Link 1

Journal of Vocational Behavior 67 (2005) 169–198
www.elsevier.com/locate/jvb
A meta-analytic review of work–family conXict

and its antecedents !
¤
Kristin Byron
College of Business, Rochester Institute of Technology, 103 Lomb Memorial Drive,
Rochester, NY 14623, USA
Received 6 November 2003

Available online 2 March 2005
Abstract
This meta-analytic review combines the results of more than 60 studies to help determine
the relative eVects of work, nonwork, and demographic and individual factors on work inter-
ference with family (WIF) and family interference with work (FIW). As expected, work factors
related more strongly to WIF, and some nonwork factors were more strongly related to FIW.
Demographic factors, such as an employee’s sex and marital status, tended to relate weakly to
WIF and FIW. Overall the analysis supports the notion that WIF and FIW have unique
antecedents, and therefore, may require diVerent interventions or solutions to prevent or
reduce their occurrence. Lastly, the analysis suggests that demographic variables, such as sex
and marital status, are alone poor predictors of work–family conXict. Researchers are advised
to attend to more Wnely grained variables that may more fully capture employees’ likelihood of
experiencing work–family conXict.
© 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
!
I thank Margaret LaSalle for help with coding the studies and Frank Schmidt and Allen HuVcutt for
their advice on calculations used in the analysis. I also thank Ross Rubenstein, Bill H. Bommer, Edward
W. Miles, Corinne Post, Tammy Allen, and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and sug-
gestions. Some of the results from this analysis were presented at the 2002 Southern Management Associa-
tion Annual Meeting in Atlanta, Georgia and at the 2004 Society of Industrial and Organizational
Psychologists Annual Meeting in Chicago, Illinois.
¤
Fax: +1 585 475 4423.
E-mail address: kbyron@cob.rit.edu.
0001-8791/$ - see front matter © 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2004.08.009
170 K. Byron / Journal of Vocational Behavior 67 (2005) 169–198
Keywords: Work; Family; ConXict; Interference; Meta-analysis; Review
1. Introduction
The increase in dual-career couples and single-parent households and the concom-
itant decrease in traditional, single-earner families mean that responsibilities for
work, housework, and childcare are no longer conWned to traditional gender roles.
Increasingly, employees Wnd themselves struggling to juggle the competing demands
of work and family. The problems and issues encountered by employees taking part
in this balancing act has prompted a burgeoning body of research and theory on the
intersections of individuals’ work and family lives (e.g., Kossek, Noe, & DeMarr,
1999; Perrewe & Hochwarter, 2001). One of the most studied concepts in the work–
family literature is work–family conXict. Work–family conXict, also called work–
family interference, is a type of interrole conXict (Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, &
Rosenthal, 1964) that occurs when the demands of work and family roles conXict.
Since the construct of work–family conXict was introduced, a large body of litera-
ture has examined its causes and consequences. Recent meta-analyses have examined
the relation between work–family conXict and its consequences, such as job and life
satisfaction, burnout, and absenteeism (Allen, Herst, Bruck, & Sutton, 2000; Kossek
& Ozeki, 1998, 1999). These meta-analyses underscore the potentially negative eVects
of work–family conXict for individuals and their employing organizations. However,
among the published meta-analyses on work–family conXict, only one has examined
a potential antecedent, job/work involvement (Kossek & Ozeki, 1999). No meta-anal-
ysis to date has comprehensively considered the myriad causes of work–family con-
Xict that have been examined in the literature.
In addition, the concept of work–family conXict has changed over time. Increas-
ingly, researchers have acknowledged the direction of interference (O’Driscoll, Ilgen,
& Hildreth, 1992). That is, work–family conXict is increasingly recognized as consist-
ing of two distinct, though related, concepts, work interference with family (WIF)
and family interference with work (FIW). WIF (also termed work-to-family conXict)
occurs when work interferes with family life, and FIW (known also as family-to-
work conXict) occurs when family life interferes with work (Frone, Yardley, & Mar-
kel, 1997). Support for distinguishing these two concepts comes from several sources.
First, in their meta-analysis, Kossek and Ozeki (1998) reported consistent support for
distinguishing between the direction of work–family conXict. Second, recent theory
and research on WIF and FIW suggests that these two concepts may have diVerent
causes and eVects (e.g., Frone, Russell, & Cooper, 1992a, 1992b; Kelloway, Gottlieb,
& Barham, 1999).
In summary, while the potentially harmful eVects of work–family conXict are rec-
ognized, we know less about the causes of work–family conXict and their relative
eVects on WIF and FIW. Consequently, a systematic review of the literature on
work–family conXict antecedents is needed to explain the experience of work–family
conXict in employees’ lives. The present study oVers such an analysis by providing a
K. Byron / Journal of Vocational Behavior 67 (2005) 169–198 171
quantitative review of potential antecedents and their relation to two types of work–
family conXict, work interference with family (WIF) and family interference with
work (FIW).
2. Work–family conXict and its antecedents
Researchers have considered a number of diVerent variables as possible anteced-

ents of WIF and FIW. Consistent with Eby, Casper, Lockwood, Bordeaux, and Brin-
ley (in press) classiWcation scheme for antecedents of work–family conXict, the
previously researched antecedents can be classiWed into three categories: work
domain variables, nonwork domain variables, and individual and demographic vari-
ables. Work domain variables consider the eVect of job and workplace factors, such
as schedule Xexibility and job stress. Nonwork domain variables consider the family
demands and other nonwork factors, such as marital conXict, number of hours spent
on housework or childcare, and age of youngest child. Demographic or individual
variables include personality, behaviors, and other individual diVerences, such as sex,
income, and coping style.
While other theories about the intersection of work and family exist, the con-
structs of WIF and FIW have their roots in conXict theory. ConXict theory proposes
that work and family domains are incompatible due to their diVerent norms and
responsibilities (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). The diVering norms and responsibilities
of work and family cause intrusion and negative spillover of one domain on the
other. Consistent with research and theory on WIF and FIW, antecedents related to
diVerent domains may have diVerential eVects on WIF and FIW. Factors related to
an individual’s job (work domain variables) are expected to be more related to WIF
than to FIW. For example, the more hours individuals spend at work, the more likely
it is that their work will interfere with their family life. Similarly, factors related to
individuals’ family and nonwork life (nonwork domain variables) are expected to
relate more to FIW than to WIF. For example, individuals with more supportive
families may experience less FIW, yet may not have less WIF. In contrast, individual
and demographic variables, such as sex or income, are expected to have equivalent
eVects on WIF and FIW because they may simultaneously inXuence both work and
nonwork. I propose the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1. Work-domain variables relate more to WIF than to FIW.
Hypothesis 2. Nonwork-domain variables relate more to FIW than to WIF.
Hypothesis 3. Demographic and individual variables have equivalent eVects on WIF
and FIW.
Research examining proposed antecedents of WIF and FIW has produced mixed
results. Therefore, when warranted, I consider several potential moderators of these
relationships. DiVerences in sampling strategies may explain some of the variation in
results between studies. For example, some studies enlisted only parents, whereas
others made no such restrictions. In addition, some studies sampled only women or
only men, whereas others had a mixed sex sample. I explore whether diVerences in
sample composition, such as the percentage of parents or females in them sample,
may moderate the relationship between antecedents and WIF and FIW. In the
studies used in the analysis, the percentage of parents ranged from 16 to 100 per-
cent; and the percentage of females in the sample ranged from 0 to 100 percent.
Previous research and theory suggests that being female or having children may
explain diVerences in results across studies (e.g., Eagle, Icenogle, Maes, & Miles,
1998; VoydanoV, 2002). Therefore, the present analysis considers whether the per-
centage of females or the percentage of study participants with children explains
between-study variance.
In addition, other meta-analyses have reported that variation in how variables
are measured account for signiWcant diVerences in results across studies (e.g.,
Verquer, Beehr, & Wagner, 2003). Therefore, in the present analysis, I consider
whether variation in how antecedents were measured accounts for diVerences in
results between studies. For example, many studies examined whether having more
children related to more WIF or FIW. Among the studies considering this
relationship, study participants’ number of children was measured in diVerent
ways. Some asked participants how many children they had living at home, others
asked participants how many children they had (with no restrictions), and others
asked participants whether they had children or not. The diVerent methods of
measuring this and other proposed antecedents of WIF and FIW may account for
observed diVerences in Wndings between studies. Therefore, I explored whether
diVerences in measurement moderate the relationships between proposed anteced-
ents and WIF and FIW.
Fig. 1 demonstrates the relationships examined in the present meta-analysis. The
solid lines represent relationships that are proposed to be stronger (i.e., of higher
magnitude) than those represented by dashed lines. Dotted lines represent relation-
ships of undetermined magnitude, and curved lines represent the relationship
between WIF and FIW. It should be noted that the relationships represented in the
Wgure do not imply that alternate relationships are implausible. Rather, some of these
alternate relationships are mathematically equivalent and their plausibility is not
being rejected, e.g., family conXict may also be a consequence, rather than a cause, of
WIF and FIW. It should also be noted that more complex relationships than those
represented in Fig. 1 are similarly plausible. For example, family support may moder-
ate the relationship between spousal employment and WIF or FIW. Unfortunately,
the data available to meta-analytic researchers can preclude the investigation of more
complex relationships. Therefore, this meta-analysis focuses on the factors that have
been identiWed in the literature as potential antecedents and their relationship to
WIF and FIW.
In the next sections, I describe the method for Wnding, selecting, and coding stud-
ies for the meta-analysis. Then, I specify the method for quantitatively cumulating
the results in the studies. In the following section, I present the results of the review
for each of the three categories of antecedents of WIF and FIW, and the relationship
of WIF and FIW. Lastly, I discuss the implications of the results of the meta-analysis
and provide suggestions for future research.
Fig. 1. Proposed relationships between variables in meta-analysis. Note. Solid lines represent direct rela-
tionships hypothesized to be stronger in magnitude than those represented by dashed lines. The dotted
lines represent relationships of undetermined magnitude, and curved lines represent correlation rather
than causation.
3. Method
3.1. Search strategy
I searched the computer database Psych-Info of the American Psychological

