and family life.One of the most inuential papers in the area of work and family introduced a work-family conict model wherein work-

family conict mediates the effect of work (family) role conict and involvement on family (work) satisfaction (Frone, Rus-sell, & Cooper 1992). While this model has received empirical support in a few primary studies (e.g., Aryee, Fields, &

0001-8791/$ - see front matter Published by Elsevier Inc.

* Corresponding author. Fax: +1 305 348 3879.E-mail address: jmichel@u.edu (J.S. Michel).

Journal of Vocational Behavior 74 (2009) 199218

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Vocational Behaviordoi:10.1016/j.jvb.2008.12.005Work-family integration Published by Elsevier Inc.

1. Introduction

Of the numerous life domains individuals participate in, few, if any, are as comprehensive and prevalent as the work andfamily domains. For example, recent US Census gures indicate that 75.9 percent of US adults aged 2064 are in the laborforce (81.9 percent of men, 70.0 percent of women; Clark &Weismantle, 2003), and 68.1 percent of US households are familyhouseholds (Simmons & ONeill, 2001). Further, work and family roles have recently been confounded by the increase ofdual-earner households, single-parent households, and other nontraditional gender roles; which, as a whole, have greatlyincreased work and family demands for many individuals (Bond, Galinsky, & Swanberg, 1998; Duxbury & Higgins, 1991;Greenhaus, Callanan, & Godshalk, 2000). As a result, scholars have produced a considerable body of theoretical (e.g., Edwards& Rothbard, 2000; Greenhaus & Powell, 2006), empirical (e.g., Ilies, Schwind, Wagner, Johnson, DeRue, & Ilgen, 2007), andreview literature (e.g., Eby, Casper, Lockwood, Bordeaux, & Brinely, 2005; Kossek & Ozeki, 1998) on the intersection of worka r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 14 November 2008Available online 25 December 2008

Keywords:Linking mechanismsMeta-analysisSegmentationWork and familyWork-family conictWork-family linkagesa b s t r a c t

This paper is a comprehensive meta-analysis of over 20 years of work-family conictresearch. A series of path analyses were conducted to compare and contrast existingwork-family conict models, as well as a new model we developed which integrates andsynthesizes current work-family theory and research. This new model accounted for 40%of the variance in job satisfaction, 38% of the variance in family satisfaction, and 35% ofthe variance in life satisfaction. In a critical examination of work-family linkages, a seriesof analyses excluding work-family conict constructs and pathways resulted in a well-t-ting and more parsimonious model that still accounted for 39% of the variance in job sat-isfaction, 37% of the variance in family satisfaction, and 33% of the variance in lifesatisfaction. Results indicate that direct effects drive work-family conict models whileindirect effects provide little incremental explanation in regards to satisfaction outcomes.A comparative test of work-family conict models and criticalexamination of work-family linkages

Jesse S. Michel a,*, Jacqueline K. Mitchelson b, Lindsey M. Kotrba c,James M. LeBreton d, Boris B. Baltes e

a Florida International University, Department of Psychology, 11200 S.W. 8th Street, Miami, FL 33199, USAbAuburn University, Department of Psychology, Auburn, AL 36849, USAcDenison Consulting, Ann Arbor, MI 48104, USAd Purdue University, Department of Psychological Sciences, West Lafayette, ID 47907, USAeWayne State University, Department of Psychology, Detroit, MI 48202, USA

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/ locate / jvb

thoroughly explore the intersection of work and family life. We include several related models of work-family conict which,

200 J.S. Michel et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 74 (2009) 199218similar to Frone et al. (1992), hypothesize that work-family conict plays an intermediary role linking various antecedents(e.g., work social support) to various consequences (e.g., life satisfaction). The rst alternative model was proposed by Carl-son and Kacmar (2000) which extends Frone and colleagues work through the inclusion of additional work and family stress-ors, specically role ambiguity and time demands. The second model, proposed by Carlson and Perrew (1999), views workand family stressors as a partial mediator between work and family social support and involvement and work-family con-ict. Finally, we offer a new model which integrates and synthesizes existing work-family conict ndings. As such, thisstudy will test and evaluate a series of work-family conict models thus answering the call of Eby et al. (2005) for additionaltesting of theoretical work-family modelsboth current models and the development of new models.

A nal goal of this paper is to critically examine and evaluate the state of the literature by dissecting the most saturated orintegrative model presented in this review in regards to the explanatory power of specic work-family linkages. Extendingthe work of Michel and Hargis (2008), which found that direct effect or segmentation based linkages (e.g., work antecedentsto work outcomes) accounted for far more variance in outcome variables than indirect effect or conict based linkages (e.g.,work antecedents to family outcomes via WIF), we seek to more completely examine the linkage mechanisms within ourmodel by examining nested work-family linkages within a complete integrative model (i.e., a single work-family modelof indirect and direct effects) versus separate quasi competing models (i.e., separate models of indirect effects and direct ef-fects). Accordingly, in this paper we propose to (1) review and update primary structural models within the work-familyconict literature, (2) provide the rst meta-analytic test of each of these models, and (3) critically examine and evaluatethe explanatory power of model linkages (cf. Edwards & Rothbard, 2000).

In the following sections we provide a brief background of the work-family conict construct, review three primary work-family conict models, propose a new model which integrates the core features from previous models and empirical liter-ature, and describe the results of a meta-analytic and path analytic comparative test of extant models, our new integrativetheoretical model, and critical examination of work-family linkages.

2. The work-family conict construct

Research on work and family has sought to explain work-family conict from multiple theoretical approaches such asboundary theory, compensation theory, ecological systems theory, social identity theory, and spillover theory, to name afew. However, researchers generally state that role theory (Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, & Rosenthal, 1964; Katz & Kahn,1978) has provided the broad theoretical umbrella for much of the work-family conict literature. Role theory implies thatwork and family roles result from the expectations of others, and what is believed to be appropriate behavior for a particularposition (e.g., subordinate, coworker, spouse, father; Kahn et al., 1964). Role theory indicates that both work and family do-mains entail multiple roles where numerous demands are placed on the individual, often resulting in conict (e.g., interroleconict; Kahn et al., 1964). Rooted in role theory, and derived from a scarcity hypothesis (xed amount of resources, such astime and energy), conict theory posits that the work and family domains can be incompatible resulting from differentnorms and requirements (Burke, 1986; Evans & Bartolome, 1984; Zedeck & Mosier, 1990); thus, increased role performancein one domain (such as work) results in decreased role performance in the other domain (such as family). Consequently,work-family conict is popularly dened as a form of interrole conict in which the role pressures from the work and familydomains are mutually incompatible in some respect (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985, p. 77).

Recent research has conceptualized work-family conict as a multidimensional construct with aspects of WIF (alsotermed work-to-family) and FIW (also termed family-to-work; e.g., Gutek, Searle, & Klepa, 1991; Kelloway, Gottlieb, &Barham, 1999; ODriscoll, Ilgen, & Hildreth, 1992; Williams & Alliger, 1994). Research has also shown that WIF and FIW haveLuk, 1999), it has not been examined in a comprehensive way at a meta-analytic level. For example, Ford, Heinen, and Langk-amer (2007) conducted a quantitative review of work-family conict, but they only examined components of the Frone et al.(1992) model. Specically, the effects of work and family were examined as disparate models by separating the effect ofwork on family satisfaction and the effect of family on job satisfaction, thus providing (1) the extent to which factors inthe work domain were related to satisfaction with family lifemediated by work interference with family conict (WIF),and (2) the extent to which factors in the family domain were related to satisfaction with work lifemediated by familyinterference with work conict (FIW).

One purpose of the current paper is to offer a comprehensive examination of the Frone et al. (1992) model in its entirety.In doing so, we may better understand the complexity between work and family beyond the review of Ford and colleagues inseveral ways. First, we examine work-family relationships previously unexamined. These include relationships between (a)work and family antecedents, (b) WIF and FIW, and (c) satisfaction outcomes (cf. Frone et al., 1992). Second, we examine thedirect effects of (a) work antecedents to job satisfaction, and (b) family antecedents to family satisfaction (cf. Frone et al.,1992). Third, we include the nal outcome of life satisfaction (cf. Frone et al., 1992). And forth, we provide a concurrentexamination of the Frone et al. model, versus multiple examinations of portions of the model, thus controlling for variableinterrelationships. As such, this quantitative review will extend the work of primary studies by examining the stability in ourresults via meta-analytic path analysis (Viswesvaran & Ones, 1995), along with extending the work of Ford and colleagues inseveral important ways.

An additional goal of this paper is to provide a series of path analyses on alternative work-family conict models to more

like exerts a direct effect or exerts an indirect effect, and we use these terms in our integrative model, we use the original

J.S. Michel et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 74 (2009) 199218 201authors terminology in reference to their models.Before reviewing the work-family conict models, a brief review of the variables contained in these models is appropriate.

Pertaining to the selection of model variables, we use the previous work of full-range work-family conict models to guideour study (Carlson & Kacmar, 2000; Carlson & Perrew, 1999; Frone et al., 1992). Due to space considerations, we do notelaborate on the theoretical underpinnings of each variable, as these specications were articulated in the articles that orig-inally introduced the models being tested in this study. For a review, readers are directed to Carlson and Kacmar (2000), Carl-son and Perrew (1999), and Frone et al. (1992).

