Journal of Applied Psychology Copyright 1992 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.

1992, Vol. 77, No. 1,65-78 0021-9010/92/S3.00

Antecedents and Outcomes of Work-Family Conflict:

Testing a Model of the Work-Family Interface
Michael R. Frone and Marcia Russell
Research Institute on Alcoholism
Buffalo, New York
M. Lynne Cooper
Center for the Study of Behavioral and Social Aspects of Health
State University of New York at Buffalo

A comprehensive model of the work-family interface was developed and tested. The proposed
model extended prior research by explicitly distinguishing between work interfering with family
and family interfering with work. This distinction allowed testing of hypotheses concerning the
unique antecedents and outcomes of both forms of work-family conflict and a reciprocal relation-
ship between them. The influence of gender, race, and job type on the generalizability of the model
was also examined. Data were obtained through household interviews with a random sample of 631
individuals. The model was tested with structural equation modeling techniques. Results were
strongly supportive. In addition, although the model was invariant across gender and race, there
were differences across blue- and white-collar workers. Implications for future research on the
work-family interface are discussed.

Work and family represent two of the most central realms of
adult life. Therefore, each offers a unique vantage point from
which to investigate important aspects of human behavior. Al-
though the study of work and family has spawned rich concep-
tual and empirical literatures, these two domains of life tradi-
tionally have been studied independently. More recently, how-
ever, the interface between work and family roles has captured
the interest of a growing number of work and family re-
searchers. This new focus has been fueled by several demo-
graphic trends that are reshaping American society. For exam-
ple, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of
married women who have young children and who are joining
the work force and an increase in the prevalence of employed
adults who are part of dual-earner families, single-parent fami-
lies, and families facing the demands of elder care (e.g., Burke &
Greenglass, 1987; Hall & Richter, 1988; Matthews & Rodin,
1989; Zedeck & Mosier, 1990).
Interest in the work-family interface has produced a strong
emphasis on integrating work and family research. Within the
area of stress research, new questions are being asked regarding
such issues as the relative impact of work and family stressors
on overall well-being, the impact of job stressors on family life,
and the impact of family stressors on work life (cf. Burke &
Greenglass, 1987; Voydanoff, 1987). In addition, research has
This research was supported by the National Institute on Alcohol
Abuse and Alcoholism, Grant No. AA05702, awarded to Marcia Rus-
sell.
We wish to thank Ann Gerber, Michael Windle, and the two anony-
mous reviewers for their thoughtful comments on an earlier version of
this article.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Mi-
chael R. Frone, Research Institute on Alcoholism, 1021 Main Street,
Buffalo, New York 14203.
65
begun to examine work-family conflict (WFC) as another
source of stress that may influence well-being (e.g., Greenhaus
& Parasuraman, 1986; Voydanoff, 1987). We believe that this
last line of research is especially promising in terms of integrat-
ing research on work and family stress. More specifically, be-
cause WFC reflects the goodness of fit between work and fam-
ily life, it may function as a critical intervening pathway
through which conditions at work affect the quality of family
life and vice versa.
To examine fully the relationship of WFC to well-being and
its potential to integrate the study of work and family stress,
WFC must be examined within the context of a multivariate
model that meets at least four major criteria. First, key work-
and family-related antecedents of both WFC and well-being
need to be assessed (e.g., Lambert, 1990). Second, both domain-
specific and general measures of well-being should be exam-
ined (Kline & Cowan, 1988; Lambert, 1990). Third, the bidirec-
tional nature of WFC (i.e., work interfering with family versus
family interfering with work) must be addressed (Greenhaus,
1988; Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985; Gutek, Searle, & Klepa,
1991). Finally, the sample should be large, heterogeneous, and
representative of employed adults. To date, however, research
testing multivariate models of WFC that meet even the first
two criteria is rare (Burke, 1988). Thus, the goal of this study is
to develop and test a comprehensive model of the work-family
interface that meets each of these criteria. Although such a
model is by necessity complex, it is consistent with Lambert's
(1990) recent admonition that "only by looking at the work/
family nexus in its entirety can we uncover the intricacies of the
relationship between work and home" (p. 250).
A Model of the Work-Family Interface
The conceptual model that guided the present research is
illustrated in Figure 1. We would like to acknowledge that this
66 M. FRONE, M. RUSSELL, AND M. COOPER

