Social Indicators Research (2020) 151:427–469

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-018-2032-y

Workplace Flexibility and Parent–Child Interactions Among

Working Parents in the U.S.

Jaeseung Kim1

Accepted: 9 November 2018 / Published online: 26 November 2018

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Abstract
Balancing work and caregiving demands is a critical challenge for working parents with
young children.  Workplace flexibility can serve to promote parent-child interactions  by
enhancing the coordination of work and family responsibilities. Using longitudinal data
from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Survey-Birth Cohort (ECLS-B), the study exam-
ined three potential sources of workplace flexibility—access to flexible schedules, working
from home, and part-time employment—and their associations with the frequency of par-
ent–child interactions (i.e., enrichment activities and daily routines) among parents with
young children, with a particular focus on gender, household structures, and income. The
results indicated that working from home and part-time employment were associated with
more frequent enrichment parent–child interactions for mothers, while flexible schedules
were associated with greater daily routine interactions for fathers. The positive associations
between working from home and parent–child interactions were more pronounced among
low-income mothers than mid- and high-income mothers. Fathers working parttime in
dual-earner households more frequently interacted with their children than those in single-
earner households. These findings suggest that distinctive types of workplace flexibility
may work differently across gender, household structure, and household income.

Keywords  Workplace flexibility · Flexible schedules · Working from home · Gender ·

Working parents · Parent–child interactions

1 Introduction

As the numbers of single parents and mothers employed outside the home have increased
steadily, the American family has transformed rapidly. Labor force participation by moth-
ers soared from 47% in 1975 to 71% in 2017 (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 2009, 2018).
In addition, single mothers among households with children under age 18 years more than
tripled from 8% in 1960 to 24% in 2017 (U.S. Census Bureau 2018). As a result, the struc-
ture of households with children has shifted from traditional single-earner households to

* Jaeseung Kim
jaeseung@mailbox.sc.edu
1
College of Social Work, University of South Carolina, 1512 Pendleton St., Columbia, SC 29208,
USA

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 J. Kim
428

predominantly dual-earner and working single-parent households. According to the Cur-

rent Population Survey, dual-earner families rose from 33% of two-parent families in 1967
to 62% in 2017 and employed single-parents increased from 47 to 73% of single-parent
families in the same period (Fox et al. 2013; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 2017a).
With these changes in household structure and employment demands outside the home,
American working families have experienced greater time pressures and conflicts balanc-
ing work and family responsibilities (Bianchi 2011; Nomaguchi 2009). Workers reporting
not spending enough time with their children and their partners or spouses substantially
increased from 66 to 75% and from 50 to 63%, respectively, from 2002 to 2008 (Galin-
sky et al. 2011). For example, working parents have reported having limited time to spend
together, having too little time for themselves, and always feeling rushed (Bianchi et  al.
2006). Working parents with young children are especially vulnerable to these time con-
flicts because childcare demands and pressure to work long hours to secure financial
resources increase simultaneously (Erickson et al. 2010; Kaufman and Uhlenberg 1998).
Accommodating the dual demands of work and family responsibilities may be particu-
larly difficult for certain groups of workers (Bianchi 2011; Bianchi et al. 2006; Gornick and
Meyers 2003). Although working mothers and working fathers both experience time con-
straints, working mothers tend to have heavier family responsibilities due to disproportion-
ately gendered caregiving demands (Gornick and Meyers 2003). Consequently, working
mothers may face especially severe pressures and stress managing work and childrearing.
Research has suggested that time constraints are worse for employed single parents and
parents from dual-earner households than single-earner, two-parent households, largely due
to the lack of a stable childcare provider (the other partner) at home (Bianchi et al. 2006).
In addition, working parents with limited family resources may encounter more challenges
managing the demands of work and caregiving. Without access to reliable resources more
available to mid- and high-income families (e.g., personal vehicles, standard work shifts,
and stable childcare arrangements), low-income working parents contend with extensive
time demands and difficulties managing day-to-day routines (Dyk 2004; Roy et al. 2004;
Tubbs et al. 2005).
Given the increasing time pressures on employed parents, workplace flexibility—
employees’ ability to control the time, place, and duration of work—has gained attention
among researchers, employers, and policy-makers and is seen as an important work benefit,
especially for workers with caregiving responsibilities (Allen et al. 2013; Christensen and
Staines 1990; Executive Office of the President Council of Economic Advisors 2014; Hill
et al. 2008a; Society for Human Resource Management 2010). Among the diverse forms of
workplace flexibility, working from home, flexible schedules, and part-time employment
have been most frequently studied.1 Despite increasing attention to workplace flexibility,
though, limited workers have access to such arrangements. For example, the 2008 National
Study of Changing Workforce reported that only two-fifths of employees were able to
choose their own work start and end times, one-eighth were allowed to work from home
during regular work hours, and one-third were able to shift from full to part time (Galinsky
et al. 2011). More recent data from the General Social Survey (2014) indicated that about
half of U.S. workers had the ability to change their work start and end times, and almost
20% worked from home more than once a week.

1
  The high rates of involuntary part-time work and the accompanying lower earnings and limited work-
related benefits suggest that treating part-time employment as synonymous with flexible work arrangements
should only be done cautiously (Gornick and Meyers 2003; Morrison and Robbins 2015).

13
Workplace Flexibility and Parent–Child Interactions Among… 429

In response to the growing public and research attention to workplace flexibility, a sub-
stantial body of literature has documented its benefits for work–family interactions and
diverse work and family outcomes, such as work–family balance and conflict, employ-
ment tenure, psychological well-being, and job satisfaction (Allen, et  al. 2013; Buehler
and O’Brien 2011; Carlson et al. 2010; Costa et al. 2006; De Menezes and Kelliher 2011;
Erickson et  al. 2010; Higgins et  al. 2000; Hill et  al. 2008b; Hill et  al. 2004; Jang 2009;
Scandura and Lankau 1997; Shockley and Allen 2007). Although a few studies have exam-
ined the implications of workplace flexibility on parent–child interactions (Davis et  al.
2015; Estes 2005; Hilbrecht et al. 2008; Sullivan and Lewis 2001), empirical evidence is
limited because previous studies relied on a non-representative sample (Davis et al. 2015;
Estes 2005) and focused on a small group of workers with a qualitative approach (Hilbre-
cht et al. 2008; Sullivan and Lewis 2001). This is surprising considering the importance
of parent–child interactions in children’s psychological and cognitive development (Bel-
sky 1984; Burchinal et  al. 2008; Landry et  al. 2001). Furthermore, little is known about
how such associations differ across groups of workers known to experience severe time
pressures, such as dual-earner parents, low-income parents, and single parents. In addition,
most studies on workplace flexibility have adopted cross-sectional designs, limited in their
ability to draw valid conclusions. The lack of research on the influence of work flexibility
on parent–child interactions—and on different responses by subgroups of workers—merits
sustained attention from work–family researchers and policy-makers.
To fill these gaps in research, this study focuses on workplace flexibility and working
parents with young children. Using a representative national longitudinal dataset, the Early
Childhood Longitudinal Survey-Birth Cohort (ECLS-B), this study examines the extent to
which three types of workplace flexibility (the availability of flexible schedules and the
utilizations of working from home and part-time employment) are associated with the fre-
quency of parent–child interactions. The study also explores the potential variations in the
associations of workplace flexibility and parent–child interactions by gender, household
structure (e.g., dual-earner, single-earner, and single-parent households), and household
income. By exploring different groups of working parents who have been rarely studied in
workplace flexibility research (e.g., fathers and low-income parents), and by using nation-
ally representative data and a longitudinal design, the current study aims to advance exist-
ing knowledge on work–family literature and contribute to accumulating generalizable
empirical evidence of workplace flexibility policies for diverse groups of working parents.

2 Literature Review

2.1 Conceptual Framework of Workplace Flexibility

Workplace flexibility is defined as “the ability of workers to make choices influencing

when, where, and for how long they engage in work-related tasks” (Hill et  al. 2008a,
p. 152). It stresses workers’ choices to arrange the core aspects of work, particularly
the timing, place, and duration of work. Hill et  al. (2008a) identified three types of
workplace flexibility. Schedule flexibility, or flextime, is employees’ choice of when to
work. The ability to adjust work start and end times is one of the most common flextime
options. With access to schedule flexibility, employees have relative freedom to decide
when to begin and finish work within the core working hours. Flexplace is employ-
ees’ ability to choose where to perform work-related tasks. The options to telecommute

13
 J. Kim
430

and work from home are typical forms of flexplace. Hour flexibility is employee con-
trol over the number of working hours. Examples include part-time work arrangements
and reduced work hours (Hill et al. 2008a). Flexibility in all of these forms is directly
controlled by employees. Employee flexibility should be distinguished from employer
flexibility, which is employers’ practice of determining the time, place, and number of
hours employees work (Chung and Tijdens 2013; Hill et al. 2008a; Lambert and Wax-
man 2005).
Two theoretical perspectives suggest possible links between workplace flexibility and
work–family interactions. Role conflict theory proposes that work–family conflict is an
inter-role conflict when roles in the work and family domains are mutually incompatible
(Greenhaus and Beutell 1985). Time-based conflict occurs when time committed to one
role makes meeting the demands of another difficult. From this perspective, workplace
flexibility can be seen as a work-based resource that reduces time-based work–family con-
flict by better accommodating workers’ family roles and responsibilities. For example, the
ability to change the timing of work makes it possible for workers to participate in family
activities, such as picking up children from childcare and taking children to doctor vis-
its. Working from home also allows workers to avoid time conflicts by saving time transi-
tioning between the work and family domains. Focusing on the advantages of flexibility,
Voydanoff (2005) conceptualized workplace flexibility as a boundary-spanning resource.
Workplace flexibility that originates from the work domain serves as a resource in both
the work and family domains, increasing workers’ perceived control over balancing the
work–family boundary and improving the coordination of work and family responsibilities
(Voydanoff 2005). Temporal and spatial work flexibility makes the border between work
and family domains permeable, enabling workers to perform roles in different settings and
at different times (Clark 2000). With such a flexible border, employees can choose the best
way to allocate their limited time and energy between the two domains, possibly to the
benefit of both (Allen et al. 2013).
Guided by role conflict theory and boundary-spanning resource perspectives, abundant
empirical research has examined employment and work–family outcomes for workers who
have access to or use schedule flexibility (Batt and Valcour 2003; Costa et al. 2006; Jang
2009; Henly and Lambert 2014; Lott 2018; Scandura and Lankau 1997), flexible work-
place (Golden et  al. 2006; Igbaria and Guimaraes 1999; Lott 2018; Van der Lippe and
Lippényi 2018), and part-time employment (Buehler and O’Brien 2011; Higgins et  al.
2000) and generally found modest positive impacts for such outcomes. However, it should
be noted that the effects of workplace flexibility also vary across types of flexibility and
outcomes. For example, research has suggested that working from home (e.g., telecom-
muting) removes the physical boundary between work and family domains and allows fam-
ily demands to interrupt work (or work demands to spill over to family), increasing work-
ers’ stress and work–family conflicts (Ashforth et  al. 2000; Golden et  al. 2006; Lapierre
and Allen 2006; Lott 2018; Shockley and Allen 2007; Van der Lippe and Lippényi 2018).
Part-time employment has been found to have negative economic consequences, such as
wage penalties, limited career advancement, and marginalization of workers, especially for
female workers, due to fewer working hours and insecure labor arrangements compared to
full-time employment (Gornick and Meyers 2003; Morrison and Robbins 2015; Whittock
et  al. 2002). Despite rich empirical evidence on workplace flexibility and its impacts on
work and family outcomes, researchers have conducted only few studies on the relation of
parent–child interactions and workplace flexibility (Davis et al. 2015; Estes 2005; Powell
and Craig 2015).

13
Workplace Flexibility and Parent–Child Interactions Among… 431

Regarding the study of workplace flexibility, it is important to differentiate its use from
its availability. Some research suggests that the availability of workplace flexibility can
provide some intangible benefits to workers, such as increased perception of psychological
control (Allen et al. 2013; Kossek et al. 2006). The use of workplace flexibility, compared
to the availability of it, generally has a more positive impact on work–family interactions
since the actual use of flexible arrangements enable employees to proactively manage work
and family responsibilities and directly increase their performances in both domains (Allen
et al. 2013; Kelly et al. 2008). However, workers can experience some barriers for utilizing
available flexible arrangements in the workplace. Research suggests that workers may not
comfortably ask for or adopt flexible work arrangements because of “flexibility stigma”:
the stigma attached to workers who frequently use (or request) workplace flexibility that
they are less committed to work and they deviate away from “ideal worker” image (Chung
2018b; Williams et  al. 2013). Workers, particularly male workers, may not actively use
available flexible work arrangements because of the fear of such stigma and associated risk
for career penalties (Rudman and Mescher 2013). Therefore, the availability and the use of
workplace flexibility may have distinctive impacts on parent–child interactions. Note that
the current study focuses on the availability of flexible schedules and the use of working
from home and part-time employment.