3.1. Conceptual denitions of model variables

In addition to the mediating WIF and FIW variables, each of the models incorporate some or all of the following anteced-ent variables: work social support (family social support) refers to instrumental aid, emotional concern, informational, andappraisal functions of others in the work (family) domain that serve to heighten ones feelings of self-importance (Carlson &Perrew, 1999; House, 1981; Matsui, Ohsawa, & Onglatco, 1995); work involvement (family involvement) refers to the levelof psychological and cognitive preoccupation with, engagement in, and immersion in ones work (family) role (Diefendorff,Brown, Kamin, & Lord, 2002; Frone, 2003; Greenhaus & Parasuraman, 1999; Kanungo, 1982; Yogev & Brett, 1985); work roleconict (family role conict) refers to the extent to which an individual experiences incompatible role pressures within thework (family) domain (Bacharach, Bamberger, & Conley, 1990; Beehr, 1995; Kahn et al., 1964; Katz & Kahn, 1978; Kopelman,Greenhaus, & Connolly, 1983); work time demands (family time demands) refers to time devoted to the work (family) role(e.g., Carlson & Frone, 2003; Frone, Yardley, & Markel, 1997; Judge, Boudreau, & Bretz, 1994; Kirchmeyer, 1992; Major, Klein,& Ehrhart, 2002), often confused with work role overload (family role overload; e.g., Carlson & Kacmar, 2000; Carlson & Per-rew, 1999), which is the perception of having too many work role (family role) tasks and not enough time to do them (Bach-arach et al., 1990; Caplan, Cobb, & French, 1975; French & Caplan, 1973; Kahn, 1980); and work role ambiguity (family roleambiguity) refers to the lack of necessary information (specicity and predictability) about duties, objectives, and responsi-bilities needed for a particular work role (family role) or the lack of work role (family role) clarity (Beehr & Glazer, 2005;Cooper, Cooper, & Eaker, 1988; Elloy & Smith, 2003; Gupta & Jenkins, 1985; Kahn et al., 1964; Peterson et al., 1995; Schuler,1980; Usita, Hall, & Davis, 2004).

In addition to these antecedents, each of the identied models incorporate some or all of the following outcome variables:job satisfaction (family satisfaction) refers to the degree to which an individual is satised (positive feelings, emotional expe-rience) with the work (family) aspects of their life (Cranny, Smith, & Stone, 1992; Hopkins, 1983; Locke, 1976; Smith, Ken-dall, & Hulin, 1969); and life satisfaction refers to the degree to which an individual is satised (positive feelings, emotionalexperience) with their general quality of life (Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Grifn, 1985; Rice, McFarlin, Hunt, & Near, 1985).

3.2. Model 1: A parsimonious stressor and involvement model (Frone et al., 1992)

The Frone et al. (1992) model was the rst highly cited structural model theorizing separate WIF and FIW constructs as amediating component between work and family domain antecedents, and work domain, family domain, and life outcomes.More specically, this model conceptualizes WIF and FIW as mediating components between job stressors (measured aswork pressure, lack of autonomy, and work role ambiguity), job involvement, family stressors (measured as parental work-load and child misbehavior), and family involvement, and the outcomes of job distress, family distress, and depression (mea-sured as reverse scored job satisfaction, family satisfaction, and life satisfaction). In a study to test the cross-culturalgeneralizability of this model, Aryee et al. (1999) utilized a slightly adapted version which replaced the antecedents ofjob and family stressors (work pressure, lack of autonomy, and work-role ambiguity; parental workload and child misbehav-ior) with job and family conicts (work role conict and family role conict).

While Frone et al. (1997) provide and test a version of this model, the Frone et al. (1997) model was not included in thefollowing review because it does not meet our criteria for a full-range model. For example, in this 1997 model, outcomesunique relationships with work and family antecedents and outcomes (e.g., Anderson, Coffey, & Byerly, 2002; Byron, 2005;Carlson & Kacmar, 2000; Frone et al., 1992; Grandey & Cropanzano, 1999; Kelloway et al., 1999; Kossek & Ozeki, 1998;ODriscoll et al., 1992; Parasuraman, Purohit, Godshalk, & Beutell, 1996), and provide incremental variance over one another(see Mesmer-Magnus & Viswesvaran, 2005).

3. Work-family conict as a mediator

As work-family conict has been a dominant construct within the work-family literature, a number of structural modelshave been advanced. However, most theoretical models contain three core components: (1) a set of work and family domainantecedents; (2) a combination of work domain, family domain, and life outcomes; and (3) a mediating work-family conictconstruct. It is this conguration that we refer to as full-range models. We should note that we are using the terms medi-ation and partial mediation in reference to the original authors conceptions. However, these terms imply causal relation-ships and the conditions for causal inference are quite strong (James, Muliak, & Brett, 1982). While we would prefer phrases

have a recursive effect on work-family conict (e.g., WIF to Family Dissatisfaction to FIW). Further, we chose to examine theslightly modied Aryee et al. (1999) version of the Frone et al. (1992) model as it provides greater variable overlap with re-cent conict models at the operational level, thus allowing for greater condence in our inferences of model adequacy acrossthe structural models being compared in this multi model test.

3.3. Model 2: An expanded stressor model (Carlson & Kacmar, 2000)

TheCarlson andKacmar (2000)model conceptualizesWIF and FIWasmediating components betweenwork role ambiguity,work role conict, work time demands (measured as work role overload), job involvement, family involvement, family timedemands (measured as family role overload), family role conict, and family role ambiguity, and the outcomes of job satisfac-tion, family satisfaction, and life satisfaction. Unique to thismodel is the inclusionof domain role ambiguity and timedemands.

3.4. Model 3: A partial mediating stressor model (Carlson & Perrew, 1999)

In the original Carlson and Perrew (1999) model, WIF and FIW were combined to make a unidimensional work-familyconict construct. In our adapted version, and consistent with previous research (e.g., Carlson, Kacmar, & Williams, 2000),work-family conict is conceptualized as two separate WIF (leading to family outcomes) and FIW (leading to work out-comes) constructs. Thus, in our adapted model, WIF and FIW are mediating components between work social support, workinvolvement, work role conict, work time demands (measured as work role overload), work role ambiguity, family socialsupport, family involvement, family role conict, family time demands (measured as family role overload), and family roleambiguity, and the outcomes of job satisfaction and family satisfaction. Further, this model posits the partial mediation of

202 J.S. Michel et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 74 (2009) 199218work role conict, work time demands, and work role ambiguity between work social support and work involvement, andWIF and job satisfaction on the work domain side; along with the partial mediation of family role conict, family time de-mands, and family role ambiguity between family social support and family involvement, and FIW and family satisfaction onthe family domain side. Unique to this model is the inclusion of domain social support, the partial mediation of domain roleconict, time demands, and role ambiguity, along with the exclusion of life satisfaction.

3.5. Model 4: Development of an integrative work-family conict model

Based on current work-family research, we provide a model in Fig. 1 that integrates the literature. This integrative modelis founded on what we refer to as three forms or types of quasi linking mechanisms (cf. Edwards & Rothbard, 2000). We referto these as quasi linking mechanisms and classify them by effect (e.g., indirect effect, direct effect) as each revolves aroundthe interplay of work and family, yet could be explained or partially explained by a number of theoretical approaches, suchas work-family conict or segmentation (see Ashforth, Kreiner, & Fugate, 2000; Edwards & Rothbard, 2000).

3.5.1. Indirect effect linkagesWork-family conict posits that work and family antecedents lead to WIF and FIW, which then leads to family and work

consequences. These linkages are represented by pathways 12 for WIF (work antecedents to WIF to family outcomes) and34 for FIW (family antecedents to FIW to work outcomes). These indirect effects are the core feature of work-family conict

Work Antecedents-Work Social Support-Work Involvement-Work Role Conflict-Work Time Demands-Work Role Ambiguity

Family Antecedents-Family Social Support-Family Involvement-Family Role Conflict-Family Time Demands-Family Role Ambiguity

Work Outcomes

-Job Satisfaction

Family Outcomes

-Family Satisfaction

Life Outcomes

-Life Satisfaction

WIF

FIW

1

2

3

4

11

12

17

16

10

913 15

5

68

7

14

Fig. 1. Integrative work-family conict model (Model 4).

satisfaction is an outcome of WIF (r = .24, k = 8; Allen, Herst, Bruck, & Sutton, 2000).

J.S. Michel et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 74 (2009) 199218 203A nal set of work-family conict linkages involve the prediction of life satisfaction by WIF and FIW. These linkages arerepresented by pathways 9 (fromWIF) and 10 (from FIW). These pathways are based on the previous work of Frone et al. andhave received modest support.

3.5.2. Direct effect linkagesIn addition to indirect effect linkages (e.g., work antecedents to family outcomes via WIF), our integrative model also in-

cludes direct effect linkages (e.g., work antecedents to work outcomes), which are typically included in conict models (e.g.,Carlson & Kacmar, 2000; Carlson & Perrew, 1999; Frone et al., 1992). These are represented by pathways 11 (work anteced-ents to work outcomes) and 12 (family antecedents to family outcomes). As much of the literature on organizational behav-ior focuses on direct effect linkages (e.g., Hackman & Oldham, 1976), they have receive extensive support (e.g., Michel &Hargis, 2008).

3.5.3. Construct level cross-domain effectsThe nal set of linkages in our integrative model represents the relationships between work and family that fall outside of

indirect and direct effect linkages. These consist of relationships between (1) work and family antecedentslinkage 13, (2)WIF and FIWlinkage 14, and (3) satisfaction outcomeslinkages 1517. In essence, these linkages account for a similaritybetween the work and family roles and are based on the previous work-family models previously reviewed (e.g., Carlson &Kacmar, 2000; Frone et al., 1992).