study does not represent the first attempt to formulate and test
a model of the work-family interface. Rather, our model should
be viewed as a significant extension of several previous models
(e.g., Bacharach, Bamberger, & Conley, 1991; Bedeian, Burke, &
Moffett, 1988; Burke, 1988; Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985; Green-
haus & Parasuraman, 1986; Kopelman, Greenhaus, & Con-
nolly, 1983; Rice, Frone, & McFarlin, in press). In outlining our
model, we begin by discussing the bidirectional nature of
WFC. Next we summarize hypotheses concerning the predic-
tors of WFC. We then summarize hypotheses regarding the
predictors of domain-specific distress (i.e., job distress and fam-
ily distress) and overall psychological distress (i.e., depression).
Finally, we discuss the importance of examining the influence
of key sociodemographic characteristics on the generalizability
of our model.
Bidirectional Nature of Work-Family Conflict
Definitions of WFC explicitly portray a bidirectional concep-
tualization (e.g., Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). That is, they dis-
tinguish between work interfering with family (W -+ F conflict)
and family interfering with work (F -* W conflict). Despite this
conceptual distinction, previous research has relied almost ex-
clusively on measures that assess only W - F conflict (Green-
haus & Beutell, 1985). Furthermore, there is evidence that
mixed directional measures of WFC (e.g., "How much do your
job and family life interfere with one another?"; Pleck, Staines,
& Lang, 1980) primarily assess W -* F conflict (Frone, Russell,
& Cooper, 1991; Gutek et al., 1991). For example, Frone et al.
(1991) found that the experience of W -* F conflict was re-
ported almost three times more frequently than the experience
of F - W conflict among men and women.
We concur with Greenhaus and Beutell (1985) that failing to
examine both types of WFC may limit our understanding of
the work-family interface to the extent that each is associated
with different antecedents and consequences (as discussed be-
low). However, another limitation of failing to examine both
types of WFC simultaneously is that the potential reciprocal
relationship between conflicting work and family roles has
never been examined. As shown in Figure 1, we hypothesize a
positive reciprocal relationship between the two types of WFC.
The rationale for this relationship is based on the assumption
that if one's work-related problems and responsibilities begin to
interfere with the accomplishment of one's family-related obli-
gations, these unfulfilled family obligations may begin to inter-
fere with one's day-to-day functioning at work. Conversely, if
one's family-related problems and responsibilities begin to in-
terfere with the accomplishment of one's work-related obliga-
tions, these unfulfilled work obligations may begin to interfere
with one's day-to-day functioning at home. This hypothesis is
consistent with Schaubroeck's (1990) recent suggestion that the
conflict relationship between work and family may be exam-
ined appropriately within the context of a reciprocal relation-
ship.
Predictors ofWork-Family Conflict
The direct predictors of WFC portrayed in our model (Fig-
ure 1) are job stressors, family stressors, job involvement, and
family involvement. We include these four predictors because
each has been identified as an important antecedent of WFC
(Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). Moreover, each predictor was ex-
pected to be directly related to only one type of WFC.
With regard to job and family stressors, Greenhaus and Beu-