2.2 Workplace Flexibility and Parent–Child Interactions

Parent–child interactions are the key ingredients of parenting and strong predictors of
healthy child development (Belsky 1984; Burchinal et al. 2008; Landry et al. 2001). This
study specifically focuses on the quantity (frequency) of parent–child interactions as it
is hypothesized that workplace flexibility would directly influence the time management
capabilities of working parents by allowing them to have more time to interact with their
child. Research suggests that two dimensions of parent–child interactions are identifiable:
enrichment activities and daily routines (Craig 2006, 2011; Leiferman et al. 2005). Enrich-
ment activities include social and recreational interactions between parents and children,
such as singing songs, reading to children, and playing games together. These activities
enhance parent–child bonding and promote child development and socialization (Leifer-
man et  al. 2005). Daily routines consist of basic daily child care activities, such as pre-
paring meals for children, and dressing and bathing children. These activities need to be
performed everyday for children and require more rigid time schedules, which may put
more burdens on parents (Leiferman et al. 2005). Gender differences in parent–child inter-
actions are also presented. Fathers tend to spend more time on educational and enrichment
activities, such as reading books and playing with children, than they do on routine and
logical care tasks; meanwhile, mothers spend more time on routine, logical care activities,
suggesting that child care activities for mothers may be more demanding and intensive than
those for fathers (Craig 2006).
Research has indicated interrelations between the temporal aspects of parents’ work
(e.g., hours and schedules) and their interactions with their children (Brown et  al. 2011;
Kurowska 2018; Menaghan and Parcel 1990; Presser 1989, 2005; Roeters et  al. 2010).
According to the conflict perspective, long work hours, inflexible work schedules, and non-
standard shifts likely increase parents’ time- and strain-based conflicts, possibly reducing
their time with children and their sensitivity in parenting (Greenhaus and Beutell 1985).
Flexible work arrangements, though, may reduce time-based conflicts and provide parents
with the extended time their children need. In the boundary-spanning resource perspective,

13
 J. Kim
432

workplace flexibility may increase parent–child interactions by allowing workers to better

perform their child-caring responsibilities (Voydanoff 2005). For example, flexible work
schedules may allow parents to take time off to attend school meetings and take children to
doctor’s appointments. However, flexible work schedules may not directly increase time at
home because most flexibility options, such as changing the start and end times of work,
require employees to complete a fixed amount of work time. If employees miss a few hours
of work for family responsibilities, they need to make up the missed work at other times
of the day, though this option still may enable their presence at critical times. In addi-
tion, considering that greater control over work schedule is related to workers’ increased
overtime hours Chung and Van der Horst (2018) and increased work to family spill over
(Lott 2018), flexible work schedules may not lead to more time with children. Working
from home, if allowed, likely promotes parent–child interactions by eliminating commute
time and providing employees with more time to interact with their children. In this case,
the boundary between work and home is (theoretically) seamless because workers are able
to be physically present at home with their children. Part-time employment, unlike full-
time work arrangements, can directly increase working parents’ time with their children by
reducing the total number of work hours.
The few empirical studies exploring the association between workplace flexibility and
the quantity of parent–child interactions or proxy indicators of parent–child interactions
have suggested that working parents with workplace flexibility increased their time with
their children (Davis et  al. 2015; Estes 2005; Kurowska 2018; Powell and Craig 2015;
Silver 1993). Silver (1993) found that working-class workers working mainly from home
reported less interference between job and family life and performed more hours of house-
work and childcare (Silver 1993). Using the Australian Time Use Survey, Powell and Craig
(2015) similarly showed that frequently working from home was associated with increased
time for childcare and domestic work, particularly for mothers. This finding has been sup-
ported by another empirical study (Estes 2005); the use of informal flexible schedules was
modestly associated with more frequent mother–child activities and working from home
and part-time employment were associated with more frequently shared meals. Although
most studies have looked at the associations between workplace flexibility and parent–child
interactions, Davis et al. (2015) investigated the causal impact of an intervention that aims
to increase schedule flexibility (i.g. employee’s control over when and where they work)
by employing an experimental design. The study found that participants of the interven-
tion, particularly working mothers, spent significantly more time with their children, yield-
ing more robust evidence on the potential impact of workplace flexibility on parent–child
interactions. Kurowska (2018) also found that home-based work increased involvement in
childcare and household tasks only for working mothers in Poland while this was true for
both working mothers and fathers in Sweden. The study suggests that working from home
may facilitate engagement in household and childcare responsibilities for both genders in a
more gender-egalitarian society; however, it leads to more household tasks only for female
workers in a low gender-equal society.
Research has also recognized the importance of fathers’ role in diverse domains of child
development and investigated the extent to which parents’ work characteristics affects
fathers’ involvement in childcare (Bonney et  al. 1999; Boyce et  al. 2006; Forehand and
Nousiainen 1993; Sarkadi et al. 2008; Volling and Belsky 1991). Research has found that
fathers are more involved with their children when they work fewer hours (Bonney et al.
1999) and nonstandard shifts (Wight et  al. 2008) and receive more work–family support
(Volling and Belsky 1991). Studies have also suggested that in dual-earner couples, moth-
ers’ greater work demands, such as long work hours and nonstandard schedules, promote

13
Workplace Flexibility and Parent–Child Interactions Among… 433

fathers’ involvement in childcare (Bonney et al. 1999; Brayfield 1995; Meteyer and Perry-
Jenkins 2010). However, less is known about the extent to which workplace flexibility
influences fathers’ involvement in parenting. Moreover, research is scarce on the impli-
cations workplace flexibility for parent–child interactions across different household con-
texts, such as gender, household structure, and household income.
Among a diverse group of workers, the current study specifically investigates working
parents with preschool children (i.e., those around the age of 4) because they, particularly
the mothers, tend to highly value and more frequently use workplace flexibility than other
group of workers (Hill et al. 2008b). Another study also indicates that workplace flexibil-
ity (i.e., how much control you have over when or where to work) is related to a greater
reduction of work–family conflict particularly for workers with preschool children (Erick-
son et  al. 2010). Therefore, findings of the present study can contribute to the empirical
evidence for workers who most need and value workplace flexibility.

2.3 Workplace Flexibility in the Household Context

2.3.1 Gender

The present study explores gender disparities in the relationship of workplace flexibility
with parent–child interactions. Despite the rising number of paid work hours performed by
mothers, caregiving and domestic work are still largely gender-biased, with mothers dis-
proportionately taking on such responsibilities (Gornick and Meyers 2003). Although more
women have entered the labor force, they still bear primary responsibility for domestic
tasks and childcare, while men assume primary responsibility for paid work in two-parent
families (Daly 2002). According to the 1965–2008 American Time Use Survey (Bianchi
2011), fathers’ time involvement in housework and childcare activities has risen over recent
decades, but in 2008, mothers still spent at least twice as much time performing housework
and childcare activities as fathers did (Bianchi 2011). A study of 17 dual-earner couples
also found that although a husband and a wife may negotiate how to spend their time on
family activities, the wife typically orchestrates the family schedule (Daly 2002). One hus-
band called his wife as the “chief administrator of time who organized both the internal
activities of the family and social events” (Daly 2002, p. 332).
Given the traditional gender-normative views on women and their greater responsibility
for domestic work and organization of family activities, it has been argued that workplace
flexibility is more valued by and beneficial for working mothers than working fathers. For
example, using a sample from a U.S. multi-company database, Hill et  al. (2008b) found
that female workers value almost every flexible work option (e.g., flextime, telecommuting,
part-time schedules, compressed work weeks, and job sharing) more than male workers.
Male workers are less likely to use flexible work options to manage family matters. In addi-
tion, male and female workers may utilize flexible working arrangements for different pur-
poses. Sullivan and Lewis (2001) found that male workers are more likely to use telework-
ing for work-related reasons, but female workers for domestic and childcare purposes to
accommodate family demands. Using a sample from the European Social Survey, Hofäcker
and König (2013) found an association between the access to flexible work options (e.g.,
varying start and end times) and greater work–family conflict for male workers while it
reduced conflict for female workers, suggesting that male workers may use flexible
options to increase their work commitment. As a result, male workers with working time
autonomy are more likely to increase their overtime hours and to experience heightened

13
 J. Kim
434

work-to-home spillover (Chung and Van der Horst 2018; Lott and Chung 2016; Lott 2018).
Similarly, women who work from home regularly spend significantly more time on domes-
tic work and childcare activities, while the frequency of working from home has less effect
on the time men spend on such activities (Powell and Craig 2015). However, increased
involvement in household activities for female workers when working from home may also
increase their work-family conflicts by increasing the permeability between work and home
demands (Ashforth et al. 2000; Lott 2018; Shockley and Allen 2007; Van der Lippe and
Lippényi 2018).
Given the different motivations and purposes of utilizing flexible work arrangements
across gender, a few studies have explored the moderating role of gender in workplace flex-
ibility. Carlson et  al. (2010) studied the relationship between the availability of schedule
flexibility and work–family conflict across gender, finding that the availability of schedule
flexibility reduced conflict more for women than for men. Furthermore, in a study on gen-
der differences in parenting, Hill et  al. (2013) studied the workplace flexibility initiative
designed to shift the work culture by giving employees more control over regarding when,
where, and how they do their work. They found that the initiative improved employees’
schedule control and freed up time for mothers but not for fathers. The current study, there-
fore, tests the hypothesis that three types of workplace flexibility—availability of flexible
schedules, working from home, and part-time employment—are associated with a higher
frequency of parent–child interactions for working mothers than for working fathers. The
study also expect that mothers’ workplace flexibility will be associated with a higher fre-
quency of daily routines than enrichment activities, as they tend to engage more with daily
routine interactions (Craig 2006). On the other hand, fathers’ workplace flexibility will not
be associated with their frequency of enrichment and daily routine activities.

2.3.2 Household Structure

In studying workplace flexibility and its relation to family outcomes, it is important to con-
sider the household structures of working parents because family demands and responsi-
bilities can vary across structures. The increase in mothers’ labor force participation and in
single-parent families has transformed the American household and workforce. A single-
earner, two-parent family in which the father is the main breadwinner and the mother is a
full-time stay-at-home parent is no longer the dominant form of U.S. households (Gornick
and Meyers 2003). In 2009, 66% of children lived in dual-earner or single-parent families,
up from about 34% in 1967 (Fox et al. 2013). Dual-earner parents experience greater time
pressures in attempting to balance work and child rearing because they have to accom-
modate multiple family demands in the short time that remains after both work (Bianchi
2011; Crouter et  al. 1987). Parents in dual-earner households report spending less time
with each other and not having enough time for themselves (Bianchi et al. 2006). Moreo-
ver, more than half of mothers and fathers in dual-earner couples report work–family con-
flicts (Executive Office of the President Council of Economic Advisors 2014). In addition
to a high risk of poverty (U.S. Census Bureau 2013), single mothers are more likely to
report having too little time with their children and to spend less time interacting or playing
with them than married mothers (Bianchi et  al. 2006). Employed single parents experi-
ence severe time poverty because the total time available for meeting work and childcare
demands in a single-parent household may be half of that available in two-parent families
(Bianchi 2011).

13
Workplace Flexibility and Parent–Child Interactions Among… 435

Given the time pressures and conflicts in dual-earner and single-parent households,
these working parents likely perceive workplace flexibility as a more valuable resource.
However, few empirical studies have tested whether the association between workplace
flexibility and family outcomes varies across household structures. In the current study,
workplace flexibility is expected to be associated with a higher frequency of parent–child
interactions (both enrichment activities and daily routines) among mothers in single-parent
households than those in two-parent households. It is also expected to be associated with a
greater frequency of parent–child interactions for fathers from dual-earner households than
those from single-earner households.

2.3.3 Household Income

Time is a crucial element in establishing families. However, the availability of time may
be unequally distributed across social class. Low-income working families are more likely
than mid- and high-income families to struggle with organizing daily routines and manag-
ing employment and family demands (Dyk 2004; Roy et al. 2004; Tubbs et al. 2005). Mid-
and high-income families have various options to save time and escape household labor,
such as hiring cleaning services and nannies, and sending children to daycare. In contrast,
low-income families experience greater challenges and have fewer options to increase fam-
ily time due to limited financial resources (Dyk 2004; Tubbs et  al. 2005). Using ethno-
graphic data from Welfare, Children, and Families: A Three City Study, Roy et al. (2004)
explored time and resource management by low-income mothers. Roy et al. (2004) found
that low-income working mothers constantly struggle with employment demands and time
constraints and have difficulties controlling their daily rhythms and securing stable child-
care arrangements. For example, unexpected changes in work schedules often force low-
income working mothers to improvise childcare arrangements, relying on informal care
from other family members (Roy et al. 2004). Mothers with limited resources experience
frustration and stress over competing work and caregiving demands. Shift-based work, lim-
ited availability of personal vehicles, and less control over work times challenge and dis-
rupt low-income mothers’ daily rhythms and prevent them, for example, from staying at
home to nurse sick children (Roy et al. 2004). In addition, low-income workers have more
limited access to flexible scheduling options than mid- and high- income workers (Bond
and Galinsky 2006; Chung 2018a; Swanberg et al. 2005), which may reduce their ability to
coordinate work and family demands.
Emlen (2010) posited that working parents need flexibility in their immediate environ-
ment of work, family, or childcare arrangements to manage work and caregiving. If fami-
lies cannot provide working parents with flexibility to handle conflicting demands, work-
place flexibility may become an especially valuable resource. Among low-income working
parents, access to flexible schedules and working from home may compensate for limited
family resources to address work and family demands, which higher-income families can
purchase support to manage. However, low-income workers might not view part-time
employment as a resource because working fewer hours reduces earnings.
Given the limited time flexibility and financial struggles low-income parents experience
in daily life (Dyk 2004; Tubbs et  al. 2005), flexible schedules and working from home
can be more beneficial for low-income working parents than mid- and high-income work-
ing parents, who have available resources to adjust time conflicts to a certain degree. In
this study, therefore, it is hypothesized that flexible schedules and working at home are
associated with a higher of parent–child interactions (both enrichment activities and daily

13
 J. Kim
436

routines) for low-income parents than mid- and high-income working parents. However,
little is known about whether the influence of workplace flexibility differs across parents
in low-, mid-, and high-income households. Only one study has descriptively explored this
issue (Bond and Galinsky 2006), finding that more flexibility in the workplace, such as
greater access to flexible work location, has additional positive effects on job satisfaction
and mental health for low-income employees than mid- and high-income workers.

3 Methods

3.1 Data and Sample

This study used data from the ECLS-B, a nationally representative survey of nearly 11,000
children born in the U.S. in 2001. Children sampled for the ECLS-B were selected via
registered births from the National Center for Health Statistics system, using a clustered
list frame sampling design (Nord et al. 2006). Interviews and assessments were conducted
with children and their parents at approximately 9 months (wave 1), 24 months (wave 2),
and 48  months (wave 3) after the birth of the focal child and upon entry into kindergar-
ten. The primary parent (the focal child’s birth mother in 96% of cases) was interviewed
in person, and resident fathers who lived in the same household with the focal child (and
who were identified by mothers) were asked to complete a self-administered questionnaire.
The response rate of mothers (child’s caregiver) was 93% in wave 2 and 91% in wave 3.
The response rate for identified resident fathers was 78% in wave 2 and 85% in wave 3.
The ECLS-B provided detailed information both on parents’ work characteristic (e.g., work
hours and availability of workplace flexibility) and on key parent–child interaction meas-
ures, making it appropriate to examine the proposed research questions. In addition, the
inclusion of both mothers and fathers in the survey enabled exploring gender differences in
the association between workplace flexibility and parent–child interactions.
The final sample for the study consists of mothers (n = 4650) and resident fathers
(n = 3600)2 who completed both surveys at waves 2 and 3, reported working at wave 3,
and provided valid workplace flexibility and outcome information at wave 3. Of those who
completed the surveys at waves 2 and 3 in the sample of mothers (n = 7750), unemployed
mothers (n = 3100) and mothers without valid information on workplace flexibility and
parent–child interaction (n < 50, 0.2% of the full sample) were excluded. The descriptive
analyses found that the mothers excluded from the sample (mostly unemployed mothers)
were more likely to be younger and less educated, to have poorer health and rely on paren-
tal care as a primary care arrangement, and to have reported lower household income than
the mothers included in the sample. The mothers excluded from the sample also reported
a higher frequency of parent–child interactions than those in the sample. In the sample
of fathers, of those who completed both surveys (waves 2 and 3, n = 3900), unemployed
fathers (n = 300) and fathers without valid information on valid workplace flexibility
and parent–child interactions (n < 50, 1% of the full sample) were excluded. Similar to
the results of the mothers, fathers who were excluded tended to be less educated, and to
have poorer health and rely primarily on parental care, and to have reported lower house-
hold income than the fathers included in the sample. The excluded fathers also reported a

2
  The sample size was rounded to the nearest 50 following the ECLS-B’s confidentiality rules.

13
Workplace Flexibility and Parent–Child Interactions Among… 437

greater frequency of parent–child interactions than the sampled fathers. In addition, con-
sidering that resident fathers were recognized by their partners (mothers) and willingly
participated in the surveys (78–85% in waves 2 and 3), fathers who cared more about par-
enting and domestic work may have been selected into the sample. To retain cases in the
sample, missing items in the control variables (less than 1%) were imputed using single
imputation by adding a dummy indicator for missing cases.

