hypothesis, more specifically,
claims that there is an interaction such that control moderates the negative
effect of demands. These claims will be investigated in two ways. First, the
four job types devised by Karasek and Theorell will be compared regarding
their effects on work-to-family conflict. Here, our focus is not so much on the
traditional comparison of high strain and low strain jobs, but rather on the
active job type, which is portrayed as the prototype for modern, flexible work
life (Castells, 2000; Piore and Sabel, 1984). Secondly, the interaction between
demand and control will be tested with a multiplicative interaction term. In
both cases, men and women will be compared. The general hypothesis is that
in jobs with high demands, control will have different effects for women and
men.

Table 3: Percentage of men and women with a work-to-family conflict (0.5 or more
on the conflict scale) in different job categories. The number in parentheses is the
mean value of conflict, controlling for working hours, children, class position and
gender ideology
Job demands
Low High
Job control High Low strain work Active work

Women 14.1 (0.32) Women 39.6 (0.44)
Men 12.6 (0.33) Men 43.3 (0.42)
Low Passive work High strain work
Women 2.7 (0.34) Women 53.7 (0.50)
Men 16.5 (0.33) Men 43.2 (0.45)
Table 3 displays the proportion of men and women in high strain, low
strain, passive and active jobs who experience a work-to-family conflict. To
construct the job categories the demand and control indexes were dichoto-
mized at the median value. Work–family conflict was defined as a score of 0.5
or more on the conflict scale. Since this gives a rather crude picture of the
variation and because the conflict level is also influenced by other factors, the
figure also includes the mean value of conflict, controlling for the variables
used earlier.
The table shows that most employees have either high strain or active jobs,
but that high strain jobs are more common among women than among men.
Regarding the association between job type and work-to-family conflict, we
find a sharp dividing line between jobs with high demands and those with
low demands. When demands are high, more than four out of ten respon-
dents experience work-to-family conflict; when they are low, this conflict is
only half as common. The impact of control is most obvious for women,
especially when demands are high: both the proportion of women experienc-
ing conflict and women’s average conflict level is considerably higher in high
strain jobs than in active jobs.
The impressions are confirmed by multivariate regressions (not presented
here). These show that for both women and men, low strain and passive jobs
are less stressful than high strain jobs, quite in line with the strain hypothesis.
However, the difference between high strain and active jobs is significant
only among women. This finding indicates that control could have a buffering
effect, at least for women. Also, separate regressions for the different job types
show that the gender difference in work-to-family conflict is significant only
in high strain jobs. This is another indication that when job demands are high,
control is especially important to women.

However, none of the interaction terms for job type and gender is signifi-
cant. Also, a multiplicative interaction term of demands and control is not
significant and neither is the three-way interaction of demand*control*gender.
In sum, the effects of job demands and job control on work-to-family conflict
appear to be additative, rather than interactive.
Discussion
The article points to a connection between individuals’ psychosocial work
environment and their capacity to strike a balance between paid work and
family life. Although no causal inferences can be made from a cross-sectional
study, the results suggest that job demands increase work-to-family conflict,
while a high degree of job control can reduce it. This indicates that Robert
Karasek’s demand–control model, which has been used for more than two
decades to study the impact of work environment on stress-related health
problems ranging from psychological distress to cardiovascular disease, is
also relevant to family research.
However, the model is not unequivocally supported. While job demands
are strongly associated with work-to-family conflict, control has a more
marginal effect. When job demands are high, they harm the balance
between the two spheres, regardless of whether control is high (as in active
jobs) or low (as in high strain jobs). Moreover, as there is no significant
interaction between demands and control, the results do not support
the idea that control can transform stressful demands into positive
challenges.
Regarding gender, there are both similarities and differences. Overall, the
effects of job demands and job control are similar among men and women,
but closer analysis shows that for women, work-to-family conflict is reduced
only when job control is at a very high level. The comparison of high strain
and active jobs also reveals some interesting gender patterns. The findings
show that active jobs are gender neutral, in the sense that women and men
experience the same work-to-family conflict, even when they have the same
working hours, class position and family situation. However, in high strain
jobs, the most common job type among women, there is a significant gender
difference in work-to-family conflict.
One reason for this finding may be that, for men, high strain jobs are
spread over a large spectrum of jobs, ranging from truck drivers to physi-
cians, while for women they are more concentrated in education, healthcare
and service positions. In the latter, the individual is highly dependent on
other people and is often confined to a certain place and schedule. As
Hochschild (2003, p. 11) pointed out, such occupations also require a substan-
tial amount of ‘emotional labour’. By contrast, active jobs are more likely to be
found in what Reich (1994, p. 155) has named the ‘symbol analytic services’,

