Coping With Multiple Dimensions of Work Family Conflict

Personnel Review
Coping with multiple dimensions of work-family conflict

Denise M. Rotondo, Dawn S. Carlson, Joel F. Kincaid,
Article information:
Downloaded by INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT SCIENCES, Mr Shams Ul Hayat At 07:15 11 December 2017 (PT)
To cite this document:

Denise M. Rotondo, Dawn S. Carlson, Joel F. Kincaid, (2003) "Coping with multiple
dimensions of work‐family conflict", Personnel Review, Vol. 32 Issue: 3, pp.275-296, https://
doi.org/10.1108/00483480310467606
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/00483480310467606
Downloaded on: 11 December 2017, At: 07:15 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 38 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 4830 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2008),"The impact of work/family demand on work-family conflict", Journal of Managerial
Psychology, Vol. 23 Iss 3 pp. 215-235 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940810861356">https://
doi.org/10.1108/02683940810861356</a>
(2001),"The tug of work and family: Direct and indirect domain-specific determinants of work-
family conflict", Personnel Review, Vol. 30 Iss 5 pp. 502-522 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/
EUM0000000005936">https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000005936</a>
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:543756 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0048-3486.htm
Coping with
Coping with multiple work-family
dimensions of work-family conflict
conflict 275
Denise M. Rotondo
Perdue School of Business, Salisbury University, Salisbury, Received April 2002
Accepted October 2002
Maryland, USA
Dawn S. Carlson
Hankamer School of Business, Baylor University, Waco,
Texas, USA, and
Joel F. Kincaid
Perdue School of Business, Salisbury University, Salisbury,
Maryland, USA
Keywords Work, Conflict, Coping, Stress, Family life, Problem solving

Abstract One way to reduce work-family conflict is for individuals to have the ability to effectively
cope with the stressful demands. The relationships between four styles of work and family coping
(direct action, help-seeking, positive thinking, and avoidance/resignation) and levels of work-family
conflict are considered. Two different forms of work-family conflict (time-based and strain-based)
were examined as well as the effect of direction (work interfering with family, family interfering
with work) to examine the efficacy of different coping styles. Help-seeking and direct action coping
used at home were associated with lower family interfering with work conflict levels.
Avoidance/resignation coping was associated with higher conflict levels of all types. The results
suggest individuals may have greater control and opportunity for positive change within the family
domain compared with the work environment.
This study examines the relationships between various styles of coping and
perceived work-family conflict. The literature has clearly established the
impact of work-family conflict on various organizational and individual
outcomes (e.g. Frone et al., 1992; Gutek et al., 1991). Some of the common results
of experienced work-family conflict are increased levels of stress, decreased
performance at home and work, and decreased life and work satisfaction
(Adams et al., 1996; Allen et al., 2000; Frone et al., 1992; Higgins et al., 1992;
Kelly and Voydanoff, 1985; Voydanoff, 1987). Managing competing demands
from the work and family domains represents a source of formidable stress for
many employees; stress which, in turn, can lead to health risks and other
adverse outcomes. Although this stress is believed to be most salient among Personnel Review
female employees, there should be little doubt that males also experience stress Vol. 32 No. 3, 2003
pp. 275-296
resulting from conflicting roles and demands (Burley, 1994; Davidson and q MCB UP Limited
0048-3486
Cooper, 1992). DOI 10.1108/00483480310467606
PR Research on work-family conflict has focused on defining the concept more
32,3 explicitly to reflect its complex nature (Frone et al., 1996; Greenhaus and
Beutell, 1985). The applied and practical response has been a proliferation of
suggested work-place strategies addressing family needs. The practitioner
literature has focused on the ways organizations can “manage the situation” by
creating flexible working policies or arrangements. Such flexibility is, clearly, a
276
potential means of reducing stress associated with work-family conflict

(Warren and Johnson, 1995). The fact remains, however, that such policies and
arrangements are still not available to everyone.
Many employees, especially those working in smaller companies, do not
enjoy benefits like flexitime, on-site day care, career-break schemes, and
informal support networks. Further, many jobs are not suitable for alternative
arrangements like job sharing. Often, the ability to cope with the stress created
from the simultaneous demands of work and family is a function of the
capabilities of the individual.
While research has supported the general, stress-reducing properties of
coping (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984), there is a lack of research examining
which styles of coping are most effective in dealing with the particular stressor
of work-family conflict. An understanding of the relationship between coping
and work-family conflict is needed. The purpose of our research is to consider
the efficacy of general styles of coping on various dimensions of work-family
conflict. In particular, we examine four styles of coping (direct action, help-
seeking, positive thinking, and avoidance/resignation) and two forms of work-
family conflict (time-based and strain-based) viewed from a bi-directional
perspective (work interference with family (WIF) and family interference with
work (FIW)).
Work-family conflict
Work-family conflict is a form of inter-role conflict in which role pressures from
the work and family domains are incompatible in some respect (Greenhaus and
Beutell, 1985). Originally believed to be unidimensional, research in the area of
work-family conflict has recently focused on refining the conceptualization of
work-family conflict (Carlson et al., 2000; Frone et al., 1996; Greenhaus and
Beutell, 1985). Indeed, much of the past research concerning work-family
conflict has failed to take into consideration the complex nature of the work-
family issues. This has led to a call for more consistency in measurement, more
refined construct development of the measures, and better sampling techniques
(Kossek and Ozeki, 1998).
Work-family conflict occurs in multiple forms because conflict can originate
under various conditions (Greenhaus and Beutell, 1985; Stephens and Sommer,
1996). Though there are many forms considered in the literature, most research
directly or indirectly focuses on the forms of time and psychological strain. The
work-family interface is also recognized as a permeable boundary. Demands at
work that interfere with the family domain (WIF) have been found to be Coping with
independent of demands within the family that interfere with the work domain work-family
(FIW) (Frone et al., 1996). conflict
In this research, we combine these two perspectives and focus on four
dimensions of work-family conflict: time-based WIF, time-based FIW, strain-
based WIF, and strain-based FIW. Time-based conflict occurs when time
277
devoted to one role makes it difficult to participate in, or comply with, the
expectations of another role (Greenhaus and Beutell, 1985). An example might
be where a parent-teacher conference conflicts with an important meeting at
work. Strain-based conflict is viewed as strain from the demands of one role
intruding into and interfering with participation in another role (Greenhaus and
Beutell, 1985). Coming home from work so emotionally and physically
exhausted that one cannot effectively function or fulfill role demands at home
would be an example of strain-based conflict. In any form, conflict can originate
in one domain and spill over into the other, causing experienced stress to the
individual(s) affected. Effective coping ameliorates experienced stress, and our
explanation of how coping styles may affect levels of work-family conflict
follows.
Coping with stress

Coping is defined as the cognitive and behavioral efforts individuals use to
manage taxing demands appraised as exceeding their personal resources
(Lazarus and Folkman, 1984). Research shows that the elimination of distress is
primarily achieved through effective coping (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984). The
chronic nature of most contemporary stressors (like work-family conflict)
compels individuals to continually cope in order to attenuate the distress.
To some extent there is a similarity among the types of ongoing coping
efforts an individual makes, and the individual can be described as using a
particular coping “style.” Though no coping styles are universally appropriate,
some may be more useful than others when dealing with the specific stressor of
work-family conflict. Alternatively, some styles may work better with specific
forms of conflict or with specific directional influences than others.
In the domain of coping, effort is not synonymous with productive effort.
Though coping is believed to moderate the effects of stressors on strain, the
beneficial effect of coping on psychological stress occurs via its influence on the
appraisal process (Lazarus, 1991). That is, the way the individual perceives
his/her environment and its stressors becomes positively changed. Effective
coping styles, therefore, should be associated with lower levels of perceived
work-family conflict.
Given the multiple ways individuals cope with stress, our research separates
coping actions into four distinct categories: direct action, help-seeking, positive
thinking, and avoidance/resignation. Havlovic and Keenan (1991, p. 203)
defined this conceptualization as encompassing “both focus (problem/emotion)
PR and method (cognitive/behavioral) dimensions as well as social versus solitary
32,3 and control versus escape components”. Direct action implies a problem-
focused approach to coping whereby the individual takes specific action to
eliminate the stressor. Help-seeking is similar; however, it refers to attempts to
mobilize action and make changes in conjunction with others. Help-seeking is a
behavioral manifestation of social support, which typically refers to the level of
278
perceived support available from relevant others. Social support is associated

with lower levels of conflict (Adams et al., 1996) and the actions of asking for
and receiving support from others (help-seeking) would utilize those available
resources. Direct action and help-seeking are both behavioral, problem-focused
attempts to exert control and solve problems.
Positive thinking and avoidance/resignation are both cognitive, emotion-
focused approaches to coping where the individual seeks to manage the ill-
feelings associated with stress. Using a cognitive escape process and/or a
passive attempt to ignore stressors defines an avoidance/resignation coping
style. Positive thinking, alternatively, suggests individuals exercise great
control to manage their cognitions in an optimistic fashion. Neither style acts to
change the stressor, but instead attempts to minimize the ill-feelings associated
with distress.
Coping with work-family conflict