Association using the keywords “work, family, conXict,” and “work, family, interfer-
ence” for articles published in academic journals, resulting in more than 500 studies.
After eliminating duplicates and studies that were not related to work–family conXict
(e.g., those that were related to family conXict), the 243 remaining studies were
reviewed for possible inclusion. In addition, I searched the reference lists of three
recently published meta-analyses on work–family conXict (Allen et al., 2000; Kossek
& Ozeki, 1998, 1999) and one review article (Swanson, 1992) to locate articles that
had not turned up in my computer database search. Lastly, I posted a message on the
general on-line forum on the Sloan Work and Family Research Network website,
and on the Workfam Newsgroup of the Work/Family Initiative at Pennsylvania
State University soliciting research on work–family conXict. Because so few studies
that were not subsequently published were located, the present analysis is restricted
to published studies. There are several factors that should mitigate concern about
publication bias. First, many of the relationships included in the present analysis
were from studies that were not explicitly considering the relationships. For example,
most of the studies included in the meta-analysis of sex and work–family conXict
were not explicitly considering this relationship. Second, I included two estimates of
the stability of each eVect size, (1) the number of studies needed to meaningfully
change the estimated eVect size and (2) 95% conWdence intervals of each eVect size.
3.2. Criteria for inclusion
For a study to be considered for inclusion, the study had to meet the following cri-
teria:
1. WIF and FIW had to be quantitatively measured; qualitative studies of work–

family conXict were eliminated.
2. The study had to report the relationship between a previously proposed anteced-
ent and WIF and FIW or between WIF and FIW in a form that could be con-
verted to a correlation. Studies that merely stated Wndings without providing
details of those results, or did not provide data in a usable form were eliminated.
3. Only studies published by 2002, and written in the English language were
included.
4. Only studies that examined both WIF and FIW were included to increase the con-
Wdence that observed diVerences were due to diVerences in the relationship rather
than due to diVerences in samples.
5. When fewer than Wve studies could be located for a particular antecedent, the
antecedent was not examined. For example, antecedents such as supervisory
responsibilities, job type or level, child care satisfaction, and self-eYcacy were
excluded.
Because the formula used in meta-analysis assumes that the studies used are statis-
tically independent, I avoided violating the assumption of independence of studies by
eliminating duplicate results from the same dataset. When more than one study used
the same sample, only one was included, when a sample was a subset of a larger sam-
ple, only the study that used the larger sample was included. However, when studies
using the same sample considered diVerent antecedents, each was included in its
respective analysis, but only the one with the larger sample was included when they
considered the same variable. In all, 61 studies met these criteria and were included in
the analysis. Some of these studies had multiple independent samples, which were
included as independent outcomes. Table 1 lists the studies by sample included in the
meta-analysis, their sample characteristics, and the measure of WIF and FIW used.
3.3. Coding of variables
When a study gave a range for the sample size, I recorded the lowest number.
Apparent typographical errors were clariWed with the study’s lead author. To observe
the need for independence among studies, I averaged multiple time periods, and
multiple measures of FIW or WIF or the antecedent, which is consistent with other
meta-analyses of work–family conXict (e.g., Allen et al., 2000). When provided, the reli-
ability (internal consistency) for each measure was recorded. When it was not pro-
vided, the average reliability for that variable was inputted (except for measures that
were assumed to be perfectly reliable, e.g., sex and number of children). Table 2 details
how each of the antecedents were coded or measured in the studies used in the present
analysis. In addition, it includes the range of reliability (internal consistency) of the
measure used for each antecedent and the average reliability weighted by sample size.
To test for accuracy in coding, a quarter of the studies were randomly selected to
be coded twice. The interrater agreement between the two coders was calculated by
dividing the number of data points in agreement by the total number of data points
coded. The interrater agreement between the two coders was .99. The high level of
agreement between the two coders was likely due to the fact that most of the coding
in the present meta-analysis involved merely recording data and possibly applying
simple decision rules, and that both coders had prior experience coding studies for
meta-analysis.
3.4. Moderators
Several potential moderators were investigated to determine if they explained var-

iation in the eVect sizes between studies. Two continuous moderators were consid-
ered, the percentage of females in the sample and the percentage of parents in the
sample. In addition, one categorical moderator was considered, the use of diVerent
coding schemes or measurement of antecedent variables. For example, most studies
coded spousal employment as a dichotomous variable (i.e., a spouse was either
employed or not); whereas three studies each used a diVerent coding scheme (e.g.,
trichotomized or number of hours spouse works). When diVerent coding schemes
were used, studies that used similar coding schemes were grouped and analyzed. I
analyzed sub-group analyses with Wve or more studies only. In addition, some ante-
cedents were operationalized diVerently across studies (see Table 2). For example,
some studies used measures of overall job stress, which often combined role ambigu-
ity and role overload, whereas other studies measured only role overload. When a
particular antecedent was measured using diVerent constructs, I conducted sub-
group analyses for each diVerent construct when there were more than Wve studies for
a given construct. All moderators were coded by recording the sample characteristics
of each study (i.e., percentage of females in sample and percentage of parents in sam-
ple) and information about the types of measures used in each study (e.g., whether
the measure was continuous or categorical). Nearly all studies were conducted in the
US or Canada (as shown in Table 1), therefore, the country in which the study was
conducted could not be considered as a potential moderator.
176
Table 1
Summary of studies and their characteristics
Author(s) and Publication year/sample characteristics WIF measure FIW measure N Country
Adams and Jex (1999)
Part-time university students Frone et al. (1992a,1992b; 2) Frone et al. (1992a,1992b; 2) 490 US
Adams, King, and King (1996)
Varied professions, full-time and living Kopelman, Greenhaus, and Burley (1989; 5) 146 US
K. Byron / Journal of Vocational Behavior 67 (2005) 169–198

with a family member Connolly (1983; 4)
Aryee, Fields, et al. (1999)
Varied professions Gutek, Searle, and Klepa (1991; 4) Gutek et al. (1991; 4) 320 Hong Kong
Aryee, Luk, Leung, and Lo (1999)
Public sector and university employees, parents in Netemeyer, Boles, and McMurrian Netemeyer et al. (1996; 5) 243 Hong Kong
dual-earner families (1996; 5)
Barling, MacEwen, Kelloway, and
Higginbottom (1994)
University employees *Kopelman et al. (1983; 4) *Kopelman et al. (1983; 4) 141 Canada
Beutell and Witting-Berman (1999)
Varied professions, married, and employed Kopelman et al. (1983; 6) Kopelman et al. (1983; 4) 177 US
Boles, Howard, and Donofrio (2001)
Probation and parole oYcers Netemeyer et al. (1996; 5) Netemeyer et al. (1996; 5) 144 US
Brough and Kelling (2002)
Varied professions Netemeyer et al. (1996; 5) Netemeyer et al. (1996; 5) 691 New Zealand
Bruck, Allen, and Spector (2002)
Hospital employees, married or living Carlson, Kacmar, and Williams Carlson et al. (2000; 9) 160 US
with partner or child (2000; 9)
Burke and Greenglass (2001)
Registered nurses Kopelman et al. (1983; 4) Burley (1989; 4) 527 Canada
Carlson and Kacmar (2000)
State government employees, Gutek et al. (1991); Frone et al. Gutek et al. (1991); Frone et al. 314 US
married or with children (1992a,1992b; 5) (1992a,1992b; 5)
Carlson et al. (2000)
Varied; employed full-time Carlson et al. (2000; 9) Carlson et al. (2000; 9) 225 US
Casper, Martin, BuVardi, and Erdwins (2002)
Female employees with preschool-aged child Kopelman et al. (1983; 4) Burley (1989; 4) 143 US
Cinamon and Rich (2002)
Lawyers and employees in computer or software Gutek et al. (1991); Self-developed; Gutek et al. (1991); Self-developed; 213 Israel
Weld, married 7 7
Cohen and Kirchmeyer (1995)
Nurses Shamir (1983; 6) Kirchmeyer (1993; 8) 227 Canada
Duxbury et al. (1994)
Varied professions, parents of child age 6–12 Bohen and Viveros-Long (1981; 4) Bohen and Viveros-Long (1981; 5) 1989 Canada
Eagle et al. (1998)
Varied professions, employed full-time, married or Frone et al. (1992a, 1992b); Gutek Frone et al. (1992a, 1992b); Gutek 318 US

living with child et al. (1991); Wiley (1987); 11 et al. (1991); Wiley (1987); 13
Eagle, Miles, and Icenogle (1997)
University employees (married or with children at Frone et al. (1992a, 1992b); Gutek Frone et al. (1992a, 1992b); Gutek 493 US
home) et al. (1991); Wiley (1987); 11 et al. (1991); Wiley (1987); 13
Fox and Dwyer (1999)
Registered nurses Self-developed; 2 Self-developed; 2 113 US
Frone and Yardley (1996)
Financial services company employees Frone et al. (1992a, 1992b); Gutek Frone et al. (1992a, 1992b); Gutek 252 Canada
et al. (1991); 6 et al. (1991); 6
Frone (2000)
National Commorbidity Survey, employed and Self-developed; 2 Self-developed; 2 2700 US
married or parent of child under 18
Frone, Russell, and Barnes (1996)
Longitudinal follow-up (Erie County, NY), Wave 2 Frone et al. (1992a,1992b; 2) Frone et al. (1992a,1992b; 2) 496 US
Longitudinal follow-up (BuValo, NY), Wave 3 Frone et al. (1992a,1992b; 2) Frone et al. (1992a,1992b; 2) 605 US
Frone et al. (1992a)
Longitudinal follow-up (Erie County, NY), Frone et al. (1992a,1992b; 2) Frone et al. (1992a,1992b; 2) 631 US
employed and married or with child at home
Frone et al. (1997)
Varied professions, married or with children living Frone et al. (1992a, 1992b); Gutek Frone et al. (1992a, 1992b); Gutek 372 Canada
at home et al. (1991); 6 et al. (1991); 6
Fu and ShaVer (2001)
University employees Carlson et al. (2000; 9) Carlson et al. (2000; 9) 267 Hong Kong
(continued on next page)
177
178
Table 1 (continued)
Gignac, Kelloway, and Gottlieb (1996)
Work and family survey, employees caring for Gutek et al. (1994; 4) Gutek et al. (1994; 4) 659 Canada
elderly relative
Grandey and Cropanzano (1999)