4. Study purpose

The purpose of this study is to provide a series of meta-analytic path analyses on the previously reviewed work-familyconict models to better understand the complex interplay between work and family life. Specically, we propose to testand evaluate the parsimonious stressor and involvement model presented by Frone et al. (1992; Model 1), the expandedstressor model presented by Carlson and Kacmar (2000; Model 2), and the partial mediating stressor model presented byCarlson and Perrew (1999; Model 3), in addition to a new integrative model developed for this study (Model 4). ThoughModels 13 each found support in primary studies, meta-analytic path analysis enables us to examine how well these struc-tural models actually generalize across a comprehensive meta-analytic data set of observed validities. Likewise, this studywill provide the rst examination of our new integrative model. Though each of these models shares the characteristicsof a full-range model, they have subtle yet signicant differences. As such, we hope to better understand these similaritiesand differences with this research, as model adequacy will be evaluated on model t, parameter estimates, and variance ex-plained in the outcome variables.

In addition, we propose to critically examine and evaluate the state of the literature by scrutinizing our integrative modelas it is (1) based on current work-family theory and empirical ndings, and (2) incorporates all of the linkages held by theprevious models reviewed. This examination extends previous literature on work-family linking mechanisms (see Michel &Hargis, 2008), where direct effect models (e.g., work antecedents to work outcomes) accounted for far more variance in out-come variables than indirect effect models (e.g., work antecedents to family outcomes via WIF), by examining linkages with-in a single theoretical model, therefore allowing us to determine the explanatory power of model linkages by determiningwhere the variance explained in outcomes occurs. In doing so, we hope to better determine the theoretical and empiricalforces underlying models of work and family.

5. Methods

5.1. Literature search

The search for studies was conducted in two stages. In the rst stage, computer-based literature searches were conductedon the databases of ABI/INFORM and PsychINFO (including Dissertation Abstracts). Keyword searches were conducted on thefollowing terms: work family conict in conjunction with job satisfaction, family satisfaction, life satisfaction, work social sup-port/organizational support, family social support/social support, work involvement/job involvement, family involvement, workrole conict, family role conict, work time demands, family time demands, work role ambiguity, and family role ambiguity. Allmodels (e.g., Carlson & Kacmar, 2000; Carlson & Perrew, 1999; Frone et al., 1992), and are the sole linkages tested by theFord et al. (2007) meta-analytic path analysis. Empirical support for these relationships has been modest. For example, in aseries of meta-analytic multiple regressions, Ford et al. found that work antecedents and WIF accounted for approximately7% of the variance in family satisfaction, while family antecedents and FIW accounted for approximately 7% of the variance injob satisfaction.

A second series of work-family conict linkages revolve around empirical ndings that have yet to be included in modelsof work-family conict. These linkages are represented by pathways 5 (work antecedents to FIW), 6 (family antecedents toWIF), 7 (WIF to job satisfaction), and 8 (FIW to family satisfaction). Empirical support for these relationships has been con-sistent. For example, based on meta-analytic data, job stress is an antecedent of FIW (rc = .29, k = 19; Byron, 2005) and job

electronic searches were limited to post-1985 material since directional WIF and FIW were rst introduced by Greenhausand Beutell (1985). Manual cross-referencing was also used to ensure relevant studies missed in the electronic searches wereconsidered for inclusion. This second stage consisted of a manual cross-referencing of studies included in relevant qualitativeand quantitative reviews (e.g., Allen et al., 2000; Byron, 2005; Eby et al., 2005; Kossek & Ozeki, 1998), and related journalspecial issues (e.g., Journal of Vocational Behavior: Special Issue on Work and Family Balance, 1997; Journal of OccupationalHealth Psychology: Special Issue on Relationship BetweenWork and Family Life, 1999; International Journal of Stress Management:Special Issue on Work and Personal Life Integration, 2004).

5.2. Inclusion criteria

Studies were included if they included a measure of WIF and/or FIW and included two or more variables theorized in thestructural models of interest. When relevant articles published within the past seven years (the required duration to retaindata per APA guidelines) were located, and data were not provided, the corresponding author was contacted to obtain miss-ing data. When identical datasets were reported in multiple studies, the most recent study was included. When portions ofdata from the same sample were reported in more than one publication or study, unique bivariate relationships and bivariaterelationships with the larger sample size were included. This process yielded a total of 211 studies with 263 samples and2060 effect sizes that were included in the current meta-analysis.

5.3. Coding of studies

Of the studies that met the inclusion criteria, 60 articles were randomly chosen for three subject matter experts (SME) tocode. The average percent agreement between all three SME was 93.30%. After coding procedures, the SME resolved all issuesand discrepancies until absolute agreement was reached for the 15 constructs included in the identied structural models.As outlined in Table 1, a nal coding scheme was developed and the remaining samples were coded based on these criteria.Whenever additional judgment calls were required (i.e., any issue outside the information provided in Table 1), the studies inquestion were placed aside and discussed by the three SME until absolute agreement was reached and all coding issues wereresolved.

204 J.S. Michel et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 74 (2009) 1992185.4. Computation of effect sizes

Since one of our research goals were to critically examine work-family linkages and determine the utility of the work-family conict construct, we chose to use observed versus psychometrically corrected validity coefcients in our analyses.Accordingly, sample size weighted correlation estimates were conducted via the meta-analytic techniques of Hedges and

Table 1Summary of Included Measures.

Construct Measures included

WIF All forms of WIF (e.g., self developed; Frone et al., 1992; Gutek et al., 1991; Kopelman et al., 1983)FIW All forms of FIW (e.g., self developed; Burley, 1990; Frone et al., 1992; Gutek et al., 1991)Work social support Coworker social support, emotional/informational/instrumental support from work, group cohesiveness, lack of personal support

at work/nonsupport (rev.), leader/managerial support, level of work group support, mentor supportiveness, perceivedorganizational support, psychosocial support, supervisor support (e.g., self developed; Beehr, King, & King, 1990; Eisenberger,Huntington, Hutchison, & Sowa, 1986; Shinn, Wong, Simko, & Ortiz-Torres, 1989)

Work involvement Job involvement, work identity, work involvement (e.g., self developed; Kanungo, 1982; Lodahl & Kejnar, 1965; Quinn & Staines,1979)

Work role conict Work role conict (e.g., self developed; Caplan, Cobb, French, Harrison, & Pinneau, 1980; Kahn et al., 1964; Kopelman et al., 1983;Rizzo, House, & Lirtzman, 1970)

Work time demands Number of hours spent on paid work activities, time commitment to work (e.g., self developed)Work role ambiguity Work role ambiguity (e.g., self developed; Caplan et al., 1980; Kahn et al., 1964; Rizzo et al., 1970)Family social

supportDomestic support, emotional/informational/instrumental support from family, family cohesion, family and friends support, lack ofspousal support (rev.), spousal support (e.g., self developed; Caplan, Cobb, French, Harrison, & Pinneau, 1975; King, Mattimore,King, & Adams, 1995; Procidano & Heller, 1983)

Family involvement Family identity, family involvement (e.g., self developed; adapted job involvement measures; Amatea, Cross, Clark, & Bobby, 1986;Yogev & Brett, 1985)

Family role conict Family role conict (e.g., self developed; adapted work-role conict measures; Kopelman et al., 1983; Nye & MacDougall, 1959)Family time

demandsAge of youngest child, number of children living at home, number of hours spend on family activities, parental (time) demands,time commitment to family (e.g., self developed; Bedeian, Burke, & Moffett, 1988)

Family roleambiguity

Family role ambiguity (e.g., adapted work role ambiguity measures)

Job satisfaction Business dissatisfaction (rev.), job satisfaction, quality of work life, work satisfaction (e.g., self developed;Hackman & Oldham,1975; Quinn & Staines, 1979; Smith et al., 1969)

Family satisfaction Family satisfaction, home satisfaction, marital satisfaction/adjustment, parenting satisfaction, quality of family life, relationshipsatisfaction/agreement (e.g., self developed; Spanier, 1976; Staines & Pleck, 1984)

Life satisfaction Life satisfaction, quality of life (e.g., self developed; Diener et al., 1985; Quinn & Shepard, 1974; Quinn & Staines, 1979)

1983; Hu & Bentler, 1995; Hu & Bentler, 1999; Jreskog & Srbom, 1993; Marsh, Hau, & Wen, 2004). Specically, the Good-

J.S. Michel et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 74 (2009) 199218 205ness-of-t Index (GFI), Normed Fit Index (NFI), Comparative Fit Index (CFI), and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation(RMSEA) were used to assess model t or model mist. In addition to these indices, the Normal Theory Weighted LeastSquares Chi-Square (v2) statistic and the Critical N (CN) were evaluated. Finally, to compare the series of non-nested modelsin the current study, the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) was also evaluated.

6. Results

Our meta-analytic correlation matrix is presented in Table 2. Ninety-ve percent condence intervals indicate that85.44% of the meta-analytic correlations were signicantly signicant. However, given the study purpose, we focus on modelt, parameter estimates, and variance explained in outcomes versus bivariate relationships.

6.1. Model t and parameter estimates of work-family conict models

Model 1 (parsimonious stressor and involvement model) was supported with overall t statistics suggesting very goodmodel t: v2(13) = 179.57, CN = 323.94, GFI = .98, NFI = .96, CFI = .96, RMSEA = .08, and AIC = 243.57 (see Table 3). In additionto model t, it is appropriate to examine pathway magnitudes to better interpret a model, thus we provide parameter esti-mates in Fig. 2. Work role conict was a signicant predictor of WIF (pathway = .33) and job satisfaction (pathway = .40),and family role conict was a signicant predictor of FIW (pathway = .21) and family satisfaction (pathway = .41). Workinvolvement and family involvement had small effects on WIF (pathway = .08) and FIW (pathway = .00), but moderate ef-fects on job satisfaction (pathway = .30) and family satisfaction (pathway = .21). These results suggest that work and familymay be best conceptualized as predictors of same domain satisfaction versus work-family conict. WIF and FIW seem tohave a small to moderate reciprocal relationship (pathways of .20 and .17), but have relatively low prediction on satisfactionoutcomes (ranging from .01 to .13). Finally, job satisfaction (pathway = .34) and family satisfaction (pathway = .37) eachhad a moderately high relationship with life satisfaction.