characterized by the processing of words, figures and pictures. Such jobs can
often be performed individually and even from home, features that are likely
to facilitate handling the work–family puzzle.8
Another reason why the gender difference in conflict is eliminated when
high demands are matched by high control could be that men and women use
their job control in different ways. Women, who carry the main responsibility
at home, may use the freedom of work to balance work and family demands,
lowering their perceived conflict, while men with high control jobs may
encounter higher expectations from their partners than other men and find it
more difficult to trade off family obligations by referring to their demanding
job.
Finally, control may not only reduce strain but also produce gain —
especially for women. As shown in the article, only a high level of control
reduces work-to-family conflict for women, especially in a situation of high
demands. Jobs with that much freedom usually imply higher status and this
may facilitate the role bargaining emphasized in the expansionist view on
work-to-family conflict. In particular, a woman with an active job may face
lower expectations of traditional role enactment. Although control, as defined
in the theoretical model, does not include control over other people, this
power aspect cannot be totally dismissed.
In sum, this article shows that the issue of how the work environment
affects family life deservers further attention and research. Studies of work
and stress have put family issues aside, while research on work–family con-
flict has focused largely on working hours. However, the combination of
work and family involves more than just time. In order to reduce work–family
conflict, women resort to part-time work, but analyses of the ESS data show
that the difference in conflict between employees with high strain and low
strain jobs is the same as that between those with long hours (41 hours or
more) and those with part-time work (below 35 hours). In fact, women
working part-time in high strain jobs do not experience less conflict than
women doing 41 hours in low strain jobs. Thus, the issue of improving the
work environment is as important as the classic issue of working time when
it comes to gender and family policy.
Although job demands and job control seem to be relevant concepts, these
measures could be developed and supplemented to fit work–family research
as well. An important issue here is whether work is family flexible, that is,
whether job control means that schedules, deadlines and workload can be
temporarily adjusted to meet family needs, such as caring for a sick child.
Another issue is whether there is a corresponding control in the private
sphere, in the form of flexible gender roles, good and affordable childcare or
a network of friends and relatives, that makes it possible to temporarily
delegate caring responsibilities. Also, measures of social support at the work-
place, sometimes considered as a third dimension in the demand–control
model, could be included and extended to embrace support from the private