University faculty Kopelman et al. (1983; 6) Self-developed; 5 132 US
Greenhaus, Parasuraman, and Collins (2001)
Public accountants, married and with one or more Greenhaus and Beutell (1985; 9) DNR; 4 199 US
children
Grzywacz and Marks (2000)
National Survey of Midlife Development Self-developed; 4 Self-developed; 4 1986 US
Gutek et al. (1991)
Psychologists Kopelman et al. (1983; 4) Burley (1989; 4) 423 US
Senior managers in executive education Kopelman et al. (1983; 4) Burley (1989; 4) 176 US
Hepburn and Barling (1996)
University employees *Kopelman et al. (1983; 4) *Kopelman et al. (1983; 4) 17 Canada
Higgins, Duxbury, and Lee (1994)
Federal and private-sector employees, married with Bohen and Viveros-Long (1981; 4) Bohen and Viveros-Long (1981; 3616 Canada
children 8)
Hughes and Galinsky (1994)
Married employees of large corporation Self-developed; 8 Self-developed; 6 429 US
Hughes, Galinsky, and Morris (1992)
Pharmaceutical company employees Self-developed; 8 Self-developed; 6 522 US
Jex and Elacqua (1999)
Varied professions, employed students Frone et al. (1992a,1992b; 2) Frone et al. (1992a,1992b; 2) 515 US
Judge, Boudreau, and Bretz (1994)
Male executives from search Wrm database Gutek et al. (1991; 4) Gutek et al. (1991; 4) 1062 US
Kelloway et al. (1999)
Healthcare and grocery organizations employees Self-developed; 11 Self-developed; 11 236 Canada
Kinnunen and Mauno (1998)
Public sector, manufacturing, and home market Frone et al. (1992a,1992b; 2); Brett Frone et al. (1992a, 1992b); 501 Finland
employees and Yogev (1985); 3 Brett and Yogev (1985); 3
Kirchmeyer and Cohen (1999)
School teachers, administrators, and staV Shamir (1983; 6) Kirchmeyer (1993; 8) 200 Canada
Klitzman, House, Israel, and Mero (1990)

Manufacturing company employees Self-developed; 3 Self-developed; 3 573 US
Kossek, Colquitt, and Noe (2001)
University employees Gutek et al. (1991; 4) Gutek et al. (1991; 4) 490 US
Leiter and Durup (1996)

Hospital employees with families Kopelman et al. (1983; 4) Burley (1989; 4) 151 Canada
Loerch, Russell, and Rush (1989)
University support staV and administrators Thompson (1985); Wiley (1987); Self-developed; 12 156 US
Self-developed; 18
MacEwen and Barling (1994)
Police, employed full-time, married, and with child Kopelman et al. (1983; 8) Kopelman et al. (1983; 8) 40 Canada
at home
Mallard and Lance (1998)
Federal employees with children living at home Self-developed; 17 Self-developed; 15 143 US
Marks (1998)
Wisconsin Longitudinal Study, varied; full- or part- Self-developed; 3 Self-developed; 4 5782 US
time employees
Matsui, Ohsawa, and Onglatco (1995)
Employees at reWnery, advertising and HR Self-developed; 5 Self-developed; 5 131 Japan
consulting companies
McManus, Korabik, Rosin, and Kelloway (2002)
Healthcare and grocery employees, married or Gottlieb, Kelloway, and Barham Gottlieb et al. (1998; 11) 178 Canada
single mothers (1998; 11)
Accountants, engineers, and banking and Gutek et al. (1991; 4) Gutek et al. (1991; 4) 72 Canada
telecommunications employees, married or single
mothers
Netemeyer et al. (1996)
Teachers Self-developed; 22 Self-developed; 21 182 US
Small business owners Self-developed; 22 Self-developed; 21 162 US
Real estate agents Self-developed; 22 Self-developed; 21 186 US
(continued on next page)
179
180
Table 1 (continued)
Nielson, Carlson, and Lankau (2001)

Undergraduate business graduates, married or Gutek et al. (1991); Frone et al. Gutek et al. (1991); Frone et al. 272 US
living with child (1992a, 1992b); 5 (1992a, 1992b); 5
O’Driscoll et al. (1992)
Varied professions, working at least 20 h/week Self-developed; 7 Self-developed; 7 121 US
Parasuraman, Purohit, Godshalk, and Beutell (1996)
Business owners Kopelman, et al. (1983; 6) Kopelman et al. (1983; 4) 111 US
Perrewe, Hochwarter, and Kiewtiz (1999)
Hotel managers Gutek et al. (1991; 4) Gutek et al. (1991; 4) 263 US
ShaVer, Harrison, Gilley, and Luk (2001)
Married international assignees, varied professions Gutek et al. (1991; 3) Gutek et al. (1991; 3) 324 Varied
Shannon et al. (2001)
Hospital employees DNR; 3 DNR; 4 327 Canada
Stoeva, Chiu, and Greenhaus (2002)
Senior civil servants Kopelman et al. (1983; 4) Burley (1991; 4) 147 Hong Kong
Thompson and Blau (1993)
Varied professions *Burke, Weir, and DuWor (1979; *Burke et al. (1979; DNR) 234 US
DNR)
Van der Hulst and Guerts (2001)
Postal service employees Geurts (2000; 9) Geurts (2000; 6) 751 Netherlands
Vinokur, Pierce, and Buck (1999)
Females who served in air force Frone et al. (1992a,1992b; 2) Frone et al. (1992a,1992b; 2) 525 US
Wiley (1987)
MBA students and graduate students enrolled in Wiley (1987; DNR) Wiley (1987; DNR) 191 US
evening classes
Williams and Alliger (1994)
Full-time employees Gutek et al. (1991; 3) Gutek et al. (1991; 3) 41 US
Note. Measures of WIF and FIW indicate source of scale and number of items; *indicates that scale used in study was an adaptation. DNR, did not report.
Table 2
Summary of measures used for antecedent variables
Antecedent Measures Items Reliability (weighted reliability) Categories
Work variables
Job involvement Work involvement; Job involvement 4–10 .63–.90 (.81) —
Hours spent at work Number of hours worked; hours worked outside 1 N/A 2–5; #
the normal work week (e.g., working on weekends or at

night or traveling for business)
Work support Supervisor support; organizational support; 3–35 .73–.94 (.83) —
co-worker support; mentor support
Schedule Xexibility Schedule (in)Xexibility 1–7 .52–.68 (.58) —
Job stress Job stress; role stress; role conXict; role 3–52 .67–.89 (.79) —
ambiguity; role overload; Psychological demands
Nonwork variables
Family/nonwork involvement Family involvement; child care involvement; 2–11 .60–.92 (.82) —
household involvement
Hours of nonwork Hours spent on family; hours spent on housework; 1 N/A 4, #
percentage of time spent parenting
Family support Family support; spouse support (instrumental and 2–44 .75–.95 (.87) —
emotional support)
Family stress Role stress; role conXict; role ambiguity; role overload 4–9 .66–.83 (.76) —
Family conXict Marital conXict; parental conXict; marital tension; 5–19 .77–.87 (.80) —
relationship agreement; marital anger
Number of children Number of children; number of family dependents; number of 1 N/A 2–4; #
children living at home; number of children under a
particular age; have children or not
Age of youngest child Age of youngest child 1 N/A 3–5; #
Marital status Marital status (married coded higher) 1 N/A 2
Spousal employment Spousal employment; number of hours spouse works 1 N/A 2–3; #
Demographic/individual variables
Sex Sex (female coded higher) 1 N/A 2
Income Personal income; family income 1 N/A 3–22; #
Coping style and skills Active coping style; time management 5–33 .73–.83 (.79) —
behaviors; personal coping style
181
3.5. Analysis strategy
For the meta-analysis, I calculated eVect sizes with the Hunter and Schmidt (1995)
meta-analytic method, which provides the most accurate method of estimating popu-
lation eVect sizes from heterogeneous eVect sizes (Field, 2001). To estimate the popu-
lation eVect size, I calculated a frequency weighted mean eVect size (corrected for
measurement error, when applicable). Before proceeding, I determined whether there
were outliers in each analysis by calculating the sample-adjusted meta-analytic devi-
ancy statistic (SAMD) and inspecting the plot of SAMDs for each relationship ana-
lyzed (HuVcutt & Arthur, 1995). A study was removed from the analysis for a
particular antecedent when a study was identiWed as an outlier for both WIF and
FIW. One antecedent, job insecurity, was not further analyzed because there were too
few studies (k < 5) remaining after removing outlier studies. For the remaining
relationships considered, I continued the analysis after removing any outliers by
assessing the stability of the estimated population eVect size by inspecting its modi-
Wed fail-safe N (MFN) (HuVcutt, Roberts, & Steel, 2004) and by inspecting its 95%
conWdence interval. The MFN for each eVect size indicates the number of additional
studies (not additional subjects) with results diVering by two standard deviations that
would need to be discovered to eVect a meaningful change (deWned as plus or minus
.10 based on Cohen’s (1998) framework for evaluating eVect sizes) in the estimated
eVect size.
In addition, I subjected each analysis to two tests of homogeneity to determine
how diVerent the results for each analysis are. First, I examined the percentage of var-
iance explained by artifacts. Possible moderators were investigated if the percentage
of variance explained was less than 60%. The use of a lower threshold when eVect
sizes are only corrected for reliability is consistent with Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch,
and Topolnytsky (2002). Second, I inspected the range of the 90% credibility interval
to determine if zero was included, which may indicate that moderators are present
(Whitener, 1990).
To test the moderating eVects of continuous variables, I Wt a series of weighted
least-square regression models for each eVect size and moderator, weighted by the
inverse variance of each eVect size (Callendar & Osburn, 1988; Hedges & Olkin, 1985;
Sanchez-Meca & Marin-Martinez, 1998), which provides the most accurate results
for testing continuous moderators in meta-analysis (Steel & Kammeyer-Mueller,
2002). The correlations were transformed to Fisher’s Z, and the inverse sampling
error variance was estimated by the sample size for each study minus three (Callen-
dar & Osburn, 1988; Steel & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2002). To test the signiWcance of
moderators, I calculated ZHO, the unstandardized regression coeYcient divided by
the corrected standard error (Hedges, 1994; Sanchez-Meca & Marin-Martinez, 1998),
and determined whether it exceeded the critical value. I included studies that were
previously identiWed as potential outliers because it was possible that the aberrant
results were due to diVerences in sample composition.
To test the moderating eVects of categorical variables, I split the group into
subgroups based on the categorical moderator and conducted a separate meta-analy-
sis on each subgroup. However, in some of the analyses, there was no comparison
sub-group because the coding schemes in the remaining studies were all diVerent or
because the sub-group contained too few studies. The percent of variance explained
by artifacts for the subgroup(s) was compared to the percent of variance
explained by artifacts for the overall group analysis to determine if the moderator
explained some between-study variation.
4. Results
Meta-analytic results of correlations between work interference with family and