To date, empirical research has not fully examined the relationship between
general styles of coping with stress and the perception of work-family conflict,
though they are clearly related. Among the few studies examining the effects of
coping, many have failed to find significant results. Strategies such as time
management behavior (Jex and Elacqua, 1999), individual differences related to
self-esteem (Grandey and Cropanzano, 1999), and perceived social support
(Carlson and Perrewe, 1999; Frone et al., 1995) have failed to moderate the
effects of work-family conflict on strain. And although problem and emotion-
focused coping have been found to moderate the effect of WIF on job
satisfaction, the same strategies were found to be unrelated to somatic
complaints (Butler and Gasser, 2002).
At least one study using a sample of Japanese working women did find
family-role redefinition (a form of problem-focused coping) to moderate FIW on
life strain (Matsui et al., 1995). Another study of Hong Kong Chinese found
emotion-focused coping to moderate FIW on job satisfaction (Aryee et al., 1999).
These studies, however, conceptualized neither work-family conflict nor coping
in a comprehensive manner. This fact, combined with restrictive samples of
respondents, suggests more empirical work is needed to better elucidate the
relationship between work-family conflict in its multiple forms and coping.
Owing to the sparse and contradictory research history, our hypotheses are
more general than specific, even though work-family conflict and coping are
conceptualized very specifically in this research. This specificity is needed
because one can imagine a scenario where one style of coping may be effective Coping with
with one form of conflict but not with others. We chose to hypothesize general work-family
relationships while allowing for more specific findings in the research design. conflict
If an individual is effectively coping, his or her perceived work-family
conflict should be lower because the conflict is “under control,” so to speak.
Similarly, perceived conflict should be expected to be highest (i.e. most
279
salient) in those who are ineffectively or inefficiently managing work-family

conflict. Expanding this idea to the domain relationship at the heart of
work-family conflict, we expect individuals may direct efforts to cope with
work demands, and direct separate efforts to cope with family demands.
Coping employed in the work domain should be expected to most directly
affect WIF conflict. Similarly, coping at home should most directly impact
FIW conflict. The general hypotheses we tested are developed in later
paragraphs.
Problem-focused, behavioral coping. Whereas all styles of coping have the
potential to reduce distress, some research suggests, when situations are
amenable to change, problem-focused styles like direct action and help-seeking
are likely to be more effective (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984). Bhagat et al. (1995),
for example, reported that problem-focused coping was more efficacious in
managing work-related stressors than emotion-focused coping. Along similar
lines, Koeske et al. (1993) found control-oriented coping (similar to direct action)
to act as a buffer to reported work stress where avoidance/resignation was
related to negative outcomes in a longitudinal study. Schwartz and Stone (1993)
found active coping to be used more frequently with daily work problems.
Using the wrong strategy in a given situation will, at the very least, slow the
time it takes to reduce distress and possibly impede the process altogether. In
general, the use of a problem-focused coping style in work settings, such as
direct action, seems to be associated with greater coping efficacy. We would
extend this logic to the family domain, thus motivating our expectation that use
of direct action at work (at home) will reduce perceived WIF (FIW) conflict in
both time-based and strain-based forms:
H1. Direct action coping styles used with work stressors will be associated
with lower perceived WIF conflict.
H2. Direct action coping styles used with family stressors will be
associated with lower perceived FIW conflict.
Although many studies have not found social support to moderate the effects of
work-family conflict on strain, the perceived availability of support may not be
as powerful as the mobilization of that support (as occurs with the use of help-
seeking coping strategy). Some research has, indeed, found family-related
coping to have a positive effect on wellbeing and psychological adjustment. For
example, family-role redefinition (a help-seeking strategy) has been found to
moderate the relationship between work-family conflict and strain (Matsui et al.,
PR 1995). Other research suggests efforts to mobilize social support lower distress
32,3 at home and are important to healthy adaptation (Belle, 1991).
A supportive supervisor and a family-centered organization have also been
shown to reduce work-family role strain (Warren and Johnson, 1995), and such
an environment would enable a help-seeking coping style. Seeking help from
others when managing family or work stressors is expected to be effective in
280
lowering the evaluation of time and strain-based work-family conflict. These