Model 2 (expanded stressor model) was supported with overall t statistics suggesting very good model t:v2(28) = 383.08, CN = 266.03, GFI = .97, NFI = .95, CFI = .95, RMSEA = .08, and AIC = 509.08 (see Table 3). Parameter estimatesare displayed in Fig. 3. As more variables and pathways were added to this model, work role conict remained a signicantpredictor of WIF (pathway = .26) and job satisfaction (pathway = .26), and family role conict remained a signicant pre-dictor of FIW (pathway = .16) and family satisfaction (pathway = .38). Similarly, work involvement and family involvementcontinued to have small effects on WIF (pathway = .03) and FIW (pathway = .02), but moderate effects on job satisfaction(pathway = .27) and family satisfaction (pathway = .20). WIF and FIW continued to have a small to moderate reciprocal rela-tionship, yet magnitudes changed signicantly (.17.26 for FIW to WIF, .20.09 for WIF to FIW). Likewise, relationships fromOlkin (1985). Johnsons (1993) DSTAT was used to convert the study statistics into effect sizes adjusted for sample size. Sincethe product-moment correlation (r) possesses some undesirable statistical properties (Alexander, Scozzaro, & Borodkin,1989; Rosenthal, 1994), and the unbiased estimator of effect size (d) possesses many desirable properties (Hedges, 1982;Hedges & Olkin, 1985), the unbiased estimator of effect size (d) was used to provide meta-analytic mean weighted effectsizes. Though each sample correlation was converted to an unbiased estimator of effect size (d) for meta-analytic analysis,nal estimates were converted back to the product-moment correlations (r) for path analyses.

5.5. Outlier analysis

Outliers can signicantly distort meta-analytic results (Hedges & Olkin, 1985), and this problem can be compounded withmeta-analytic path analysis. Accordingly, two approaches to identify and address potential outliers were employed. First,within each cell of the meta-analytic correlation matrix, effect sizes were converted to z-scores and extreme values(2.58) were deemed outliers. This procedure yielded 26 of the 2060 effect sizes as statistical outliers at the p = .01 level.Second, we employed a visual inspection of the data (Hedges & Olkin, 1985). This process yielded three effect sizes that weredeemed outliers. Based on these two approaches, 29 of the 2060 effect sizes or 1.41% of the data were deemed potential out-liers. All analyses were conducted with and without the identied outliers. Results were near identical for model t indicesand parameter estimates. Accordingly, due to space considerations, only analyses with outliers excluded are reported. Thefull correlation matrix with the outliers included may be obtained from the corresponding author.

5.6. Path analyses and model evaluation

Path analysis of the meta-analytic correlation matrix was conducted in LISREL 8.80 (Jreskog & Srbom, 1993). All latentconstructs were treated as single item indicators. As with previous meta-analytic path analyses (e.g., Brown & Peterson,1993; Chen, Casper, & Cortina, 2001; Ford et al. 2007; Hom, Caranikas-Walker, Prussia, & Griffeth, 1992; Michel & Hargis,2008), all models were tested utilizing the maximum likelihood estimation method and the harmonic mean. To provide acomprehensive examination of model t, a variety of t indices were chosen based on type of t index (e.g., absolute versusincremental) and recommendations within the structural equation modeling literature (e.g., Bentler & Bonett, 1980; Hoelter,

206 J.S. Michel et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 74 (2009) 199218Table 2Meta-analytic correlation matrix of model variables.

Variable WIF FIW WSS WI WRC WTD WRA FSS FI FRC FTD FRA JS FS LS

WIF k n

FIW .39* k 121 n 47,305

WSS .23* .09* work-family conict and satisfaction outcomes remained constant (ranging from .05 to .09), as did job satisfaction (path-way = .37) and family satisfaction (pathway = .39) to life satisfaction. Unique to this model was the inclusion of ambiguityand time demands variables. Work role ambiguity had a moderate relationship to job satisfaction (pathway = .30) butlow relationship to WIF (pathway = .05). Inverse to this was the role of work time demands, which was moderately relatedtoWIF (pathway = .20) but not job satisfaction (pathway = .04). On the family side, much different results were found as fam-ily role ambiguity was moderately related to both FIW (pathway = .21) and family satisfaction (pathway = .19), while fam-ily time demands had small effects on FIW (pathway = .08) and family satisfaction (pathway = .05).

Model 3 (partial mediating stressor model) was not supported with overall t statistics suggesting inadequate model t:v2(49) = 920.03, CN = 160.26, GFI = .94, NFI = .87, CFI = .88, RMSEA = .09, and AIC = 1,032.03 (see Table 3). Accordingly, exam-ination of parameter estimates could provide misleading results and are not included.

k 55 37 n 21,255 13,424

WI .08* .01 .15* k 40 28 22 n 10,944 8434 5621

WRC .36* .20* .36* .00 k 24 11 6 11 n 5933 3628 1413 2703

WTD .26* .02* .04* .24* .15* k 64 51 25 21 5 n 28,507 18,549 11,098 5953 1572

WRA .24* .19* .24* .07* .49* .11* k 19 13 9 10 18 8 n 5585 4731 3183 3257 4613 2915

FSS .13* .17* .17* .02* .05* .03* .06* k 38 29 39 21 5 20 6 n 14,171 7732 12,314 5611 1550 9871 1999

FI .01 .01 .05* .12* .04* .02 .00 .14* k 24 22 12 34 7 12 5 16 N 7708 6970 3573 9876 2220 3839 2325 3905

FRC .24* .26* .03 .07* .29* .01 .11* .35* .04* k 9 4 2 5 12 2 4 2 5 n 2817 2056 575 1502 2771 1248 1294 575 1502

FTD .03* .08* .01 .06* .05* .01* .01 .02 .05* .25* k 68 56 16 19 4 48 7 21 13 2 n 26,196 20,607 5891 5238 1411 17,034 2763 4386 3581 1248

FRA .17* .25* .06* .07* .16* .18 .33* .29* .13* .28* .21 k 3 3 2 2 4 1 4 2 2 4 1 n 1069 1069 575 808 1294 261 1294 575 808 1294 261

JS .25* .15* .43* .30* .41* .03* .45* .18* .02 .14* .02* .05* k 85 60 39 33 24 30 14 28 18 11 29 3 n 29,587 21,523 15,397 8592 5766 12,186 4089 10,648 5417 2524 9453 1069

FS .21* .23* .13* .07* .12* .03* .13* .48* .24* .45* .00 .35* .19* k 45 30 13 15 14 13 5 16 17 11 16 3 44 n 14,504 10,808 3854 4465 3429 5050 1616 4102 4765 2524 5851 1069 13,741

LS .30* .20* .32* .02 .31* .04* .26* .19* .07* .29* .00 .24* .44* .46* k 35 24 4 10 11 9 4 7 11 9 11 2 37 26 n 9162 6657 963 2320 2375 2696 1392 1472 2700 1809 3240 808 9476 6832

Note:WIF, work interference with family conict; FIW, family interference with work conict; WSS, work social support; WI, work involvement; WRC, workrole conict; WTD, work time demands; WRA, work role ambiguity; FSS, family social support; FI, family involvement; FRC, family role conict; FTD, familytime demands; FRA, family role ambiguity; JS, job satisfaction; FS, family satisfaction; LS, life satisfaction; k, number of samples; n, number of participants.* p < .05

J.S. Michel et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 74 (2009) 199218 207Table 3Model t indices from primary path analyses.

Model df v2 CN GFI NFI CFI RMSEA AIC

Model 1Parsimonious stressor and involvement model 13 179.57 323.94 .98 .96 .96 .08 243.57

Model 2Expanded stressor model 28 383.08 266.03 .97 .95 .95 .08 509.08

Model 3Partial mediating stressor model 49 920.03 160.26 .94 .87 .88 .09 1032.03

Model 4aModel 4 (integrative work-family conict model) was supported with overall t statistics suggesting excellent model t:v2(20) = 272.42, CN = 287.81, GFI = .98, NFI = .97, CFI = .97, RMSEA = .08, and AIC = 472.42 (see Table 3). Due to the complex-ity of this model, parameter estimates are provided in Table 4 versus a gure. As more variables and pathways were added tothis model, work role conict remained a signicant predictor of WIF (pathway = .20) and job satisfaction (pathway = .16),and family role conict remained a signicant predictor of FIW (pathway = .13) and family satisfaction (pathway = .28).Work involvement and family involvement continue to have small effects on WIF (pathway = .05) and FIW (pathway = .02),but moderate effects on job satisfaction (pathway = .24) and family satisfaction (pathway = .16). Work role ambiguity con-tinued to have a moderate relationship to job satisfaction (pathway = .28) but low relationship to WIF (pathway = .06),while work time demands was moderately related to WIF (pathway = .20) but not job satisfaction (pathway = .06). On thefamily side, family role ambiguity was moderately related to both FIW (pathway = .19) and family satisfaction (path-

Work RoleConflict

LifeSatisfaction

WIF

Family RoleConflict

FamilySatisfaction

JobSatisfaction

-.40 (.02)

.34 (.02)

FIW.37 (.02) -.10 (.02)

-.06 (.02)

.20 (.05).17 (.05)

WorkInvolvement

FamilyInvolvement

.33 (.02)

.08 (.02)

.21 (.02)

-.00 (.02)

-.13 (.02)

-.01 (.02)

.11 (.02)

.21 (.02)

-.41 (.02)

.30 (.02)

Intercorrelations Among Exogenous Variables CRFIFIWCRW

-CRW-)20.(00.IW

-)20.(21.-)20.(40.IF-)20.(40.-)20.(70.)20.(92.CRF

Note: WRC = Work role conflict, WI = Work involveme nt, FI = Family involvement, FRC = Family role conflict.