family interference with work and the proposed antecedent variables are presented in
Table 3. As anticipated, all work variables had a greater impact on WIF than on FIW
in the expected direction. For all of the six work variables, the relationship between
WIF and the work-related antecedent was of greater magnitude than the relationship
between the antecedent and FIW, and the 95% conWdence (not credibility) intervals
did not signiWcantly overlap. Employees who have higher job involvement or job
stress, or spend more time at work have more WIF than FIW, and employees who
have less supportive co-workers or supervisors or less Xexible schedules have more
WIF than FIW. Among work variables, job stress (! D .48) and schedule Xexibility
(! D ¡.30) were most strongly correlated with WIF. Employees who have more job
stress have more WIF, and those with more Xexible job schedules have less WIF.
Contrary to expectations, the correlations between nonwork variables and FIW (as
compared to WIF) did not have consistently stronger relationships in the expected
direction. Several of the nonwork variables showed similar relationships to WIF and
FIW. The 95% conWdence intervals for the estimated population eVect sizes for family/
nonwork involvement, family support, family conXict, age of youngest child, and
spousal employment overlapped in their relationships to WIF and FIW. The remain-
ing four nonwork variables, hours of nonwork, family stress, number of children, and
marital status, demonstrated a pattern that was consistent with expectations. The
more hours spent on family, housework, childcare or other nonwork-related activities,
the more FIW experienced (! D .21), but not signiWcantly more WIF, as indicated by
95% conWdence interval that included zero (! D ¡.02, 95% CI: ¡.06/+.02). In addition,
employees who experienced more family-related stress experienced more FIW (! D .47,
95% CI: +.44/+.50) than WIF (! D .30, 95% CI: +.27/+.33). Employees with more chil-
dren or who were single had more FIW (! D .16, 95% CI: +.14/+.17, and ! D ¡.05, 95%
CI: ¡.07/¡.03; respectively) than WIF (! D .09, 95% CI: +.07/+.11, and ! D .03, 95%
CI: +.01/+.05; respectively). Among all nonwork variables, family stress (! D .47) and
family conXict (! D .32) were most strongly related to FIW. Employees who had more
stress and more conXict at home had more family interference with work.
Demographic and individual antecedent variables were expected to have equiva-
lent eVects on WIF and FIW. To determine the extent to which the variables have
similar relationships to WIF and FIW, I inspected the 95% conWdence intervals of
the estimated population eVect sizes for each demographic variable and its
relationship to WIF and FIW. Of the demographic and individual variables, only
one, coping style and skills, tended to have a similar relationship to both WIF and
184
Table 3
Work, nonwork, and demographic antecedents of WIF and FIW
k N Work interference with family (WIF) Family interference with work (FIW)
! SDO SD! 95% CI MFN ! SDO SD! 95% CI MFN
Work variables
Job involvement 10 2766 .14 .15 .14 +.11/+.18 5 .07 .11 .09 +.03/+.10 9
Hours spent at work 22 9527 .26b .12 .11 +.24/+.27 17 .01 .07 .05 ¡.01/+.03 75
Continuous only 18 8092 .27b .10 .09 +.25/+.29 18 .01 .07 .05 ¡.02/+.03 60
Work support 17 4165 ¡.19b .09 .07 ¡.22/¡.16 21 ¡.12b .11 .09 ¡.15/¡.09 15
Schedule Xexibility 8 2620 ¡.30 .26 .26 ¡.34/¡.27 2 ¡.17 .14 .13 ¡.21/¡.13 4
Job stress 19 7034 .48b .13 .12 +.46/+.49 12 .29b .12 .11 +.27/+.31 15
Overall stress only 7 3183 .48b .07 .07 +.46/+.51 15 .29b .10 .09 +.26/+.32 8
Role overload only 10 4402 .65b .16 .16 +.63/+.67 5 .40b .18 .18 +.38/+.42 4
Nonwork variables
Family/nonwork involvement 9 2741 ¡.02 .08 .05 ¡.07/+.00 18 ¡.02 .15 .14 ¡.05/+.02 5
Hours of nonwork 10 2875 ¡.02 .09 .07 ¡.06/+.02 13 .21b .14 .12 +.17/+.24 6
Continuous only 9 2764 ¡.01a .07 .04 ¡.04/+.03 26 .21b .14 .13 +.17/+.24 5
Family support 14 2886 ¡.11b .10 .07 ¡.14/¡.07 14 ¡.17b .13 .11 ¡.21/¡.14 10
Family stress 8 2937 .30b .13 .12 +.27/+.33 5 .47b .18 .18 +.44/+.50 3
Overall stress only 5 2008 .32 .12 .11 +.28/+.36 4 .49 .20 .19 +.46/+.52 2
Family conXict 8 1674 .35b .10 .07 +.31/+.40 9 .32b .16 .15 +.28/+.36 4
Number of children 27 10,467 .09 .12 .11 +.07/+.11 21 .16b .12 .11 +.14/+.17 19
Number of children 8 2557 . 05 .12 .11 +.01/+.09 6 .17b .12 .11 +.13/+.21 6
Number living at homec 15 6700 .08b .08 .06 +.06/+.11 28 .15b .12 .11 +.13/+.18 11
Age of youngest child 9 7303 ¡.17 a,b .04 .02 ¡.20/¡.15 N/Ad ¡.22b .08 .07 ¡.24/¡.19 16
Marital status 14 9378 .03 .10 .09 +.01/+.05 14 ¡.05 .08 .07 ¡.07/¡.03 25
Spousal employment 9 4358 .01a,b .05 .00 ¡.02/+.04 189 .03 .10 .09 +.00/+.06 10
Dichotomous coding 6 3413 ¡.01a .05 .03 ¡.04/+.03 299 .02 .09 .08 ¡.02/+.05 7

Demographic variables
Sex 27 18,125 ¡.03 .11 .10 ¡.04/¡.01 24 .06 .12 .11 +.04/+.07 21
Income 13 7046 .10b .08 .07 +.08/+.12 22 .00 .08 .07 ¡.03/+.02 21
Coping style and skills 6 2002 ¡.12a,b .03 .00 ¡.16/¡.08 14 ¡.15b .11 .10 ¡.19/¡.10 5
Note. WIF, Work interference with family; FIW, Family interference with work; k, number of independent samples included in each analysis; N, combined
sample sizes of studies included in each analysis; !, weighted average corrected correlation; SDO, observed standard deviation of corrected correlation; SD!,
estimated true/population standard deviation of corrected correlation; 95% CI, 95% conWdence interval, MFN, modiWed fail-safe N (indicates the number of
additional studies needed to cause a meaningful change in the estimated population eVect size).
a
More than 60% of the observed variance is accounted for by sampling error.
b
Zero is not included in the 90% credibility interval.
c
Number children living at home includes studies that asked individuals to report how many children were living at home, how many children were living at
home under a particular age, or how many family dependents they had. In contrast, when studies asked participants to report how many children they had, the
number could include older children, adult children, or other nondependents.
d
The ModiWed Fail-Safe N was negative, indicating that no number of studies could exact a meaningful change in the estimated population correlation.
185
FIW. Having a positive coping style or having better coping skills seems to provide
some protection from WIF and FIW (! D ¡.12 and ! D ¡.15, respectively). The other
two demographic and individual variables, sex and income, tended to vary in their
relationship to WIF and FIW, as indicated by nonoverlapping 95% conWdence inter-
vals. Male employees tended to have slightly more WIF (! D ¡.03, 95% CI: ¡.04/
¡.01) and female employees tended to have more FIW (! D .06, 95% CI: +.04/+.07),
although the diVerences between sexes and the diVerence between sex’s relationship
to WIF and FIW were small. There were also signiWcant diVerences between the rela-
tionship of income to WIF and FIW. Employees with higher incomes had more WIF
(! D .10, 95% CI: +.08/+.12), whereas income was not signiWcantly related to FIW
(! D .00, 95% CI: ¡.03/+.02).
Next, I considered whether a search for potential moderators was warranted. For
nearly all antecedents, there seemed to be signiWcant variation between studies used
in the meta-analysis. In fact, the two tests of homogeneity used in this analysis indi-
cated homogeneity in their relationship to WIF or FIW for only two antecedents, age
of youngest child and coping style/skills. However, the 90% credibility intervals sug-
gested homogeneity for most of the relationships. Because the results for the homo-
geneity tests failed to be consistent for the majority of analyses, I proceeded to
conduct the proposed moderator analyses.
First, I considered the categorical moderator, diVerences in coding scheme or mea-
surement (as shown in Table 3). Six variables that did not meet the two tests of
homogeneity had diVerences in coding schemes between studies, hours spent at work,
job stress, hours spent on nonwork, family stress, number of children, and spousal
employment. The estimated population eVect sizes for the overall group analysis and
the sub-group analysis of those that measured the variable continuously do not diVer
greatly, however, for nearly all analyses, the sub-group analyses explain more of the
variance by artifacts or have more stable eVect size estimates. When considering only
studies that measured time at work continuously, employees who spend more time at
work experience slightly more WIF but the same amount of FIW (! D .27 and ! D .01,
respectively). On the other hand, employees who spend more time in family or house-
hold duties and activities experience less WIF although the same amount of FIW
(! D ¡.02 and ! D .21, respectively).
Studies that examined the relationship between job and family stress and WIF and
FIW diVered in their measurement of job and family stress. Some studies used overall
measures of job or family stress, some used more speciWc measures of job stress, such
as role overload or role ambiguity. For job stress, the sub-group analysis of those
studies that used overall measures of job stress explained more variation than did the
overall analysis, suggesting the sub-group analysis may reXect more accurate esti-
mates of the relationship between job stress and WIF and FIW (! D .48 and ! D .29,
respectively). When considering only studies that examined role overload, the esti-
mated eVect sizes in regard to WIF and FIW tended to be greater but less stable and
homogenous (! D .65 and ! D .40, respectively). For family stress, the only sub-group
analysis that could be conducted was on those studies that used overall measures of
family stress. The estimated eVect sizes for this sub-group analysis did not signiW-
cantly diVer from or improve upon those of the overall analysis.
Lastly, I considered whether diVerences in coding might account for between-