expectations mirror the hypotheses drawn from research on work-related
problem-focused (direct action) coping:
H3. Help-seeking coping styles used with work stressors will be associated
with lower perceived WIF conflict.
H4. Help-seeking coping styles used with family stressors will be
Emotion-focused, cognitive coping. Managing the feelings and emotions
associated with stress occurs via cognitive manipulations and positive-
thinking efforts (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984). Emotion-focused coping in the
form of humor or prayer has been found to be an effective stress reducer in
situations with life stressors that cannot be removed or changed (such as
terminal illness (see Lazarus and Folkman, 1984)). Studies have shown that
emotion-focused coping does attenuate the effect of FIW and WIF conflict on
job satisfaction (Aryee et al., 1999; Butler and Gasser, 2002). However, in their
study of the moderating effects of coping styles, Bhagat et al. (1995) note that
emotion-focused coping reduced only one of the 14 relationships between stress
and symptoms of life strain versus seven for problem-focused coping. This
debate is particularly relevant to the issue of work-family conflict because most
of the prior studies have not considered the dynamic interplay between work
and family domains in a comprehensive manner. And no prior study has
examined emotion-focused coping in different forms, such as positive thinking
and avoidance/resignation, as they relate to work-family conflict.
In our study, attempts to view stress as “part of life” and something which
can be overcome to one’s advantage represent cognitions that are positive, and
perhaps useful. Emotion-focused coping has been cited as an effective coping
style with organizational stress because individuals often have little ability to
change work-related stressors, making problem-focused styles ineffective
(Aryee et al., 1999; Pearlin and Schooler, 1978). Family emotional support has
been shown to reduce family stress and thus FIW conflict (Bernas and Major,
2000). The effectiveness of emotion-focused coping certainly may be the case
with work-family conflict issues in organizations where flexibility is
unavailable. Additionally, positive thinking may occur in conjunction with
or prior to the use of other problem-focused efforts, because it may predispose
an individual to view a situation as less than hopeless and likely to be
improved. For these reasons, we expect:
H5. Positive thinking coping styles used with work stressors will be Coping with
associated with lower perceived WIF conflict. work-family
H6. Positive thinking coping styles used with family stressors will be conflict
Avoidance and resignation as a coping style put the individual into a frame of
281
mind where he/she seeks to avoid the stress, hopes time will take care of the
situation, and/or passively accepts the situation, no matter how stressful it is.
In some situations, where the source of stress is unyielding, this type of coping
can help the individual to manage the ill-feelings of distress. If employees have
little control to change their work situations (especially compared with family
situations), such a coping style might have stress-reducing properties. Work-
family conflict may, indeed, seem like an unyielding, unchangeable life
situation. A broad, “this too will pass” attitude could reduce perceived conflict.
On the other hand, work-family conflict may be exacerbated in individuals
who rely on avoidance/resignation as a coping style. Avoiding stressors and/or
believing that time will take care of things, for example, do not seem to be
effective methods for managing conflicting time demands. Avoidance/
resignation often represents the abdication of control in the hope of escaping
from one’s conflicts. This style of coping could even make the individual
perceive greater conflict levels, perhaps because nothing really seems to
change, thus making the issue more salient. Failing to manage one’s competing
demands may add to feelings of being “out of control,” which in turn may
increase the perceived conflict level in the individual’s life.
Research on coping with stress generally supports the latter view (see
Koeske et al. (1993)), in large part owing to the importance of psychological
control and self-efficacy on effective stress management. Although
avoidance/resignation may have some stress-reducing potential, it is likely to
be the exception not the rule. We expect avoidance and resignation to be used
by persons coping ineffectively with work-family conflict, perhaps owing to
psychological maladjustment or a lack of perceived control:
H7. Avoidance/resignation coping styles used with work stressors will be
associated with higher perceived WIF conflict.
H8. Avoidance/resignation coping styles used with family stressors will be
associated with higher perceived FIW conflict.
Current study
Our research examines the relative efficacy of coping styles on work-family
conflict. These two streams of research have not previously been combined in
this comprehensive manner. Recognizing that conflict has four dimensions
(time-based and strain-based WIF, time-based and strain-based FIW), we
examine if certain coping styles are associated with lower reported conflict. We
PR propose that direct action, help-seeking, and positive thinking will be
32,3 associated with lower perceived conflict and avoidance/resignation will be
associated with higher perceived conflict levels. Further, coping efforts used at
work should most directly impact perceived WIF conflict, and coping efforts
used at home should most directly impact perceived FIW conflict. The next
section describes the methods used to test these propositions.
282
Methodology
Sample
The data were collected using respondents employed at numerous
organizations in a midwestern city of the USA. Many of the respondents not
only were working full-time but were attending school full-time in an evening
program catering to full-time, working adults finishing their undergraduate
degrees. These individuals were given five surveys. They were asked to
complete one for themselves and to take four surveys to their places of
employment and distribute them to individuals willing to complete a
questionnaire examining work-family conflict. The only condition placed was
that individuals working in full-time jobs complete all the questionnaires.
Thus, the sample comprises individuals working in very different work
settings at varying organizational levels. This sampling strategy allowed for a
sample that was not influenced by the particular family-centered policies and
benefits of any one organization. The use of homogeneous populations and
firms in work-family conflict research was a criticism offered by Kossek and
Ozeki (1998) in their review of the field. These authors encourage the use of
heterogeneous populations and firms in future research, something our
particular research design helps to satisfy.
In total, 315 surveys were distributed (five each to the 63 working students).
Of those, 225 were returned from 50 of the students. The high response rate
was, in part, due to the agreement that the student would receive one point per
usable survey returned towards the grade on his/her final exam (final grades
were not significantly affected). The data were then reduced further by
selecting for the analysis only those respondents who were married or who had
at least one child (i.e. eliminating respondents who both were single and had no
children). This was done to increase the likelihood that work-family conflict
was a relevant issue to the individual and to increase accuracy in response to
the work-family conflict questions. This selection process yielded a sample of
173 individuals whose responses were used in the analyses.
The total sample of 173 individuals consisted of 61 percent females and 39
percent males. Further, 82 percent were married, while 80 percent had children
living at home with them. The average age was 37 years, while the average
tenure with their organization was six years. The respondents were all
employed in full-time jobs. Varying professions and organizational levels were
represented (operational, supervisory, managerial) from many different Coping with
organizational types (manufacturing, service, government/non-profit). work-family
conflict
Measures
The collection of data using a survey instrument is consistent with past
283
research in this area. To increase the accuracy of the responses, each survey
was distributed with a cover sheet guaranteeing anonymity. Most research on
work-family conflict has been performed using self-report questionnaires items
under the assumption that self-reports accurately reflect objective
circumstances (Near et al., 1980). To this extent, the individual’s present level
of perceived work-family conflict is captured.
Work-family conflict. The work-family conflict scale consists of 12 items and
is measured on a five-point Likert-type agreement scale such that greater
scores represented more perceived work-family conflict. More specifically it
included three items to measure each of the four dimensions of work-family
conflicts – time-based work interfering with family (TBWIF), time-based
family interfering with work (TBFIW), strain-based work interfering with
family (SBWIF) and strain-based family interfering with work (SBFIW). The
scale was developed and validated by Carlson et al. (2000).
Some sample items are listed with the respective internal consistency
measure: “The time I must devote to my job keeps me from participating
equally in household responsibilities and activities” (TBWIF, r ¼ 0.87), “My
personal life takes up time that I’d like to spend at work” (TBFIW, r ¼ 0.86),
“The stress from my job often makes me irritable when I get home” (SBWIF,
r ¼ 0.86), and “Owing to stress at home, I am often preoccupied with family
matters at work” (SBFIW, r ¼ 0.92).
Coping. The coping measure used was developed and validated by Havlovic
and Keenan (1991), and contains four sub-scales that consist of six items to
measure each of the four styles of coping: avoidance/resignation, positive
thinking, direct action, and help-seeking. The coping-style items ask
respondents about generalized responses to recent work stressors and, then
later in the questionnaire, responses to recent family stressors to allow for the
potential that styles differed in the two domains. Respondents were asked to
think about stressful situations they have faced at work (or at home) and
indicate how they reacted in response to such situations. These instructions
were identical to those used by Havlovic and Keenan (1991). Items were
reworded as needed to correspond to the family domain and additional sections
of questions not used in this research separated the two scales to avoid
confusion. Clear directions were included to ensure respondents were focusing
on the relevant domain while responding to the questions. A five-point Likert-
type frequency scale with anchors of “hardly ever do this” to “almost always do
this” was used such that a higher score represented greater use of the
coping style.
PR Sample items measuring avoidance/resignation include: “I tell myself that
32,3 time takes care of situations like this” and “I accept the situation because there
is little I can do to change it.” Positive thinking was measured with items such
as “I remind myself that other people have been in this situation and that I can
probably do as well as they did” and “I tell myself that I can probably work
things out to my advantage.” Direct action was measured with items including
284
“I try to work harder and more efficiently”, and “I throw myself into my family
situation (or work) and work harder to tackle problems.” Finally, help-seeking
was measured with items such as “I decide what I think should be done and
explain this to the people who are affected”, and “I request help from people
who have the power to help me.” The reliability coefficients for the coping at
work scales are as follows: direct action, r ¼ 0.72; help-seeking, r ¼ 0.63;
positive thinking, r ¼ 0.77; and avoidance/resignation r ¼ 0.76. Reliability
coefficients for the coping at home scales are as follows: direct action, r ¼ 0.81;
help-seeking, r ¼ 0.75; positive thinking, r ¼ 0.82; avoidance/resignation,
r ¼ 0.57[1].
Demographic variables
Respondents were asked to indicate their gender and marital status (which
were dummy coded), as well as the number of children presently living with
them. Given that all of these variables have been shown to be related to work-
family conflict and have been controlled for in other studies (Eagle et al. 1997;
Frone et al., 1996; Kinnunen and Mauno, 1998), they were included here.
Analysis
The data were analyzed using hierarchical regression techniques. The control
variables of gender, marital status, and the number of children living at home
were entered in the first step, followed by the hypothesis variables. The
independent variables entered represented work coping styles for the WIF
conflict models and the family coping styles for the FIW conflict models. The
change in R-squared was tested in each step. In total, four regressions were run
to identify which coping variables were associated with higher or lower levels
of work-family conflict (TBWIF, SBWIF, TBFIW, SBFIW).
Results
The means, standard deviations, and correlations for the variables of interest
can be found in Table I. Conflict levels were, in general, negatively associated
help-seeking, direct action, and positive thinking coping styles and positively
associated with avoidance/resignation. Note that the levels of reported conflict
were higher for WIF than for FIW. T-tests revealed significantly higher levels
of WIF conflict for both time (t ¼ 10.78, p , 0.001) and strain-based (t ¼ 10.74,
p , 0.001) conflict compared with FIW conflict. Consistent with past research,
women and those with children living at home reported higher conflict levels.
Marital status was not significantly related to conflict. Women, too, reported
Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
1. Direct action
– work 3.72
(0.59)
2. Help-seeking
– work 0.34** 3.60
(0.58)
3. Positive
thinking –
work 0.54** 0.43** 3.61
(0.68)
4. Avoidance
resignation –
work – 0.13 – 0.35** –0.11 3.01
(0.74)
5. Direct action
– family 0.55** 0.32** 0.51** – 0.02 3.81
(0.60)
6. Help-seeking
– family 0.32** 0.46** 0.34** – 0.05 0.63** 3.71
(0.65)
7. Positive
thinking –
family 0.42** 0.36** 0.63** – 0.05 0.69** 0.52** 3.47
(0.70)
8. Avoidance.
resignation –
family – 0.07 – 0.19** –0.07 0.52** 0.02 – 0.07 0.09 2.88
(0.58)
(continued)
conflict
work-family
correlations
deviations, and
Means, standard
Table I.
285
Coping with
PR
32,3
286
Table I.
Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
9. Time-based
WIF 0.02 – 0.15* –0.01 0.14 – 0.15* – 0.18* – 0.09 0.06 2.95
(1.1)
10. Time-based
FIW – 0.19* – 0.09 –0.12 0.001 – 0.25** – 0.28** – 0.17* 0.17* 0.24** 1.94
(0.90)
11. Strain-
based WIF – 0.03 – 0.18* –0.15* 0.21** – 0.17* – 0.24** – 0.23** 0.12 0.48** 0.37** 2.75
(1.1)
12. Strain-
based FIW – 0.21** – 0.05 –0.12 0.09 – 0.27** – 0.24** – 0.17* 0.30** 0.19** 0.61** 0.36** 1.87
(0.80)
13. Gender 0.03 – 0.05 –0.14 0.20** 0.08 0.18* – 0.03 0.15* – 0.02 0.18* 0.18* 0.20** 0.61
(0.49)
14. Children at
home – 0.08 – 0.08 0.001 – 0.07 – 0.10 – 0.14 – 0.11 – 0.07 0.24** 0.19** 0.18* 0.20** 0.004 1.11
(1.04)
15. Marital
status 0.04 0.02 –0.04 -0.04 – 0.11 – 0.07 – 0.09 – 0.01 0.03 0.004 0.06 0.02 0.15* 0.004 2.14
(0.49)
Notes: Means and standard deviations (in parentheses) are along the diagonal; n = 173; * p , 0.05; ** p , 0.01
higher use of avoidance and resignation coping both at home and at work as Coping with
well as more help-seeking at home. work-family
Two regression analyses were conducted using work interference as family conflict
as the dependent variable: one for TBWIF and one for SBWIF. The models are
summarized in Table II. For TBWIF, the model explained 6.6 percent of the
variance. Of the work coping variables tested, only the use of avoidance/ 287
resignation at work was associated with higher conflict levels (B ¼ 0.14,