Fig. 2. Parsimonious stressor and involvement model with path coefcients (Model 1). Note: values in parentheses are standard errors for the pathcoefcient. Variance explained in outcome variables: job satisfaction = 26%, family satisfaction = 25%, life satisfaction = 34%. N = 2119.

Integrative work-family conict model 20 272.42 287.81 .98 .97 .97 .08 472.42

Model 4bDirect effects only model 20 312.83 250.39 .98 .96 .96 .08 454.83

Note: df, degrees of freedom; v2, normal theory weighted least squares chi-square; CN, critical N; GFI, goodness-of-t index; NFI, normed t index; CFI,comparative t index; RMSEA, root mean square error of approximation; AIC, Akaikes information criterion. N = 2119.

208 J.S. Michel et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 74 (2009) 199218

Work RoleAmbiguity

LifeSatisfaction

WIF

FamilyInvolvement

JobSatisfaction

FIW

Work RoleConflict

WorkInvolvement

Family TimeDemands

Work TimeDemands

.27 (.02) .04 (.02)

-.26 (.02)

-.30 (.02)

.05 (.02)

.08 (.02)

.02 (.02)

.26 (.02)

.20 (.02)

.03 (.02)

-.05 (.02) .37 (.02)

.26 (.04) .09 (.05) way = .14), while family time demands had small effects on FIW (pathway = .09) and family satisfaction (pathway = .04).The linage between WIF and FIW was high (.27), but again the pathways to satisfaction were low (ranging from .01 to.13). Finally, relationships from job satisfaction (pathway = .37) and family satisfaction (pathway = .39) to life satisfactionremained constant. Unique to this model was the inclusion of social support as a predictor of work-family conict and sat-isfaction. Work social support had a small relationship to WIF (pathway = .13) and a moderate relationship to job satisfac-tion (pathway = .25); similarly, family social support had a small relationship to FIW (pathway = .06) and a moderaterelationship to family satisfaction (pathway = .29). Most of the additional indirect effect pathways in this model were signif-icant yet small. The greatest support for these linkages, besides model t, were the results for work and family role conict;specically, the added pathways from work role conict to FIW (pathway = .10) and family role conict to WIF (path-way = .14). Finally, there was moderate evidence for construct level cross-domain effects as many of the work domainand family domain constructs covaried (e.g., .33 for role ambiguity).

6.2. Variance explained in satisfaction outcomes by work-family conict models

Each of the well tting models accounted for a large portion of variance in outcome variables. Model 1 (parsimoniousstressor and involvement model) explained 26% of the variance in job satisfaction, 25% of the variance in family satisfaction,and 34% of the variance in life satisfaction. As more predictor variables were added to Model 2 (expanded stressor model),variance explained in job satisfaction increased to 33%, variance explained in family satisfaction increased to 30%, but var-iance explained in life satisfaction decreased to 32% due to the elimination of WIF and FIW direct effects. Model 4 (integra-

FamilySatisfaction

Family RoleConflict

Family RoleAmbiguity

.20 (.02) .05 (.02)

-.38 (.02)

-.19 (.02)

.21 (.02)

.16 (.02) -.09 (.02) .39 (.02)

Intercorrelations Among Exogenous Variables WRA WRC WTD WI FI FTD FRC FRA

WRA - WRC .49 (.02) - WTD .11 (.02) .15 (.02) - WI -.07 (.02) .00 (.02) .24 (.02) - FI .00 (.02) .04 (.02) -.02 (.02) -.12 (.02) - FTD -.01 (.02) -.05 (.02) -.01 (.02) -.06 (.02) .05 (.02) - FRC .11 (.02) .29 (.02) .01 (.02) .07 (.02) -.04 (.02) .25 (.02) - FRA .33 (.02) .16 (.02) .18 (.02) .07 (.02) -.13 (.02) -.21 (.02) .28 (.02) - Note: WRA = Work role ambiguity, WRC = Work role conflict, WTD = Work time demands, WI = Work involvement, FI = Family involvement, FTD = Family time demands, FRC = Family role conflict, FRA = Family role ambiguity.

Fig. 3. Expanded stressor model with path coefcients (Model 2). Note: values in parentheses are standard errors for the path coefcient. Varianceexplained in outcome variables: job satisfaction = 33%, family satisfaction = 30%, life satisfaction = 32%. N = 2119.

J.S. Michel et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 74 (2009) 199218 209Table 4Parameter estimates for the integrative work-family conict model (Model 4).

Parameter estimates

Intercorrelations among exogenous variables Work-family spillover

WSS WI WRC WTD WRA FSS FI FRC FTD FRA Satisfaction spillover (correlationrelationship)

WSS JS FSWI .15

(.02) JS

WRC .36(.02)

.00(.02)

FS .06(.01)

WTD .04(.02)

.24(.02)

.15(.02)

Conict spillover (correlationrelationship)

WRA .24(.02)

.07(.02)

.49(.02)

.11(.02)

WIF FIW

FSS .17(.02)

.02(.02)

.05(.02)

.03(.02)

.06(.02)

WIF

FI .05(.02)

.12(.02)

.04(.02)

.02(.02)

.00(.02)

.14(.02)

FIW .27(.02)

FRC .03(.02)

.07(.02)

.29(.02)

.01(.02)

.11(.02)

.35(.02)

.04(.02)

FTD .01(.02)

.06(.02)

.05(.02)

.01(.02)

.01(.02)

.02(.02)

.05(.02)

.25(.02)

FRA .06(.02)

.07(.02)

.16(.02)

.18(.02)

.33(.02)

.29(.02)

.13(.02)

.28(.02)

.21(.02)

tive work-family conict model) explained 40% of the variance in job satisfaction, 38% of the variance in family satisfaction,and 35% of the variance in life satisfaction. Collectively, these results suggest that Models 1, 2, and 4, provide incrementalexplanation in the prediction of satisfaction outcomes.

6.3. Explanatory power of model linkages

To provide a more critical examination of work-family conict models, we systematically analyzed nested models or link-ages within our integrative framework. In isolation, the indirect effects of linkage 2 (WIF) explained 4% of the variance infamily satisfaction while linkage 4 (FIW) explained 2% of the variance in job satisfaction. Though not traditionally modeledin work-family conict models, our additional linkage 7 (WIF) explained 6% of the variance in job satisfaction while linkage 8(FIW) explained 5% of the variance in family satisfaction. The nal WIF and FIW linkages 9 and 10 were both modest pre-dictors of life satisfaction accounting for 9% and 4%. Turning to direct effect linkages, we found that linkage 11 (work ante-cedents) explained 39% of the variance in job satisfaction while linkage 12 (family antecedents) explained 38% of thevariance in family satisfaction.

To determine the utility of the work-family conict construct, in regards to structural models predicting satisfaction out-comes, we examined our integrative model with and without WIF, FIW, and pathways 110, and 14, thus removing all work-family conict variables and pathways. Model t without these variables and pathways was nearly identical to the full work-family conict model: v2(20) = 312.83, CN = 250.39, GFI = .98, NFI = .96, CFI = .96, RMSEA = .08, and AIC = 454.83. In addition,the remaining pathway estimates remained highly stable with no more than .02 differences in magnitudes between modelswith and without work-family conict constructs and pathways. Further, variance explained in job satisfaction reduced from40% to 39%, variance explained in family satisfaction reduced from 38% to 37%, and variance explained in life satisfactionreduced from 35% to 33%. Collectively, these results suggest that work-family conict and corresponding indirect effect link-

Path estimates (direction of pathway is represented by column to row)

WSS WI WRC WTD WRA FSS FI FRC FTD FRA WIF FIW JS FSWIF .13

(.02).05(.02)

.20(.03)

.20(.02)

.06(.02)

.04(.02)

.03(.02)

.14(.02)

.01(.02)

.03(.02)

FIW .02(.02)

.01(.02)

.10(.03)

.04(.02)

.06(.03)

.06(.02)

.02(.02)

.13(.03)

.09(.02)

.19(.02)

JS .25(.02)

.24(.02)

.16(.02)

.06(.02)

.28(.02)

.10(.02)

.01(.02)

FS .29(.02)

.16(.02)

.28(.02)

.04(.02)

.14(.02)

.07(.02)

.05(.02)

LS .13(.02)

.01(.02)

.34(.02)

.37(.02)

Note:WIF, work interference with family conict; FIW, family interference with work conict; WSS, work social support; WI, work involvement; WRC, workrole conict; WTD, work time demands; WRA, work role ambiguity; FSS, family social support; FI, family involvement; FRC, family role conict; FTD, familytime demands; FRA, family role ambiguity; JS, job satisfaction; FS, family satisfaction; LS, life satisfaction. Values in parentheses are standard errors for thepath coefcient. Variance explained in outcome variables: job satisfaction = 40%, family satisfaction = 38%, life satisfaction = 35%. N = 2119.

effects accounted for 7% of the variance in job satisfaction and 7% of the variance in family satisfaction independently, by

210 J.S. Michel et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 74 (2009) 199218accounting for 40% of the variance in job satisfaction, 38% of the variance in family satisfaction, and 35% of the variancein life satisfaction concurrently (see integrative work-family conict model). It is important to note that this variance ac-ages (see Edwards & Rothbard, 2000; Michel & Hargis, 2008) possess small incremental explication in the prediction of sat-isfaction outcomes.