study variation for two other family domain variables, number of children and
spousal employment. Some studies asked employees to indicate how many children
(with no restrictions) they had; whereas other asked employees to indicate how
many children they had living at home or under a particular age. The coding
scheme for number of children explained signiWcant between-study variation,
although the 95% conWdence intervals for the estimated eVect sizes tended to over-
lap across each coding scheme for WIF (! D .05, 95% CI: +.01/+.09, and ! D .08,
95% CI: +.06/+.11; respectively) or FIW (! D .17, 95% CI: +.13/+.21, and ! D .15,
95% CI: +.13/+.18). Most studies dichotomized spousal employment (i.e., either the
spouse works or not); the remaining three studies each used a diVerent coding
scheme, and therefore were not considered in a sub-group analysis. Compared to
the overall analysis, the sub-group analysis for studies that dichotomized spousal
employment accounted for less between-study variation and had larger 90% credi-
bility intervals. This suggests that the overall analysis provides a more accurate
estimate of the relationship between spousal employment and WIF and FIW
despite the fact that there were diVerences in coding schemes. In summary, for most
of the relationships considered, diVerences in coding schemes tended to explain
some of the variance between studies or provide more stable estimated eVect sizes
over the overall analyses.
Next, each of the two proposed continuous moderators were Wtted into a separate
weighted least square equation for each relationship considered. The antecedent, cop-
ing style and skills, was excluded for the proposed moderator, percent of sample with
children, due to too few studies (k < 4) that provided data. I excluded other anteced-
ents because their interpretation lacked conceptual meaning (i.e., for percent of par-
ents in sample, number of children and age of youngest child, and, for percent female
in sample, sex was excluded). The results of the regression models for percent of sam-
ple with children are included in Table 4, and the results of the regression models for
percent female in sample are included in Table 5.
The percent of parents in the sample related signiWcantly to the study eVect size for
over 32% of the relationships considered, suggesting that diVerences in the composi-
tion of the sample explains between-study variation for some relationships. In partic-
ular, the percent of parents in the sample seems to aVect the relationship between job
stress and work–family interference. The more parents in the sample, the stronger the
positive relationship between job stress and WIF and FIW. While sex had a very
small direct eVect on WIF or FIW, the percent of parents in the sample does moder-
ate this relationship. Namely, when there are more parents in the sample, there is a
greater sex diVerence in the experience of WIF and FIW, such that mothers experi-
ence more WIF and FIW than fathers. When there are fewer parents in the sample,
men tend to experience more WIF and FIW. Lastly, while there tended to be no
diVerence between married and single employees in their experience of WIF and FIW
overall, marital status is negatively related to WIF and FIW as the number of parents
in the sample increases. This suggests that single parents have more WIF and FIW
than parents who are married; whereas married and single employees without chil-
dren tend to have similar levels of WIF and FIW.
Table 4
Percent of study sample with children as a moderator of eVect size
k WIF FIW
r # ZHO r # ZHO
Work variables
Job involvement 10 ¡.21 ¡.20 1.20 .00 .23 0.95
Hours spent at work 21 ¡.12 ¡.08 1.29 ¡.05 ¡.10* 2.13
Work support 14 ¡.35 ¡.31 1.14 ¡.39 ¡.30 1.79
Schedule Xexibility 5 ¡.72 ¡.72* 4.73 ¡.18 ¡.55 1.30
Job stress 13 ¡.01 .29* 3.21 .13 .43* 2.88
Nonwork variables
Family/nonwork involvement 9 ¡.19 ¡.10 0.00 .35 .24 0.95
Hours of nonwork 4 .02 ¡.34 0.41 ¡.12 .22 0.98
Family support 11 ¡.26 ¡.26 1.16 .23 .33 1.70
Family stress 7 ¡.31 ¡.07 0.00 ¡.24 ¡.01 0.06
Family conXict 7 .08 ¡.01 0.04 ¡.48 ¡.72* 3.89
Number of childrena — — — — — — —
Age of youngest child a — — — — — — —
Marital status 13 .17 ¡.45* 2.54 ¡.35 ¡.78* 3.50
Spousal employment 10 ¡.59 ¡.52 0.88 ¡.02 ¡.36 1.58
Sex 23 .06 .65* 4.85 .24 .46* 19.52
Income 14 ¡.05 ¡.09 0.00 .02 ¡.03 0.00
Coping style and skillsa — — — — — — —
Note. r, Pearson correlation; #, standardized regression coeYcient WLS regression; ZHO, test of null
hypothesis that # D 0; * indicates 95% conWdence that # does not equal zero.
a
Both antecedents concerned with children, number of children and age of youngest child, were
excluded from analysis because considering the percentage of parents as a moderator of their relationships
to WIF and FIW lacked conceptual meaning. Only three studies that considered coping style and skills
provided data on the percent with children in the study; therefore, these analyses were excluded.
The percent of female employees in the sample related signiWcantly to the study
eVect size for more than half of the relationships considered, suggesting that diVer-
ences in the sex composition of the sample explains between-study variation for some
relationships. For example, having a higher percentage of women in a sample associ-
ated with a weaker positive relationship between job involvement and WIF and FIW.
Job involvement seems to relate more positively to WIF and FIW for men than for
women. Conversely, family involvement related more positively to WIF and FIW for
women than for men (although only approaching statistical signiWcance at the " level
of .05 for WIF). For men (as compared to women), being more highly involved in
their jobs is linked to more interference whereas, for women (as compared to men),
being more highly involved in their family lives is linked to more interference. In
addition, a higher percentage of females in a sample is negatively related to the study
eVect size for schedule Xexibility and WIF and FIW. Flexible schedules appear to
provide more of a protective beneWt for women than for men. However, family stress
and family conXict are more positively related to WIF and FIW for men than for
women. Stress and conXict in the family domain is linked to more interference for
men as compared to women. When more women are represented in the sample, the
Table 5
Percent female in study sample as a moderator of eVect size
k WIF FIW
r # ZHO r # ZHO
Work variables
Job involvement 13 ¡.66 ¡.71* 6.47 ¡.33 ¡.35* 3.24
Hours spent at work 27 ¡.10 ¡.03 0.28 ¡.14 ¡.12 0.00
Work support 18 ¡.20 ¡.10 0.00 .06 .24 1.39
Schedule Xexibility 8 .10 ¡.39* 2.83 ¡.63 ¡.78* 5.19
Job stress 20 ¡.04 ¡.08 0.00 ¡.32 ¡.22* 2.80
Nonwork variables
Family/nonwork involvement 11 .33 .53 1.91 .35 .23 * 2.02
Hours of nonwork 10 ¡.12 ¡.39 1.48 ¡.02 .21 * 2.42
Family support 16 ¡.15 ¡.30 1.35 ¡.56 ¡.40* 3.03
Family stress 9 ¡.45 ¡.56* 3.67 ¡.62 ¡.78* 11.44
Family conXict 8 ¡.22 ¡.30 1.28 .15 ¡.13 1.12
Number of children 31 ¡.22 ¡.34* 2.09 ¡.24 ¡.27* 2.37
Age of youngest child 12 ¡.17 ¡.14 0.00 .03 ¡.22* 2.19
Marital status 15 ¡.02 ¡.32* 2.49 ¡.18 ¡.57* 3.38
Spousal employment 11 .16 .20 0.00 ¡.26 ¡.15 0.00
Sexa — — — — — — —
Income 14 .17 .16 0.00 .30 .43 1.57
Coping style and skills 6 .11 ¡.12 0.00 ¡.66 ¡.60* 2.36
Note. r, Pearson correlation; #, standardized regression coeYcient WLS regression; ZHO, test of null
hypothesis that # D 0; * indicates 95% conWdence that # does not equal zero.
a
Sex was excluded from analysis because considering the percentage of females as a moderator of its
relationships to WIF and FIW lacked conceptual meaning.
employee’s number of children is less positively related to WIF and FIW. For exam-
ple, the weighted mean average correlation between number of children and WIF is
.15 for all male samples and .02 for all female samples; and, for FIW, is .21 and .08,
respectively. The percentage of female employees in the sample also moderates the
relationship between marital status and WIF and FIW. For men, more so than for
women, being married is associated with more WIF and FIW. For women, marital
status had a near-zero relationship to WIF and FIW, suggesting that being married
or single has little eVect on female employees’ experience of WIF and FIW. In partic-
ular, the percentage of females in the sample aVected the relationship between the
antecedents and FIW (as compared to WIF), as the percentage of females in the sam-
ple was a signiWcant moderator in 11 of the 16 (69%) relationships considered.
Lastly, I considered the relation between WIF and FIW. The weighted average
corrected correlation is .48 (SDO D .11; SD! D . 10; 95% CI: +.46/+.49), which is the
result of cumulating the results of 47 studies with a total sample size of 13,384 (after
eliminating 9 studies identiWed as outliers). In all studies, WIF and FIW related posi-
tively. More interference in one domain tends to associate with more interference in
the other. In fact, only one antecedent, job stress, related nearly as strongly to WIF
(! D .48), and only one antecedent, family stress, is nearly as strongly related to FIW
(! D .47) as WIF and FIW related to each other.
5. Discussion
The results of this meta-analytic review support the diVerentiation between work
interference with family and family interference with work. Employees seem to diVer-
entiate between the source, or direction, of interference, and the two types of interfer-
ence appear to have diVerent antecedents. The results of the analysis partially
support the pattern of relationships expected: work-related antecedents tend to asso-
ciate with more work-related interference than nonwork interference. Nonwork-
related antecedents tend to relate to more family interference with work than work
interference with family, although the diVerences were not always statistically signiW-
cant. However, of all of the antecedents, job stress, family stress, and family conXict
have among the strongest associations with both WIF and FIW, suggesting that
while there is diVerentiation, some work and family factors can have simultaneously
disruptive eVects on employees’ work and family lives.
Surprisingly, the two demographic variables, sex and income, which have often
been proposed in the literature as antecedents of WIF and FIW, had relatively low
relationships to WIF and FIW. For example, sex, which has been proposed as an
antecedent in dozens of studies, had a near zero relationship to WIF and a weak, pos-
itive relationship to FIW. Contrary to hypotheses in many studies, the present analy-
sis suggests that overall men and women have similar levels of WIF and FIW. This
Wnding coincides with other research that has reported no sex diVerence in the experi-
ence or perception of occupational stress (Martocchio & O’Leary, 1989). The only
individual variable considered in the analysis, coping style and skills, seemed to oVer
some beneWt to employees. Those with better time management skills or a better cop-
ing style tended to have less WIF and FIW.
While demographic variables tended to be weak predictors of WIF and FIW, they
did tend to have indirect eVects on WIF and FIW. The percentage of women or par-
ents in the sample explained between-study variance in more relationships than
would be expected by chance. This coincides with recent theory that supports the use
of social categories as moderators in the work–family literature (VoydanoV, 2002). In
general, being male appears to exacerbate any negative eVects of family domain ante-
cedents, such as family stress, family conXict, number of children, and marital status,
related to work–family conXict. Paradoxically, females tend to enjoy greater protec-
tive beneWts from those antecedents, such as Xexible work schedules, and, to some
extent, supportive families, that lessen the experience of interference. While not as
consistently as the percentage of females in the sample, the percentage of parents in
the sample also explained some diVerences in results across studies. For employees
with children as compared to those without children, having more job stress, being
single, and being is related to more work–family conXict.
Overall, the results provide partial support for the hypotheses of the study. In view
of that, some exceptions and other surprising results deserve note. First, for WIF and
FIW, only one antecedent each was as correlated with WIF and FIW as they were
with each other. While the diVerential eVects of antecedents provides support for dis-
criminating between the two constructs, the strong positive relationship between
them deserves further study. Perhaps the perception of interference between domains
can be explained by a common third variable, such as being high in negative aVect or
having expectations of separate domains. Second, contrary to expectations, nonwork
domain variables did not have a consistently stronger relationship to FIW than to
WIF. Nonwork domain variables that have been referred to as family demands (i.e.,
number of children, age of youngest child, marital status, and spousal employment)
were nearly as related to FIW as to WIF. Perhaps this speaks to the asymmetric per-
meability of domains, such that family demands cause family life to interfere with
work and for work to interfere with the relatively greater family demands. Lastly,
family involvement had a near-zero correlation with FIW (and WIF), rather than
being positively related to FIW as expected. Employees who had higher family
involvement experience the same amount of FIW (and WIF) as those who were less
involved with their families.
5.1. Theoretical implications
Several theoretical models can glean support from these Wndings. Overall, the
results provide support for conXict theory (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). They high-
light the potential incompatibility of work and family roles and ensuing conXict from
having multiple roles, at least for some people. For example, the present analysis
found that employees who experience more stress on the job are more likely to expe-
rience interference from their work into their family lives. Likewise, employees who
experience stress at home are more likely to experience interference from their family
lives into their work day.
Furthermore, the results suggest that both spillover and congruence are apparent
linking mechanisms between the work and family domains (Edwards & Rothbard,
2000). Spillover as a linking mechanism occurs when stress or strain from one
domain surface in another domain. Congruence as a linking mechanism between
work and family domains occurs when a third variable links the domains of work
and family domains by having a congruent eVect on both (Edwards & Rothbard,
2000). Support for spillover as a linking mechanism can be seen in the positive rela-
tionship between job stress and WIF and between family stress and conXict and FIW.
Stress from one domain is interfering with the other domain. While the results sug-
gest that negative spillover can occur from one domain to another, the results also
support the notion that positive spillover can occur. For example, employees who are
employed in more supportive workplaces or who have more supportive families tend
to experience less work–family conXict. Support for congruence as a linking mecha-
nism is found in the similar relationship employees’ coping style and skills to both
WIF and FIW. Employees who have better time management skills and coping
behaviors experience less WIF and FIW.
The results of the meta-analysis provide some support for the rational view, which
predicts that the more time one spends in a role, or the more one specializes or is
involved in a role, the more he or she will perceive interference in the secondary role
from the participation in the primary role (Pleck, 1977). Consistent with this view, the
number of hours spent on work was more positively related to WIF than to FIW,
and the number of hours spent on nonwork was more positively related to FIW than
to WIF. Similarly, employees with higher job involvement had more WIF than FIW.
However, inconsistent with the predictions of this view, employees with more family
or nonwork involvement did not tend to have more WIF or FIW.
Alternatively, the results do oVer some support for the sex-role hypothesis, which
proposes that sex or sex roles moderate the relationship between role involvement
and psychological distress (VoydanoV, 2002). As mentioned above, the present analy-
sis found an inconsistent relationship between role involvement in a given role and
WIF and FIW, which is surprising given the frequency with which these relationships
have been explored in the literature. Employee’s sex does seem to moderate the rela-
tionship between job and family involvement and WIF and FIW. For three out of the
four eVect sizes, having more females in the sample related to the strength of the rela-
tionship between role involvement and work–family interference. Namely, job
involvement seems to relate more positively to WIF and FIW for men than for
women. In addition, when more of a study’s participants were parents, there was a
greater sex diVerence in the experience of WIF and FIW, such that mothers experi-
ence more WIF and FIW than fathers. When there were fewer parents in the sample,
men tended to experience more WIF and FIW. Perhaps because women tended to
take on greater responsibilities for childcare, mothers experience more distress from
the greater workload but only when they are also highly involved in their work.
In summary, the results provide support for multiple theoretical models. This sug-
gests that no single model can fully explain how employees experience the intersec-
tion between their work and nonwork domains. Future theorizing should work
toward creating an integrative model that more fully explains the complexity sug-
gested by the results presented here.
5.2. Future research
The present study also oVers some suggestions for future research. First, the
continued use of bidirectional measures is supported. The present results provide
support for the discriminant validity of these constructs. Second, the relative
importance of these antecedents may guide future research aimed at better under-
standing the causes and prevention of work–family conXict. Factors such as job
stress and family conXict, which were strong predictors of both WIF and FIW, are
important topics for future research. Lastly, diVerences in the composition of the
study sample (i.e., percentage of females and percentage of parents) and the lack
of homogeneity in many of the analyses suggest that researchers should be
thoughtful about choosing their sample. In cumulating these studies, diVerences
between sampling strategies became apparent. For example, some studies only
considered parents (e.g., Duxbury, Higgins, & Lee, 1994), some only included mar-
ried participants (e.g., Beutell & Witting-Berman, 1999), and some did not employ
restrictions (e.g., Aryee, Fields, & Luk, 1999). Future research should further
investigate whether diVerences in sampling strategies explain diVerences in results