sphere. Finally, measures should be developed that capture the different

demands — for example, in emotional work — that men and women have to
meet due to the gender segregation in paid and unpaid work.
On a more general level, the findings in this article point to the importance
of further integrating work life research with research on work–family con-
flict. In the latter, different mechanisms linking the two spheres have been
thoroughly discussed, but the image of work remains poorly delineated.
Here, insights from both labour market and organizational research could
contribute to our understanding of how different aspects of work influence
work-to-family conflict.
Notes
1. Some researchers also note that even if job strain is defined as an interaction
between job demands and job control, a variety of mathematical forms can be used
to measure it (Karasek, 1979; Landsbergis et al., 1995).
2. Between 1977 and 2005 the female labour force in the USA grew by 73 per cent,
according to ILO statistics (ILO, 2005).
3. For example, a recent review shows that when a larger share of the sample
consists of parents, there are significant gender differences such that mothers
experience more work–family conflict than fathers (Byron, 2005).
4. An analysis of the ESS data used in this article also shows that Swedish men
do a significantly larger share of housework than men in other European
countries.
5. However, studies of the impact of personality on work-related stress show incon-
sistent results. It is not clear whether personality traits affect the perception of
work, whether different personalities are selected to different jobs or, indeed,
whether the work environment forms the personality (Ganster and Fusilier, 1989;
Karasek and Theorell, 1990; Landsbergis et al., 1995; Marchand et al., 2005; Spector
and O’Connell, 1994; Theorell, 2003).
6. The results also suggest that the presence of children affect work-to-family conflict
only under certain circumstances, since its effect is not significant unless variables
such as gender, job demands and job control are controlled for. This may explain
the mixed results of children in previous research. However, this sample may not
be perfect for testing the effect of children, because 69 per cent of the respondents
have children living at home.
7. A significant difference in housework between women working part-time and
those in full-time employment is found both in this sample and in several other
studies (Bianchi et al., 2000; Brines, 1994; Nordenmark, 1997).
8. These propositions are based on official Swedish statistics that show that male
high strain jobs comprise a large spectrum of occupations ranging from truck
drivers to physicians, while for women they mainly include education, healthcare
and service occupations. The same statistics show that active jobs often require a
university degree and therefore, many of them are likely to be ‘symbol analytical’
(Arbetsmiljöverket and SCB 2001).

References
Allen, Tammy D., Herst, David E.L., Bruck, Carly S. and Sutton, Martha (2000) Con-
sequences associated with work-to-family conflict: a review and agenda for future
research, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5,2, 278–308.
Allvin, Michael (1997) Det individualiserade arbetet. Om modernitetens skilda praktiker
(The individualization of work. On the divergent practices of modernity).
Stockholm: Symposion.
Allvin, Michael and Aronsson, Gunnar (2003) The future of work environment
reforms, International Journal of Health Services, 33,1, 99–111.
Allvin, Michael, Wiklund, Per, Härenstam, Annika and Aronsson, Gunnar (1999)
Frikopplad eller frånkopplad. Om innebörder och konsekvenser av gränslösa arbeten (Free
or disconnected? About the meaning and consequences of boundaryless work).
Arbete och hälsa no. 2. Stockholm: Arbetslivsinstitutet.
Arbetsmiljöverket and SCB (2001) Negativ stress och ohälsa. Inverkan av höga krav, låg
egenkontroll och bristande socialt stöd i arbetet (Negative stress and unhealth. The
effect of high demands, low control and lack of social support at work). Informa-
tion om utbildning och arbetsmarknad 2.
Barnett, Rosalind C. and Baruch, Grace K. (1987) Social roles, gender and psychologi-
cal distress. In Barrett, R.C., Biener, L. and Baruch, G.K. Gender and Stress, pp.
122–43. New York and London: Free Press.
Beck, Ulrich (1998) Risksamhället. På väg mot en ny modernitet. Gothenburg: Daidalos.
Bianchi, Suzanne M., Milkie, Melissa A., Sayer, Liana C. and Robinson, John P. (2000)
Is anyone doing the housework? Trends in the gender division of household labor,
Social Forces, 79,1, 191–228.
Boje, Thomas P. and Grönlund, Anne (2003) Flexibility and employment insecurity. In
Boje, T.P. and Furåker, B. (eds) Post-industrial Labour Markets. Profiles of North
America and Scandinavia, pp. 186–213. London and New York: Routledge.
Bolger, Niall, DeLongis, Anita, Kessler, Ronald C. and Wethington, Elaine (1990) The
microstructure of daily role-related stress in married couples. In Eckenrode, J. and
Gore, S. (eds) Stress Between Work and Family, pp. 95–115. New York and London:
Plenum Press.
Brines, Julie (1994) Economic dependency, gender, and the division of labor at home,
American Journal of Sociology, 100,3, 652–88.
Byron, Kristin (2005) A meta-analytic review of work–family conflict and its anteced-
ents, Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 67, 169–98.
Castells, Manuel (2000) Nätverkssamhällets framväxt. Informationsåldern. Ekonomi, sam-
hälle och kultur. Band 1 (The information age. economy, society and culture. Vol. 1:
the rise of the network society). Gothenburg: Daidalos.
Coser, Lewis A (1974) Greedy Institutions. Patterns of Undivided Commitment. New York:
Free Press.
Doef, Margot van der and Maes, Stan (1999) The job demand–control (–support)
model and psychological well-being: a review of 20 years of empirical research,
Work and Stress, 13,2, 87–114.
Eagle, Bruce W., Icenogle, Marjorie L., Maes, Jeanne D. and Miles, Edward W. (1997)
The importance of employee demographic profiles for understanding experiences
of work–family inter-role conflicts, Journal of Social Psychology, 138,6, 690–709.
Elvin-Nowak, Ylva (1998) Flexibilitetens baksida. Om balans, kontroll och skuld i yrkesarbet-
ande mödrars vardagsliv (The flipside of flexibility. On balance, control and guilt in
working mothers). Report no. 101, Psykologiska institutionen. Stockholm:
Stockholm University.