7. Discussion

This study examined the complex interplay between work and family through a conict theory perspective. Our resultssuggest that Model 1 (the parsimonious stressor and involvement model), Model 2 (the expanded stressor model), and Mod-el 4 (the integrative work-family conict model) are generalizable to our meta-analytic correlation matrix, while Model 3(the partial mediating stressor model) was not generalizable. Consistent path analytic ndings across models suggest thefollowing: (1) work role conict and work time demands are primary predictors of WIF, while work social support, workinvolvement, work role conict, and work role ambiguity are primary predictors of job satisfaction; (2) family role conictand family role ambiguity are primary predictors of FIW, while family social support, family involvement, family role con-ict, and family role ambiguity are primary predictors of family satisfaction; (3) work antecedents are related to FIW andfamily antecedents are related to WIF, but these relations are small; (4) there tends to be cross-domain spillover among con-structs (e.g., role ambiguity, work-family conict); (5) WIF and FIW have low relationships with satisfaction outcomes; and(6) job satisfaction and family satisfaction are strong predictors of life satisfaction.

We also critically examined our integrative work-family conict model (Model 4) in regards to explanatory power of spe-cic work-family linkages (cf. Edwards & Rothbard, 2000; Michel & Hargis, 2008). At the core of work-family conict modelsare what we have referred to as indirect effects. In isolation, work and family antecedents had small indirect effects on familyand work satisfaction outcomes via WIF and FIW (24% explained variance). This is surprising considering the signicant,though modest, bivariate results supporting these linkages (e.g., Kossek & Ozeki, 1998). In addition, we found that WIFand FIW were actually better predictors of same domain satisfaction than cross-domain satisfaction (56% explained vari-ance). This was highly unexpected as WIF and FIW explain greater variance in the satisfaction outcomes that they shouldnot explain, theoretically, then the satisfaction outcomes that they should explain (e.g., WIF is a better predictor of job sat-isfaction at 6% explained variance than family satisfaction at 2% explained variance). In regards to direct effects, results indi-cate that work and family domain antecedents are strong predictors of same domain satisfaction (3839% explainedvariance). Further, when examined as a complete interface, indirect effects had an incremental predictive explanation of amere 12% explained variance in satisfaction outcomes. These ndings suggest that when taking into account direct effectlinkages, indirect effect linkages of work-family conict possess little incremental explanatory power in regards to satisfac-tion outcomes.

7.1. Contributions to theory and practice

There are several implications from this study based on specic parameter estimates. For example, family time demands(hours worked, number of children, and age of youngest child) had a low impact on FIW (pathways of .08 for the stressor/involvement based Model 2 and .04 for integrative Model 4). This is an important implication as employees with family de-mands, particularly working mothers, often experience inequality within organizations (e.g., Bagilhole, 2006; Bo, 2006). Fur-ther, researchers have suggested that these family demands are directly responsible for feelings of FIW and genderdifferences in the workforce (e.g., Keene & Reynolds, 2005). Our results, however, indicate that family time demands havevery little impact on work rolesas indicated by FIW. This nding has potential impact on the quest for equality in the workplace in regards to family and gender roles, as traditional perceptions of family time demands being a job cost may be inquestion. Another interesting nding is the relationship between social support and role conict; specically, work socialsupport and work role conict (.36 in integrative Model 4), and family social support and family role conict (-.35 in inte-grative Model 4). Should the causal mechanisms of these relationships be determined, organizations may benet by poten-tially increasing work social support in an effort to decrease work role conict. This logic may extend to the family domain aswell. According to the pathways presented here, from work role conict to job satisfaction (pathway of .16 in integrativeModel 4) and from family role conict to family satisfaction (pathway of .28 in integrative Model 4), role conict hasimportant implications to the outcomes of satisfaction considered in this study.

Though the results of do not strongly support the work-family conict construct in regards to satisfaction outcomes, thisstudy does provided clarication on the relationships between work and family, particularly in regards to the additive valueof different work-family variables and model linkages. In doing so, this study answered the call of Eby et al. (2005) for addi-tional model testing and development by documenting nontrivial differences between existing models and through the inte-gration of current theory and empirical ndings in the culmination and examination of our integrative work-family conictmodel (Model 4). In particular, we found that the model structure and variable inclusion of Model 1 (parsimonious stressorand involvement model) and Model 2 (expanded stressor model) t the data well and were predictive, and each model pro-vided incremental explanation. Likewise, our integrative work-family conict model (Model 4) sheds further light on thecomplex interrelationships between work and family. Our ndings also extend the work of Ford et al. (2007), where indirect

J.S. Michel et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 74 (2009) 199218 211counted for is not necessarily due to an increase in the number of predictors, but instead the modeling of direct effects tra-ditionally found in work-family conict models.

However, an unexpected implication involves our results regarding the indirect effects of WIF and FIW on satisfactionoutcomes. Across the well-tting models, WIF and FIW had low magnitudes to satisfaction outcomes; in fact, these ndingsnever exceed pathways of .13. Though these ndings differ from bivariate meta-analyses, i.e., our magnitudes are muchsmaller, these models still possess signicant though small relationships from WIF and FIW to satisfaction outcomes whilecontrolling for various work and family domain antecedents, accounting for 12% of unique variance. As our results indicatethe presence of potential moderators, and this question is beyond the scope of the current study, it seems appropriate forfuture research to better determine under what conditions that these linkages are strong (e.g., contextual factors; social cog-nitions). In addition, research could determine why WIF and FIW were more related to same domain satisfaction (e.g., WIFand job satisfaction) than cross-domain satisfaction (e.g., WIF and family satisfaction) as WIF and FIWmeasures were explic-itly developed to tap into cross-domain effects. This nding suggests that when expectations of interference from one do-main are higher than expected, the satisfaction levels in that same domain are negatively impacted. Further research mayalso consider that affect at home and affect at work (cf. Ilies, Schwind, &Wagner, in press; Ilies et al., 2007) may be an under-lying and relatively unassessed component of these and other work-family linkages.

7.2. Potential limitations

Like most meta-analytic studies, methodological limitations are inevitable. For the current meta-analytic path analysis,two potential limitations need mentioning. The stability of the meta-analytic bivariate relationships is variable. Since thisreview investigated the interrelationships of 15 variables, a meta-analytic correlation matrix of 105 cells was generated.These cells contain discrepancies in the stability of their estimation of the population parameters. For example, the WIFand FIW relationship (k = 121, n = 47,305) should be a much more robust population approximation than the family roleambiguity and work time demands (k = 1, n = 261) relationship. Though variability in parameter estimate stability is alwaysa weakness, this limitation should not be a major problem for the current study. For example, a recent meta-analytic pathanalysis described as truly exemplary (see Bobko & Roth, 2003, p. 82) contained empty cells in 21% of the meta-analyticmatrix, while another 21% of the cells contained only one study. Considering the current work contains estimates for all 105cells, while only two cells (2%) had one sample, the variability in population parameter estimate stability in the currentmeta-analytic matrix is not inconsistent with that found in other, similar studies.

In addition, we used structural equation modeling with cross-sectional data to t a series of structural models. Several ofthe models showed good t, however, this just means that these models are plausible explanations for the observed patternsof covariance (James, Muliak, & Brett, 1982). Accordingly, other equally plausible models may exist that provide similar orbetter t. Accordingly, future research should seek to establish if the general structure implied by these models are consis-tent with a truly causal model (this would entail collecting and structuring studies so as to best satisfy the requisite condi-tions for causal inference; cf. James et al., 1982).

8. Conclusions

We have reviewed, developed, tested, and critiqued multiple full-range work-family conict models and model linkages.Each model was evaluated and compared on model t, parameter estimates, and variance explained in outcomes. Theembedded linkages within our integrative model were then critically examined through a series of path analyses. Resultsindicated that direct effects drive these models and indirect effects provide only small amounts of incremental explanationin satisfaction outcomes. Research should further explore the potential mechanisms linking work and family domains, bothindirect and direct, concurrently and in isolation.

References

Alexander, R. A., Scozzaro, M. J., & Borodkin, L. J. (1989). Statistical and empirical examination of the chi-square test for homogeneity of correlations in meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 329331.

Allen, T. D., Herst, D. E. L., Bruck, C. S., & Sutton, M. (2000). Consequences associated with work-to-family conict: A review and agenda for future research.Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 278308.

Amatea, E. S., Cross, E. G., Clark, J. E., & Bobby, C. L. (1986). Assessing the work and family role expectations of career oriented men and women: The life rolesalience scales. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48, 831838.

Anderson, S. E., Coffey, B. S., & Byerly, R. T. (2002). Formal organizational initiatives and informal workplace practices: Links to work-family conict and jobrelated outcomes. Journal of Management, 28, 787810.

Aryee, S., Fields, D., & Luk, V. (1999). A cross-cultural test of a model of the work-family interface. Journal of Management, 25, 491511.Ashforth, B. E., Kreiner, G. E., & Fugate, M. (2000). All is a days work: Boundaries and micro role transitions. Academy of Management Review, 25, 472491.Bacharach, S. B., Bamberger, P., & Conley, S. (1990). Work processes, role conict, and role overload: The case of nurses and engineers in the public sector.