across studies.
In addition, in reviewing the primary research that considers antecedents of work–
family interference, several gaps in the literature became apparent. Few studies
explicitly considered the diVerence between caring for adults and children. This gap
in the literature has been noted by others: “[H]uman resource and organizational
behavior scholars often overlook how caring for a parent diVers from caring for a
child” (Kossek et al., 1999, p. 114). In addition, most studies began with the assump-
tion that having multiple roles would necessarily lead to distress. However, research
in other areas supports the idea that individuals who hold multiple roles reap beneWts
from doing so. In the management literature, there should be more recognition of the
beneWts (rather than detriments) that arise from the participation in multiple roles
(e.g., Thoits, 1992). Research should discard the overly simplistic notion that distress
must be found at the intersection of work and family, and instead focus on determin-
ing the conditions that distinguish when multiple roles leads to distress and when
multiple roles leads to increased fulWllment (Barnett & Hyde, 2001; Greenhaus &
Parasuraman, 1999). Lastly, few studies considered individual variables, such as per-
sonality or skill level. “It seems as though work–family conXict research, for the most
part, has not focused on individual diVerences in success at handling work–family
conXict” (Baltes & Dickson, 2001, p. 53). Future research should consider whether
other individual variables are useful at explaining diVerences in outcomes in the
work–family literature.
5.3. Practical implications
In addition to providing guidance to work–family researchers, the results of the