W ->F
Conflict

\ \

\\
+ f I

Conflict

Figure 1. Conceptual model of the work-family interface. (Pluses and minuses represent the direction of
hypothesized relationships. Broken lines signify two nested models, one without [Model A] and one with
[Model B ] paths from work-family conflict to depression. The letter d represents the disturbance term for
each endogenous variable. To simplify presentation of the model, the correlations among the exogenous
variables and the measurement model are not shown.)
 WORK-FAMILY CONFLICT
tell (1985) hypothesized that exposure to stressors in a given
domain (e.g., work) may lead to irritability, fatigue, or preoccu-
pation with those problems, thereby limiting one's ability to
meet the demands of other domains of life (e.g., family). Ex-
panding this general argument to include the two types of
WFC, we hypothesize that job stressors are directly and posi-
tively related to W -* F conflict, whereas family stressors are
directly and positively related to F - W conflict. Previous re-
search strongly supports a positive relationship between per-
ceived work stressors and W -* F conflict (e.g., Bacharach et al,
1991; Bedeian et al., 1988; Burke, 1988; Greenhaus & Beutell,
1985; Kopelman et al., 1983; Parasuraman, Greenhaus,
Granrose, Rabinowitz, & Beutell, 1989; VoydanofF, 1988). No
research, however, has examined the relationship between fam-
ily stressors and F -* W conflict.
The second major antecedent of WFC is the psychological
importance of work and family roles. Greenhaus and Beutell
(1985) argued that high levels of psychological involvement may
lead to increased WFC in two ways. First, high levels of psycho-
logical involvement in one role may be associated with an in-
crease in the amount of time and effort devoted to that role,
thereby making it more difficult to comply with pressures asso-
ciated with another role. Second, high levels of psychological
involvement in a given role may cause one to be mentally preoc-
cupied with that role even when physically attempting to fulfill
the demands of a second role. Expanding these arguments to
include the two types of WFC, we hypothesize that job involve-
ment is directly and positively related to W -* F conflict,
whereas family involvement is directly and positively related to
F -* W conflict. Previous research supports a positive relation-
ship between job involvement and W -* F conflict (e.g., Beutell,
1983; Beutell & O'Hare, 1987; Frone & Rice, 1987; Greenhaus &
Kopelman, 1981; Greenhaus, Parasuraman, Granrose, Rabin-
owitz, & Beutell, 1989; Wiley, 1987). Although the relationship
between family involvement and F - W conflict has not been
directly examined, there is indirect evidence to support such a
relationship. Gutek et al. (1991) found that the number of hours
devoted to family activities, which is presumably positively re-
lated to family involvement, was positively related to F -* W
conflict.
Predictors of Domain-Specific Psychological Distress
As indicated in Figure 1, the direct predictors of both job
distress and family distress are WFC, domain-specific stress-
ors, and domain-specific psychological involvement. With re-
gard to WFC, we hypothesize that W -* F conflict is directly
and positively related to family distress, whereas F -> W con-
flict is directly and positively related to job distress. The ratio-
nale for this hypothesis is that high levels of psychological dis-
tress associated with a given role may be experienced if one is
frequently struggling to meet the demands of that role because
of interference from another role. For example, relative to indi-
viduals whose family life does not interfere with their jobs,
individuals who experience high levels of F -* W conflict may
report elevated levels of job-related distress because they are
more likely to feel overwhelmed by the ensuing struggle to meet
their responsibilities at work and therefore experience a reduc-
tion in the quality of their work life. A parallel explanation may
67
be offered for the hypothesized positive relationship between
W - F conflict and family distress. Although previous re-
search has found that W - F conflict is associated with low
levels of family satisfaction (e.g., Bedeian et al., 1988; Beutell,
1983; Beutell & O'Hare, 1987; Coverman, 1989; Holahan &
Gilbert, 1979; Parasuraman et al., 1989; Rice et al., in press), no
research has examined the relationship between F -* W con-
flict and job-related affect.
With regard to job and family stressors, we hypothesize that
they are directly and positively related to their respective
within-domain measure of distress. Previous research lends
strong support for an association between job and family stress-
ors and decreased job and family satisfaction, respectively (e.g.,
Bedeian et al., 1988; Kandel, Davies, &Raveis, 1985; Kopelman
et al., 1983; Parasuraman et al., 1989).
Finally, with regard to job and family involvement, we hy-
pothesize that they are directly and negatively related to their
respective within-domain measure of distress. This hypothesis
is based on the conceptual and empirical work of several re-
searchers who have examined the relationship between job in-
volvement and job satisfaction (e.g., Rabinowitz & Hall, 1977;
Sekaran, 1989; Weiner, Muczyk, & Gable, 1987; Weiner &
Vardi, 1980). For example, Sekaran (1989) postulated that
highly job-involved workers invest greater amounts of time and
effort in their work. As a result, they are more likely than low
job-involved workers to develop a greater sense of work-related
mastery, which in turn promotes higher levels of job satisfac-
tion. Sekaran's (1989) study supports a positive relationship be-
tween job involvement and job satisfaction by way of increased
perceptions of work-related mastery. Although a similar pro-
cess may lead to a relationship between family involvement and
family distress, no research has examined the relationship be-
tween these two variables.
Predictors of Overall Psychological Distress
As shown in our model, we hypothesize that both job- and
family-related psychological distress are directly and positively
related to depression (used here as an indicator of overall psy-
chological distress). This hypothesis was derived from additive
models of overall quality of life (e.g., Andrews & Withey, 1976;
Campbell, Converse, & Rodgers, 1976; Michalos, 1985; Rice,
McFarlin, Hunt & Near, 1985). Additive models propose that
the perceived quality of life associated with each constituent
domain of life combine additively to determine overall quality
of life (Rice et al., in press). This proposition has been sup-
ported using both measures of satisfaction and psychological
distress (e.g., Bedeian et al., 1988; Coverman, 1989; Kandel et
al., 1985; Kopelman et al., 1983; Rice et al., in press).
A strict interpretation of additive models implies that the
effect of any other variable on overall quality of life must be
indirect, that is, mediated by the quality of life in one or more
specific domains of life (Rice et al., in press). Consistent with
this proposition, our model indicates that the relationships of
stressors, psychological involvement, and WFC to depression
are mediated through their direct or indirect relationships to
either job or family distress. With regard to work and family
stressors, previous research lends strong support to this hy-
pothesis (Bedeian et al., 1988; Coverman, 1989; Kandel et al.,
 68 M. FRONE, M. RUSSELL, AND M. COOPER
1985; Kopelman et al., 1983). In contrast, results concerning the
relationship between W -* F conflict and overall life satisfac-
tion are inconsistent. Previous research has found indirect ef-
fects only, via job or family satisfaction (e.g., Coverman, 1989;
Rice et al., in press); direct effects only (Kopelman et al., 1983);
and both indirect (via job or family satisfaction) and direct ef-
fects (Bedeian et al., 1988). Because these mixed results do not
lend strong support for a fully mediated relationship between
WFC and overall psychological distress, we will examine (via
nested models) whether a model containing the two direct
paths between WFC and depression fits the data better than a
model that does not contain these two paths (see broken lines in
Figure 1).
Generalizability of the Model
Previous conceptual discussions of work-family stress pro-
cesses propose that gender may represent an important modera-
tor variable (e.g., Eckenrode & Gore, 1990; Kline & Cowan,
1988; Lambert, 1990). However, potential gender differences in
work-family stress processes are not always examined. Further-
more, most research testing models of WFC has used relatively
circumscribed samples of White individuals in white-collar
jobs. Thus, we know little about the generalizability of previous
research to minority and blue-collar workers (Burke & Green-
glass, 1987). Given that the sociodemographic composition of
the American work force is becoming more diverse (e.g., Jack-
son & Schuler, 1990; OfTerman & Gowing, 1990), the lack of
knowledge concerning the generalizability of work-family
stress processes represents an important limitation. To address
this issue, we examine the fit of our model across gender, race,
and job type.
Method
Sample
Respondents in this study were drawn from the longitudinal follow-
up of a random sample survey of 1,933 adults residing in Erie County,
New York. Designated respondents were identified in a three-stage
probability sample, designed to yield approximately equal representa-
tion of two racial groups (Blacks and non-Blacks) and three education
levels (less than high school graduate, high school graduate, and at
least some college). The overall completion rate for Wave 1 was 78.3%.
Of the 1,933 Wave 1 respondents, 1,616 were reinterviewed at Wave 2,
representing 83.6% of the total original sample.
Of the 1,616 respondents interviewed at Wave 2,631 met the follow-
ing criteria for selection into this study: (a) employed at least 20 hr per
week, (b) currently married or living as married, or had children living
at home, or both, and (c) provided valid data on all measures described
below. We used data only from the second wave of data collection
because several of the major variables were not assessed in the first
wave.
On average, respondents were 40.7 years old (573 = 10.4) and had
completed 13.3 years of formal education (SD = 2.3). Fifty-six percent
were women and 42% were White. Seventy-three percent were married
or living as married, and 78% had at least one child living at home.
Respondents had worked in their current jobs for an average of 8.7
years (SD = 8.5); approximately equal numbers held blue-collar (49%)
and white-collar (51%) jobs.
Procedures
Data for this study were collected by 20 professionally trained inter-
viewers during the spring and summer of 1989 as part of a larger study
of stress processes. Field work for this study (i.e., interviewer recruit-
ment and training; supervision of interviewers; validation of inter-
viewers' work; and data preparation, entry, and cleaning) was con-
ducted by WESTAT, Inc., a nationally recognized survey research
firm. Interviews were conducted in respondents' homes with a highly
structured interview schedule that contained both interviewer- and
self-administered sections. The complete interview required approxi-
mately 90 min to administer. Respondents were compensated $25 for
their time.
Measures
Each of the measures is described in detail below. All measures were
administered by the interviewer, except those assessing psychological
involvement and depression, which were self-administered. Descrip-
tive statistics (i.e., means, standard deviations, and internal consis-
tency reliability estimates) and zero-order correlations for the major
study variables are presented in Table 1. Except where otherwise noted,
all variables were created by averaging their respective items and were
scored so that a high score represents higher levels of the construct.
Sociodemographic Characteristics
Gender. This variable was coded as 0 for men and 1 for women.
Race. Respondents classified themselves into one of the following
seven racial or ethnic groups: Aleut, Eskimo, or American Indian;
Asian/Pacific Islander; Black Hispanic; Black, not Hispanic; White
Hispanic; White, not Hispanic; and other. Respondents classifying
themselves as White, not Hispanic were coded as White (0), whereas
all others were coded non-White (1). Although it is not desirable to
group all racial minorities together, we combined them into a single
group because the non-White sample in this study was composed al-
most entirely of Blacks (96%).
Age. This variable was based on self-reported date of birth and was
coded in years.
Education. This variable was based on self-reported years of formal
education.
Job type. This variable was based on responses to the following
open-ended question: What is your occupation or job title and what
sort of work do you do on your job? Professional coders classified
responses into one of the 13 major occupational categories used by the
U.S. Census Bureau (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1982). A respon-
dent was coded as white-collar (1) if his or her job fell into categories 1
through 5, whereas a respondent was coded as blue-collar (0) if his or
her job fell into categories 6 through 13. Although this categorization is
somewhat crude, our measure of job type was, as expected, positively
correlated with years of formal education (r = .43, p < .001).
Job tenure. This variable was based on self-reported tenure in the
person's current job and was coded in years.
Marital status. Respondents were coded either as not married (i.e.,
never married, widowed, separated, or divorced [0]) or married or
living as married (1).
Number of children. Number of children currently living at home
was coded into five categories ranging from 0 to 4 or more.
Age of youngest child. Following a coding scheme outlined by
Bedeian et al. (1988), we coded age of youngest child living at home
into one of the following five categories: no children (1), youngest child
over 18 years of age (2), youngest child 13-18 years of age (3), youngest
child 6-12 years of age (4), and youngest child less than 6 years of
age (5).
 WORK-FAMILY CONFLICT 69

Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations, Reliability Estimates, and Intercorrelations for Major Study Variables

Variable 1 M SD

1. Job involvement (.88) 3.92 1.18

2. Family involvement .14* (.88) 5.14 0.79
3. Job stressor index .02 -.06 (.72) 2.05 0.36
4. Family stressor index -.02 -.22* .21* (.66) 1.83 0.49
5. W -* F Conflict .05 -.06 .31* .23* (.76) 2.21 1.07
6. F -* W Conflict .09* .01 .19* .29* .33* (.56) 1.39 0.61
7. Job distress -.21* -.13* .53* .25* .28* .24* (-84) 1.80 0.60
8. Family distress -.03 -.31* .21* .60* .21* .25* .43* (.88) 1.57 0.48
9. Depression -.05 -.09* .28* .38* .26* .42* .37* .48* (.87) 1.58 0.39
Note. Numbers on the diagonal are internal consistency reliability estimates (coefficient alpha).
* p ^ .05.

Psychological Involvement
Job involvement. Job involvement represents the degree to which
one's job is central to one's self-concept or sense of identity (Kanungo,
1982; Lodahl & Kejner, 1965). This construct was assessed with five
items adapted from a measure developed by Kanungo (1982). A study
by Blau (1985) suggested that Kanungo's scale is unidimensional and a
purer measure of psychological identification than Lodahl and
Kejner's (1965) short-form measure. Each job involvement item used a
6-point agree/disagree response scale.
Family involvement. Family involvement was assessed by modify-
ing the job involvement items so that they referred to either the respon-
dent's spouse or children). This procedure has been used successfully
in previous WFC research (e.g., Frone & Rice, 1987). Specifically, five
items assessed spouse involvement and five items assessed parental
involvement. Each family involvement item used a 6-point agree/disa-
gree response scale. An overall family involvement score was calcu-
lated as the average of the five spouse involvement items among re-
spondents who were married only, or as the average of the five parental
involvement items among respondents who were single parents, or as
an average of the 10 spouse and parental involvement items among
respondents who were both married and parents.
Work-Family Stressors
Job stressors. The job stressor scale was based on 20 items taken
from several previously published measures (Beehr, 1976; House,
McMichael, Wells, Kaplan, & Landerman, 1979; Insel & Moos, 1974;
Pearlin & Schooler, 1978; Rizzo, House, & Lirtzman, 1970; Sims, Szila-
gyi, & Keller, 1976). The 20 items assessed three dimensions of work
stressors: work pressure, lack of autonomy, and role ambiguity. Work
pressure (8 items) assessed the frequency with which individuals per-
ceive high job-related demands resulting from heavy workloads and
responsibilities. Lack of autonomy (6 items) assessed the frequency
with which individuals perceive constraints on their ability to function
autonomously and influence important job parameters. Role ambigu-
ity (6 items) assessed the frequency of being confused or unclear about
day-to-day tasks and expectations and job-related goals. Each job
stressor item used a 4-point frequency-based response scale. Each of
these three job stressor dimensions has been linked to W - F conflict
and a variety of stress-related outcomes (see Voydanoff, 1987, for a
review).
Family stressors. The family stressor scale was composed of four
parental stressor items and four marital stressor items. Of the parental
stressor items, two were developed by Kessler (1985) and two were
developed specifically for this study. Parental stressor items assessed
the following two dimensions: parental workload and the extent of
child(ren)'s misbehavior. The marital stressor items were developed by
Kessler (1985) and assessed the following two dimensions: lack of
spouse support and the degree of tension or conflict in the relation-
ship. Each family stressor item used either a 4-point or a 5-point fre-
quency-based response scale. These eight items were combined to
create an overall family stressor score (see the description of family
involvement for the method of combining these items).
Work-Family Conflict
Four items were developed to assess WFC: two items each assessed
the degree to which a respondent's job interferes with his or her home-
life (W - F conflict) and the degree to which a respondent's homelife
interferes with his or her job (F - W conflict). The items assessing
W - F conflict were: "How often does your job or career interfere
with your responsibilities at home, such as yard work, cooking, clean-
ing, repairs, shopping, paying the bills, or child care?" and "How often
does your job or career keep you from spending the amount of time
you would like to spend with your family?" The items assessing F - W
conflict were: "How often does your homelife interfere with your re-
sponsibilities at work, such as getting to work on time, accomplishing
daily tasks, or working overtime?" and "How often does your homelife
keep you from spending the amount of time you would like to spend
on job or career-related activities?" Each item used a 5-point frequency-
based response scale.
Psychological Distress
Job distress. Job distress was assessed with six items developed by
Kandel et al. (1985). This scale assessed the strength of negative emo-
tional reactions to daily work experiences. Using a 4-point scale, re-
spondents were asked to indicate the extent to which they feel each of
six emotional reactions (e.g., bothered or upset, frustrated) when they
think of their day-to-day experiences on the job.
Family distress. Family distress was assessed with 12 items devel-
oped by Kandel et al. (1985). This scale assessed the strength of nega-
tive emotional reactions to daily experiences as a spouse (six items) or
parent (six items). Using a 4-point scale, respondents were asked to
indicate the extent to which they feel each of six emotional reactions
(e.g., bothered or upset, frustrated) when they think of their day-to-day
experiences as a marital partner or parent. These 12 items were com-
bined to create an overall family distress score (see the description of
family involvement for the method of combining these items).
Depression. Depression was assessed with the 20-item Center for
Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D; Radloff, 1977). A
4-point scale was used to determine how frequently each of 20 symp-
toms were experienced during the past month. The items in this scale
70 M. FRONE, M. RUSSELL, AND M. COOPER
assess several dimensions of depressive symptomatology, such as de-
pressed mood, feelings of guilt and worthlessness, feelings of helpless-
ness and hopelessness, psychomotor retardation, loss of appetite, and
sleep disturbance.
Dimensionality of the Measures
To assess the appropriateness of computing unidimensional scores
for each of the major constructs described above, we submitted each
scale to a principal components analysis (results can be obtained from
Michael R. Frone). Specifically, principal components analyses for the
job involvement, job stressor, WFC, job distress, and depression items
were conducted using the full sample. In contrast, principal compo-
nents analyses for the family involvement, family stressor, and family
distress items were limited to married parents because they were the
only respondents to have scores on each of the marital and parental
items constituting these scales. With the exception of the WFC and job