p , 0.043).
Similarly for SBWIF conflict, avoidance/resignation coping at work was
associated with higher conflict (B ¼ 0.18, p , 0.014). The adjusted R 2 was 0.09.
Next, two similar analyses were done using FIW as the dependent variable:
one for TBFIW and one for SBFIW. Table III reports the final models. Using
TBFIW conflict as the dependent variable, family coping variables explained
virtually 16 percent of the variance (Adjusted R 2 ¼ 0.155). Higher conflict
levels were reported by those using avoidance/resignation coping at home
Variables in the equation Step 1 Step 2
Effects of coping on TBWIF conflict

F 3.55** 2.73**
Adjusted R 2 0.043 0.066
df 3,169 7,165
DR 2 0.023**
b t b t
Gender –0.03 – 0.38 – 0.07 – 0.87
Marital status 0.03 0.41 0.04 0.55
Number of children living at home 0.24*** 3.21 0.25*** 3.31
Avoidance/resignation – work 0.14* 1.72
Positive thinking – work 0.001 0.01
Direct action – work 0.10 1.12
Help-seeking – work – 0.13 – 1.45
Effects of coping on SBWIF conflict
F 3.84** 3.45**
Adjusted R 2. 0.047 0.128
df 3,169 7,165
DR 2 0.081***
b t b t
Gender 0.17** 2.27 – 0.11 1.41
Marital status 0.03 0.40 0.04 0.53
Number of children living at home 0.18** 2.40 0.19** 2.64
Avoidance/resignation – work 0.18* 2.22
Positive thinking – work – 0.13 – 1.47
Direct action – work 0.11 1.23
Help-seeking – work – 0.08 – 0.95 Table II.
Notes: All reported betas are completely standardized coefficients; * p , 0.05; ** p , 0.01; Work interference
*** p , 0.001; Significance levels reported are based on one-tailed tests with family
PR
Variables in the equation Step 1 Step 2
32,3
Effects of coping on TBFIW conflict
F 4.21** 5.51**
Adjusted R 2 0.053 0.155
df 3,169 7,165
288
DR 2 0.102***
b t b t
Gender 0.86** 2.38 0.22*** 2.96
Marital status – 0.02 – 0.33 – 0.06 – 0.87
Number of children living at home 0.19*** 2.62 0.16** 2.28
Avoidance/resignation – family 0.13* 1.80
Positive thinking – family 0.07 0.71
Direct action – family 0.18* – 1.61
Help-seeking – family – 0.22** – 2.33
Effects of coping on SBFIW conflict
F 4.87** 7.62***
Adjusted R 2 0.063 0.212
df 3,169 7,165
DR 2 0.169***
b t b t
Gender 0.21** 2.74 0.21** 2.87
Marital status – 0.02 – 0.21 – 0.05 – 0.65
Number of children living at home 0.20*** 2.64 0.18** 2.63
Avoidance/resignation – family 0..28*** 3.94
Positive thinking – family 0.05 0.50
Direct action – family – 0.26** – 2.45
Table III. Help-seeking – family – 0.09 – 0.98
Family interference Notes: All reported betas are completely standardized coefficients; * p , 0.05; ** p , 0.01;
with work *** p , 0.001; Significance levels reported are based on one-tailed tests
(B ¼ 0.13, p , 0.037). Help-seeking at home was associated with lower conflict

(B ¼ -0.22, p , 0.01) as was direct action at home (B ¼ – 0.17, p , 0.05).
Using SBFIW as the dependent variable, the model explained 21 percent of
the variance. Avoidance/resignation coping at home (B ¼ 0.28, p , 0.001) was
associated with higher conflict. Direct action at home was associated with
lower conflict (B ¼ – 0.26, p , 0.007).
Examining the pattern of results, it can be seen that – in general – lower
levels of FIW conflict appear when help-seeking or direct action coping is used
at home (supporting H2 and H4). These two strategies when used at work did
not result in lower reported WIF conflict (contrary to H1 and H3). H5 and H6,
which predicted positive thinking would lower conflict, received no empirical
support. Higher conflict levels are reported among persons using avoidance or
resignation, supporting H7 and H8. The findings will be discussed further in
the next section[2].
Discussion Coping with
This study examined the relationship between various styles of coping and the work-family
presence of work-family conflict using comprehensive conceptualizations for conflict
both coping and work-family conflict. Our results are consistent with past
research on coping with work stress and with research on the nature of work-
family conflict. In particular, two sources of conflict (time and strain) were
289
considered in a bi-directional framework (WIF and FIW). This typology reflects

the complex nature of competing work and family demands as a source of
significant stress. Our primary interest was to examine how various coping
styles affect this conflict. Avoidance/resignation, positive thinking, direct
action, and help-seeking were treated as potential coping styles, and we
allowed for the possibility that individuals could employ different styles in the
work and family domains.
The ability of an individual to effectively cope was expected to reduce his or
her level of work-family conflict. Holding constant gender, marital status, and
the number of children living at home, the results suggest that all styles of
coping are not equally effective with managing work-family conflict. We found
that problem-focused, behavioral coping styles used at home seemed to be
associated with lower FIW conflict levels. Help-seeking at home was associated
with lower perceived time-based FIW and direct-action coping used at home
was associated with lower time- and strain-based FIW conflict. These results
support our expectations about the positive effects of direct action and help-
seeking on perceived conflict in part. We did not find these coping styles to be
associated with lower WIF conflict when used with work stressors.
An avoidance/resignation coping style was associated with higher perceived
conflict. When used at work, WIF conflict was higher and, when used at home,
FIW conflict was higher. This was true for both time- and strain-based conflict.
Positive thinking was not significantly associated with lower conflict.
Although others have found emotion-focused coping (like positive thinking) to
be associated with lower strain, we did not find work-family conflict to be lower
among those employing a positive thinking style of coping.
Overall, H2 and H4 (family-related direct action and help-seeking on FIW)
received good support, as did H7 and H8 (avoidance/resignation). H1 and H3
received no support (work-related direct action and help-seeking on WIF), nor
did H5 and H6 (positive thinking). These conclusions are important in
understanding the role of the individual in managing the demands of work and
family.
Coping with work-family conflict