3.2 Key Measures

3.2.1 Workplace Flexibility

Workplace flexibility was measured using three binary indicators in the ECLS-B at wave
3. Mothers provided information on both their and their partner’s (i.e., father’s) flexible
schedules, working from home, and part-time employment. Schedule flexibility (flextime)
was measured with the question “Are you (or partner’s name) eligible for the following
benefits through (any of) your current job/jobs: flexible hours or flextime?” The question
was answered with a binary response format (yes = 1, no = 0). This item measured the
availability of flexible work schedules and hours. However, it did not capture actual use of
flexibility options or identify specific types of schedule flexibility. Previous studies adopted
a similar dichotomous measure to capture the availability (or access) of flexible sched-
ules or flextime (Batt and Valcour 2003; Hofäcker and König 2013; Scandura and Lankau
1997). National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997 also used the same measure to capture
respondents’ availability of flexible schedules in the workplace.
Working from home (flexplace) was measured with the following question: “As part of
your job, do you (or partner’s name) do any of your work at home?” Probe: “This means
you have a formal arrangement with your employer to work at home, not just taking work
home from the job.” This question was answered with three responses (0 = no, 1 = yes,
2 = self-employed). Based on this question, two dummy variables were created: working
from home (0 = else, 1 = yes) and self-employment (0 = else, 1 = yes). The self-employment
was added as a control variable in all the analytic models. By improving the existing meas-
ure of working from home (or teleworking) (Igbaria and Guimaraes 1999; Lapierre and
Allen 2006), this item directly assessed workers’ use of formal flexplace options, excluding
those working at home to catch up on work from the office.
Part-time employment was measured with the following question: “About how many
hours per week do you (or partner’s name) usually work for pay (counting all jobs)?”
Those who worked fewer than 35 h per week were considered to be part-time employees.
Although there is no consensus on how to measure part-time employment, this definition
(working fewer than 35 h per week) was consistent with that provided by the U.S. Bureau
of Labor Statistics and by previous studies (Kalleberg 2009; Stratton 1996). As more than
one quarter of employed women with children under 3  years old worked part-time (U.S.
Bureau of Labor Statistics 2017b) and part-time work provides particular benefits, such as
reduced work–family conflict and better time-management, particularly for working moth-
ers (Buehler and O’Brien 2011; Higgins et al. 2000), the present study focuses on part-time
employment compared to full-time work. A robustness test was also performed by treating
“working hours” as a continuous variable in the main model, finding that “working hours”
was consistently negatively associated with the frequency of enrichment and daily routine
activities, for both mothers and fathers (the results are available upon request). Although
mothers’ part-time employment followed a similar pattern with regard to “working hours”,

13
 J. Kim
438

fathers’ part-time employment was not significantly associated with either enrichment or
daily routine activities. This finding suggests that the classification of part-time employ-
ment as working fewer than 35 h per week may have a distinctive influence on family inter-
actions for parents, particularly for fathers.

3.2.2 Parent–Child Interactions

The ECLS-B collected rich data on mothers’ and fathers’ interactions with their children.
For the purpose of this study, 10 items measuring the frequency of parent–child interac-
tions were selected when the focal child was 4  years old (wave 3). Mothers and fathers
were asked about the frequency of their performing the following activities with their focal
child in a typical week: reading books, telling stories, and singing songs (responses ranged
from 1 = not at all, 2 = once or twice, 3 = 3 to 6 times, 4 = every day). Parents also were
asked about the frequency of their performing the following activities with their focal child
in the past month: playing together with toys, taking the child outside for a walk or to
play, preparing meals, bathing, dressing, putting children to sleep, and helping the child
brush their teeth (responses ranged from 1 = not at all, 2 = rarely, 3 = a few times a month,
4 = a few times a week, 5 = about once a day, 6 = more than once a day). Modeling pre-
vious studies (Craig 2006; Craig and Mullan 2010; Leiferman et  al. 2005), parent–child
interactions in the current study were disaggregated into two different types: enrichment
activities and daily routines. Enrichment activities include reading books, telling stories,
singing songs, playing together, and taking children outside to play. Daily routines consist
of basic physical care tasks, including preparing meals, bathing, dressing, putting children
to sleep, and helping children brush their teeth. These items have also been used in the
National Survey of Early Childhood Health to assess parent–child interactions (Blumberg
et al. 2004; Leiferman et al. 2005). Explanatory factor analyses confirmed that enrichment
activities items and daily routines items were separately grouped.
For multivariate models, two standardized indices were created to allow for comparing
the estimates across the models. As the five items of enrichment activities did not employ
the same response scale, the items were standardized first and then averaged separately for
mothers and fathers. The daily routines index was created by averaging five items and then
calculating its standardized score. Cronbach’s alpha for the enrichment activities and daily
routines indices were .58 and .62, respectively, for the sample of mothers, and .68 and .82,
respectively, for the sample of resident fathers. The enrichment activities and daily routines
indices for when the focal child was 2  years old (wave 2) were constructed in the same
manner to control for the prior level of parent–child interactions. In descriptive models, a
raw mean of each index was presented to compare values across different groups.3

3.2.3 Moderating and Control Variables

Household types were measured separately for the mother and resident father samples at
wave 3. In the sample of mothers, working mothers were from either two-parent or single-
parent households. A binary indicator of single-mother households was created to exam-
ine the possible varying associations of workplace flexibility with parent–child interactions

3
  In enrichment activities, 4-point scale items were recoded to match 6-point scale items. For example,
“once or twice per week” and “3–6 times per week” responses in the 4-point scale items matched with “a
few times a month” and “a few times a week” responses in the 6-point scale items, respectively.

13
Workplace Flexibility and Parent–Child Interactions Among… 439

across mothers from two-parent and single-parent households. All the resident fathers were
from two-parent households because they were identified by mothers in the survey. Among
the two-parent households, working fathers came either from dual-earner households with
employed mothers or single-earner households with unemployed mothers. A binary indica-
tor was created to test the varying associations of workplace flexibility and parent–child
interactions between fathers from dual-earner and single-earner households. To test the
association of workplace flexibility and parent–child interactions as moderated by house-
hold income, a dichotomous indicator of household income (1 = low-income households,
0 = mid- and high-income households) was created.
Following the conventional definition of low-income households in the U.S. (Jiang et al.
2015; Roberts et al. 2013), low-income households were classified as those with income
less than 200% of the poverty guideline in the survey year (i.e., 2005 and 2006). For a
robustness test, another common low-income indicator was used, income below 130% of
poverty line (the income eligibility criterion for a federal food assistance program in the
US), to test the moderating effect of income. The result shows a consistent finding that for
low-income mothers, flexible schedules and working from home had greater benefits for
improving their parent–child interactions (the results are available upon request).
Certain characteristics of children, parents, and families may be associated with access
to workplace flexibility and parent–child interactions. Based on previous studies (Conger
et al. 1990; Estes 2005; Roeters et al. 2010; Rogers 1996), the current study controlled for
a wide range of parental demographic, household, and employment characteristics. These
include race (White, African-American, Hispanic, Asian, Indian and other), age, educa-
tion level (less than high school, high school graduate, some college, bachelor and more),
income (income-to-needs ratio), number of children and number of adults in households,
region of residence (urban area, urban cluster, rural area), self-rated health status (fair/
poor, good, very good, excellent), marital status (married, separated/divorced/widowed,
never married), partner/spouse working status (employed vs. not employed), occupation
type (management/business/professional, service, sales/office, farming/construction/main-
tenance, production/transportation/military), working hours, work schedules (day shift,
evening/night shift, rotating/split shift), multiple jobs (one vs. two or more jobs), and focal
child’s characteristics, such as his or her age, gender, birth weight (normal vs. low birth
weight), and primary child care arrangement (parental care, relative care, nonrelative care,
and center care). All information was taken from the wave 3 survey.

3.3 Analytic Approaches

Descriptive analyses were conducted to examine differences in focal variables (e.g., work-
place flexibility and parent–child interactions) by mothers and resident fathers, household
type, and level of household income. In addition, the bivariate analyses between each type
of workplace flexibility and parent–child interactions were examined.
Two analytic approaches were used to examine the associations of the three types of
workplace flexibility with parent–child interactions. First, cross-sectional analyses were
conducted by applying Ordinary Least Square regressions for parent–child interactions
with an extensive set of control variables.4 Next, to address possible omitted-variable bias,
lagged dependent variable (LDV) models additionally including an outcome variable from

4
  The results of the cross-sectional models are not reported in the results section due to space limitations.
Generally, the magnitude of the estimates was slightly greater in the cross-sectional models than the LDV
models, suggesting that the LDV models further addressed omitted-variable bias.

13
 J. Kim
440

a previous wave were employed. The LDV models yielded less biased estimates because
they adjusted for possible pre-existing differences in outcome measures between those who
had access to (or use of) flexibility and those who had not at wave 3 (Johnson 2005). It is
possible that fathers who more frequently interacted with their child in the previous wave
(wave 2) selectively maintained (or got) the job that provided workplace flexibility. The
LDV model aims to hold constant such a possibility by controlling for the previous level
of parent–child interactions in the model. The study used LDV models to predict enrich-
ment activities for both parents, but only daily routines for resident fathers because routine
interaction questions were asked only of mothers in wave 3. A cross-sectional model was
conducted to predict daily routine interactions for mothers. Due to space limitations, only
the estimates from the LDV model are presented in the results section. In the LDV models,
variance inflation factors (VIF) were assessed to detect potential multicollinearity. No sin-
gle VIF value was greater than 5, suggesting that multicollinearity was not an issue in the
proposed analytic models.
As a robustness check, additional analyses were conducted to assess how changes in
access to workplace flexibility between waves influenced parent–child interactions (the
results are available upon request). The results demonstrate that the direction of the rela-
tionships remained the same, however, the relationships (the changes in each workplace
flexibility between two waves and parent–child interactions) were not statistically signifi-
cant. This finding suggests that individual unobserved heterogeneity may explain the asso-
ciations between workplace flexibility and parent–child interactions.5
To test the varying associations of workplace flexibility with parent–child interactions
across mothers and fathers using the LDV models, subgroup analyses were performed sep-
arately for mothers and fathers, and the estimates were compared with additional interac-
tion analyses of workplace flexibility and gender. The moderating roles of household type
and income were examined by adding an interaction term of each moderator (household
type and income) with the three types of flexibility to the LDV models separately for the
male and female samples. In the descriptive and multivariate analyses, the ECLS-B sam-
pling weight was adjusted to address non-response bias and allow for making inferences
about the national population (Bethel et al. 2005). All reported estimates are unstandard-
ized coefficient.

5
  An indicator identifying how access to each flexibility indicator changed from wave 2 to wave 3 (“no
access to flexibility in both waves” = ECLS-B1, “access to flexibility in wave 2 but not wave 3” = 2,
“access to flexibility in wave 3 but not wave 2” = 3, “access to flexibility in both waves” = 4) was created
and added to the LDV models for mothers and fathers employed in both waves. It should be noted that all
of the significant estimates were attributed to the differences between the “no access to flexibility in both
waves” and “access to flexibility in both waves” categories. The model results are not reported in the results
section to save space.

13
Workplace Flexibility and Parent–Child Interactions Among… 441

Table 1  Focal characteristics of Mother Father

the sample by gender
Flexible schedule 51.7% 40.9%***
Working from home 22.2% 24.3%*
Part-time employment (working hours < 35) 33.7% 4.0%***
Enrichment activities (mean, s.d.) 4.0 (0.7) 3.5 (0.7)***
Daily routines (mean, s.d.) 4.8 (0.7) 4.0 (0.9)***
N 4650 3600

All percentages were weighted. The chi-test was conducted for cate-
gorical variables and t test was conducted for continuous variables to
test differences across groups. s.d. Standard deviation
***p < 0.001; **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05

4 Results

4.1 Descriptive Analyses

Overall, the full sample consisted of 4650 employed mothers and 3600 employed fathers.
The median age of working parents was 33.9 (SD = 6.4), one third of them were non-
white (n = 39506), and over 60% had some college education, bachelor’s degree, or higher
(n = 5650). The parents reported generally very good or excellent health status (63%,
n = 5250). About one quarter of mothers were from single-parent households (n = 1100),
while all of resident fathers were from two-parent households (since they were identified
by mothers) and 57% of fathers had an employed partner/spouse (dual-earner households,
n = 2150). On average, two adults (SD = 0.8) and two children (SD = 1.1) resided in each
household, nearly three quarters of the parents resided in urban areas (n = 5900), and 16%
resided in rural areas (n = 1350). Regarding household income, slightly more than 15%
of the parents lived below the poverty line (with an income-to-needs ratio less than 1,
n = 1200), and 24% lived between the 100 and 200% poverty threshold (n = 1900); overall,
about 40% of parents lived in low-income households (n = 3100). In terms of focal chil-
dren, 52% were boys (n = 4250), and about 7% had low birth weights (n = 1850). Three
fifths of the parents used day care centers as their primary care arrangement (n = 5100),
11% used nonrelatives (n = 850), 14% used relatives (n = 1200), and 15% used parental care
(n = 1100). These basic characteristics of the full sample were not reported in the table to
preserve space.
Table  1 presents the key characteristics of the sample by gender. Mothers were more
likely to have schedule flexibility than fathers (X2 = 97.1, p < .001), while fathers reported
a slightly higher level of working from home (X2 = 14.1, p < .05). As expected, part-time
employment presented substantial gender differences: one-third of mothers but only 4% of
resident fathers worked fewer than 35 h per week (X2 = 1145.3, p < .001). Although work-
place flexibility indicators were measured slightly differently, the general distribution of
workplace flexibility was consistent with a previous study (Galinsky et al. 2011), in which
two-fifths of workers had flexible schedule, and about one-fifth had the ability to work
from home. Regarding the dependent variables, mothers more frequently interacted with

6
  As all percentages were weighted, the number of cases did not exactly match to the percentage.

13
 J. Kim
442

Table 2  Workplace flexibility by household type and income

Mothers Fathers
Two-parent Single-parent household Single-earner Dual-earner household
households household