stressor items, an examination of the number of eigenvalues greater
than or equal to one and scree plots for each of the remaining principal
components analyses supported our decision to create unidimensional
scales.
With regard to the four WFC conflict items, the principal compo-
nents analysis revealed two factors with eigenvalues greater than or
equal to one, as expected. The two W -* F conflict items loaded highly
on the first factor (oblique rotated loadings = .87 and .92), whereas the
two F - W conflict items loaded highly on the second factor (oblique
rotated loadings = .82 and .85). In addition, the cross-factor loadings
were small (ranging from -.05 to .06). These results support the con-
ceptual distinction between W - F and F - W conflict.
The principal components analysis of the 20 job stressor items re-
vealed four factors with eigenvalues greater than or equal to one. How-
ever, the scree plot suggested retaining two factors. A two-factor solu-
tion revealed that the ambiguity and lack of autonomy items loaded
highly on the first factor (oblique rotated loadings = .33 to .72),
whereas the work pressure items loaded highly on the second factor
(oblique rotated loadings = .52 to .70). With two exceptions, the re-
maining 18 cross-factor loadings were all below .30. Because these
results indicated that it may not be appropriate to treat the 20 job
stressor items as unidimensional, we conducted two preliminary tests
of our model, once using two separate job stressor scales and once
using an overall job stressor scale. Consistent with our model, the
analysis using two job stressor scales revealed that each was positively
related to both W -* F conflict and job distress. Moreover, the parame-
ter estimates for the remaining paths were virtually identical to those
from the analysis using the overall job stressor scale. Therefore, to
simplify presentation of our results and to maintain consistency with
previous WFC research (e.g., Bedeian et al., 1988; Burke, 1988; Parasur-
aman et al., 1989), we present our findings using the overall job
stressor score.
Path Analyses
We tested our model using Bentler's (1989) EQS structural equa-
tions program. Input for the EQS program consisted of a 9 X 9 covari-
ance matrix and estimated reliabilities for each variable. We discuss
below several issues concerning the estimation and evaluation of struc-
tural equation models.
Identification. A structural equation model (SEM) must be identi-
fied before it can be estimated. Identification addresses the issue of
whether enough information exists to yield unique parameter esti-
mates (e.g., see Berry, 1984, Bollen, 1989, andSchaubroeck, 1990, fora
detailed discussion of this complex issue). Although identification is
relevant for both the measurement model and the SEM, we address the
identification of the SEM only because each multi-item scale was
treated as a single indicator of each construct (see discussion of mea-
surement error below).
To determine whether a SEM is identified, one must first distin-
guish between nonrecursive and recursive models. A SEM is nonrecur-
sive if any of the following conditions are met: (a) the disturbances for
any two endogenous variables are allowed to correlate, (b) a reciprocal
relationship exists between any two endogenous variables, or (c) a feed-
back loop connects any two endogenous variables (e.g., Berry, 1984;
Bollen, 1989). Conversely, a model that meets none of these conditions
is said to be recursive (e.g., Berry, 1984; Bollen, 1989). As can be seen in
Figure 1, our model is nonrecursive because it meets conditions (a) and
(b). Specifically, we hypothesize that W - F conflict and F - W
conflict are reciprocally related. Furthermore, as noted by Schau-
broeck (1990), the disturbances for variables involved in a reciprocal
relationship can be expected to covary because they may share com-
mon causes that are not explicitly modeled. Failure to estimate the
covariation among the disturbances may lead to biased parameter es-
timates for the reciprocal relationship (Schaubroeck, 1990). Finally,
because previous research has found a strong positive correlation be-
tween job and family satisfaction (e.g., Bedeian et al., 1988; Coverman,
1989; Kopelman et al., 1983; Rice et al., in press), we estimated a param-
eter corresponding to the noncausal relationship between job and fam-
ily distress by permitting their disturbances to covary.
Assuming one is estimating a SEM using either single indicators of
each construct or latent variables in which the measurement model is
identified, all recursive SEMs are either just-identified or overidenti-
fied, thereby yielding unique parameter estimates. In contrast, nonre-
cursive SEMs may be underidentified (Berry, 1984; Bollen, 1989). Un-
deridentified SEMs contain at least one parameter for which unique
estimates cannot be obtained. Thus, testing such a model limits infer-
ences concerning hypothesized structural relationships among vari-
ables. As noted earlier, our model is nonrecursive because it contains a
reciprocal relationship and two correlated disturbances; therefore, it
may be underidentified.
The identification of reciprocal relationships requires that instru-
ment variables be incorporated into one's model. To function as an
instrument, an antecedent variable must be theoretically related to
only one of the variables that make up a reciprocal relationship (e.g.,
Berry, 1984; Schaubroeck, 1990). A simple rule of thumb is that a recip-
rocal relationship is overidentified if each reciprocally related variable
has at least two associated instrument variables (e.g., Schaubroeck,
1990). Thus, it is clear from Figure 1 that the reciprocal relationship
between W - F conflict and F - W conflict is overidentified.
The instrument variable rule, however, does not address the identi-
fication of the remaining parameters. Therefore, an overall test of
model identification is necessary. One approach to determining
whether a nonrecursive SEM is identified is the use of necessary and
sufficient rules of thumb or tests that exist for specific types of models
(Berry, 1984; Bollen, 1989). A necessary and sufficient test for the
identification of nonrecursive models is the rank test (see Berry, 1984,
and Bollen, 1989, for a detailed discussion of this and other available
tests for identification, including the solution of reduced-form equa-
tions). However, as a general check on model identification, this test is
limited because it assumes that all disturbances are allowed to covary.
Thus, if a SEM imposes some constraints on the covariation among
disturbances (i.e., constraining some to equal zero) and fails the rank
test, it is still possible that the model is identified. In contrast, if such a
model passes the rank test, it is certainly identified, indicating that all
structural relationships and relevant correlated disturbances can be
freely estimated. Submitting our model to the rank test revealed that it
is overidentified; therefore, not only can all parameters be uniquely
estimated, but goodness-of-fit tests also can be performed.
Measurement error. A major advantage of structural equation pro-
grams is their ability to estimate the parameters in a path model while
 WORK-FAMILY CONFLICT
correcting for the biasing effects of random measurement error. The