It was expected that the coping styles of direct action and help-seeking would
be associated with lower conflict levels. These styles were associated with
lower perceived FIW conflict when used with home stressors. It was surprising,
PR though, that these styles had no significant association with WIF conflict when
32,3 used with work stressors.
Though related to the concept of social support, a help-seeking coping style
as defined in this study involves more proactive efforts to mobilize support
from others (versus the availability of emotional and instrumental support).
Time-based conflict (FIW) was lower among persons reporting the use of a
290
help-seeking coping style at home. Clearly, soliciting and receiving help from
others in the family can eliminate or mitigate time conflicts. This type of
coordinated and collaborative support among spouses and extended family
clearly seem to reduce conflict stemming from incompatible time demands
where family interferes with work functioning. Women reported more frequent
use of help-seeking with family stressors, a finding consistent with past
research which shows women are more likely to mobilize supportive resources
than men (Belle, 1991).
Both time-based (FIW) conflict and strain-based conflict (FIW) were lower
among persons employing direct-action coping at home. Direct-action coping
involves individually motivated effort toward the resolution of family problems
that may cause work to suffer. This coping style reflects the tendency to tackle
the problem and do what needs to be done within the family domain so that
conflict is reduced. These efforts help eliminate time where FIW, which in turn
may help alleviate strain conflict (FIW), which can intensify under extreme
time pressures.
As a whole, coping styles like help-seeking or direct action, when used at
home, may result in lower FIW conflict (both time- and strain-based). These
styles require the individual to engage in behavioral efforts to solve problems
and eliminate stressors. Direct action and help-seeking presume the efficacy
necessary to effectuate change and take action. These styles can be viewed as
relatively efficacious in the work-family conflict arena, at least with FIW
conflicts. One must wonder, then, why these same styles did not associate with
lower WIF conflict when used with work stressors.
In this study, the cognitive, emotion-focused styles of coping included
positive thinking and avoidance/resignation. The intent of the former is to
place the conflict in a positive cognitive framework (expected to lower
perceived conflict) and, of the latter, to foster feelings of acceptance or escape
(expected to raise perceived conflict).
Positive thinking was not associated with lower conflict. The lack of
findings, however, should not suggest positive thinking could not, contribute to
wellbeing. It may be associated with greater satisfaction or it may represent a
complementary activity to the engagement in problem-focused, behavioral
coping efforts. Given that such possibilities were not tested in this research, we
can only speculate on alternative roles for positive thinking.
Avoidance/resignation coping used either at home or at work was found to
be generally associated with higher reported conflict[3]. Simply put, those
saying that they dealt with stressors by avoiding them or seeing them as Coping with
unchangeable seemed to perceive greater conflict. These activities may have work-family
exacerbated the appraisal process, making conflict appear to be ongoing and conflict
never-ending, thus more problematic to the individual. Our findings add to the
conclusions of those suggesting avoidance coping is less effective by
demonstrating this adverse effect in both the work and family domain.
291
Domain control
An ongoing debate about the nature of the work and family interface revolves
around the perceived ability of individuals to control stressors stemming from
these two domains. Some theorize that individuals have more control over
family than over work (Bolger et al., 1989; Pearlin and Schooler, 1978),
suggesting problem-focused, behavioral efforts may be more useful at home.
Others argue that some individuals (primarily females) cannot trade off family
involvement for work (Tenbrunsel et al., 1995). This suggests there may be less
ability to make family changes to accommodate work demands, something that
would make problem-focused, behavioral coping difficult at home. Thus, there
are overlapping lines of theory that offer competing conclusions about where
individuals have more control and where certain coping styles are most
effectively employed.
Recall that respondents reported significantly higher levels of conflict from
work that interfered with family, which could reasonably imply more coping
efforts should be directed at work. We found that this was not the case. T-tests
revealed significant individual differences in the reported frequency of coping
styles. Help-seeking (t ¼ –2.21, p , 0.03) and direct action (t ¼ –2.03, p , 0.04)
were reported with less frequency at work compared with home, and more
avoidance/resignation was reportedly used at work compared with home
(t ¼ 2.66, p , 0.008). This can lead to the curious conclusion that styles which
seem more efficacious at home (i.e. help-seeking and direct action) are used less
frequently in the domain, putting greater demands and stress on the individual
(i.e. work). In addition, the coping style that is least productive
(avoidance/resignation) is used more frequently in the work domain, perhaps
adding to the problem of higher WIF conflict levels. Given that females reported
higher conflict levels and greater use of avoidance/resignation coping, this
apparent mis-match of effort is even more troubling. It is a finding consistent
with recent research showing women report more overload and conflict yet
employ less effective coping skills than men (Moen and Yu, 2000).
Our findings could suggest attempts to exert control via problem-focused
means may not always be possible at work. At the very least, it would appear
help-seeking and direct action are costly coping strategies (in the sense that
they require cooperation, action, and extra effort) and individuals may be
electing to use less costly methods (such as avoidance). Though speculative,
this offers limited support to the argument that many individuals do not
PR necessarily have control to negotiate changes in their work environment
32,3 (especially when compared with their family environment). The difficulty in
changing the work environment may be insurmountable for some individuals
(especially females), and it may be more efficacious for those individuals to
focus on the family domain to manage competing demands. One could also
argue that those employing an avoidance/resignation coping style should be
292
encouraged to be more proactive and assertive in requesting help, taking action

to reduce stressful demands in a meaningful way.
Clearly, we did not measure perceived control in this research, and can only
draw tentative conclusions. However, for all practical purposes, problem-
focused, behavioral coping requires the ability and autonomy to effectuate
change in order to reduce stress. Our findings are consistent with those of
Ayree et al. (1999), who concluded coping efforts were not efficacious in
moderating the negative effects of WIF conflict. It seems likely that many
workers simply cannot or will not make work changes and find family
accommodations easier.
Conclusion
Despite pressure for companies to develop policies and provide benefits that
build flexibility into the employer-employee relationship, the reality for many
employees is one of relying on individual resources to balance competing and
conflicting demands from work and family domains. Many individuals work
for companies that are simply too small to provide tangible or financial benefits
to working families. Although many employers offer real understanding and
ad hoc support for worker conflicts, a small number fail to offer even that.
Individuals are stretched tighter and tighter to balance work and family
demands, and grasp for advice and ideas that help them cope with these
struggles.
Our findings indicate that help-seeking and direct action used at home may
help reduce FIW conflict effectively. These conclusions are underscored by the
fact that the respondents in this study represented a heterogeneous cross-
section of job types, job levels, and organizations. This helps eliminate the
possibility that the relative efficacy of coping styles could have been dependent
on the unique work situation of the respondents, as may be the case in a
homogeneous sample.
Perhaps the best alternative for employers unable to funnel resources into
the more costly flexible-benefit options would be to provide training or
information which would help employees identify the specific sources of their
work-family conflict and understand how to overcome these conflicts by
focusing on the family rather than the workplace. Helping individuals to shed
the tendency to use avoidance/resignation as a coping style may also reduce
perceived conflict. Additionally, training managers in problem-solving skills
and techniques that could be used to help employees work through conflict in a
productive manner would be valuable because it would not only focus on Coping with
solving the problem at hand but provide social support as well. work-family
conflict
Limitations and future directions
This research is not without limitations. First, we note that this is a cross-
293
sectional survey research design, which imposes limitations from such