Flexible schedule 53.6% 46.6%** 40.8% 40.9%

Working from home 25.5% 12.3%*** 23.7% 24.7%
Part-time employment 36.5% 25.2%*** 3.2% 4.6%
Enrichment activities 4.0 (0.6) 3.9 (0.7)*** 3.4 (0.7) 3.5 (0.7)**
Daily routines 4.8 (0.7) 4.7 (0.8) 3.8 (0.9) 4.1 (0.9)***
N 3500 1100 1450 2150
Low-income Middle/high-income Low-income Middle/high-income

Flexible schedule 45.0% 56.9%*** 31.9% 45.6%***

Working from home 9.8% 31.7%*** 9.7% 32.0%***
Part-time employment 34.5% 33.0% 5.8% 3.0%**
Enrichment activities 3.9 (0.7) 4.1 (0.6)*** 3.4 (0.8) 3.5 (0.7)*
Daily routines 4.7 (0.8) 4.8 (0.7)*** 3.9 (1.0) 4.0 (0.8)**
N 2000 2650 1100 2500

All percentages were weighted. The chi-test was conducted for categorical variables and t-test was con-
ducted for continuous variables to test differences across groups. Standard deviation in parentheses
***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05

their children than resident fathers. On average, mothers engaged in enrichment activities
a few times a week (4.0), while fathers did less than a few times a week (3.5) (t = 27.6,
p < .001). Mothers also engaged in daily routines about once a day (4.8), while fathers did
a few times a week (4.0) (t = 32.9, p < .001).
Table 2 presents the distribution of workplace flexibility by household type and house-
hold income, separately for mothers and fathers. Compared to mothers from two-parent
households, single mothers were less likely to have flexible schedules available (X2 = 35.1,
p < .01) and to work at home (X2 = 224.2, p < .001) and more likely to work part-time
(X2 = 88.4, p < .001). Single mothers also less frequently interacted with their children
in enrichment activities (t = 4.5, p < .001). Although the distribution of workplace flex-
ibility was not significantly different between fathers from single-earner and dual-earner
households, dual-earner fathers more frequently interacted with their child than single-
earner fathers did both in enrichment activities (t = 3.3, p < .01) and daily routines (t = 9.6,
p < .001). Regarding household income, both low-income mothers and fathers were less
likely to have flexible schedules (X2 = 114.5, p < .001 and X2 = 144.7, p < .001, respectively)
and work from home than their mid- and high-income counterparts (X2 = 635.8, p < .001
and X2 = 546.2, p < .001, respectively), with a greater discrepancy in working from home.
This descriptive result supports the previous findings on the limited access to (or use of)
workplace flexibility for low-wage, disadvantaged employees (Bond and Galinsky 2006;
Chung 2018a; Swanberg et al. 2005).
Part-time employment, however, was more prevalent among low-income resident
fathers than mid- and high-income resident fathers (X2 = 38.0, p < .01), suggesting that
part-time employment was associated with lower economic status. Low-income mothers
and fathers both reported a lower frequency of enrichment activities (t = 6.6, p < .001 and

13
Workplace Flexibility and Parent–Child Interactions Among… 443

Table 3  Parent–child Interaction by Workplace Flexibility

Mothers Fathers

Enrichment activities Daily routines Enrichment activi- Daily routines

ties
No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes

Flexible sched- 3.9 (0.7) 4.0 (0.5)** 4.7 (0.8) 4.8 (0.7)* 3.4 (0.7) 3.5 (0.7) 4.0 (0.9) 4.0 (0.9)
ule
Working from 3.9 (0.7) 4.1 (0.6)*** 4.8 (0.8) 4.9 (0.7)*** 3.4 (0.7) 3.5 (0.7) 4.0 (0.9) 4.0 (0.8)
home
Part-time 3.9 (0.7) 4.1 (0.6)*** 4.8 (0.8) 4.9 (0.7)*** 3.5 (0.7) 3.5 (0.8) 4.0 (0.9) 4.0 (0.9)
employment
N 2550 1950 2850 1550

All percentages were weighted. T-test was conducted to test differences across groups. Mean and standard
deviation (in parenthesis) were reported
***p < 0.001; **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05

t = 2.2, p < .05, respectively) and daily routines (t = 4.6, p < .001 and t = 3.5, p < .01, respec-
tively), than mid-and high-income mothers and fathers.
Table 3 presents the result of bivariate analyses between workplace flexibility and par-
ent–child interactions. Generally, mothers with workplace flexibility reported a higher
frequency of enrichment activities and daily routines with their child than those without
workplace flexibility. For fathers, however, the frequency of parent–child interactions did
not vary by those with workplace flexibility and those without it. This finding suggests
the potential positive association between workplace flexibility and the frequency of par-
ent–child interactions, only for mothers.

4.2 Associations Between Workplace Flexibility and Parent–Child Interactions

Table  4 presents the associations between workplace flexibility and enrichment activi-
ties for mothers and resident fathers. Each flexibility indicator was estimated in Models 1,
2, and 3, and all three flexibility indicators were added together in Model 4 to assess the
relative importance of each flexibility indicator. Among mothers, the results showed that,
as expected, working from home and part-time employment both had statistically signifi-
cant associations with more frequent enrichment activities, while flexible schedules were
not a significant predictor for enrichment activities. Specifically, mothers who worked at
home and part-time employed mothers reported .08 and .07 higher standard deviation in
the frequency of enrichment activities, respectively, than their counterparts. In Model 4,
working from home showed a stronger association with enrichment activities than part-
time employment did. Among fathers, none of the workplace flexibility factors were sig-
nificantly associated with their enrichment activities. This result is consistent with previous
findings that fathers were less likely to use their flexible options to accommodate family
responsibilities (Kurowska 2018; Hill et  al. 2008a; Hofäcker and König 2013). Interest-
ingly, increasing working hours by both parents were associated with a lower frequency of
enrichment activities. This finding is consistent with the expectation that increasing work-
ing hours directly reduces parents’ time with their children. Regarding gender differences,
working at home and part-time employment were especially important for mothers but not

13
 444

13
Table 4  The association between workplace flexibility and enrichment activities
Mothers Resident Fathers

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

Coef. Coef. Coef. Coef. Coef.Coef. Coef. Coef. Coef.

Work hours − 0.003** − 0.003** − 0.004*** − 0.005***

(0.001) (0.001) (0.001) (0.001)
Flexible schedule − 0.022 − 0.030 0.014 0.012
(0.019) (0.018) (0.023) (0.023)
Working from home 0.080** 0.083** 0.046 0.032
(0.028) (0.028) (0.028) (0.028)
Part-time employment 0.065** 0.066** 0.111 0.108
(0.022) (0.022) (0.062) (0.062)
Prior enrichment activities 0.502*** 0.500*** 0.501*** 0.500*** 0.495*** 0.495*** 0.500*** 0.500***
(0.021) (0.021) (0.021) (0.021) (0.026) (0.027) (0.026) (0.027)
N 4650 4650 4650 4650 3600 3600 3600 3600

All models were controlled for demographic, parents’ and child’s characteristics. The ECLS-B sampling weight was adjusted for all models. The variable of work hours was
excluded in Model 3 and 4 because part-time employment was included (i.e., fewer than 35 work per week). Standard error was reported in the parenthesis. Coef. coefficient
***p < 0.001; **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05
J. Kim
Workplace Flexibility and Parent–Child Interactions Among… 445

Table 5  The Association between Workplace Flexibility and Daily Routines

Mothers Resident Fathers

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

Coef. Coef. Coef. Coef. Coef. Coef. Coef. Coef.

Working − 0.005** − 0.005*** − 0.006** − 0.007***

hours
(0.002) (0.002) (0.002) (0.002)
Flexible 0.022 0.013 0.086* 0.084*
schedule
(0.039) (0.039) (0.035) (0.037)
Working 0.081 0.074 0.077 0.044
from home
(0.046) (0.045) (0.041) (0.042)
Part-time 0.146** 0.142** 0.073 0.065
employ-
ment
(0.043) (0.043) (0.088) (0.088)
Prior daily – – – – 0.444*** 0.443*** 0.449*** 0.451***
routines
(0.019) (0.019) (0.019) (0.019)
N 4650 4650 4650 4650 3600 3600 3600 3600

All models were controlled for demographic, parents’ and child’s characteristics. The ECLS-B sampling
weight was adjusted for all models. The variable of working hours was excluded in Model 3 and 4 because
part-time employment was included (i.e., less than 35 work per week). As mothers’ daily routines were
assessed only in Wave 3, the models for mothers were cross-sectional models. Standard error was reported
in the parenthesis. Coef. coefficient
***p < 0.001; **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05

for fathers. However, the additional interaction analyses of gender detected no statistically
significant differences between mothers’ and fathers’ estimates (results upon request).
Table  5 presents the associations between workplace flexibility and daily routine par-
ent–child interactions for mothers and resident fathers. Similarly, each flexibility indicator
was estimated in models 1, 2, and 3, and all three flexibility indicators were added together
in Model 4. Overall, mothers’ part-time employment and fathers’ flexible schedules were
associated with a higher frequency of daily routines. Mother working part-time and fathers
with flexible schedules reported .14 and .09 higher standard deviation in the frequency of
daily routines, respectively, compared to their counterparts. Fathers’ increased daily par-
ent–child interactions when they have access to flexible schedules may be explained by a
term of ‘tag-team parenting’ that couples in dual-earner families strategically adjust their
work schedules, such as one working in a day shift while the other working in a night
shift, so that at least one parent be present and care for children at home (Mills and Täht
2010; Wight et al. 2008). Fathers with flexible schedules may actively utilize this strategy
to increase their routine involvement in parenting.
However, both parents’ ability to work from home, mothers’ flexible schedules, and
fathers’ part-time employment were not associated with daily routines. This finding sug-
gested that regardless of access to workplace flexibility, mothers may have performed rou-
tine parent–child interactions (e.g., bathing, dressing, and putting children to sleep) because

13
 J. Kim
446

Table 6  The association of workplace flexibility with parent–child interactions by household structure

Mothers Resident fathers

Enrichment activities Enrichment Daily routines

activities
Coef. Coef. Coef.

Single ­mothera 0.022 Dual-earnerb 0.029 0.220***

(0.056) (0.027) (0.043)
Part-time employment 0.091*** Part-time employment − 0.048 − 0.183
(0.023) (0.08) (0.171)
Par-time × single mother − 0.109* Part-time × dual-earner 0.242* 0.386*
(0.049) (0.108) (0.184)
N 4650 3600 3600

All models were controlled for demographic, parents’ and child’s characteristics as well as the prior out-
come measure (LDV models). The ECLS-B sampling weight was adjusted for all models. Standard error
was reported in the parenthesis. Coef. coefficient
a
 The reference group was mothers from two-parent households
b
 The reference group was fathers from single-earner households
***p < 0.001; **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05

these interactions are considered as the primary care activities and should be performed
routinely by the main caregivers, mostly mothers. Indeed, the descriptive finding suggests
that working mothers engaged in daily routine activities almost once a day. Similar to the
previous results, increasing working hours from both parents were associated with a lower
frequency of daily routine interactions. Regarding gender differences, mothers’ and fathers’
estimates were not significantly different in the gender interaction model, indicating that
although certain forms of flexibility might have mattered more to mothers (or fathers), the
benefits of flexibility were not substantially different for mothers and fathers.

4.3 Moderating Role of Household Structure and Income

Table 6 presents the interaction results examining whether the associations between work-
place flexibility and parent–child interactions differed across household types. Here, only
statistically significant interaction associations are reported due to space limitations (the
results are available upon request). Overall, the associations between workplace flexibil-
ity and parent–child interactions did not vary between mothers from single-parent (sin-
gle mothers) and two-parent households, except for part-time employment. The positive
association between part-time employment and enrichment activities decreased for single
mothers compared for mothers from two-parent families (Fig. 1a). This result suggests that
among single mothers, part-time employment might not have increased interactions with
children. In the resident father sample, fathers from dual-earner families were more likely
to increase their parent–child interactions, both enrichment activities and daily routines,
when working part time. As well, part-time employment had a modest negative association
with parent–child interactions for fathers from single-earner, two-parent families (Fig. 1b,
c). The findings partially support the hypothesis that fathers from dual-earner households
benefitted more from workplace flexibility than fathers from single-earner households.

13
Workplace Flexibility and Parent–Child Interactions Among… 447

(a) (b)

(c)
Fig. 1  Moderating Associations between Workplace Flexibility and Parent–child Interactions by Household
Type. a Part-time employment and enrichment activities by household type among mothers. b Part-time
employment and enrichment activities by household type among resident fathers. c Part-time employment
and daily routines by household type among resident fathers

Table 7 presents the interaction results examining whether the associations of workplace
flexibility with parent–child interactions varied by household income. The interaction terms
of the low-income indicator (less than 200% of the poverty threshold) with each flexibility
indicator were added to the LDV models. According to the results, the associations between
workplace flexibility and parent–child interactions for resident fathers did not differ across
low-income and mid- or high-income households. In contrast, household income did moder-
ate the associations between workplace flexibility and parent–child interactions for mothers
in the expected direction. The association between flexible schedules and daily routines was
most positive for low-income mothers, modest and negative for mid- and high-income moth-
ers (Fig. 2a). Regarding working from home, the positive associations with routine and enrich-
ment activities were stronger for low-income mothers than mid- and high-income mothers
(Fig. 2b). Consistent with the hypothesis, this result suggests that workplace flexibility could
have more benefits for parent–child interactions among low-income mothers than mid- and
high-income mothers.

13
 J. Kim
448

Table 7  The association of workplace flexibility with parent–child interactions by level of household

income
Mothers

Daily routines Enrichment Daily routines

activities
Coef. Coef. Coef.