Erikson, Robert and Goldthorpe, John H. (1992) The Constant Flux. A Study of Class
Mobility in Industrial Societies. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Esping-Andersen, Gøsta (1999) Social Foundations of Postindustrial Economies. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
European Social Survey (ESS) (2004) ESS2–2004 Documentation report. The ESS Data
Archive, Edition 1.0. Norwegian Social Science Data Services. www.europeansocial
survey.com
Fenwick, Rudy and Tausig, Mark (2001) Scheduling stress. Family and health out-
comes of shift work and schedule control, American Behavioral Scientist, 44,7, 1179–
98.
Fletcher, Ben C. and Jones, Fiona (1993) A refutation of Karasek’s demand-discretion
model of occupational stress with a range of dependent measures, Journa1 of
Occupational Behaviour, 14, 319–30.
Fredriksen-Goldsen, Karen I. and Scharlach, Andrew E. (2001) Families and Work. New
Direction s in the Twenty-First Century. New York and Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Frone, Michael R. (2003) Work–family balance. In Campbell, James Quick and Tetrick,
Lois E. (eds) Handbook of Occupational Health Psychology, pp. 143–62. Washington:
American Psychological Association.
Ganster, Daniel C. and Fusilier, Marcelline R. (1989) Control in the workplace. In
Cooper, Cary L. and Robertson, Ivan T. (eds) International Review of Industrial and
Organiztional Psychology, pp. 235–80. Chichester/New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Garhammer, Manfred (1995) Changes in working hours in Germany. The resulting
impact on everyday life, Time and Society, 4,2, 167–203.
Goode, William J. (1960) A theory of role strain, American Sociological Review, 25,4,
483–96.
Greenhaus, Jeffrey H. and Beutell, Nicholas J. (1985) Sources of conflict between work
and family roles, Academy of Management Review, 10,1, 76–88.
Greenhaus, Jeffrey H., Bedeian, Arthur G. and Mossholder, Kevin W. (1987) Work
experiences, job performance and feelings of personal and family well-being,
Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 31, 200–15.
Greenstein, Theodore N. (1995) Gender ideology, marital disruption and the employ-
ment of married women, Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57,1, 31–42.
Greenstein, Theodore N. (2000) Economic Dependence, gender, and the division of
labor in the home: a replication and extension, Journal of Marriage and the Family,
62,2, 322–35.
Grönlund, Anne (2004) Flexibilitetens gränser. Förändring och friktion i arbetsliv och familj
(The boundaries of flexibility. Change and friction in work and family life). Umeå:
Boréa.
Gutek, Barbara A., Searle, Sabrina and Klepa, Lilian (1991) Rational Versus gender
role expectations for work–family conflict, Journal of Applied Psychology, 74,4, 560–
68.
Hanson, Marika (2004) Det flexibla arbetets villkor — om självförvaltandets kompetens
(Self-governing competence for flexible work). Arbetsliv i omvandling no. 8. Stock-
holm: Arbetslivsinstitutet.
Härenstam, Annika and Bejerot, Eva (2001) Combining professional work with family
responsibilities — a burden or a blessing? International Journal of Social Welfare 10,3,
202–14.
Härenstam, Annika, Westberg, Hanna, Karlqvist, L., Leijon, O., Rydbeck, A., Walden-
ström, K., Wiklund, P., Nise, G. and Jansson, C. (2000) Hur kan könsskillnader i arbets-
och livsvillkor förstås? Metodologiska och strategiska aspekter samt sammanfattning av
MOA-projektets resultat ur ett könsperspektiv (How can gender differences in work