concerns as common methods variance and causality. Whereas this is a
concern that cannot be completely alleviated, the design used is consistent with
previous research in the area. Second, males and females were not sampled in
percentages equal to their representation in the general population; and, in fact,
women reported significantly greater conflict levels in this study. Entering the
respondent’s gender in the hierarchical regression models eliminates the
concern that the significance of other partial regression coefficients can be
explained by gender differences. It is not known for certain that the individuals
surveyed will continue to utilize their reported coping styles in the future with
the same outcomes. However, at the point in time at which these data were
collected, persons reporting the use of certain coping styles were found to
report significantly different conflict levels from those who did not utilize those
styles.
Future research efforts should seek to expand this study and identify
effective coping strategies for managing work-family conflict. More
specifically, what particular behaviors or changes are the most useful in
reducing WIF conflict? Our study, like others, has not adequately identified the
coping strategies which effectively target work interference conflict. Further,
what individual variables may affect the choice of coping styles used with
work and family problems? The use of longitudinal methods and/or qualitative
efforts would greatly help to further our understanding of how employees can
effectively cope with work-family conflict. The reality of competing work and
family demands is becoming increasingly more complicated. The relative
efficacy of coping styles on work and family conflicts is of great academic,
managerial and public interest.
Notes
1. The internal consistency coefficient for the avoidance/resignation coping at home scale is
low. However, item analysis indicated the reliability would not be significantly improved by
deleting scale items. Thus, because the work coping items performed acceptably, all of the
items are included from the previously validated scale.
2. There is some indication that multicollinearity among the independent variables limits our
ability to distinguish the statistical significance of the independent variables. For WIF
models, the variance inflation factor (VIF) is 34 and, for FIW models, the VIF is 32. The
literature suggests that VIFs above 30 are problematic. Notwithstanding this proviso, even
in the presence of multicollinearity, the parameters of interest are consistently estimated. We
wish to thank the anonymous reviewer who brought this to our attention.
PR 3. Recall the avoidance/resignation coping at home scale had poor reliability in this study.
Although it has been previously validated, conclusions reached in this study should be
32,3 interpreted with some caution.
References
294
Adams, G.A., King, L.A. and King, D.W. (1996), “Relationships of job and family involvement,
family social support, and work-family conflict with job and life satisfaction”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 81, pp. 411-20.
Allen, T.D., Herst, D.E., Bruck, C. and Sutton, M. (2000), “Consequences associated with work-to-
family conflict: a review and agenda for future research”, Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 278-308.
Ayree, S., Luk, V., Leung, A. and Lo, S. (1999), “Role stressors, inter-role conflict, and wellbeing:
the moderating influence of spousal support and coping behaviors among employed
parents in Hong Kong”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 54, pp. 259-78.
Belle, D. (1991), “Gender differences in the social moderators of stress”, in Monat, A. and Lazarus,
R.S. (Eds), Stress and Coping: An Anthology, Columbia University Press, New York, NY,
pp. 258-74.
Bernas, K.H. and Major, D.A. (2000), “Contributors to stress resistance: testing a model of
women’s work-family conflict”, Psychology of Women Quarterly, Vol. 24, pp. 170-8.
Bhagat, R.S., Allie, S.M. and Ford, D.L. (1995), “Coping with stressful life events: an empirical
analysis”, in Crandall, R. and Perrewe, P.L. (Eds), Occupational Stress: A Handbook,
Taylor & Francis, Washington, DC, pp. 93-112.
Bolger, N., DeLongis, A., Kessler, R.C. and Wethington, E. (1989), “The contagion of stress across
multiple roles”, Journal of Marriage and the Family, Vol. 51, pp. 175-83.
Burley, K. (1994), “Gender differences and similarities in coping responses to anticipated work-
family conflict”, Psychological Reports, Vol. 74 No. 1, pp. 115-23.
Butler, A, and Gasser, M. (2002) “The effectiveness of strategies for coping with work-family
conflict”, paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, Toronto.
Carlson, D.S. and Perrewe, P.L. (1999), “The role of social support in the stressor-strain
relationship: an examination of work-family conflict”, Journal of Management, Vol. 25,
pp. 513-40.
Carlson, D.S., Kacmar, K.M. and Williams, L.J. (2000), “Construct and initial validation of a
multidimensional measure of work-family conflict”, Journal of Vocational Behavior,
Vol. 56, pp. 249-76.
Davidson, M.J. and Cooper, C.L. (1992), Shattering the Glass Ceiling: The Woman Manager, Paul
Chapman, London.
Eagle, B.W., Miles, E.W. and Icenogle, M.L. (1997), “Inter-role conflicts and the permeability of
work and family domains: are there gender differences?”, Journal of Vocational Behavior,
Vol. 50, pp. 168-84.
Frone, M.R., Russell, M. and Barnes, G.M. (1996), “Work-family conflict, gender, and health-
related outcomes: a study of employed parents in two community samples”, Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 1, pp. 57-69.
Frone, M.R., Russell, M. and Cooper, M.L. (1992), “Antecedents and outcomes of work-family Coping with
conflict: testing a model of the work-family interface”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 77 No. 1, pp. 65-78.
work-family
Frone, M.R., Russell, M. and Cooper, M.L. (1995), “Relationship of work and family stressors to conflict
psychological distress: the independent moderating influence of social support, mastery,
active coping, and self-focused attention”, in Crandall, R. and Perrewe, P.L. (Eds),
295
Occupational Stress: A Handbook, Taylor & Francis, Washington, DC, pp. 129-50.
Grandey, A.A. and Cropanzano, R. (1999), “The conservation of resources model applied to work-
family conflict and strain”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 54, pp. 350-70.
Greenhaus, J.H. and Beutell, N.J. (1985), “Sources of conflict between work and family roles”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 76-88.
Gutek, B., Searle, S. and Klepa, L. (1991), “Rational versus gender role-explanations for work-
family conflict”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 76, pp. 560-8.
Havlovic, S.J. and Keenan, J.P. (1991), “Coping with work stress: the influence of individual
differences”, Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, Vol. 6 No. 7, Handbook on job
stress, special issue, Perrewe, P.L. (Ed.), pp. 199-212.
Higgins, C.A., Duxbury, L.E. and Irving, R.H. (1992), “Work-family conflict in the dual-career
family”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 51, pp. 51-75.
Jex, S.M. and Elacqua, T.C. (1999), “Time management as a moderator of relations between
stressors and strain”, Work and Stress, Vol. 13, pp. 182-91.
Kelly, R. and Voydanoff, P. (1985), “Work family role strain among employed parents”, Family
Relations, Vol. 34, pp. 367-74.
Kinnunen, U. and Mauno, S. (1998), “Antecedents and outcomes of work-family conflict among
employed women and men in Finland”, Human Relations, Vol. 51, pp. 157-77.
Koeske, G.F., Kirk, S.A. and Koeske, R.D. (1993), “Coping with job stress: which strategies work
best?”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 66 No. 4, pp. 1-17.
Kossek, E.E. and Ozeki, C. (1998), “Work-family conflict, policies, and the job-life satisfaction
relationship: a review and directions for organizational behavior-human resources
research”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 83, pp. 39-149.
Lazarus, R.S. and Folkman, S. (1984), Stress, Appraisal, and Coping, Springer, New York, NY.
Lazarus, R.S. (1991), “Psychological stress in the workplace”, Journal of Social Behavior and
Personality, Vol. 6 No. 7, Handbook on job stress, special issue, Perrewe, P.L. (Ed.), pp. 1-13.
Matsui, T., Ohsawa, T. and Onglatco, M. (1995), “Work-family conflict and the stress-buffering
effects of husband support and coping behavior among Japanese married working
women”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 47, pp. 178-92.
Moen, P. and Yu, Y. (2000), “Effective work/life strategies: working couples, work conditions,
gender, and life quality”, Social Problems, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 291-326.
Near, J.P., Rice, R.W. and Hunt, R.G. (1980), “The relationship between work and non-work
domains: a review of empirical research”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 5,
pp. 415-29.
Pearlin, L.I. and Schooler, C. (1978), “The structure of coping”, Journal of Health and Social
Behavior, Vol. 19, pp. 2-21.
Schwartz, J.E. and Stone, A.A. (1993), “Coping with daily work problems. Contributions of
problem content, appraisals, and person factors”, Work and Stress, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 47-62.
PR Stephens, G.K. and Sommer, S.M. (1996), “The measurement of work to family conflict”,
Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 56 No. 3, pp. 475-86.
32,3
Tenbrunsel, A., Brett, J.M., Maoz, E., Stroh, L.K. and Reilly, A.H. (1995), “Dynamic and static
work-family relationships”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
Vol. 63, pp. 233-46.
Voydanoff, P. (1987), Work and Family Life, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
296
Warren, J.A. and Johnson, P.J. (1995), “The impact of workplace support on work-family role
strain”, Family Relations, Vol. 44, pp. 163-9.
Further reading
DiSimone, R.L. and Harris, D.M.(1998), Human Resource Development, 2nd ed., Dryden Press,
Fort Worth, TX.
This article has been cited by:
1. Murugan Pattusamy, Jayanth Jacob. 2017. The Mediating Role of Family-to-Work Conflict and Work-
Family Balance in the Relationship between Family Support and Family Satisfaction: A Three Path
Mediation Approach. Current Psychology 36:4, 812-822. [Crossref]
2. Xiaoyu Yu, Xiaotong Meng, Yi Chen, Yingying Chen, Bang Nguyen. 2017. Work-family conflict,
organizational ambidexterity and new venture legitimacy in emerging economies. Technological Forecasting
and Social Change . [Crossref]
3. Deirdre Paulson, Melanie E. Leuty. 2016. Dispositional Coping, Personality Traits, and Affective Style
Relating to Conflict between Work and Family Domains. Journal of Family and Economic Issues 37:4,
519-539. [Crossref]
4. David Aguado, Ramón Rico, Víctor J. Rubio, Lucía Fernández. 2016. Applicant reactions to social network
web use in personnel selection and assessment. Revista de Psicología del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones
32:3, 183-190. [Crossref]
5. Lisa Harryson, Lena Aléx, Anne Hammarström. 2016. “I have surly passed a limit, it is simply too
much”: women’s and men’s experiences of stress and wellbeing when living within a process of housework
resignation. BMC Public Health 16:1. . [Crossref]
6. AdisaToyin Ajibade, Toyin Ajibade Adisa, GbadamosiGbolahan, Gbolahan Gbadamosi, OsabuteyEllis
L.C., Ellis L.C. Osabutey. 2016. Work-family balance. Gender in Management: An International Journal
31:7, 414-433. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
7. Meguellati Achour, Benaouda Bensaid, Mohd Roslan Bin Mohd Nor. 2016. An Islamic Perspective on
Coping with Life Stressors. Applied Research in Quality of Life 11:3, 663-685. [Crossref]
8. Zaza Nadja Lee Hansen, Lauge Baungaard Rasmussen. 2016. Mentorship of expatriates in transnational
companies. Journal of Global Mobility: The Home of Expatriate Management Research 4:2, 176-201.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
9. Murugan Pattusamy, Jayanth Jacob. 2016. Testing the mediation of work?family balance in the
relationship between work?family conflict and job and family satisfaction. South African Journal of
Psychology 46:2, 218-231. [Crossref]
10. Shumin Yan, Yiwen Zhou. 2016. Research of Work-Family Balance Based on Family Life Cycle. Open
Journal of Social Sciences 04:11, 218-224. [Crossref]
11. Kenneth J. Harris, Ranida B. Harris, John R. Carlson, Dawn S. Carlson. 2015. Resource loss from
technology overload and its impact on work-family conflict: Can leaders help?. Computers in Human
Behavior 50, 411-417. [Crossref]
12. Saija Mauno, Mervi Ruokolainen, Ulla Kinnunen. 2015. Work–family conflict and enrichment from
the perspective of psychosocial resources: Comparing Finnish healthcare workers by working schedules.
Applied Ergonomics 48, 86-94. [Crossref]
13. Marisa Matias, Anne Marie Fontaine. 2015. Coping with work and family: How do dual-earners interact?.
Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 56:2, 212-222. [Crossref]
14. Sanaz Aazami, Khadijah Shamsuddin, Syaqirah Akmal. 2015. Examining Behavioural Coping Strategies
as Mediators between Work-Family Conflict and Psychological Distress. The Scientific World Journal
2015, 1-7. [Crossref]
15. Grant E. Buckner, Hugh D. Hindman, Timothy J. Huelsman, Jacqueline Z. Bergman. 2014. Managing
Workplace Sexual Harassment: The Role of Manager Training. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal
26:4, 257-278. [Crossref]
16. Malissa A. Clark, Jesse S. Michel, Rebecca J. Early, Boris B. Baltes. 2014. Strategies for Coping with
Work Stressors and Family Stressors: Scale Development and Validation. Journal of Business and Psychology
29:4, 617-638. [Crossref]
17. Pavithra Kailasapathy, Maria L. Kraimer, Isabel Metz. 2014. The interactive effects of leader–member
exchange, gender and spouse's gender role orientation on work interference with family conflict. The
International Journal of Human Resource Management 25:19, 2681-2701. [Crossref]