Low income h­ ouseholdsa − 0.089 0.002 − 0.056

(0.061) (0.028) (0.052)
Flexible schedule − 0.045
(0.044)
Flexible schedule × low income households 0.154*
(0.076)
Working from home 0.050 0.016
(0.028) (0.049)
Working from home × low income households 0.111* 0.249*
(0.054) (0.103)
N 4650 4650 4650

All models were controlled for demographic, parents’ and child’s characteristics as well as the prior out-
come measure (LDV models). The ECLS-B sampling weight was adjusted for all models. Standard error
was reported in the parenthesis. Coef. coefficient
a
 The reference group was mothers from middle-and high-income households
**p < 0.01; *p < 0.05

5 Discussion

The aim of the study was to examine the implications of three forms of workplace flex-
ibility on the frequency of parent–child interactions in the context of gender and household
structures and income. Overall, the results found that distinctive types of workplace flex-
ibility were associated with the frequency of parent–child interactions and that these asso-
ciations varied across gender, household income, and household structure.
First, fathers’ availability of flexible schedules was associated with more frequent daily
routine interactions. This finding supports the boundary-spanning resource perspective
holding that flexible schedules facilitate the coordination of work and family responsibili-
ties by allowing fathers to be more involved in parenting, particularly in the daily routine
interactions with their child. Fathers may invest their time and energy in more demanding
and time-restricted caring activities (i.e., daily routines) to compensate for their limited
involvement in parenting once they have access to flexible schedules. Fathers may actively
utilize flexible schedules to arrange ‘tag-team parenting’ with their partners to maximize
their time with children (Mills and Täht 2010; Wight et al. 2008). As fathers with flexible
schedules help their partners to increase their wages over time (Langner 2018), fathers’
flexible schedules may also serve to enhance the job performance of their working partners
by sharing the burden of child care at home.
In contrast, mothers’ flexible schedules were not associated with either enrichment
activities or daily routines with their child. The finding from the mothers contradicts the
hypothesis and previous studies that mothers would gain greater benefit from flexible

13
Workplace Flexibility and Parent–Child Interactions Among… 449

(a) (b)

(c)
Fig. 2  Moderating Associations between Workplace Flexibility and Parent–child Interactions by Household
Income. a Flexible schedule and daily routines by level of household income among mothers. b Working
from home and enrichment activities by level of household income among mothers. c Working from home
and daily routines by level of household income among mothers

schedules than fathers would (Hofäcker and König, 2013; Lott and Chung 2016). Since
flexible schedules allow for the adjustment of start and end times but still require fixed
amounts of time at work, the option of adjusting starting and ending times of work may not
provide enough time for working mothers to increase interaction with their child (Kossek
et al. 1999). It is also possible that flexible schedules may allow mothers to increase their
working hours or maintain stressful jobs Chung and Van der Horst (2018). These other
job conditions may limit their engagement in parenting activities. In contrast, considering
fathers’ strong commitment to work, flexible schedules that do not reduce their working
hours may be more attractive to them to utilize for child-caring purposes. In addition, as
fathers who care more about parenting are potentially drawn into the sample, although the
model controlled for the previous level of parent–child interaction, the finding on fathers’
flexible schedules may still be overestimated because of selection bias.
The study also found that mothers who worked at home more frequently interacted
with their child in enrichment activities. This finding is consistent with past literature that
suggests the greater implications of teleworking for female workers (Davis et  al. 2015;
Kurowska 2018; Hilbrecht et  al. 2008; Sullivan and Lewis 2001), validating the bound-
ary-spanning perspective that a flexible workplace allows workers to increase their perfor-
mance at home, particularly for mothers. However, working from home was not associated
with fathers’ interactions with their child, confirming the previous research and the hypoth-
esis that although fathers worked from home, they may not have increased their domestic

13
 J. Kim
450

or child care activities (Lott and Chung 2016; Sullivan and Lewis 2001). Fathers may have
increased their work commitment through the option of working from home, which may
have led to overworking instead of improving their involvement in parenting.
The results of part-time employment also showed a similar finding, that mothers work-
ing part-time reported a higher frequency of interacting with their child in both enrich-
ment and daily routine activities than those working full-time. This is consistent with pre-
vious studies that suggest the potential benefit of working part-time for mothers, such as
better time management ability and lower work-to-family conflict (Buehler and O’Brien
2011; Higgins et  al. 2000). Given that over one third of mothers in the sample worked
part-time and mothers highly value part-time employment (Hill et al. 2008a), mothers may
strategically choose to work as part-time instead of full-time to secure more time with their
children. However, the finding that fathers’ part-time work was not associated with par-
ent–child interactions suggests that fathers may have a different motivation for working
part-time than mothers have. Considering that fathers with young children experienced
a stronger need to secure income by increasing their investment at work (Kaufman and
Uhlenberg 1998), they likely prefer full-time employment to part-time employment. Thus,
fathers employed part-time (only 4%) may have wanted to work more hours but their job
did not provide enough hours. Those fathers may not have strategically chosen a pat-time
arrangement to invest their time to child caring activities, resulting in less effect on par-
ent–child interactions.
The result of gender differences also warrants our attention. Increased parent–child
interactions for mothers working from home or part-time suggests that flexible work
arrangements have the potential to intensify the gendered division of labor in households,
although they allow working mothers to integrate work and care responsibilities. The fact
that mothers actively use and benefit from workplace flexibility for parenting purposes may
perpetuate the domestic burden of responsibility for women (Sullivan and Lewis 2001).
Thus, workplace flexibility can function as a double-edged sword that allows mothers to
engage in both work and caregiving activities but also that intensifies traditional gender
roles at home and reduces mothers’ personal leisure time (Hilbrecht et al. 2008). This may
explain the finding of elevated work-family conflicts for mothers working from home (Lott
2018; Van der Lippe and Lippényi 2018). However, the current finding that fathers with
flexible schedules increase their routine interactions provides some promise that workplace
flexibility can support narrow the gender gap in domestic labor
Moreover, the study found moderating roles of both household structure and house-
hold income in the associations between workplace flexibility and parent–child interac-
tions. Part-time employment was associated with more frequent enrichment activities only
for mothers from two-parent households, and this positive effect significantly decreased
among mothers from single-parent households. Part-time work may increase stress and
create more challenges for single mothers because they likely suffer from low-income/
financial problems. Such conflicts may limit single mothers’ ability to actively engage with
their children, supporting potential negative consequences of part-time employment (Gor-
nick and Meyers 2003; Morrison and Robbins 2015). Fathers from dual-earner families,
when working part time, were more likely to increase their parent–child interactions. Given
that mothers’ work demands promoted fathers’ involvement with childcare in dual-earner
households (Bonney et al. 1999; Brayfield 1995; Meteyer et al. 2010), part-time employ-
ment by fathers, particularly from dual-earner households, can facilitate interactions with
their children. In addition, fathers working part-time in dual-earner couples may strategi-
cally reduce their working hours to enhance their involvement in parenting and relive their
role of breadwinner at home.

13
Workplace Flexibility and Parent–Child Interactions Among… 451

Regarding household income, as hypothesized, low-income mothers experienced greater

benefits from workplace flexibility, particularly flexible schedules and working from home,
than mid- and high-income mothers. This finding is consistent with the previous litera-
ture (Bond and Galinsky 2006; Silver 1993) and suggests that household resources may
shape the link between workplace flexibility and family interactions. As low-income work-
ing mothers constantly experience time constraints and greater family demands, with fewer
options to save time on household and child care responsibilities (Dyk 2004; Tubbs et al.
2005), the option of working at home can be a valuable resource for engaging in house-
hold work and caregiving activities while performing work-related tasks. As low-wage,
low-income workers are least likely to have access to flexible working arrangements (Bond
and Galinsky 2006; Chung 2018a; Swanberg et al. 2005), this finding provides important
empirical evidence that more policy and research attention should be paid to low-income
workers and their access to workplace resources.
The study has several limitations. The measure of workplace flexibility only assessed
formal arrangements of workplace flexibility, but previous studies have shown that employ-
ees also have access to workplace flexibility through informal networks (Estes 2005), such
as supervisors and coworkers. The implications of informal workplace flexibility could
not be examined in the current study. Using a binary measure of workplace flexibility, the
current study could not capture the diverse forms of workplace flexibility and their impli-
cations for family interactions. Regarding parent–child interaction measures, two indices
assessed only the frequency of interactions, but were not able to capture the duration of
each parent–child interaction (i.e., whether it is 1  h or 30  min). It is possible that some
parents who interacted with their child less frequently may have spent more time overall
during each interaction to compensate for their limited frequency of involvement. The cur-
rent study is not able to capture this aspect of parent–child interactions. Overall, the result
shows rather small sizes of the estimates (all estimates less than .2 standard deviation),
suggesting the modest effects of workplace flexibility on parent–child interactions. Moreo-
ver, despite the use of advanced methodological approaches to address omitted-variable
bias, the study is still associational, making it difficult to draw casual effects of workplace
flexibility. Finally, the sample was limited to resident fathers identified by mothers, and
the fathers’ response rate was only 85%, so the findings for resident fathers might not be
representative of the larger population of fathers. In addition, as the employed parents in
the sample were socially and economically advantaged than the excluded, unemployed par-
ents, the findings of the study cannot be generalizable to all groups of parents with young
children.
Despite these limitations, the current study advances the existing knowledge on
workplace flexibility in several ways. This is one of the few studies that has explored
how distinctive forms of workplace flexibility influence parent–child interactions among
working parents with young children—the group of workers who most value such work-
place flexibility. The present study discovered how distinctive forms of workplace flex-
ibility operate differently across gender and families with different household structures
and income. For example, fathers’ flexible schedules were beneficial for daily routine
interactions with their child while working from home facilitated parent–child enrich-
ment activities particularly for low-income working mothers. Such diverse findings sug-
gest the uniqueness of each type of workplace flexibility and its impact across differ-
ent groups of workers. Research that combined different forms of workplace flexibility
into one unified measure and concept may yield inconsistent and limited evidence on
workplace flexibility (Batt and Valcour 2003; Costa et al. 2006; Jang 2009). With a par-
ticular focus on low-income working parents and their workplace flexibility, the current

13
 J. Kim
452

study findings also contribute to the work–family literature on how workplace resources
influence low-income workers’ family interaction. Given the scarcity of research on the
impact of workplace flexibility on low-income workers, the current study yields valu-
able findings for low-income working parents and their family relationship outcomes
in relation to mid- and high-income parents (Bond and Galinsky 2006; Lambert et  al.
2012; Henly and Lambert 2014; Swanberg et  al. 2008). Moreover, by using a nation-
ally representative sample with a longitudinal design, the study’s findings provide more
robust and generalizable pictures of workplace flexibility and its relationship to par-
ent–child interactions in the U.S.
The findings also contribute to the advocacy of work–family policies. In light of these
findings, increased access to three different forms of work arrangements (flexible sched-
ules, working from home, and part-time employment) potentially has a certain benefit for
working parents in managing their caregiving responsibilities. Given that the current study
focuses on the formal arrangements of flexible schedules and working from home, the
implementation of a formal process of requesting such flexibility, would enhance workers’
control over their work conditions, which may lead to improved parent–child interaction
for working parents without reducing working hours. Although the current study specifi-
cally focuses on parents with young children, by establishing the positive linkage between
workplace resources and family interactions, the study’s findings may provide potential
evidence that the formal arrangement of workplace flexibility can enhance family function-
ing not only for parents with young children, but also for parents with older children or
workers with other family demands such as elder care responsibilities.
In addition, when firms and employers consider implementing flexible management
practices, the study’s findings can be used as evidence of the family benefits of flexible
arrangements for employees. In particular, given low-income mothers’ limited access to
flexible schedules and ability to work from home compared to more affluent mothers (Bond
and Galinsky 2006), the finding that low-income mothers increased parent–child inter-
actions when they had access to such flexibility suggests important policy implications.
This finding informs employers and policy makers of the potentially great importance of
workplace flexibility for the families with the least resources. Furthermore, the findings on
positive impacts of fathers’ flexible schedules provide another potential avenue for current
policy efforts to encourage fathers’ involvement in parenting. In this sense, the current pol-
icy effort of a “Right to Request Flexibility Act” in the U.S. that allows workers to request
flexible work schedules without the fear of retaliation would give more access to flexible
arrangements for employees. For example, Vermont employees have the right to request
a flexible work arrangement for any reason and employers are required to consider such a
request (National Partnership for Women and Families 2017). A flexible work arrangement
includes changes in start and end times of work (i.e., flextime), work from home, job shar-
ing, and changes in the number of days or hours worked. In San Francisco, Seattle, and the
state of New Hampshire workers have a similar right to request flexible work arrangements
(National Partnership for Women and Families 2017).
However, the implementing of such policies may still be insufficient. As organizational
contexts, such as ideal worker cultures and the prevalence of colleagues using workplace
flexibility, influence the implications of workplace flexibility (Van der Lippe and Lippé-
nyi 2018), both managers and workers should make concerted efforts to establish work
cultures in which the use of workplace flexibility can be a standard practice rather than
a special case. In addition, as managers serve a critical role in facilitating the utilization
of workplace flexibility (Kossek et  al. 1999), it is necessary to educate them about their
important roles and enable them to lead changes in workplace cultures.

13
Workplace Flexibility and Parent–Child Interactions Among… 453

Lastly, we should pay special attention to how workplace flexibility can contribute to
gender inequality in domestic labor. As mentioned, working from home can be a use-
ful tool for mothers to further increase time with their child; however, it may reinforce
women’s role as a primary caregiver at home though engaged in employment (Hilbrecht
et al. 2008; Kurowska 2018; Sullivan and Lewis 2001). This is particularly concerning as
working from home was not associated with fathers’ involvement in parenting. Kurowska
(2018) found that fathers would be able to engage in more household responsibilities
through working from home in a more gender-equal society. Thus, implementing poli-
cies that enhance gender equality at the society level, such as paid maternity and pater-
nity leave, can help alleviate potential gender inequality caused by workplace flexibility.
As daily routine-care activities are more demanding and require rigid time schedules com-
pared with enrichment interactions that involve more recreational and enjoyable activities
(Craig 2006), the finding that working from home facilitates mothers’ enrichment activities
rather than routine parenting suggests that at least working from home may not aggravate
routine, cumbersome child-care responsibilities at home. The finding on fathers’ flexible
schedules also suggests important implications to promote gender equality in both family
and home domains. Fathers’ involvement in routine parenting through flexible schedules
can not only help working mothers alleviate heavy child-care burdens at home but also
assist them to achieve career success (Langner 2018). Fathers’ increased involvement in
parenting can also challenge the traditional gender norms and help promote more egalitar-
ian gender roles in households, which should be one of the main priorities of developing
more gender-equal, flexible societies.

Appendix: Multivariate Tables for the Main Associations Between

Workplace Flexibility and Parent–child Interactions

See Tables 8 and 9.