and living conditions be explained? Methodological and strategic aspects and

summary of the results from the MOA project from a gender perspective). Arbete
och hälsa 2000:15. Stockholm: Arbetslivsinstutet.
Hochschild, Arlie R. (1997) The Time Bind. When Work Becomes Home and Home Becomes
Work. New York: Metropolitan Books.
Hochschild, Arlie R. (2003) The Managed Heart. Commercialization of Human Feeling,
Berkeley, Los Angeles, CA, London: University of California Press.
ILO (2005) http://laboursta.ilo.org/cgi-bin/brokerv8.exe
Karasek, Robert A. (1979) Job demands, job decision latitude and mental strain,
Administrative Science Quarterly 24, June, 285–308.
Karasek, Robert A. (1989) Control in the work-place and its health related aspects. In
Sauter, Steven L, Hurrell, Joseph J. and Cooper, Cary L. (eds) (1989) Job Control and
Worker Health, pp. 29–159. Chichester and New York: John Wiley.
Karasek, Robert A. and Theorell, Töres (1990) Healthy Work. Stress, Productivity and the
Reconstruction of Working Life. New York: Basic Books.
Karasek, Robert, Gardell, Bertil and Lindell, Jan (1987) Work and non-work correlates
of illness and behaviour in male and female Swedish white collar workers, Journal
of Occupational Behaviour, 8, 187–207.
Kinnunen, Ulla and Mauno, Saija (1998) Antecedents and outcomes of work–family
conflict among employed women and men in Finland, Human Relations, 51,2,
157–77.
Landsbergis, Paul A., Schnall, Peter L., Schwatz, Joseph E., Warren, Katherine and
Pickering, Thomas G. (1995) Job strain, hypertension, and cardiovascular disease:
empirical evidence, methodological issues and recommendations for future
research. In Sauter, Steven L. and Murphy, Lawrence R. (eds.) Organizational Risk
Factors for Job Stress, pp. 97–112. Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Lennon, Mary Clare and Rosenfield, Sarah (1992) Women and mental health. the
interaction of job and family conditions, Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 33,3,
316–27.
Lewis, Jane (1992) Gender and the development of welfare regimes, Journal of Euro-
pean Social Policy, 2,3, 159–73.
Lundberg, Ulf, Mårdberg, Bertil and Frankenhaeuser, Marianne (1994) The total
workload of male and female white collar workers as related to age, occupational
level and number of children, Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 35, 315–27.
Lundberg, Ulf and Frankenhaeuser, Marianne (1999) Stress and workload of men and
women in high-ranking positions, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 4,2,
142–51.
Marchand, Alain, Demers, Andre and Durand, Pierre (2005) Do occupation and work
conditions really matter? A longitudinal analysis of psychological distress among
Canadian workers, Sociology of Health and Illness, 27,5, 602–27.
Moen, Phyllis and Yu, Yan (1999) Having it all: overall work/life success in two-earner
families, Research in the Sociology of Work, 7, 109–39.
Nordenmark, Mikael (1997) Arbetslöshet, kön och familjeliv (Unemployment, gender
and family life). In Ahrne, G. and Persson, I. (eds) Familj, makt och jämställdhet
(Family, power and gender equality) SOU no. 138, pp. 293–320. Rapport till utred-
ningen om fördelningen av ekonomisk makt och ekonomiska resurser mellan
kvinnor och män Stockholm: Fritzes.
Nordenmark, Mikael (2002) Multiple social roles — a resource or a burden: is it
possible for men and women to combine paid work with family life in a satisfactory
way? Gender, Work & Organization, 9,2, 125–44.
OECD (2002) Employment Outlook. Paris: OECD.