usual approach is to estimate structural relationships among latent
variables that are free of random measurement error. In the present
analyses, however, the multi-item scales were treated as single indica-
tors of each construct. We decided to use a single-indicator approach
rather than a latent variable approach because the latter would have
required that each respondent answer each of the marital and parental
items that went into the construction of the overall family involve-
ment, family stressor, and family distress measures. Such an approach
would have eliminated from the analyses 311 individuals (49.3% of the
sample) who were either married without children living at home (n =
138) or single parents (n = 173). Given that there is no theoretical rea-
son for restricting our analyses to married parents, we felt that the
arbitrary elimination of single parents and married respondents with-
out children would have compromised the generalizability of our re-
sults.
Given our decision to treat each multi-item scale as a single indicator
of its corresponding construct, we corrected for random measurement
error by setting the random error variance associated with each con-
struct equal to the product of its variance and the quantity one minus
its estimated reliability (Bollen, 1989). This approach has been used in
several recent studies (e.g., Bacharach et al., 1991; Farkas & Tetrick,
1989; Schaubroeck, Cotton, & Jennings, 1989; Wayne & Ferris, 1990;
Williams & Hazer, 1986). Moreover, the utility of this approach was
supported in a recent study (Netemeyer, Johnston, & Burton, 1990)
that compared the parameter estimates for a SEM using a latent vari-
able analysis, a single-indicator analysis corrected for measurement
error (as discussed earlier), and a single-indicator analysis that did not
correct for measurement error. Netemeyer et al.'s (1990) study revealed
that the latent variable analysis and the corrected single-indicator anal-
ysis yielded virtually identical parameter estimates in terms of direc-
tion, magnitude, and significance. However, results from both of these
procedures diverged substantially from the uncorrected single-indica-
tor analysis.
Model evaluation. To evaluate the overall fit of a model, EQS pro-
vides a chi-square goodness-of-fit statistic. The chi-square statistic is
based on a comparison of the predicted and observed covariance ma-
trices. A nonsignificant chi-square value indicates good fit. However,
because trivial differences between the predicted and observed covari-
ance matrices may lead to a significant chi-square when large samples
are used, we also used the following goodness-of-fit indices that are
less dependent on sample size: normed fit index (NFI), nonnormed fit
index (NNFI), and comparative fit index (CFI; e.g., see Bentler, 1989,
and Bollen, 1989, for computational details). Briefly, the NFI, CFI,
and NNFI compare the fit of a substantive model to the fit of some
predetermined baseline model, usually a null model in which covaria-
tion among variables is constrained to equal zero. The value for each of
these indices varies between zero and one, with values greater than or
equal to .90 used to indicate a good fit. To test whether adding the two
paths connecting the WFC variables to depression improved the over-
all fit of the model, we used a chi-square difference test (Bentler, 1989)
and compared the NFI, CFI, and NNFI for the two nested models.
Finally, we examined the univariate modification indices (i.e., La
Grange Multiplier tests) to see if overall model fit could be improved
by freeing any of the 14 substantive paths that were constrained to
equal zero (e.g., Bentler, 1989; Bollen, 1989).
Multiple group comparisons. To examine whether the results ob-
tained from the full sample were invariant across gender, race, and job
type, we conducted both within- and between-group analyses. For ex-
ample, to examine invariance across gender, we first computed the
four fit indices described above separately for men and women to see if
there was a good fit in each group. Second, to examine whether the
magnitude or direction of each hypothesized relationship was invari-
ant across gender, we specified two simultaneous between-group mod-
71
els. The first between-group model did not contain any cross-group
invariance constraints. In other words, all of the parameter estimates
were freely estimated within gender groups. The second between-
group model, however, constrained each of the 16 hypothesized rela-
tionships to be invariant across gender. If the chi-square for the con-
strained model is significantly larger than the chi-square for the un-
constrained model, the assumption of invariance is not tenable.
Finally, if the overall chi-square difference test revealed a lack of invar-
iance, we examined the univariate modification indices to locate spe-
cific parameters that significantly differed across gender (Bentler,
1989; Bollen, 1989).
Results
Preliminary Analyses
We examined the potential confounding influence of socio-
demographic characteristics by estimating the two nested
SEMs (see description below), both controlling and not control-
ling for the following variables: gender, race, age, education, job
type, job tenure, marital status, number of children, and age of
youngest child. The analyses revealed that the sociodemogra-
phic covariates had virtually no impact on the magnitude or
significance of the parameter estimates. Therefore, to facilitate
model estimation, especially the estimation of simultaneous
between-group models, the covariates were dropped from the
analyses. Although gender, race, and job type did not act as
confounding variables, they may still moderate the relation-
ships outlined in Figure 1. This issue is examined in more detail
below.
Model Evaluation for the Full Sample
Overall goodness-of-fit. Table 2 summarizes the goodness-
of-fit indices for three models (one baseline model and two
substantive models). The baseline model we estimated was the
standard null model in which covariation among the variables
was constrained to equal zero. As can be seen in Table 2, the
large and highly significant chi-square value for the null model
reveals a poor fit to the data, indicating that there is significant
covariation among the model variables.
On the basis of our earlier discussion, we estimated two
nested substantive modelsone that did not contain the two
direct paths between the WFC conflict measures and depres-
sion (Model A) and one that did (Model B). Table 2 shows that
Model A had a substantially and significantly smaller chi-
square than the null model. Thus, Model A fit the data better
than the null model. The values of the various goodness-of-fit
indices, however, yielded inconsistent conclusions regarding
the absolute fit of Model A. The relatively large and highly
significant chi-square value, coupled with a NNFI below .90,
indicated that substantial covariation may be unexplained,
whereas the NFI and CFI suggested that Model A fit the data
reasonably well.
Turning to Model B, it can be seen that freeing the two paths
between WFC and depression led to a substantial and statisti-
cally significant reduction in chi-square compared with Model
A. The relatively small and nonsignificant chi-square asso-
ciated with Model B indicated that it fit the data well. More-
72 M. FRONE, M. RUSSELL, AND M. COOPER