13
 Table 8  The association between workplace flexibility and parent–child interactions for mothers
454

Enrichment activi- Enrichment activi- Enrichment activi- Enrichment activi- Daily routines Daily routines Daily routines Daily routines
ties ties ties ties

13
Coef. Coef. Coef. Coef. Coef. Coef. Coef. Coef.

Respondent age − 0.004* − 0.005* − 0.004* − 0.005* 0.007 0.006 0.006 0.006
(0.002) (0.002) (0.002) (0.002) (0.004) (0.004) (0.004) (0.004)
Race (ref: white)
African-American − 0.114*** − 0.113*** − 0.117*** − 0.114*** 0.018 0.021 0.018 0.020
(0.028) (0.028) (0.028) (0.029) (0.060) (0.061) (0.060) (0.061)
Hispanic − 0.103** − 0.100** − 0.104** − 0.099** 0.061 0.066 0.064 0.067
(0.031) (0.031) (0.031) (0.031) (0.055) (0.055) (0.055) (0.055)
Asian − 0.103*** − 0.097** − 0.109*** − 0.099** − 0.045 − 0.035 − 0.049 − 0.042
(0.030) (0.030) (0.030) (0.030) (0.053) (0.055) (0.053) (0.054)
Indian/other − 0.038 − 0.033 − 0.038 − 0.034 0.012 0.017 0.012 0.016
(0.049) (0.049) (0.049) (0.049) (0.086) (0.087) (0.085) (0.085)
Education (ref: less than high school)
High school gradu- 0.032 0.030 0.029 0.033 − 0.028 − 0.025 − 0.026 − 0.027
ate
(0.036) (0.037) (0.037) (0.037) (0.094) (0.095) (0.095) (0.094)
Some college 0.115** 0.112** 0.112** 0.115** 0.037 0.039 0.037 0.035
(0.041) (0.041) (0.041) (0.041) (0.086) (0.086) (0.086) (0.086)
Bachelor and more 0.192*** 0.177*** 0.193*** 0.182*** 0.102 0.089 0.107 0.093
(0.046) (0.046) (0.045) (0.045) (0.104) (0.104) (0.105) (0.104)
Parents’ self-rated health (ref: fair/poor)
Good 0.075 0.074 0.076 0.077 0.034 0.035 0.038 0.037
(0.045) (0.045) (0.044) (0.044) (0.091) (0.091) (0.090) (0.090)
Very good 0.044 0.042 0.044 0.045 0.111 0.111 0.113 0.112
(0.045) (0.045) (0.045) (0.044) (0.091) (0.091) (0.090) (0.091)
Excellent 0.106* 0.102* 0.104* 0.106* 0.109 0.110 0.111 0.109
J. Kim
 Table 8  (continued)
Enrichment activi- Enrichment activi- Enrichment activi- Enrichment activi- Daily routines Daily routines Daily routines Daily routines
ties ties ties ties
Coef. Coef. Coef. Coef. Coef. Coef. Coef. Coef.

(0.050) (0.050) (0.050) (0.050) (0.091) (0.090) (0.089) (0.090)

Marital status (ref: married)
Separated/divorced/ 0.011 0.012 0.008 0.010 0.035 0.037 0.033 0.034
widowed
(0.045) (0.045) (0.045) (0.045) (0.089) (0.089) (0.089) (0.089)
Never married − 0.029 − 0.026 − 0.031 − 0.028 0.112 0.115 0.108 0.111
(0.044) (0.044) (0.044) (0.044) (0.085) (0.085) (0.084) (0.084)
Missing − 0.047 − 0.043 − 0.048 − 0.039 0.064 0.072 0.069 0.073
(0.126) (0.126) (0.126) (0.125) (0.208) (0.210) (0.208) (0.207)
Number of adults (ref: one)
Two 0.012 0.013 0.014 0.014 − 0.042 − 0.042 − 0.039 − 0.038
Workplace Flexibility and Parent–Child Interactions Among…

(0.055) (0.056) (0.056) (0.055) (0.109) (0.109) (0.109) (0.110)

Three 0.008 0.004 0.007 0.003 − 0.074 − 0.078 − 0.073 − 0.077
(0.056) (0.056) (0.055) (0.055) (0.123) (0.123) (0.122) (0.123)
Four or more 0.050 0.049 0.051 0.050 − 0.107 − 0.108 − 0.104 − 0.106
(0.065) (0.065) (0.065) (0.065) (0.128) (0.128) (0.127) (0.128)
Number of children (ref: one)
Two − 0.065 − 0.068* − 0.065 − 0.069* − 0.059 − 0.062 − 0.060 − 0.063
(0.033) (0.033) (0.033) (0.033) (0.051) (0.052) (0.051) (0.051)
Three − 0.055 − 0.057 − 0.056 − 0.057 − 0.181** − 0.182** − 0.183** − 0.185**
(0.037) (0.037) (0.037) (0.037) (0.058) (0.059) (0.058) (0.058)
Four or more − 0.073 − 0.08 − 0.072 − 0.082* − 0.286*** − 0.295*** − 0.289*** − 0.295***
(0.040) (0.040) (0.040) (0.040) (0.078) (0.079) (0.078) (0.078)
455

13
 Table 8  (continued)
456

Enrichment activi- Enrichment activi- Enrichment activi- Enrichment activi- Daily routines Daily routines Daily routines Daily routines
ties ties ties ties

13
Coef. Coef. Coef. Coef. Coef. Coef. Coef. Coef.

Region (ref: urban area)

Urban cluster 0.011 0.013 0.010 0.010 − 0.002 − 0.002 − 0.005 − 0.004
(0.035) (0.035) (0.034) (0.034) (0.057) (0.057) (0.056) (0.056)
Rural area 0.003 0.006 0.002 0.005 0.167*** 0.169*** 0.166*** 0.169***
(0.031) (0.031) (0.031) (0.031) (0.048) (0.047) (0.048) (0.047)
Age of child − 0.010*** − 0.010*** − 0.010*** − 0.010*** − 0.029*** − 0.029*** − 0.029*** − 0.029***
(month)
(0.002) (0.002) (0.002) (0.002) (0.005) (0.005) (0.005) (0.005)
The gender of child l (ref: boy)
Girl − 0.018 − 0.018 − 0.018 − 0.017 − 0.093* − 0.092* − 0.091* − 0.091*
(0.021) (0.021) (0.021) (0.021) (0.044) (0.043) (0.044) (0.044)
Birth weight of the child (re: normal)
Low-birth weight 0.057* 0.057* 0.057* 0.055* 0.223*** 0.221*** 0.221*** 0.221***
(0.024) (0.024) (0.024) (0.024) (0.041) (0.041) (0.041) (0.041)
Income to needs-ratio (ref: less than 1)
1–2 − 0.006 − 0.011 − 0.006 − 0.011 0.087 0.082 0.089 0.085
(0.037) (0.037) (0.036) (0.036) (0.067) (0.067) (0.067) (0.067)
2–3 − 0.002 − 0.010 − 0.003 − 0.007 0.147* 0.144* 0.153* 0.147*
(0.042) (0.043) (0.042) (0.042) (0.072) (0.071) (0.072) (0.071)
3–4 − 0.013 − 0.020 − 0.014 − 0.020 0.002 − 0.004 0.006 − 0.001
(0.039) (0.039) (0.038) (0.039) (0.090) (0.090) (0.089) (0.089)
4–5 − 0.024 − 0.036 − 0.025 − 0.036 0.041 0.030 0.043 0.032
(0.050) (0.051) (0.049) (0.050) (0.101) (0.102) (0.101) (0.101)
J. Kim
 Table 8  (continued)
Enrichment activi- Enrichment activi- Enrichment activi- Enrichment activi- Daily routines Daily routines Daily routines Daily routines
ties ties ties ties
Coef. Coef. Coef. Coef. Coef. Coef. Coef. Coef.

5 or over − 0.044 − 0.064 − 0.049 − 0.061 0.016 0.003 0.022 0.004

(0.045) (0.046) (0.044) (0.046) (0.095) (0.096) (0.095) (0.096)
Primary care arrangement (ref: parental care)
Relative care − 0.045 − 0.039 − 0.051 − 0.041 0.116 0.126 0.110 0.116
(0.042) (0.042) (0.042) (0.043) (0.093) (0.094) (0.093) (0.093)
Non-relative care − 0.140** − 0.139** − 0.142** − 0.142** − 0.058 − 0.057 − 0.060 − 0.060
(0.042) (0.042) (0.042) (0.043) (0.091) (0.092) (0.092) (0.092)
Center care − 0.087* − 0.086* − 0.089* − 0.086* 0.187* 0.189* 0.187* 0.189*
(0.034) (0.034) (0.034) (0.034) (0.075) (0.075) (0.075) (0.075)
Partner working status (ref: partner is unemployed)
No resident fathers 0.072 0.070 0.077 0.074 0.166 0.162 0.171 0.169
Workplace Flexibility and Parent–Child Interactions Among…

(0.069) (0.069) (0.069) (0.069) (0.155) (0.154) (0.156) (0.156)

Partner is employed 0.083 0.081 0.088 0.088 0.294* 0.293* 0.301* 0.299*
(0.052) (0.052) (0.052) (0.052) (0.127) (0.127) (0.127) (0.127)
Missing − 0.157 − 0.150 − 0.149 − 0.149 0.436 0.438 0.440 0.445
(0.130) (0.130) (0.131) (0.130) (0.246) (0.247) (0.245) (0.247)
Occupation type (ref: professional/management)
Service 0.052 0.054 0.050 0.052^ − 0.006 − 0.004 − 0.011 − 0.009
(0.030) (0.030) (0.030) (0.030) (0.060) (0.060) (0.060) (0.060)
Sales/office/admin − 0.047* − 0.048* − 0.048* − 0.045* 0.019 0.021 0.021 0.020
support
(0.020) (0.020) (0.020) (0.020) (0.047) (0.047) (0.048) (0.047)
Farming/construc- 0.005 0.002 0.001 − 0.007 0.147 0.141 0.134 0.130
tion
457

13
 Table 8  (continued)
458

Enrichment activi- Enrichment activi- Enrichment activi- Enrichment activi- Daily routines Daily routines Daily routines Daily routines
ties ties ties ties

13
Coef. Coef. Coef. Coef. Coef. Coef. Coef. Coef.

(0.138) (0.135) (0.135) (0.135) (0.163) (0.162) (0.162) (0.160)

Production/trans- 0.022 0.030 0.025 0.027 0.015 0.018 0.017 0.023
portation
(0.058) (0.058) (0.059) (0.058) (0.093) (0.092) (0.092) (0.094)
Work schedule (ref: day shift)
Evening/night shift − 0.023 − 0.017 − 0.019 − 0.013 − 0.092 − 0.087 − 0.090 − 0.084
(0.033) (0.033) (0.034) (0.034) (0.062) (0.062) (0.062) (0.063)
Rotating/split shift 0.027 0.016 0.030 0.025 − 0.155* − 0.161* − 0.148* − 0.157*
(0.027) (0.027) (0.028) (0.028) (0.067) (0.067) (0.067) (0.068)
Two or more jobs 0.034 0.022 0.020 0.010 − 0.151 − 0.161 − 0.175* − 0.186*
(ref: one job)
(0.041) (0.040) (0.040) (0.040) (0.084) (0.084) (0.086) (0.085)
Self-employed 0.040 0.069 0.036 0.064 0.070 0.098 0.058 0.085
(0.053) (0.056) (0.053) (0.056) (0.078) (0.083) (0.075) (0.080)
Working hours − 0.003*** − 0.003** − 0.005** − 0.005***
(0.001) (0.001) (0.002) (0.002)
Flexible schedules − 0.022 − 0.030 0.022 0.013
(0.019) (0.018) (0.039) (0.039)
Working from home 0.080** 0.083** 0.081 0.074
(0.028) (0.028) (0.046) (0.045)
Part-time employ- 0.065** 0.066** 0.146** 0.142**
ment
(0.022) (0.022) (0.043) (0.043)
J. Kim
 Table 8  (continued)
Enrichment activi- Enrichment activi- Enrichment activi- Enrichment activi- Daily routines Daily routines Daily routines Daily routines
ties ties ties ties
Coef. Coef. Coef. Coef. Coef. Coef. Coef. Coef.

Lagged dependent 0.502*** 0.500*** 0.501*** 0.500***

variable
(0.021) (0.021) (0.021) (0.021)
Observations 4650 4650 4650 4650 4650 4650 4650 4650
R-squared 0.313 0.315 0.312 0.315 0.067 0.067 0.066 0.067

The ECLS-B sampling weight was adjusted for all models. All Standard errors in parentheses. Coef coefficient. ref reference
***p < 0.001; **p < 0.01; * p < 0.05
Workplace Flexibility and Parent–Child Interactions Among…
459

13
 Table 9  The Association between workplace flexibility and parent–child interactions for resident fathers
460

Enrichment activi- Enrichment activi- Enrichment activi- Enrichment activi- Daily routines Daily routines Daily routines Daily routines
ties ties ties ties

13
Coef. Coef. Coef. Coef. Coef. Coef. Coef. Coef.

Respondent age 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 − 0.002 − 0.002 − 0.002 − 0.002
(0.002) (0.002) (0.002) (0.002) (0.003) (0.003) (0.003) (0.003)
Race (ref: white)
African-American − 0.134** − 0.134** − 0.123* − 0.124* − 0.099 − 0.097 − 0.082 − 0.088
(0.049) (0.049) (0.049) (0.049) (0.078) (0.078) (0.076) (0.076)
Hispanic 0.004 0.004 0.002 0.004 − 0.036 − 0.036 − 0.040 − 0.036
(0.043) (0.043) (0.043) (0.043) (0.074) (0.074) (0.075) (0.074)
Asian − 0.066 − 0.065 − 0.061 − 0.060 − 0.045 − 0.043 − 0.036 − 0.035
(0.036) (0.036) (0.037) (0.037) (0.057) (0.056) (0.056) (0.057)
Indian/other − 0.036 − 0.034 − 0.037 − 0.034 0.016 0.015 0.009 0.016
(0.111) (0.111) (0.109) (0.109) (0.124) (0.128) (0.127) (0.122)
Education (ref: less than high school)
High school gradu- 0.026 0.026 0.030 0.030 − 0.034 − 0.036 − 0.030 − 0.029
ate
(0.060) (0.060) (0.060) (0.060) (0.102) (0.102) (0.102) (0.102)
Some college 0.058 0.057 0.057 0.056 0.001 − 0.002 − 0.002 − 0.002
(0.046) (0.046) (0.047) (0.047) (0.085) (0.085) (0.087) (0.086)
Bachelor and more 0.125* 0.119* 0.123* 0.119* 0.094 0.085 0.092 0.087
(0.057) (0.057) (0.057) (0.058) (0.094) (0.094) (0.096) (0.095)
Parents’ self-rated health (ref: fair/poor)
Good 0.022 0.024 0.013 0.013 0.035 0.043 0.026 0.023
(0.047) (0.047) (0.046) (0.046) (0.075) (0.074) (0.075) (0.075)
Very good 0.108* 0.110* 0.104* 0.104* 0.048 0.054 0.045 0.042
(0.047) (0.047) (0.046) (0.046) (0.066) (0.065) (0.066) (0.067)
Excellent 0.155*** 0.156*** 0.149** 0.149** 0.066 0.071 0.061 0.059
J. Kim
 Table 9  (continued)
Enrichment activi- Enrichment activi- Enrichment activi- Enrichment activi- Daily routines Daily routines Daily routines Daily routines
ties ties ties ties
Coef. Coef. Coef. Coef. Coef. Coef. Coef. Coef.