Piore, Michael J. and Sabel, Charles F. (1984) The Second Industrial Divide. Possibilities
for Prosperity. New York: Basic Books.
Pitt-Catsouphes, Marcie, Kossek, Ellen Ernst and Sweet, Stephen (eds) (2006) The Work
and Family Handbook. Multi-Disciplinary Perspectives and Approaches. London:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Reich, Robert B. (1994) Arbetets marknad inför 2000-talet (The work of nations). Stock-
holm: SNS Förlag.
Sauter, Steven L., Hurrell, Joseph J. and Cooper, Cary L. (1989) Job Control and Worker
Health. Chichester and New York: John Wiley.
Statistiska Centralbyrån (SCB) (2003) Tid för vardagsliv. Kvinnors och mäns tidsanvänd-
ning 1990/91 och 2000/01 (Time for everyday life. Women’s and men’s time use
1990/91 and 2000/01). Levnadsförhållanden, report no. 99. Stockholm: SCB.
Statistiska Centralbyrån (SCB) (2005) Arbetskraftsundersökningen. Grundtabeller. Års-
medeltal (Labour force survey. Annual means). Stockholm: SCB.
Statistiska Centralbyrån (SCB) (2006) www.scb.se/templates/tableOrChart_23368.asp
Shinn, Marybeth, Wong, Nora W. Simko, Patricia A. and Ortiz-Torres, Blanca (1989)
Promoting the well-being of working parents: coping, social support and flexible
job schedules, American Journal of Community Psychology, 17,1, 31–55.
Sieber, Sam (1974) Toward a theory of role accumulation, American Sociological Review,
39,4, 567–78.
Spector, Paul E. (1998) A control theory of the job stress process. In Cooper, Cary L.
(ed) Theories of Organizational Stress, pp. 153–69. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Spector, Paul E. and O’Connell, Brian J. (1994) The contribution of personality traits,
negative affectivity, locus of control and Type A to the subsequent reports of job
stressors and job strains, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67,
1–11.
Theorell, Töres (2003) Kontroll över den egna situationen — en förutsättning för
hantering av negativ stress (Control over one’s situation — a prerequisite for
handling negative stress). In Ekman, R. and Arnetz, B. (eds) Stress — molekylerna,
individen, organisationen, samhället (Stress — molecules, individuals, organizations,
society), pp. 289–300. Stockholm: Liber.
Thoits, Peggy (1983) Multiple identities and psychological well-being: a reformulation
and test of the social isolation hypothesis, American Sociological Review, 48,2, 174–87.
Voydanoff, Patricia (1988) Work role characteristics, family structure demands and
work–family conflict, Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50,3, 749–62.
Wall, Toby D., Jackson, Paul R., Mullarkey, Sean and Parker, Sharon K. (1996) The
demand–control model of job strain: a more specific test, Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 69, 153–166.
Wallace, Jean E. (2005) Job stress, depression and work-to-family conflict. a test of the
strain and buffer hypotheses, Relations industrielles/Industrial Relations, 60,3, 510–39.
Warr, Peter B. (1990) Decision latitude, job demands, and employee wellbeing, Work
and Stress, 4,4, 285–94.