Work and Occupations, 17, 199228.Bagilhole, B. (2006). Family-friendly policies and equal opportunities: A contradiction in terms? British Journal of Guidance & Counseling, 34, 327343.Bedeian, A. G., Burke, B. G., & Moffett, R. G. (1988). Outcomes of work-family conict among married male and female professionals. Journal of Management,

14, 475491.Beehr, T. A. (1995). Psychological stress in the workplace. London: Routledge.Beehr, T. A., & Glazer, A. (2005). Organizational role stress. In J. Barling, E. K. Kelloway, & M. R. Frone (Eds.), Handbook of work stress. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Beehr, T. A., King, L. A., & King, D. W. (1990). Social support and occupational stress: Talking to supervisors. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 36, 6181.

212 J.S. Michel et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 74 (2009) 199218Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Signicance tests and goodness of t in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588606.Bo, I. (2006). Working life and family life: Ambiguous communication at work. Community, Work & Family, 9, 123141.Bobko, P., & Roth, P. L. (2003). Meta-analysis and validity generalization as research tools: Issues of sample bias and degrees of mis-specication. In K. R.

Murphy (Ed.), Validity generalization: A critical review. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Bond, J. T., Galinsky, E., Swanberg, J. E. (1998). The 1997 national study of the changing workplace. New York: Families and Work Institute.Brown, S. P., & Peterson, R. A. (1993). Antecedents and consequences of salesperson job satisfaction: Meta-analysis and assessment of causal effects. Journal

of Marketing Research, 30, 6377.Burke, R. J. (1986). Occupational and life stress and the family: Conceptual frameworks and research ndings. International Review of Applied Psychology, 35,

347369.Burley, K. A. (1990). Work-family conict and marital adjustment in dual career couples: A comparison of three time models (Doctoral dissertation,

Claremont Graduate School, 1989). Dissertation Abstracts International, 50, 4803.Byron, K. (2005). A meta-analytic review of work-family conict and its antecedents. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67, 169198.Caplan, R. D., Cobb, S., & French, J. R. P. Jr., (1975). Relationships of cessation of smoking with job stress, personality, and social support. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 60, 211219.Caplan, R. D., Cobb, S., French, J. R. P., Jr., Harrison, R. V., & Pinneau, S. R. Jr., (1975). Job demands and worker health: Main effects and occupational differences.

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Ofce.Caplan, R. D., Cobb, S., French, J. R. P., Harrison, R. V., & Pinneau, S. R. Jr., (1980). Job demands and worker health: Main effects and occupational differences.

Research Report Series. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research.Carlson, D. S., & Frone, M. R. (2003). Relation of behavioral and psychological involvement to a new four-factor conceptualization of work-family

interference. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17, 515535.Carlson, D. S., & Kacmar, K. M. (2000). Work-family conict in the organization: Do life role values make a difference? Journal of Management, 26, 10311054.Carlson, D. S., Kacmar, K. M., & Williams, L. J. (2000). Construction and initial validation of a multidimensional measure of work-family conict. Journal of

Vocational Behavior, 56, 249276.Carlson, D. S., & Perrew, P. L. (1999). The role of social support in the stressor-strain relationship: An examination of work-family conict. Journal of

Management, 25, 513540.Chen, G., Casper, W. J., & Cortina, J. M. (2001). The roles of self-efcacy and task complexity in the relationships among cognitive ability, conscientiousness,

and work-related performance: A meta-analytic examination. Human Performance, 14, 209230.Clark, S. L., & Weismantle, M. (2003). Employment Status: 2000. Census 2000 Brief, Series C2KBR-18.Cooper, C. L., Cooper, R. D., & Eaker, L. H. (1988). Living with stress. London: Penguin.Cranny, C. J., Smith, P. C., & Stone, E. F. (Eds.). (1992). Job Satisfaction: How people feel about their jobs and how it affects their performance. New York: Lexington

Books.Diefendorff, J. M., Brown, D. J., Kamin, A. M., & Lord, R. G. (2002). Examining the roles of job involvement and work centrality in predicting organizational

citizenship behaviors and job performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 93108.Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Grifn, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 7175.Duxbury, L. E., & Higgins, C. A. (1991). Gender differences in work-family conict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 6073.Eby, L. T., Casper, W. J., Lockwood, A., Bordeaux, C., & Brinely, A. (2005). Work and family research in IO/OB: Content analysis and review of the literature

(19802002). Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 124197.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, 178199.Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500507.Elloy, D. F., & Smith, C. R. (2003). Patterns of stress, work-family conict, role conict, role ambiguity and overload among dual-career and single-career

couples: An Australian study. Cross Cultural Management, 10, 5566.Evans, P., & Bartolome, F. (1984). The changing pictures of the relationship between career and family. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 5, 921.Ford, M. T., Heinen, B. A., & Langkamer, K. L. (2007). Work and family satisfaction and conict: A meta-analysis of cross-domain relations. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 92, 5780.French, J. R. P., & Caplan, R. D. (1973). Organizational stress and individual strain. In A. J. Marrow (Ed.), The failure of success. New York: AMACOM.Frone, M. R. (2003). Work family balance. In J. C. Quick & L. E. Tetrick (Eds.), Handbook of occupational health psychology. Washington D.C.: American

Psychological Association.Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M. L. (1992). Antecedents and outcomes of work-family conict: Testing a model of the work-family interface. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 77, 6578.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,

145167.Grandey, A. A., & Cropanzano, R. (1999). The conservation of resources model applied to work-family conict and strain. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54,

350370.Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conict between work and family roles. Academy of Management Review, 10, 7688.Greenhaus, J. H., Callanan, G. A., & Godshalk, V. M. (2000). Career management. Fort Worth: The Dryden Press.Greenhaus, J. H., & Parasuraman, S. (1999). Research on work, family, and gender: Current status and future directions. In G. N. Powell (Ed.), Handbook of

gender and work. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Greenhaus, J. H., & Powell, G. N. (2006). When work and family are allies: A theory of work-family enrichment. Academy of Management Review,

31, 7292.Gupta, N., & Jenkins, G. D. (1985). Dual-career couples: Stress, stressors, strains and strategies. In T. A. Beehr & R. S. Bhagat (Eds.), Human stress and cognition

in organizations: An integrated perspective. New York: Wiley.Gutek, B. A., Searle, S., & Klepa, L. (1991). Rational versus gender role explanations for work-family conict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 560568.Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 159170.Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16,

250279.Hedges, L. V. (1982). Estimation of effect size from a series of independent experiments. Psychological Bulletin, 92, 490499.Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.Hoelter, J. W. (1983). The analysis of covariance structures: Goodness-of-t indices. Sociological Methods & Research, 11, 325344.Hopkins, A. H. (1983). Work and job satisfaction in the public sectors. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Allonheld.Hom, P. W., Caranikas-Walker, F., Prussia, G. E., & Griffeth, R. W. (1992). A meta-analytical structural equations analysis of a model of employee turnover.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 890909.House, G. S. (1981). Work stress and social support. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1995). Evaluating model t. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.). Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for t indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternative. Structural Equation

Modeling, 6, 155.Ilies, R., Schwind, K. M., & Wagner, D. T. (in press). The spillover of daily job satisfaction onto employees family lives: The facilitating role of work-family

integration. Academy of Management Journal.

J.S. Michel et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 74 (2009) 199218 213Ilies, R., Schwind, K. M., Wagner, D. T., Johnson, M. D., DeRue, D. S., & Ilgen, D. R. (2007). When can employees have a family life? The effects of dailyworkload and affect on work-family conict and social behaviors at home. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 13681379.

James, L. R., Muliak, S. S., & Brett, J. M. (1982). Mediators, moderators, and tests for mediation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 307321.Johnson, B. T. (1993). DSTAT 1.10: Software for the meta-analytic review of research literatures. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Jreskog, K. G., & Srbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Analysis of linear structural relationships by maximum likelihood, instrumental variables and least squares methods

(8th ed.). Mooresville, IN: Scientic Software.Judge, T. A., Boudreau, J. W., & Bretz, R. D. (1994). Job and life attitudes of male executives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 767782.Kahn, R. (1980). Conict, ambiguity, and overload: Three elements in job stress. In D. Katz, R. Kahn, & J. Adams (Eds.), The study of organizations

(pp. 418428). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P., Snoek, J. D., & Rosenthal, R. A. (1964). Organizational stress: studies in role conict and ambiguity. New York: Wiley.Kanungo, R. N. (1982). Measurement of job and work involvement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 341349.Katz, D., & Kahn, R. (1978). The social psychology of organizations. New York: Wiley.Keene, J. R., & Reynolds, J. R. (2005). The job costs of family demands: Gender differences in negative family-to-work spillover. Journal of Family Issues, 26,

275299.Kelloway, R. W., Gottlieb, B. H., & Barham, L. (1999). The source, nature, and direction of work and family conict: A longitudinal investigation. Journal of

Occupational Health Psychology, 4, 337346.King, L. A., Mattimore, L. K., King, D. W., & Adams, G. A. (1995). Family support inventory for workers: A new measure of perceived social support for family

members. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 235258.Kirchmeyer, C. (1992). Perceptions of nonwork-to-work spillover: Challenging the common view of conict-ridden domain relationships. Basic and Applied

Social Psychology, 13, 231249.Kopelman, R., Greenhaus, J. H., & Connolly, T. F. (1983). A model of work, family, and interrole conict: A construct validation study. Organizational Behavior

and Human Performance, 32, 198215.Kossek, E. E., & Ozeki, C. (1998). Work-family conict, policies, and the job-life satisfaction relationship: A review and directions for organizational behavior-

human resources research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 139149.Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 12971349).