(0.044) (0.044) (0.044) (0.044) (0.075) (0.074) (0.074) (0.076)

Missing 0.201 0.190 0.194 0.189 − 0.027 − 0.053 − 0.036 − 0.033
(0.278) (0.275) (0.285) (0.283) (0.358) (0.356) (0.367) (0.363)
Marital status (ref: married)
Separated/divorced/ 0.036 0.040 0.030 0.035 0.226 0.227 0.220 0.233
widowed
(0.121) (0.119) (0.119) (0.119) (0.215) (0.214) (0.219) (0.218)
Never married − 0.041 − 0.042 − 0.039 − 0.040 − 0.055 − 0.055 − 0.051 − 0.055
(0.065) (0.066) (0.065) (0.066) (0.110) (0.110) (0.110) (0.110)
Missing 0.101 0.101 0.114 0.109 − 0.120 − 0.107 − 0.090 − 0.111
(0.101) (0.103) (0.101) (0.103) (0.169) (0.159) (0.160) (0.166)
Workplace Flexibility and Parent–Child Interactions Among…

Number of children (ref: one)

Two − 0.050 − 0.052 − 0.050 − 0.052 0.027 0.021 0.023 0.023
(0.042) (0.042) (0.042) (0.042) (0.061) (0.060) (0.060) (0.060)
Three − 0.056 − 0.059 − 0.061 − 0.062 − 0.024 − 0.030 − 0.033 − 0.034
(0.049) (0.049) (0.047) (0.048) (0.071) (0.070) (0.069) (0.070)
Four or more − 0.112 − 0.115 − 0.116 − 0.118 − 0.038 − 0.046 − 0.049 − 0.049
(0.061) (0.061) (0.061) (0.061) (0.088) (0.088) (0.088) (0.089)
Region (ref: urban area)
Urban cluster − 0.048 − 0.049 − 0.053 − 0.052 − 0.150* − 0.156* − 0.160* − 0.155*
(0.038) (0.038) (0.037) (0.037) (0.064) (0.064) (0.064) (0.063)
Rural area − 0.023 − 0.023 − 0.030 − 0.030 − 0.071 − 0.072 − 0.081 − 0.082
(0.033) (0.033) (0.033) (0.033) (0.051) (0.050) (0.050) (0.051)
461

13
 Table 9  (continued)
462

Enrichment activi- Enrichment activi- Enrichment activi- Enrichment activi- Daily routines Daily routines Daily routines Daily routines
ties ties ties ties

13
Coef. Coef. Coef. Coef. Coef. Coef. Coef. Coef.

Age of child − 0.007* − 0.007* − 0.007* − 0.007* − 0.007 − 0.007 − 0.007 − 0.007
(month)
(0.003) (0.003) (0.003) (0.003) (0.004) (0.004) (0.004) (0.004)
The gender of child l (ref: boy)
Girl − 0.067* − 0.066* − 0.065* − 0.065* − 0.127** − 0.123** − 0.121** − 0.123**
(0.026) (0.026) (0.026) (0.026) (0.042) (0.042) (0.041) (0.041)
Birth weight of the child (re: normal)
Low-birth weight − 0.003 − 0.003 − 0.001 − 0.000 0.005 0.004 0.005 0.007
(0.038) (0.038) (0.038) (0.038) (0.058) (0.058) (0.057) (0.057)
Income to needs-ratio (ref: less than 1)
1–2 0.108* 0.109* 0.104* 0.103 0.159 0.168 0.156 0.147
(0.053) (0.052) (0.052) (0.052) (0.091) (0.090) (0.091) (0.091)
2–3 0.042 0.040 0.034 0.031 0.088 0.091 0.077 0.066
(0.070) (0.070) (0.070) (0.070) (0.107) (0.107) (0.107) (0.107)
3–4 0.067 0.066 0.058 0.054 0.146 0.151 0.135 0.122
(0.066) (0.066) (0.064) (0.064) (0.102) (0.102) (0.101) (0.101)
4–5 0.058 0.055 0.042 0.036 0.188^ 0.192^ 0.167 0.148
(0.076) (0.076) (0.074) (0.073) (0.107) (0.107) (0.106) (0.107)
5 or over 0.078 0.073 0.061 0.053 0.149 0.152 0.130 0.108
(0.066) (0.066) (0.064) (0.063) (0.100) (0.100) (0.099) (0.099)
Primary care arrangement (ref: parental care)
Relative care 0.004 0.004 0.008 0.008 0.080 0.078 0.081 0.082
(0.048) (0.048) (0.047) (0.047) (0.075) (0.075) (0.076) (0.076)
Non-relative care 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.009 0.101 0.097 0.095 0.101
J. Kim
 Table 9  (continued)
Enrichment activi- Enrichment activi- Enrichment activi- Enrichment activi- Daily routines Daily routines Daily routines Daily routines
ties ties ties ties
Coef. Coef. Coef. Coef. Coef. Coef. Coef. Coef.

(0.061) (0.061) (0.061) (0.061) (0.091) (0.091) (0.092) (0.091)

Center care 0.011 0.009 0.011 0.010 0.088 0.083 0.084 0.086
(0.039) (0.039) (0.038) (0.038) (0.060) (0.060) (0.059) (0.059)
Dual-earner house- 0.028 0.028 0.036 0.037 0.220*** 0.219*** 0.233*** 0.235***
holds
(ref: single-earner
households)
(0.027) (0.027) (0.028) (0.027) (0.044) (0.043) (0.044) (0.044)
Occupation type (ref: professional/management)
Service 0.042 0.048 0.036 0.042 − 0.024 − 0.016 − 0.036 − 0.023
(0.048) (0.047) (0.047) (0.047) (0.076) (0.076) (0.077) (0.075)
Sales/office/admin − 0.050 − 0.049 − 0.050 − 0.051 − 0.086 − 0.080 − 0.080 − 0.085
Workplace Flexibility and Parent–Child Interactions Among…

support
(0.042) (0.042) (0.041) (0.041) (0.060) (0.060) (0.060) (0.060)
Farming/construc- 0.007 0.011 0.005 0.009 − 0.087 − 0.085 − 0.096 − 0.084
tion
(0.043) (0.042) (0.043) (0.042) (0.066) (0.065) (0.067) (0.066)
Production/trans- 0.105* 0.113* 0.091* 0.099* 0.036 0.042 0.007 0.025
portation
(0.044) (0.044) (0.043) (0.043) (0.071) (0.070) (0.071) (0.072)
Work schedule (ref: day shift)
Evening/night shift 0.041 0.042 0.040 0.044 0.186* 0.181* 0.179* 0.193*
(0.053) (0.053) (0.053) (0.053) (0.086) (0.086) (0.087) (0.085)
Rotating/split shift − 0.045 − 0.047 − 0.064 − 0.065 − 0.044 − 0.047 − 0.064 − 0.065
(0.037) (0.037) (0.038) (0.037) (0.062) (0.063) (0.061) (0.061)
463

13
 Table 9  (continued)
464

Enrichment activi- Enrichment activi- Enrichment activi- Enrichment activi- Daily routines Daily routines Daily routines Daily routines
ties ties ties ties

13
Coef. Coef. Coef. Coef. Coef. Coef. Coef. Coef.

Two or more jobs 0.010 0.013 − 0.021 − 0.021 − 0.024 − 0.013 − 0.061 − 0.067
(ref: one job)
(0.048) (0.049) (0.048) (0.048) (0.086) (0.088) (0.081) (0.080)
Missing 0.089 0.086 0.089 0.095 0.748** 0.721** 0.737** 0.769**
(0.223) (0.219) (0.223) (0.220) (0.229) (0.224) (0.231) (0.229)
Self-employed − 0.084 − 0.068 − 0.098 − 0.090 − 0.082 − 0.046 − 0.085 − 0.082
(0.062) (0.063) (0.064) (0.065) (0.074) (0.073) (0.074) (0.075)
Working hours − 0.004*** − 0.005*** − 0.006*** − 0.007***
(0.001) (0.001) (0.002) (0.002)
Flexible schedules 0.014 0.012 0.086* 0.084*
(0.023) (0.023) (0.035) (0.037)
Working from home 0.046 0.032 0.077 0.044
(0.028) (0.028) (0.041) (0.042)
Part-time employ- 0.111 0.108 0.073 0.065
ment
(0.062) (0.062) (0.088) (0.088)
Lagged dependent 0.495*** 0.495*** 0.500*** 0.500*** 0.444*** 0.443*** 0.449*** 0.451***
variable
(0.026) (0.027) (0.026) (0.027) (0.019) (0.019) (0.019) (0.019)
Observations 3600 3600 3600 3600 3600 3600 3600 3600
R-squared 0.298 0.298 0.294 0.294 0.279 0.278 0.273 0.275

The ECLS-B sampling weight was adjusted for all models. All Standard errors in parentheses. Coef coefficient. ref reference. As the “the number of adult” variable reported
VIF value over 10 in the analytic models, this variable was excluded from the models
***p < 0.001; **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05
J. Kim
Workplace Flexibility and Parent–Child Interactions Among… 465

References
Allen, T. D., Johnson, R. C., Kiburz, K. M., & Shockley, K. M. (2013). Work–family conflict and flexible
work arrangements: Deconstructing flexibility. Personnel Psychology, 66(2), 345–376.
Ashforth, B. E., Kreiner, G. E., & Fugate, M. (2000). All in a day’s work: Boundaries and micro role transi-
tions. Academy of Management Review, 25(3), 472–491.
Batt, R., & Valcour, P. M. (2003). Human resources practices as predictors of work-family outcomes and
employee turnover. Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, 42(2), 189–220.
Belsky, J. (1984). The determinants of parenting: A process model. Child Development, 55(1), 83–96.
Bethel, J., Green, J. L., Kalton, G., & Nord, C. (2005). Early childhood longitudinal study, birth cohort
(ECLS-B), sampling. Volume 2 of the ECLS-B methodology report for the 9-month data collection,
2001–02 (NCES 2005-147). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Depart-
ment of Education.
Bianchi, S. M. (2011). Family change and time allocation in American families. The ANNALS of the Ameri-
can Academy of Political and Social Science, 638(1), 21–44.
Bianchi, S. M., Robinson, J. P., & Milke, M. A. (2006). The changing rhythms of American family life. New
York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Blumberg, S. J., Halfon, N., & Olson, L. M. (2004). The national survey of early childhood health. Pediat-
rics, 113(Supplement 5), 1899–1906.
Bond, J. T., & Galinsky, E. (2006, November). What workplace flexibility is available to entry-level, hourly
employees. (Families and work institute research brief, 3). Retrieved from http://sites​.googl​e.com/a/
mobil​ityag​enda.org/www/Worka​ndFam​ilies​Brief​3.pdf.
Bonney, J. F., Kelley, M. L., & Levant, R. F. (1999). A model of fathers’ behavioral involvement in child
care in dual-earner families. Journal of Family Psychology, 13(3), 401–415.
Boyce, W. T., Essex, M. J., Alkon, A., Goldsmith, H. H., Kraemer, H. C., & Kupfer, D. J. (2006). Early
father involvement moderates biobehavioral susceptibility to mental health problems in middle child-
hood. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 45(12), 1510–1520.
Brayfield, A. (1995). Juggling jobs and kids: The impact of employment schedules on fathers’ caring for
children. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57(2), 321–332.
Brown, G. L., McBride, B. A., Bost, K. K., & Shin, N. (2011). Parental involvement, child temperament,
and parents’ work hours: Differential relations for mothers and fathers. Journal of Applied Develop-
mental Psychology, 32(6), 313–322.
Buehler, C., & O’Brien, M. (2011). Mothers’ part-time employment: associations with mother and family
well-being. Journal of Family Psychology, 25(6), 895–906.
Burchinal, M., Vernon-Feagans, L., Cox, M., & Key Family Life Project Investigators. (2008). Cumulative
social risk, parenting, and infant development in rural low-income communities. Parenting: Science
and Practice, 8(1), 41–69.
Carlson, D. S., Grzywacz, J. G., & Michele, K. K. (2010). The relationship of schedule flexibility and out-
comes via the work–family interface. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 25(4), 330–355.
Christensen, K. E., & Staines, G. L. (1990). Flextime a viable solution to work/family conflict? Journal of
Family Issues, 11(4), 455–476.
Chung, H. (2018a). Dualization and the access to occupational family-friendly working-time arrangements
across Europe. Social Policy & Administration, 52(2), 491–507.
Chung, H. (2018b). Gender, flexibility stigma, and the perceived negative consequences of flexible working
in the UK. Social Indicators Research. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1120​5-018-2036-7.
Chung, H., & Tijdens, K. (2013). Working time flexibility components and working time regimes in Europe:
using company-level data across 21 countries. The International Journal of Human Resource Man-
agement, 24(7), 1418–1434.
Chung, H., & Van der Horst, M. (2018a). Flexible working and unpaid overtime in the UK: The role of
gender, parental and occupational status. Social Indicators Research. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1120​
5-018-2028-7.
Chung, H., & Van der Lippe, T. (2018b). Flexible working, work life balance and gender equality: Introduc-
tion. Social Indicators Research. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1120​5-018-2025-x. 
Clark, S. C. (2000). Work/family border theory: A new theory of work/family balance. Human Relations,
53(6), 747–770.
Conger, R. D., Elder, G. H., Jr., Lorenz, F. O., Conger, K. J., Simons, R. L., Whitbeck, L. B., et al. (1990).
Linking economic hardship to marital quality and instability. Journal of Marriage and Family, 52(3),
643–656.
Costa, G., Sartori, S., & Akerstedt, T. (2006). Influence of flexibility and variability of working hours on
health and well-being. Chronobiology International, 23(6), 1125–1137.