Appendix
Table 1: Correlations
Job demands Job control Gender Gender ideology
Job demands 1 0.006 0.004 0.078*

Job control 0.006 1 -0.058 0.006
Gender 0.004 -0.058 1 0.063
Gender ideology 0.078* 0.006 0.063 1
Correlation is significant at the * 0.05 level.
Table 2: Means in work-to-family conflict by class, gender and parenthood
Unskilled Skilled Routine non- Service Service

workers workers manual workers class 2 class 1
0.35 0.37 0.38 0.42 0.44
Men Women No children Children Children
0–6 yrs 7–18 yrs
0.38 0.40 0.38 0.40 0.40
Short working 40 hours Long working
hours (1–39) hours (41+)
0.34 0.37 0.47


More Control, Less Con Ict? Job Demand-Control, Gender and Work-Family Con Ict

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

More Control, Less Con Ict? Job Demand-Control, Gender and Work-Family Con Ict

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gender, Work and Organization. Vol. 14 No.

More Control, Less Conﬂict? Job

The connection between working hours and work-to-family conﬂict has

Keywords: work-to-family conﬂict, job demand–control model, gender

T he aim of this article is to study how the psychosocial work environment

© 2007 The Author(s)

Two ﬁelds of research

The job demand–control model

Figure 1: The demand–control model (Karasek and Theorell, 1990)

© 2007 The Author(s) Volume 14 Number 5 September 2007

Volume 14 Number 5 September 2007 © 2007 The Author(s)

accompanied by requests for performance. One of these privileges is the

© 2007 The Author(s) Volume 14 Number 5 September 2007

The signiﬁcance of gender

Volume 14 Number 5 September 2007 © 2007 The Author(s)

on psychological wellbeing as well as on cardiovascular disease, but the

© 2007 The Author(s) Volume 14 Number 5 September 2007

hours have gendered effects on the amount of time spent on housework

Aim, data and variables

Volume 14 Number 5 September 2007 © 2007 The Author(s)

© 2007 The Author(s) Volume 14 Number 5 September 2007

Table 1: Variable statistics

Work–family conﬂict (n = 790) 0.00–1.00 0.37 0.39 0.17 0.71

Volume 14 Number 5 September 2007 © 2007 The Author(s)

Work environment and family

© 2007 The Author(s) Volume 14 Number 5 September 2007

R2 without the variable

Job demands 0.33*** 0.33*** 0.34*** 12.4e (13.2–15.4)

Volume 14 Number 5 September 2007

© 2007 The Author(s)

© 2007 The Author(s) Volume 14 Number 5 September 2007

level of control experience more work-to-family conﬂict than other men,

Job control as a buffer

Volume 14 Number 5 September 2007 © 2007 The Author(s)

Job control High Low strain work Active work

© 2007 The Author(s) Volume 14 Number 5 September 2007

Volume 14 Number 5 September 2007 © 2007 The Author(s)

© 2007 The Author(s) Volume 14 Number 5 September 2007

sphere. Finally, measures should be developed that capture the different

Volume 14 Number 5 September 2007 © 2007 The Author(s)

© 2007 The Author(s) Volume 14 Number 5 September 2007

Volume 14 Number 5 September 2007 © 2007 The Author(s)

and living conditions be explained? Methodological and strategic aspects and

© 2007 The Author(s) Volume 14 Number 5 September 2007

Volume 14 Number 5 September 2007 © 2007 The Author(s)

Job demands Job control Gender Gender ideology

Job demands 1 0.006 0.004 0.078*

Correlation is signiﬁcant at the * 0.05 level.

Table 2: Means in work-to-family conﬂict by class, gender and parenthood

Unskilled Skilled Routine non- Service Service

© 2007 The Author(s) Volume 14 Number 5 September 2007

You might also like

Job demands 0.33* 0.33* 0.34*** 12.4e (13.2–15.4)