Table 2
Goodness-of-Fit Summary
Model df X2 P Mf Ax2 P NFI NNFI CFI
Null 36 1,255.04 <.001
A 14 80.40 <.001 22 1,174.64 <.001 .936 .860 .946
B 12 15.13 .234 2 65.27 <.001 .988 .992 .997
Note. NFI = normed fit index; NNFI = nonnormed fit index; and CFI = comparative fit index.

over, the NFI, NNFI, and CFI for Model B were substantially
larger than those for Model A, and their absolute values were all
well above the .90 cutoff typically used to indicate a good fit
between model and data. Finally, an examination of the univar-
iate modification indices revealed that the overall fit of Model
B could not be substantially improved by freeing any of the
remaining 14 substantive paths that were constrained to equal
zero.
Parameter estimates. Parameter estimates for Model B are
shown in Figure 2. Solid lines represent significant paths and
broken lines represent nonsignificant paths. To facilitate pre-
sentation of the parameter estimates, we discuss the prediction
of WFC, domain-specific psychological distress, and overall
psychological distress separately.
Work-family conflict. As hypothesized, there was a positive
reciprocal relationship between W -* F and F -* W conflict.
Moreover, our hypotheses regarding the unique direct predic-
tors of the two types of WFC were largely supported. Job stress-
ore were positively related to W -* F conflict, whereas family
stressors and family involvement were positively related to F -*
W conflict. However, contrary to expectation, job involvement
was not significantly related to W - F conflict.
Domain-specific psychological distress. Three sets of predic-
tions were made regarding the antecedents of domain-specific
affect. First, the hypothesized positive relationship between
F -* W conflict and job distress was significant. In contrast,
W -* F conflict and family distress were not significantly re-
lated. Second, job and family stressors were directly and posi-
tively related to their respective within-domain measure of dis-
tress, as hypothesized. Finally, as expected, there was a direct