13
 J. Kim
466

Craig, L. (2006). Does father care mean fathers share? A comparison of how mothers and fathers in intact
families spend time with children. Gender & Society, 20(2), 259–281.
Craig, L., & Mullan, K. (2010). Parenthood, gender and work-family time in the United States, Australia,
Italy, France, and Denmark. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(5), 1344–1361.
Crouter, A. C., Perry-Jenkins, M., Huston, T. L., & McHale, S. M. (1987). Processes underlying father
involvement in dual-earner and single-earner families. Developmental Psychology, 23(3), 431–440.
Daly, K. (2002). Time, gender, and the negotiation of family schedules. Symbolic Interaction, 25(3),
323–342.
Davis, K. D., Lawson, K. M., Almeida, D. M., Kelly, E. L., King, R. B., Hammer, L., et al. (2015). Parents’
daily time with their children: A workplace intervention. Pediatrics, 135(5), 875–882.
De Menezes, L. M., & Kelliher, C. (2011). Flexible working and performance: A systematic review of the
evidence for a business case. International Journal of Management Reviews, 13(4), 452–474.
Dyk, P. H. (2004). Complexity of family life among the low-income and working poor: Introduction to the
special issue. Family Relations, 53(2), 122–126.
Emlen, A. (2010). Solving the childcare and flexibility puzzle: How working parents make the best feasible
choices and what that means for public policy. Boca Raton, FL: Universal-Publishers.
Erickson, J. J., Martinengo, G., & Hill, E. J. (2010). Putting work and family experiences in context: Differ-
ences by family life stage. Human Relations, 63(7), 955–979.
Estes, S. B. (2005). Work–family arrangements and parenting: Are “family-friendly” arrangements related
to mothers’ involvement in children’s lives? Sociological Perspectives, 48(3), 293–317.
Executive Office of the President Council of Economic Advisors (2014, June). Work-life balance and the
economics of workplace flexibility. Retrieved from http://www.white​house​.gov/files​/docum​ents/10033​
1-cea-econo​mics-workp​lace-flexi​bilit​y.pdf.
Forehand, R., & Nousiainen, S. (1993). Maternal and paternal parenting: Critical dimensions in adolescent
functioning. Journal of Family Psychology, 7(2), 213–221.
Fox, L., Han, W. J., Ruhm, C., & Waldfogel, J. (2013). Time for children: Trends in the employment pat-
terns of parents, 1967–2009. Demography, 50(1), 25–49.
Galinsky, E., Aumann, K., & Bond, J. T. (2013). Times are changing: Gender and generation at work
and at home in the USA. In S. Poelmans, J. H. Greenhaus, & M. L. Maestro (Eds.), Expanding the
boundaries of work–family research: A vision for the future (pp. 276–279). New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Galinsky, E., Sakai, K., & Wigton, T. (2011). Workplace flexibility: From research to action. The Future
of Children, 21(2), 141–161.
Golden, T. D., Veiga, J. F., & Simsek, Z. (2006). Telecommuting’s differential impact on work–family
conflict: Is there no place like home? Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(6), 1340–1350.
Gornick, J. C., & Meyers, M. K. (2003). Families that work: Policies for reconciling parenthood and
employment. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Academy of
Management Review, 10(1), 76–88.
Henly, J. R., & Lambert, S. J. (2014). Unpredictable work timing in retail jobs: Implications for
employee work–life conflict. ILR Review, 67(3), 986–1016.
Higgins, C., Duxbury, L., & Johnson, K. L. (2000). Part-time work for women: Does it really help bal-
ance work and family? Human Resource Management, 39(1), 17–32.
Hilbrecht, M., Shaw, S. M., Johnson, L. C., & Andrey, J. (2008). ‘I’m home for the kids’: Contradictory
implications for work–life balance of teleworking mothers. Gender, Work & Organization, 15(5),
454–476.
Hill, E. J., Grzywacz, J. G., Allen, S., Blanchard, V. L., Matz-Costa, C., Shulkin, S., et  al. (2008a).
Defining and conceptualizing workplace flexibility. Community, Work and Family, 11(2), 149–163.
Hill, E. J., Jacob, J. I., Shannon, L. L., Brennan, R. T., Blanchard, V. L., & Martinengo, G. (2008b).
Exploring the relationship of workplace flexibility, gender, and life stage to family-to-work con-
flict, and stress and burnout. Community, Work and Family, 11(2), 165–181.
Hill, E. J., Märtinson, V., & Ferris, M. (2004). New-concept part-time employment as a work-family
adaptive strategy for women professionals with small children. Family Relations, 53(3), 282–292.
Hill, R., Tranby, E., Kelly, E., & Moen, P. (2013). Relieving the time squeeze? Effects of a white-collar
workplace change on parents. Journal of Marriage and Family, 75(4), 1014–1029.
Hofäcker, D., & König, S. (2013). Flexibility and work-life conflict in times of crisis: a gender perspec-
tive. International Journal of Sociology and Social policy, 33(9/10), 613–635.
Igbaria, M., & Guimaraes, T. (1999). Exploring differences in employee turnover intentions and its
determinants among telecommuters and non-telecommuters. Journal of Management Information
Systems, 16(1), 147–164.

13
Workplace Flexibility and Parent–Child Interactions Among… 467

Jang, S. J. (2009). The relationships of flexible work schedules, workplace support, supervisory support,
work-life balance, and the well-being of working parents. Journal of Social Service Research,
35(2), 93–104.
Jiang, Y., Ekono, M. M., & Skinner, C. (2015). Basic facts about low-income children, children under
18 years, 2013. New York: National Center for Children in Poverty, Mailman School of Public
Health, Columbia University.
Johnson, D. (2005). Two-wave panel analysis: comparing statistical methods for studying the effects of
transitions. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67(4), 1061–1075.
Kalleberg, A. L. (2009). Precarious work, insecure workers: Employment relations in transition. Ameri-
can Sociological Review, 74(1), 1–22.
Kaufman, G., & Uhlenberg, P. (1998). Effects of life course transitions on the quality of relationships
between adult children and their parents. Journal of Marriage and Family, 60(4), 924–938.
Kelly, E. L., Kossek, E. E., Hammer, L. B., Durham, M., Bray, J., Chermack, K., et al. (2008). 7 Getting
there from here: Research on the effects of work–family initiatives on work–family conflict and
business outcomes. Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 305–349.
Kossek, E. E., Barber, A. E., & Winters, D. (1999). Using flexible schedules in the managerial world:
The power of peers. Human Resources Management, 38(1), 33–46.
Kossek, E. E., Lautsch, B. A., & Eaton, S. C. (2006). Telecommuting, control, and boundary manage-
ment: Correlates of policy use and practice, job control, and work–family effectiveness. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 68(2), 347–367.
Kurowska, A. (2018). Gendered effects of home-based work on parents’ capability to balance work with
nonwork. Two countries with different models of division of labour compared. Social Indicators
Research. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1120​5-018-2034-9.
Lambert, S. J., Haley-Lock, A., & Henly, J. R. (2012). Schedule flexibility in hourly jobs: Unanticipated
consequences and promising directions. Community, Work & Family, 15(3), 293–315.
Lambert, S., & Waxman, E. (2005). Organizational stratification: Distributing opportunities for work-
life balance. Work and life integration: Organizational, cultural, and individual perspectives (pp.
103–126). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Landry, S. H., Smith, K. E., Swank, P. R., Assel, M. A., & Vellet, S. (2001). Does early responsive parenting
have a special importance for children’s development or is consistency across early childhood neces-
sary? Developmental Psychology, 37(3), 387–403.
Langner, L. A. (2018). Flexible men and successful women: the effects of flexible working hours on Ger-
man couples’ wages. Work, Employment & Society, 32(4), 687–706.
Lapierre, L. M., & Allen, T. D. (2006). Work-supportive family, family-supportive supervision, use of
organizational benefits, and problem-focused coping: implications for work–family conflict and
employee well-being. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11(2), 169–181.
Leiferman, J. A., Ollendick, T. H., Kunkel, D., & Christie, I. C. (2005). Mothers’ mental distress and parent-
ing practices with infants and toddlers. Archives of Women’s Mental Health, 8(4), 243–247.
Lott, Y. (2018). Does flexibility help employees switch off from work? Flexible working-time arrangements
and cognitive work-to-home spillover for women and men in Germany. Social Indicators Research.
https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1120​5-018-2031-z.
Lott, Y., & Chung, H. (2016). Gender discrepancies in the outcomes of schedule control on overtime hours
and income in Germany. European Sociological Review, 32(6), 752–765.
Menaghan, E. G., & Parcel, T. L. (1990). Parental employment and family life: Research in the 1980s. Jour-
nal of Marriage and Family, 52(4), 1079–1098.
Meteyer, K., & Perry-Jenkins, M. (2010). Father involvement among working-class, dual-earner couples.
Fathering: A Journal of Theory, Research, and Practice About Men as Fathers, 8(3), 379–403.
Mills, M., & Täht, K. (2010). Nonstandard work schedules and partnership quality: Quantitative and quali-
tative findings. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(4), 860–875.
Morrison, A. & Robbins, K.G. (2015, September). Part-time workers are paid less, have less access to ben-
efits and two-thirds are women. National Women’s Law Center. Retrieved from http://www.nwlc.org/
sites​/defau​lt/files​/pdfs/part-time_worke​rs_fact_sheet​_8.21.1513.pdf.
National Partnership for Women and Families (2017). Schedules that work Washington, DC. Retrieved from
http://www.natio​nalpa​rtner​ship.org/resea​rch-libra​ry/workp​lace-fairn​ess/equal​-oppor​tunit​y/sched​ules-
that-work-act-fact-sheet​.pdf.
Nomaguchi, K. M. (2009) Change in work-family conflict among employed parents between 1977 and 1997.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 71(1), 15–32.

13
 J. Kim
468

Nord, C., Edwards, B., Andreassen, C., Green, J. L., & Wallner-Allen, K. (2006). Early childhood longitu-
dinal study, birth cohort (ECLS-B), user’s manual for the ECLS-B longitudinal 9-month–2-year data
file and electronic codebook (NCES 2006–046). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education,
National Center for Education Statistics.
Powell, A., & Craig, L. (2015). Gender differences in working at home and time use patterns: Evidence
from Australia. Work, Employment & Society, 29(4), 571–589.
Presser, H. B. (1989). Can we make time for children? The economy, work schedules, and child care.
Demography, 26(4), 523–543.
Presser, H. B. (2005). Working in a 24/7 economy: Challenges for American families. New York, NY: Rus-
sell Sage Foundation.
Roberts, B., Povich, D., & Mather, M. (2013). Low-income working families: The growing economic gap.
The Working Poor Families Project, 301(3), 657–1480.
Roeters, A., Van Der Lippe, T., & Kluwer, E. S. (2010). Work characteristics and parent–child relation-
ship quality: The mediating role of temporal involvement. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(5),
1317–1328.
Rogers, S. J. (1996). Mothers’ work hours and marital quality: Variations by family structure and family
size. Journal of Marriage and Family, 58(3), 606–617.
Roy, K. M., Tubbs, C. Y., & Burton, L. M. (2004). Don’t have no time: Daily rhythms and the organization
of time for low-income families. Family Relations, 53(2), 168–178.
Rudman, L. A., & Mescher, K. (2013). Penalizing men who request a family leave: Is flexibility stigma a
femininity stigma? Journal of Social Issues, 69(2), 322–340.
Sarkadi, A., Kristiansson, R., Oberklaid, F., & Bremberg, S. (2008). Fathers’ involvement and children’s
developmental outcomes: A systematic review of longitudinal studies. Acta Paediatrica, 97(2),
153–158.
Scandura, T. A., & Lankau, M. J. (1997). Relationships of gender, family responsibility and flexible work
hours to organizational commitment and job satisfaction. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18(4),
377–391.
Shockley, K. M., & Allen, T. D. (2007). When flexibility helps: Another look at the availability of flexible
work arrangements and work–family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 71(3), 479–493.
Silver, H. (1993). Homework and domestic work. Sociological Forum, 8(2), 181–204.
Society for Human Resource Management (2010, September). Executive roundtable on workplace flexibil-
ity. Washington, DC. Retrieved February 28, 2012, from http://www.shrm.org/Resea​rch/Futur​eWork​
place​Trend​s/Docum​ents/11-0013%20Exe​cRoun​dtabl​eWork​Flex_FINAL​.pdf.
Stratton, L. S. (1996). Are “involuntary” part-time workers indeed involuntary? Industrial and Labor Rela-
tions Review, 49(3), 522–536.
Sullivan, C., & Lewis, S. (2001). Home-based telework, gender, and the synchronization of work and fam-
ily: perspectives of teleworkers and their co-residents. Gender, Work & Organization, 8(2), 123–145.
Swanberg, J. E., James, J. B., Werner, M., & McKechnie, S. P. (2008). Workplace flexibility for hourly
lower-wage employees: A strategic business practice within one national retail firm. The Psycholo-
gist-Manager Journal, 11(1), 5–29.
Swanberg, J. E., Pitt-Catsouphes, M., & Drescher-Burke, K. (2005). A question of justice: Disparities in
employees’ access to flexible schedule arrangements. Journal of Family Issues, 26(6), 866–895.
Tubbs, C. Y., Roy, K. M., & Burton, L. M. (2005). Family ties: Constructing family time in low-income
families. Family Process, 44(1), 77–91.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2009). Table  7. Employment status of women by presence and age of
youngest child, March 1975–2008. Retrieved from https​://www.bls.gov/cps/wlf-table​7-2009.pdf.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2015). Table 4. Families with own children: Employment status of parents
by age of youngest child and family type, 2013–2014 annual averages. Retrieved from http://www.bls.
gov/news.relea​se/famee​.t04.htm.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2017a). Table 4. Families with own children: Employment status of parents
by age of youngest child and family type, 2016–2017 annual averages. Retrieved from https​://www.
bls.gov/news.relea​se/famee​.t04.htm.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2017b). Table 6. Employment status of mothers with own children under
3 years old by single year of age of youngest child and marital status, 2016–2017 annual averages.
Retrieved from https​://www.bls.gov/news.relea​se/famee​.t06.htm#cps_fm_mchld​.f.2.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2018). Employment characteristic of families—2017. Retrieved from https​
://www.bls.gov/news.relea​se/pdf/famee​.pdf.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2013) America’s families and living arrangements: 2013: Children. Retrieved from
http://www.censu​s.gov/hhes/famil​ies/data/cps20​13C.html.

13
Workplace Flexibility and Parent–Child Interactions Among… 469

U.S. Census Bureau. (2018). Table FM-1. Families by presence of own children under 18: 1950 to present.
Retrieved from https​://www.censu​s.gov/newsr​oom/stori​es/2018/singl​e-paren​t.html.
Van der Lippe, T., & Lippényi, Z. (2018). Beyond formal access: Organizational context, working from
home, and work–family conflict of men and women in European workplaces. Social Indicators
Research. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1120​5-018-1993-1.
Volling, B. L., & Belsky, J. (1991). Multiple determinants of father involvement during infancy in dual-
earner and single-earner families. Journal of Marriage and Family, 53(2), 461–474.
Voydanoff, P. (2005). Toward a conceptualization of perceived work–family fit and balance: a demands and
resources approach. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67(4), 822–836.
Wang, W. Parker, K., & Taylor, P. (2013, May). Breadwinner moms. Pew research center. Retrieved from
http://www.pewso​cialt​rends​.org/2013/05/29/bread​winne​r-moms/.
Whittock, M., Edwards, C., McLaren, S., & Robinson, O. (2002). ‘The tender trap’: gender, part-time nurs-
ing and the effects of ‘family-friendly’ policies on career advancement. Sociology of Health & Illness,
24(3), 305–326.
Wight, V. R., Raley, S. B., & Bianchi, S. M. (2008). Time for children, one’s spouse and oneself among par-
ents who work nonstandard hours. Social Forces, 87(1), 243–263.
Williams, J. C., Blair-Loy, M., & Berdahl, J. L. (2013). Cultural schemas, social class, and the flexibility
stigma. Journal of Social Issues, 69(2), 209–234.

13