analysis oVer some practical implications. Namely, employers who seek to reduce
their employees’ perceived stress from competing demands should focus on reducing
job-related stress. Job-related stress, such as role conXict, ambiguity, and overload,
seems to be spilling over into employees’ lives away from work. Furthermore, while
outside of the work domain, employers may consider oVering guidance to their
employees on improving their relationships with their spouses and children to reduce
family conXict. Employees who reported more marital strife or more conXicts with
their children had more interference between their work and family lives. Perhaps
more employers should oVer training to their employees on managing family conXict,
although the beneWts of this type of training to employers are not well established.
Clearly, employees are not checking their family concerns at the workplace door, sug-
gesting that employers may have an interest in helping employees with these concerns.
The analysis also suggests that employers can eVectively reduce the experience of
work–family interference among their employees. Namely, employees who had more
Xexible schedules or who had more supportive coworkers or supervisors reported less
WIF and FIW. This suggests that some employer interventions may be beneWcial at
reducing distress for employees.
While the present analysis does provide guidance for future research and has some
practical implications, the analysis is not without its limitations. One of the primary
limitations is that meta-analysis cannot partial out the eVects of other variables on
the relationships considered. For example, spousal employment relate more strongly
to WIF and FIW when the presence of young children in the home is simultaneously
considered. In addition, some of the eVect sizes were cumulated from a small number
of studies. Field (2001) warned that “estimates and signiWcance tests from meta-ana-
lytic studies containing less than 30 samples should be interpreted very cautiously”
(p. 179). However, the two estimates of eVect size stability generally provide support
for the relative stability of the eVect sizes. As with all meta-analyses, more stable and
accurate estimates may be obtained with the addition of more primary research.
Lastly, as mentioned previously, the eVect size estimates have signiWcant between-
study variation. The present analyses suggest that sample composition is one source
of between-study variation, and future research should seek to identify other sources
of variation between studies of work–family interference.
This study provides support for the bidirectional nature of work–family conXict,
and it suggests that researchers should employ measures that distinguish between
WIF and FIW. Furthermore, it supports the notion that WIF and FIW have
unique antecedents, and therefore, may require diVerent interventions or solutions
to prevent or reduce their experience. Lastly, the analysis suggests that demo-
graphic variables, such as sex and marital status, are alone poor predictors of
work–family conXict. Researchers are advised to examine more Wnely-grained
variables that may more fully capture employees’ likelihood of experiencing work–
family conXict.
References
Note. References marked with an asterisk (*) indicate studies included in the
meta-analysis.
*Adams, G. A., & Jex, S. M. (1999). Relationships between time management, control, work–family con-
Xict, and strain. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 4, 72–77.
*Adams, G. A., King, L. A., & King, D. W. (1996). Relationships of job and family involvement, family
social support, and work–family conXict with job and life satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology,
81, 411–420.
Allen, T. D., Herst, D. E. L., Bruck, C. S., & Sutton, M. (2000). Consequences associated with work-to-fam-
ily conXict: A review and agenda for future research. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5,
278–308.
*Aryee, S., Fields, D., & Luk, V. (1999). A cross-cultural test of a model of the work–family interface. Jour-
nal of Management, 25, 491–511.
*Aryee, S., Luk, V., Leung, A., & Lo, S. (1999). Role stressors, interrole conXict, and well-being: The mod-
erating inXuence of spousal support and coping behaviors among employed parents in Hong Kong.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 259–278.
*Barling, J., MacEwen, K. E., Kelloway, E. K., & Higginbottom, S. F. (1994). Predictors and outcomes of
elder-care-based interrole conXict. Psychology and Aging, 9, 391–397.
Barnett, R. C., & Hyde, J. S. (2001). Women, men, work, and family: An expansionist theory. American
Psychologist, 56, 781–796.
Baltes, B. B., & Dickson, M. W. (2001). Using life-span models in industrial-organizational psychol-
ogy: The theory of selective optimization with compensation. Applied Developmental Science, 5,
51–62.
*Beutell, N. J., & Witting-Berman, U. (1999). Predictors of work–family conXict and satisfaction with fam-
ily, job, career, and life satisfaction. Psychological Reports, 85, 893–903.
Bohen, H. H., & Viveros-Long, A. (1981). Balancing jobs and family life: Do Xexible work schedules help?
Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
*Boles, J. S., Howard, W. G., & Donofrio, H. H. (2001). An investigation into the inter-relationships of
work–family conXict, family–work conXict and work satisfaction. Journal of Managerial Issues, 13,
376–390.
Brett, J. M., & Yogev, S. (1985). Restructuring work for family. How dual-earner couples with children
manage? Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 3, 159–174.
*Brough, P., & Kelling, A. (2002). Women, work & well-being: The inXuence of work–family and family-
work conXict. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 31, 29–38.
*Bruck, C. S., Allen, T. D., & Spector, P. E. (2002). The relation between work–family conXict and job sat-
isfaction: A Wner-grained analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 60, 336–353.
*Burke, R. J., & Greenglass, E. R. (2001). Hospital restructuring stressors, work–family concerns and psy-
chological well-being among nursing staV. Community, Work and Family, 4, 49–62.
Burke, R. J., Weir, T., & DuWors, R. E. (1979). Type A behavior of administrators and wives’ reports of
marital satisWcation and well-being. Journal of Approval Psychology, 64, 57–65.
Burley, K., 1989. Work–family conXict and marital adjustment in dual career couples: A comparison of three
time models. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Claremont Graduate School, Claremont, CA.
Callendar, J. C., & Osburn, H. G. (1988). Unbiased estimation of sampling variance of correlations. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 73, 312–315.
*Carlson, D. S., & Kacmar, K. M. (2000). Work–family conXict in the organization: Do life role values
make a diVerence. Journal of Management, 26, 1031–1054.
*Carlson, D. S., Kacmar, K. M., & Williams, L. J. (2000). Construction and initial validation of a multidi-
mensional measure of work–family conXict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 56, 249–276.
*Casper, W. J., Martin, J. A., BuVardi, L. C., & Erdwins, C. J. (2002). Work–family conXict, perceived orga-
nizational support, and organizational commitment among employed mothers. Journal of Occupa-
tional Health Psychology, 7, 99–108.
*Cinamon, R. G., & Rich, Y. (2002). ProWles of attribution of importance to life roles and their implica-
tions for the work–family conXict. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 49, 212–220.
Cohen, J. (1998). Statisical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
*Cohen, A., & Kirchmeyer, C. (1995). A multidimensional approach to the relation between organizational
commitment and nonwork participation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 46, 189–202.
*Duxbury, L., Higgins, C., & Lee, C. (1994). Work–family conXict: A comparison by gender, family type,
and perceived control. Journal of Family Issues, 15, 449–466.
*Eagle, B. W., Icenogle, M. L., Maes, J. D., & Miles, E. W. (1998). The importance of employee demo-
graphic proWles for understanding experiences of work–family interrole conXicts. Journal of Social Psy-
chology, 138, 690–709.
*Eagle, B. W., Miles, E. W., & Icenogle, M. L. (1997). Interrole conXicts and the permeability of work and
family domains: Are there gender diVerences?. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50, 168–184.
Eby, L. T., Casper, W. J., Lockwood, A., Bordeaux, C., & Brinley, A. (in press). Work and family
research in IO/OB: Content analysis and review of the literature (1980–2002). Journal of Vocational
Behavior.
Edwards, J. R., & Rothbard, N. P. (2000). Mechanisms linking work and family: Clarifying the relationship
between work and family constructs. Academy of Management Review, 25, 178–199.
Field, A. P. (2001). Meta-analysis of correlation coeYcients: A Monte Carlo comparison of Wxed- and ran-
dom-eVects methods. Psychological Bulletin, 6, 161–180.
*Fox, M. L., & Dwyer, D. J. (1999). An investigation of the eVects of time and involvement in the relation-
ship between stressors and work–family conXict. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 4, 164–
174.
*Frone, M. R., & Yardley, J. K. (1996). Workplace family-supportive programmes: Predictors of employed
parents-importance ratings. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 69, 351–366.
*Frone, M. R. (2000). Work–family conXict and employee psychiatric disorders: The national commorbid-
ity study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 888–895.
*Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Barnes, G. M. (1996). Work–family conXict, gender, and health-related out-
comes: A study of employed parents in two community samples. Journal of Occupational Health Psy-
chology, 1, 57–69.
*Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M. L. (1992a). Antecedents and outcomes of work–family conXict:
Testing a model of the work–family interface. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 65–78.
Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M. L. (1992b). Prevalence of work–family conXict: Are work
and family boundaries asymmetrically permeable. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 723–
729.
*Frone, M. R., Yardley, J. K., & Markel, K. S. (1997). Developing and testing an integrative model of the
work–family interface. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50, 145–167.
*Fu, C. K., & ShaVer, M. A. (2001). The tug of work and family: Direct and indirect domain-speciWc deter-
minants of work–family conXict. Personnel Review, 30, 502–522.
Geurts, S. A. E. (2000). SWING: Survey work–home interference Nijmegen. Internal research report. Nijme-
gen, Netherlands: University of Nijmegen.
*Gignac, M. A. M., Kelloway, E. K., & Gottlieb, B. H. (1996). The impact of caregiving on employment: A
mediational model of work–family conXict. Canadian Journal on Aging, 15, 525–542.
Gottlieb, B. H., Kelloway, E. K., & Barham, E. (1998). Flexible work arrangements: Managing the work–
family boundary. New York: Wiley.
*Grandey, A. A., & Cropanzano, R. (1999). The conservation of resources model applied to work–family
conXict and strain. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 350–370.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conXict between work and family roles. Academy of
Management Review, 10, 76–88.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Parasuraman, S. (1999). Research on work, family, and gender. In G. N. Powell (Ed.),
Handbook of gender and work. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
*Greenhaus, J. H., Parasuraman, S., & Collins, K. M. (2001). Career involvement and family involvement
as moderators of relationships between work–family conXict and withdrawal from a profession. Jour-
nal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6, 91–100.
*Grzywacz, J. G., & Marks, N. F. (2000). Reconceptualizing the work–family interface: An ecological per-
spective on the correlates of positive and negative spillover between work and family. Journal of Occu-
pational Health Psychology, 5, 111–126.
*Gutek, B. A., Searle, S., & Klepa, L. (1991). Rational versus gender role explanations for work–family
conXict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 560–568.
Hedges, L. V. (1994). Fixed eVect models. In H. Cooper & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research
synthesis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. San Diego: Academic Press.
*Hepburn, C. G., & Barling, J. (1996). Eldercare responsibilities, interrole conXict, and employee absence:
A daily study. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 1, 311–318.
*Higgins, C., Duxbury, L., & Lee, C. (1994). Impact of life-cycle stage and gender on the ability to balance
work and family responsibilities. Family Relations, 43, 144–150.
HuVcutt, A. I., & Arthur, W., Jr. (1995). Development of a new outlier statistic for meta-analytic data.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 327–334.
HuVcutt, A. I., Roberts, D. C., & Steel, P., (2004). Assessing the stability of meta-analytic mean estimates.
In J. D. Kammeyer-Mueller & P. Steel (Chairs), Making meta-analysis easier and more accurate. Sym-
posium presented at the 19th annual conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psy-
chology, Chicago.
*Hughes, D. L., & Galinsky, E. . (1994). Gender, job and family conditions, and psychological symptoms.
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18, 251–270.
*Hughes, D., Galinsky, E., & Morris, A. (1992). The eVects of job characteristics on marital quality: Speci-
fying linking mechanisms. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54, 31–42.
Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (1995). Methods of meta-analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
*Jex, S. M., & Elacqua, T. C. (1999). Time management as a moderator of relations between stressors and
employee strain. Work and Stress, 13, 182–191.
*Judge, T. A., Boudreau, J. W., & Bretz, R. D. (1994). Job and life attitudes of male executives. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 79, 767–782.
Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R., Snoek, J. D., & Rosenthal, R. A. (1964). Organizational stress. New
York: Wiley.
*Kelloway, E. K., Gottlieb, B. H., & Barham, L. (1999). The source, nature, and direction of work and fam-
ily conXict: A longitudinal investigation. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 4, 337–346.
*Kinnunen, U., & Mauno, S. (1998). Antecedents and outcomes of work–family conXict among employed
women and men in Finland. Human Relations, 51, 157–177.
Kirchmeyer, C. (1993). Nonwork-to-work spillover: A more balanced view of the experiences and coping
of professional women and men. Sex Roles, 28, 531–552.
*Kirchmeyer, C., & Cohen, A. (1999). DiVerent strategies for managing the work non-work interface: A
test for unique pathways to work outcomes. Work and Stress, 13, 59–73.
*Klitzman, S., House, J. S., Israel, B. A., & Mero, R. P. (1990). Work stress, nonwork stress, and health.
Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 13, 221–243.
Kopelman, R., Greenhaus, J. H., & Connolly, T. F. (1983). A model of work, family, and interrole conXict:
A construct validation study. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 32, 198–215.
Kossek, E. E., & Ozeki, C. (1998). Work-family conXict, policies, and the job-life satisfaction relationship:
A review and directions for organizational behavior-human resources research. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 83, 139–149.
Kossek, E. E., & Ozeki, C. (1999). Bridging the work–family policy and productivity gap: A literature
review. Community, Work, and Family, 2, 7–32.
Kossek, E. E., Noe, R. A., & DeMarr, B. J. (1999). Work–family role synthesis: Individual and organiza-
tional determinants. The International Journal of ConXict Management, 10, 102–129.
*Kossek, E. E., Colquitt, J. A., & Noe, R. A. (2001). Caregiving decisions, well-being, and performance:
The eVects of place and provider as a function of dependent type and work–family climates. Academy
of Management Journal, 44, 29–44.
*Leiter, M. P., & Durup, M. J. (1996). Work, home, and in-between: A longitudinal study of spillover. Jour-
nal of Applied Behavioral Science, 32, 29–47.
*Loerch, K. J., Russell, J. E. A., & Rush, M. C. (1989). The relationships among family domain variables
and work–family conXict for men and women. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 35, 288–308.
*MacEwen, K. E., & Barling, J. (1994). Daily consequences of work interference with family and family
interference with work. Work and Stress, 8, 244–254.
*Mallard, A. G. C., & Lance, C. E. (1998). Development and evaluation of a parent–employee interrole
conXict scale. Social Indicators Research, 45, 343–370.
*Marks, N. F. (1998). Does it hurt to care? Caregiving, work–family conXict, and midlife well-being. Jour-
nal of Marriage and the Family, 60, 951–966.
Martocchio, J. J., & O’Leary, A. M. (1989). Sex diVerences in occupational stress: A meta-analytic review.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 495–501.
*Matsui, T., Ohsawa, T., & Onglatco, M. (1995). Work-family conXict and the stress-buVering eVects of
husband support and coping behavior among Japanese married working women. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 47, 178–192.
McManus, K., Korabik, K., Rosin, H. M., & Kelloway, E. K. (2002). Employed mothers and the work–
family interface: Does family structure matter?. Human Relations, 55, 1295–1324.
Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). AVective, continuance, and norma-
tive commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 20–52.
*Netemeyer, R. G., Boles, J. S., & McMurrian, R. (1996). Development and validation of work–family con-
Xict and family–work conXict scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 400–410.
*Nielson, T. R., Carlson, D. S., & Lankau, M. J. (2001). The supportive mentor as a means of reducing
work–family conXict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59, 364–381.
*O’Driscoll, M. P., Ilgen, D. R., & Hildreth, K. (1992). Time devoted to job and oV-job activities, interrole
conXict, and aVective experiences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 272–279.
*Parasuraman, S., Purohit, Y. S., Godshalk, V. M., & Beutell, N. J. (1996). Work and family variables, entre-
preneurial career success, and psychological well-being. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 48, 275–300.
Perrewe, P. L., & Hochwarter, W. A. (2001). Can we really have it all? The attainment of work and family
values. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10, 29–33.
*Perrewe, P. L., Hochwarter, W. A., & Kiewitz, C. (1999). Value attainment: An explanation of the nega-
tive eVects of work–family conXict on job and life satisfaction. Journal of Occupational Health Psychol-
ogy, 4, 318–326.
Pleck, J. H. (1977). The work–family role system. Social Problems, 24, 417–427.
Sanchez-Meca, J., & Marin-Martinez, F. (1998). Testing continuous moderators in meta-analysis: A com-
parison of procedures. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 51, 311–326.
*ShaVer, M. A., Harrison, D. A., Gilley, K. M., & Luk, D. M. (2001). Struggling for balance amid turbu-
lence on international assignments: Work–family conXict, support and commitment. Journal of Man-
agement, 27, 99–121.
Shamir, B. (1983). Some antecedents of work–nonwork conXict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 23, 98–111.
*Shannon, H. S., Woodward, C. A., Cunningham, C. E., McIntosh, J., Lendrum, B., Brown, J., et al. (2001).
Changes in general health and musculoskeletal outcomes in the workforce of a hospital undergoing
rapid change: A longitudinal study. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6, 3–14.
Steel, P. D., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. (2002). Comparing meta-analytic moderator estimation tech-
niques under realistic conditions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 96–111.
*Stoeva, A. Z., Chiu, R. K., & Greenhaus, J. H. (2002). Negative aVectivity, role stress, and work–family
conXict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 60, 1–16.
Swanson, J. L. (1992). Vocational behavior, 1989-1991: Life-span career development and reciprocal inter-
action of work and nonwork. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 41, 101–161.
Thoits, P. A. (1992). Identity structures and psychological well-being: Gender and marital status compari-
sons. Social Psychology Quarterly, 55, 236–256.
Thompson, C. A. (1985). The eVect of coping on the relationship between work–nonwork conXict, stress, and
work and nonwork outcomes. Unpublished dissertation, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN.
*Thompson, C. A., & Blau, G. (1993). Moving beyond traditional predictors of job involvement: Exploring
the impact of work–family conXict and overload. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 8, 635–
646.
*Van der Hulst, M., & Guerts, S. (2001). Associations between overtime and psychological health in high
and low reward jobs. Work and Stress, 15, 227–240.
Verquer, M. L., Beehr, T. A., & Wagner, S. H. (2003). A meta-analysis of relations between person-organi-
zation Wt and work attitudes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63, 473–489.
*Vinokur, A. D., Pierce, P. F., & Buck, C. L. (1999). Work–family conXicts of women in the Air Force:
Their inXuence on mental health and functioning. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 865–878.
VoydanoV, P. (2002). Linkages between the work–family interface and work, family, and individual out-
comes: An integrative model. Journal of Family Issues, 23, 138–164.
Whitener, E. M. (1990). Confusion of conWdence intervals and credibility intervals in meta-analysis. Jour-
nal of Applied Psychology, 75, 315–321.
*Wiley, D. L. (1987). The relationship between work/nonwork role conXict and job-related outcomes:
Some unanticipated Wndings. Journal of Management, 13, 467–472.
*Williams, K. J., & Alliger, G. M. (1994). Role stressors, mood spillover, and perceptions of work–family
conXict in employed parents. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 837–868.