18. Almuth McDowall, Allison Lindsay. 2014. Work–Life Balance in the Police: The Development of a Self-
Management Competency Framework. Journal of Business and Psychology 29:3, 397-411. [Crossref]
19. Zheng Chen, Gary N. Powell, WanTian Cui. 2014. Dynamics of the relationships among work and family
resource gain and loss, enrichment, and conflict over time. Journal of Vocational Behavior 84:3, 293-302.
[Crossref]
20. Adem Sav, Neil Harris, Bernadette Sebar. 2014. Australian Muslim men balancing work, family and
religion:a positive look at a negative issue. Personnel Review 43:1, 2-18. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
21. Parveen Kalliath, Thomas Kalliath. 2014. Work–Family Conflict: Coping Strategies Adopted by Social
Workers. Journal of Social Work Practice 28:1, 111-126. [Crossref]
22. Al-Karim Samnani, Parbudyal Singh, Souha Ezzedeen. 2013. Workplace bullying and employee
performance. Organizational Psychology Review 3:4, 337-359. [Crossref]
23. Babatunde Oluwatoyin Akanji. 2013. An exploratory study of work-life balance in Nigeria: Employees’
perspectives of coping with the role conflicts. International Journal of Research Studies in Management
2:2. . [Crossref]
24. My Safstrom, Terry Hartig. 2013. Psychological Detachment in the Relationship between Job Stressors
and Strain. Behavioral Sciences 3:3, 418-433. [Crossref]
25. Kenneth J. Harris, Alysa Lambert, Ranida B. Harris. 2013. HRM effectiveness as a moderator of the
relationships between abusive supervision and technology work overload and job outcomes for technology
end users. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 43:8, 1686-1695. [Crossref]
26. Juliana Durr Lilly, Meghna Virick. 2013. Coping Mechanisms as Antecedents of Justice and Organization
Citizenship Behaviors: A Multi-Focal Perspective of the Social Exchange Relationship. Current Psychology
32:2, 150-167. [Crossref]
27. Ann Marie Ryan, Megan Huth, Adam Massman, Alyssa J. Westring, Ryan Bannan, Susan D'Mello.
2013. Working parent friendly schools: the role of school instrumental support in work–family conflict.
Community, Work & Family 16:2, 164-190. [Crossref]
28. Georgeta Panisoara, Mihaela Serban. 2013. Marital Status and Work-life Balance. Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences 78, 21-25. [Crossref]
29. Anit Somech, Anat Drach-Zahavy. 2013. Organizational citizenship behaviour and employee's strain:
Examining the buffering effects of leader support and participation in decision making. European Journal
of Work and Organizational Psychology 22:2, 138-149. [Crossref]
30. Saija Mauno, Marika Rantanen. 2013. Contextual and Dispositional Coping Resources as Predictors of
Work–family Conflict and Enrichment: Which of These Resources or their Combinations are the Most
Beneficial?. Journal of Family and Economic Issues 34:1, 87-104. [Crossref]
31. Al-Karim Samnani, Parbudyal Singh. 2013. When leaders victimize: The role of charismatic leaders in
facilitating group pressures. The Leadership Quarterly 24:1, 189-202. [Crossref]
32. Tracy J. Opie, Carolina M. Henn. 2013. Work-family conflict and work engagement among mothers:
Conscientiousness and neuroticism as moderators. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology 39:1. . [Crossref]
33. Debra A. Major, Heather M. Lauzun, Mahan P. Jones. New Directions in Work-Family Coping Research
193-211. [Crossref]
34. Heather S. McMillan, Michael Lane Morris. 2012. Examining the Relationship Between Work/Life
Conflict and Life Satisfaction in Executives. Advances in Developing Human Resources 14:4, 640-663.
[Crossref]
35. Timothy D. Golden. 2012. Altering the Effects of Work and Family Conflict on Exhaustion: Telework
During Traditional and Nontraditional Work Hours. Journal of Business and Psychology 27:3, 255-269.
[Crossref]
36. Jiafang Lu, Dean Tjosvold, Kan Shi, Bin Wang. 2012. Developing work-family balance through conflict
management*. Asian Journal of Social Psychology 15:2, 77-88. [Crossref]
37. Vivi Bach Pedersen, Suzan Lewis. 2012. Flexible friends? Flexible working time arrangements, blurred
work-life boundaries and friendship. Work, employment and society 26:3, 464-480. [Crossref]
38. Saija Mauno, Ulla Kinnunen, Johanna Rantanen, Taru Feldt, Marika Rantanen. 2012. Relationships
of work–family coping strategies with work–family conflict and enrichment: The roles of gender and
parenting status. Family Science 3:2, 109-125. [Crossref]
39. Anit Somech, Anat Drach-Zahavy. 2012. Coping with work-family conflict: The reciprocal and additive
contributions of personal coping and organizational family-friendly support. Work & Stress 26:1, 68-90.
[Crossref]
40. Rafidah Abdul Aziz, Fuziah Mohd Nadzar, Haslinda Husaini, Asmah Maarof, Salleh Mohd Radzi, Izhairi
Ismail. 2011. Quality of work life of librarians in government academic libraries in the Klang Valley,
Malaysia. The International Information & Library Review 43:3, 149-158. [Crossref]
41. KENNETH J. HARRIS, KENT MARETT, RANIDA B. HARRIS. 2011. Technology-Related
Pressure and Work-Family Conflict: Main Effects and an Examination of Moderating Variables. Journal
of Applied Social Psychology 41:9, 2077-2103. [Crossref]
42. Rafidah Abdul Aziz, Fuziah Mohd Nadzar, Haslinda Husaini, Asmah Maarof, Salleh Mohd Radzi, Izhairi
Ismail. 2011. Quality of work life of librarians in government academic libraries in the Klang Valley,
Malaysia. International Information & Library Review 43:3, 149-158. [Crossref]
43. Thanit Thinnam. 2011. Married Thai working mothers: Coping with initial part-time doctoral study.
Human Resource Development Quarterly 22:3, 297-322. [Crossref]
44. JASON STONER, PAMELA L. PERREWÉ, CHARLES HOFACKER. 2011. The Development and
Validation of the Multi-Dimensional Identification Scale (MDIS). Journal of Applied Social Psychology 41:7,
1632-1658. [Crossref]
45. Liisa Mäkelä, Vesa Suutari. 2011. Coping with work-family conflicts in the global career context.
Thunderbird International Business Review 53:3, 365-375. [Crossref]
46. Carl P. Maertz, Scott L. Boyar. 2011. Work-Family Conflict, Enrichment, and Balance under “Levels” and
“Episodes” Approaches. Journal of Management 37:1, 68-98. [Crossref]
47. . References 163-186. [Crossref]
48. Zinta S. Byrne, Brian K. Miller, Virginia E. Pitts. 2010. Trait Entitlement and Perceived Favorability
of Human Resource Management Practices in the Prediction of Job Satisfaction. Journal of Business and
Psychology 25:3, 451-464. [Crossref]
49. Keisha M. Love, Anthony W. Tatman, Benjamin P. Chapman. 2010. role stress, interrole conflict, and
job satisfaction among university employees: the creation and test of a model. Journal of Employment
Counseling 47:1, 30-37. [Crossref]
50. Yu-Chin (Jerrie) Hsieh, Peyton D. Eggers. 2010. Coping Strategies Used by Lodging Managers to
Balance Work and Personal Lives: An Exploratory Study. International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism
Administration 11:1, 39-58. [Crossref]