Chicago: Rand-McNally.Lodahl, T. M., & Kejnar, M. (1965). The denition and measurement of job involvement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 49, 2433.Major, V. S., Klein, K. J., & Ehrhart, M. G. (2002). Work time, work interference with family, and psychological distress. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87,

427436.Marsh, H. W., Hau, K., & Wen, Z. (2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for t indexes and

dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentlers (1999) ndings. Structural Equation Modeling, 11, 320341.Matsui, T., Ohsawa, T., & Onglatco, M. I. (1995). Work-family conict and the stress-buffering effects of husband support and coping behavior among

Japanese married working women. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 47, 178192.Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., & Viswesvaran, C. (2005). Convergence between measures of work-to-family and family-to-work conict: A meta-analytic

examination. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67, 215232.Michel, J. S., & Hargis, M. B. (2008). Linking mechanisms of work-family conict and segmentation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73, 509522.Nye, F., & MacDougall, E. (1959). The dependant variable in marital research. Pacic Sociological Review, 2, 6770.ODriscoll, M. P., Ilgen, D. R., & Hildreth, K. (1992). Time devoted to job and off-job activities, interrole conict, and affective experiences. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 77, 272279.Parasuraman, S., Purohit, Y. S., Godshalk, V. M., & Beutell, N. J. (1996). Work and family variables, entrepreneurial career success and psychological well-

being. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 48, 275300.Peterson, M. F., Smith, P. B., Akande, A., Ayestaran, S., Bochner, S., Callan, V., et al (1995). Role conict, ambiguity, and overload: A 21-nation study. Academy

of Management Journal, 38, 429452.Procidano, M. E., & Heller, K. (1983). Measures of perceived social support from friends and from family: Three validation studies. American Journal of

Community Psychology, 11, 124.Quinn, R. P., & Shepard, L. J. (1974). The 197273 quality of employment survey: Descriptive statistics, with comparison data from the 196970 survey of working

conditions. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research.Quinn, R. P., & Staines, G. L. (1979). The 1977 quality of employment survey. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research.Rice, R. W., McFarlin, D. B., Hunt, R. G., & Near, J. P. (1985). Organizational work and the perceived quality of life. Academy of Management Review, 10,

296310.Rizzo, J. R., House, R. J., & Lirtzman, S. I. (1970). Role conict and ambiguity in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15, 150163.Rosenthal, R. (1994). Statistically describing and combining studies. In H. Cooper & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 231244). New

York: Russell Sage.Schuler, R. S. (1980). Denition and conceptualization of stress in organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 25, 184215.Shinn, M., Wong, N. W., Simko, P. A., & Ortiz-Torres, B. (1989). Promoting the well-being of working parents: Coping, social support, and exible job

schedules. American Journal of Community Psychology, 17, 3155.Simmons, T., & ONeill, G. (2001). Households and Families: 2000. Census 2000 Brief, Series C2KBR/01-8.Smith, P. C., Kendall, L. M., & Hulin, C. L. (1969). The measurement of satisfaction in work and retirement: A strategy for the study of attitudes. Chicago: Rand

McNally.Spanier, G. B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family,

38, 1528.Staines, G. L., & Pleck, J. H. (1984). Nonstandard work schedules and family life. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 515523.Usita, P. M., Hall, S. S., & Davis, J. C. (2004). Role ambiguity in family caregiving. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 23, 2039.Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (1995). Theory testing: Combining psychometric meta-analysis and structural equations modeling. Personnel Psychology, 48,

865885.Williams, K., & Alliger, G. M. (1994). Role stressors, mood spillover, and perceptions of work-family conict in employed parents. Academy of Management

Journal, 37, 837868.Yogev, S., & Brett, J. (1985). Patterns of work and family involvement among single- and dual-earner couples. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 754768.Zedeck, S., & Mosier, K. L. (1990). Work in the family and employing organization. American Psychologist, 45, 240251.

References marked with an asterisk indicate studies include in the meta-analysis.

*Adams, G. A., & Jex, S. M. (1999). Relationships between time management, control, work-family conict, and strain. Journal of Occupational HealthPsychology, 4, 7277.

*Adams, G. A., King, L. A., & King, D. W. (1996). Relationship of job and family involvement, family social support, and work-family conict with job and lifesatisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 411420.

*Allen, T. D. (2001). Family-supportive work environments: The role of organizational perceptions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 414435.*Anderson, S. E., Coffey, B. S., & Byerly, R. T. (2002). Formal organizational initiatives and informal workplace practices: Links to work-family conict and job-

related outcomes. Journal of Management, 28, 787810.

*214 J.S. Michel et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 74 (2009) 199218Anderson-Kulman, R. E., & Paludi, M. A. (1986). Working mothers and the family context: Predicting positive coping. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 28,241253.

*Aryee, S. (1992). Antecedents and outcomes of work-family conict among married professional women: Evidence from Singapore. Human Relations, 45,813837.

*Aryee, S., Fields, D., & Luk, V. (1999). A cross-cultural test of a model of the work-family interface. Journal of Management, 25, 491511.*Aryee, S., & Luk, V. (1996). Work and nonwork inuences on the career satisfaction of dual-earner couples. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 49, 3852.*Aryee, S., Luk, V., Leung, A., & Lo, S. (1999). Role stressors, interrole conict, and well-being: The moderating inuence of spousal support and coping

behaviors among employed parents in Hong Kong. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 259278.*Aryee, S., Srinivas, E. S., & Tan, H. H. (2005). Rhythms of life: Antecedents and outcomes of work-family balance in employed parents. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 90, 132146.*Bacharach, S. B., Bamberger, P., & Conley, S. (1991). Work-home conict among nurses and engineers: Mediating the impact of role stress on burnout and

satisfaction at work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 12, 3953.*Baltes, B. B., & Heydens-Gahir, H. (2003). Reduction of work-family conict through the use of Selection, Optimization, and Compensation behaviors.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 10051018.*Barich, A. W. (1995). The moderating roles of coping and control on the experience of work-family conict (Doctoral dissertation, Southern Illinois

University, 1994). Dissertation Abstracts International, 56, 1691.*Barrah, J. L., Shultz, K. S., Baltes, B., & Stolz, H. E. (2004). Mens and womens eldercare-based work-family conict: Antecedents and work-related outcomes.

Fathering, 2, 305330.*Batt, R., & Valcour, P. M. (2003). Human resources practices as predictors of work-family outcomes and employee turnover. Industrial Relations, 42,

189220.*Beatty, C. A. (1996). The stress of managerial and professional women: Is the price too high? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 233251.*Bedeian, A. G., Burke, B. G., & Moffett, R. G. (1988). Outcomes of work-family conict among married male and female professionals. Journal of Management,

14, 475491.*Behson, S. J. (2002a). Coping with family-to-work conict: The role of informal work accommodations to family. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 7,

324341.*Behson, S. J. (2002b). Which dominates? The relative importance of work-family organizational support and general organizational context on employee

outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 5372.*Bernas, K. H., & Major, D. A. (2000). Contributors to stress resistance: Testing a model of womens work-family conict. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 24,

170178.*Beutell, N. J., & Wittig-Berman, U. (1999). Predictors of work-family conict and satisfaction with family, job, career, and life. Psychological Reports, 85,

893903.*Bhuian, S. N., Menguc, B., & Borsboom, R. (2005). Stressors and job outcomes in sales: A triphasic model versus a linear-quadratic-interactive model. Journal

of Business Research, 58, 141150.*Blau, G. (1995). Inuence of group lateness on individual lateness: A cross-level examination. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 14831496.*Block, B. L. (1995). An exploration of the relationships among work-family conict, relevant personality variables, and well-being (Doctoral dissertation,

The City University of New York, 1995). Dissertation Abstracts International, 56, 1729.*Bohle, P., & Tilley, A. J. (1998). Early experience of shiftwork: Inuences on attitudes. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 71, 6179.*Boles, J. S., & Babin, B. J. (1996). On the front lines: Stress, conict, and the customer service provider. Journal of Business Research, 37, 4150.*Boles, J. S., Howard, W. G., & Donofrio, H. H. (2001). An investigation into the inter-relationships of work-family conict, family-work conict and work

satisfaction. Journal of Managerial Issues, 13, 376390.*Boles, J. S., Wood, J. A., & Johnson, J. (2003). Interrelationships of role conict, role ambiguity, and work-family conict with different facets of job

satisfaction and the moderating effects of gender. The Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 23, 99113.*Bolino, M. C., & Turnley, W. H. (2005). The personal costs of citizenship behavior: The relationship between individual initiative and role overload, job

stress, and work-family conict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 740748.*Borovsky, D. M. (1999). Models and operationalizations of work-family conict: A comparative analysis and extension to organizational outcomes in a

sample of unionized workers. (Doctoral dissertation, Wayne State University, 1999). Dissertation Abstracts International, 59, 6507.*Boyar, S. L., Maertz, C. P., Jr., Pearson, A. W., & Keough, S. (2003). Work-family conict: A model of linkages between work and family domain variables and

turnover intentions. Journal of Managerial Issues, 15, 175190.*Brough, P., & Kelling, A. (2002). Women, work & well-being family-work conict. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 31, 2938.*Bruck, C. S. (2003). Theoretical antecedents to work-family conict: A comprehensive approach. (Masters thesis, University of South Florida, 2000)..

Dissertation Abstracts International, 64, 449.*Bruck, C. S., & Allen, T. D. (2003). The relationship between big ve personality traits, negative affectivity, type A behavior, and work-family conict. Journal

of Vocational Behavior, 63, 457472.*Bruck, C. S., Allen, T. D., & Spector, P. E. (2002). The relation between work-family conict and job satisfaction: A ner-grained analysis. Journal of Vocational

Behavior, 60, 336353.*Buffardi, L. C., & Erdwins, C. J. (1997). Child-care satisfaction: Linkages to work attitudes, interrole conict, and maternal separation anxiety. Journal of

Occup