Link 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Link 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Vocational Behavior 67 (2005) 169–198

A meta-analytic review of work–family conXict

Received 6 November 2003

Keywords: Work; Family; ConXict; Interference; Meta-analysis; Review

2. Work–family conXict and its antecedents

Researchers have considered a number of diVerent variables as possible anteced-

3.1. Search strategy

I searched the computer database Psych-Info of the American Psychological

3.2. Criteria for inclusion

1. WIF and FIW had to be quantitatively measured; qualitative studies of work–

3.3. Coding of variables

Several potential moderators were investigated to determine if they explained var-

K. Byron / Journal of Vocational Behavior 67 (2005) 169–198

K. Byron / Journal of Vocational Behavior 67 (2005) 169–198

K. Byron / Journal of Vocational Behavior 67 (2005) 169–198

Klitzman, House, Israel, and Mero (1990)

K. Byron / Journal of Vocational Behavior 67 (2005) 169–198

K. Byron / Journal of Vocational Behavior 67 (2005) 169–198

K. Byron / Journal of Vocational Behavior 67 (2005) 169–198

3.5. Analysis strategy

Meta-analytic results of correlations between work interference with family and

K. Byron / Journal of Vocational Behavior 67 (2005) 169–198

Lastly, I considered whether diVerences in coding might account for between-

5.1. Theoretical implications

5.2. Future research

investigate whether diVerences in sampling strategies explain diVerences in results

5.3. Practical implications

In addition to providing guidance to work–family researchers, the results of the

You might also like