51. Zaiton Hassan, Maureen F. Dollard, Anthony H. Winefield. 2010. Work‐family conflict in East vs Western
countries. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal 17:1, 30-49. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
52. Jesse S. Michel, Jacqueline K. Mitchelson, Shaun Pichler, Kristin L. Cullen. 2010. Clarifying relationships
among work and family social support, stressors, and work–family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior
76:1, 91-104. [Crossref]
53. Andrew Hede. 2010. The dynamics of mindfulness in managing emotions and stress. Journal of
Management Development 29:1, 94-110. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
54. Kenneth J. Harris, Ranida B. Harris, Robyn L. Brouer. 2009. LMX and Subordinate Political Skill: Direct
and Interactive Effects on Turnover Intentions and Job Satisfaction. Journal of Applied Social Psychology
39:10, 2373-2395. [Crossref]
55. Li Zhang, Ping Li, Dan Wang. Antecedents of work-family conflict among Chinese professional women
2009-2015. [Crossref]
56. Elianne F. van Steenbergen, Naomi Ellemers. 2009. Is managing the work-family interface worthwhile?
Benefits for employee health and performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior 30:5, 617-642.
[Crossref]
57. Jesse S. Michel, Jacqueline K. Mitchelson, Lindsey M. Kotrba, James M. LeBreton, Boris B. Baltes.
2009. A comparative test of work-family conflict models and critical examination of work-family linkages.
Journal of Vocational Behavior 74:2, 199-218. [Crossref]
58. Valerie J. Morganson, Debra A. Major, Kristina N. Bauer. 2009. Work-life job analysis: Applying a classic
tool to address a contemporary issue. The Psychologist-Manager Journal 12:4, 252-274. [Crossref]
59. Jesse S. Michel, Michael B. Hargis. 2008. Linking mechanisms of work–family conflict and segmentation.
Journal of Vocational Behavior 73:3, 509-522. [Crossref]
60. Brenda L. Seery, Elizabeth A. Corrigall, Tammy Harpel. 2008. Job-Related Emotional Labor and Its
Relationship to Work-Family Conflict and Facilitation. Journal of Family and Economic Issues 29:3,
461-477. [Crossref]
61. Ranida B. Harris, Kenneth J. Harris, Paul Harvey. 2008. An Examination of the Impact of Supervisor on
the Relationship Between Job Strains and Turnover Intention for Computer Workers. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology 38:8, 2108-2131. [Crossref]
62. Denise M. Rotondo, Joel F. Kincaid. 2008. Conflict, facilitation, and individual coping styles across the
work and family domains. Journal of Managerial Psychology 23:5, 484-506. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
63. Noreen Heraty, Michael J. Morley, Jeanette N. Cleveland. 2008. The work‐family dyad: multi‐level
perspectives. Journal of Managerial Psychology 23:5, 477-483. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
64. Noreen Heraty, Michael J. Morley, Jeanette N. Cleveland. 2008. Complexities and challenges in the work‐
family interface. Journal of Managerial Psychology 23:3, 209-214. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
65. Anat Drach-Zahavy, Anit Somech. Coping with Work-Family Conflict: Integrating Individual and
Organizational Perspectives 267-285. [Crossref]
66. John R. Reynolds, Stephanie Woodham Burge, Cheryl L. Robbins, Emily M. Boyd, Brandy Harris. 2007.
Mastery and the Fulfillment of Occupational Expectations by Midlife. Social Psychology Quarterly 70:4,
366-383. [Crossref]
67. Suzanne C. de Janasz, Scott J. Behson. 2007. Cognitive capacity for processing work‐family conflict: an
initial examination. Career Development International 12:4, 397-411. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
68. Deborah J. Armstrong, Cynthia K. Riemenschneider, Myria W. Allen, Margaret F. Reid. 2007.
Advancement, voluntary turnover and women in IT: A cognitive study of work–family conflict.
Information & Management 44:2, 142-153. [Crossref]
69. Osman M. Karatepe, Hasan Kilic. 2007. Relationships of supervisor support and conflicts in the work–
family interface with the selected job outcomes of frontline employees. Tourism Management 28:1,
238-252. [Crossref]
70. Joanna Hughes, Nikos Bozionelos. 2007. Work‐life balance as source of job dissatisfaction and withdrawal
attitudes. Personnel Review 36:1, 145-154. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
71. Cynthia A. Thompson, Steven A.Y. Poelmans, Tammy D. Allen, Jeanine K. Andreassi. On the
Importance of Coping: A Model and New Directions for Research on Work and Family 73-113. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
72. Jeffery A. LePine, Marcie A. LePine, Jessica R. Saul. Relationships Among Work and Non-Work
Challenge and Hindrance Stressors and Non-Work and Work Criteria: A Model of Cross-Domain
Stressor Effects 35-72. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
73. Geertje van Daalen, Tineke M. Willemsen, Karin Sanders. 2006. Reducing work–family conflict through
different sources of social support. Journal of Vocational Behavior 69:3, 462-476. [Crossref]
74. Jeffrey H. Greenhaus, Tammy D. Allen, Paul E. Spector. Health Consequences of Work–Family Conflict:
The Dark Side of the Work–Family Interface 61-98. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
75. W. Loretto, F. Popham, S. Platt, S. Pavis, G. Hardy, L. Macleod, J. Gibbs. 2005. Assessing psychological
well-being: A holistic investigation of NHS employees. International Review of Psychiatry 17:5, 329-336.
[Crossref]
76. Wayne A. Hochwarter, Pamela L. Perrewé, Angela T. Hall, Gerald R. Ferris. 2005. Negative affectivity as
a moderator of the form and magnitude of the relationship between felt accountability and job tension.
Journal of Organizational Behavior 26:5, 517-534. [Crossref]
77. Paula Brough, Michael O'Driscoll, Thomas Kalliath. 2005. Evaluating the criterion validity of the
Cybernetic Coping Scale: Cross-lagged predictions of psychological strain, job and family satisfaction.
Work & Stress 19:3, 276-292. [Crossref]
78. Ranida B. Harris, Kent Marett. Support and Facilitating Conditions to Computer Workers Who Dislike
Working with Computers 272-291. [Crossref]
79. Sharon Cox. Assessing the Impact of Mobile Technologies on Work-Life Balance 63-69. [Crossref]
80. Sharon Cox. Assessing the Impact of Mobile Technologies on Work-Life Balance 732-740. [Crossref]

Coping With Multiple Dimensions of Work Family Conflict

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Coping With Multiple Dimensions of Work Family Conflict

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Personnel Review

Coping with multiple dimensions of work-family conflict

To cite this document:

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Keywords Work, Conflict, Coping, Stress, Family life, Problem solving

potential means of reducing stress associated with work-family conflict

Coping with stress

perceived support available from relevant others. Social support is associated

Coping with work-family conflict

salient) in those who are ineffectively or inefficiently managing work-family

lowering the evaluation of time and strain-based work-family conflict. These

resignation at work was associated with higher conflict levels (B ¼ 0.14,

Variables in the equation Step 1 Step 2

Effects of coping on TBWIF conflict

(B ¼ 0.13, p , 0.037). Help-seeking at home was associated with lower conflict

considered in a bi-directional framework (WIF and FIW). This typology reflects

Coping with work-family conflict

encouraged to be more proactive and assertive in requesting help, taking action

sectional survey research design, which imposes limitations from such

International Journal of Human Resource Management 25:19, 2681-2701. [Crossref]

Administration 11:1, 39-58. [Crossref]

You might also like