.72

Intel-correlations Among Exogenous Variables

Exogenous Variables 1 2 3 4
1. Job Stressors
2. Job Involvement .03
3. Family Involvement -.09 .16'
4. Family Stressors .33* -.02 -.30'

Figure 2. Summary of standardized path coefficients for Model B that are based on the full sample.
(Solid lines represent significant paths, p < .05, and broken lines represent nonsignificant paths. The letter
d represents the disturbance term for each endogenous variable. To simplify presentation of results, the
measurement model is not shown.)
 WORK-FAMILY CONFLICT 73

negative relationship between both job and family involvement
and their respective within-domain measure of distress.
Overall psychological distress. As anticipated, there was a
significant positive relationship between both job and family
distress and depression. Furthermore, as noted earlier, freeing
the two paths linking WFC and depression led to a significant
improvement in the fit of our model. The parameter estimates,
however, indicated that only F -* W conflict was directly and
positively related to depression.
Multiple Group Comparisons
To examine whether the findings based on the full sample
were invariant across gender, race, and job type, a series of
within- and between-group models was specified. The results
of these analyses are provided in Table 3.
Gender. An examination of the within-group fit indices (Ta-
ble 3, lines 1 and 2) revealed that the model fit well for both men
and women. The chi-square values for the unconstrained and
constrained simultaneous between-group analyses are pre-
sented on lines 3 and 4, respectively. The nonsignificant be-
tween-group chi-square difference test (line 5) indicated that
there was no evidence of significant gender differences in the
parameter estimates for the 16 hypothesized relationships. The
lack of gender differences also was supported by the fact that
the values of the NFI, NNFI, and CFI from the unconstrained
and constrained between-group models were virtually identi-
cal. Had there been substantial gender differences, the values
of the NFI, NNFI, and CFI from the constrained model would
have been smaller than their respective values from the uncon-
strained model. Given these results, we conclude that the
model generalizes across men and women.
Race. The within-group fit indices suggested that the model
fit well for both Whites and non-Whites. Moreover, the nonsig-
nificant between-group chi-square difference test and the rela-
tive values of the NFI, NNFI, and CFI for the constrained and
unconstrained between-group models indicated that the indi-
vidual parameter estimates were invariant across both racial
groups. Thus, the model appears to generalize across racial
groups.
Job type. The within-group fit indices revealed that the
model fit well for both white-collar and blue-collar workers.
However, the significant between-group chi-square difference
test and the relatively smaller NFI, NNFI, and CFI values from
the constrained between-group model compared with the un-
constrained between group-model suggested that one or more
individual parameter estimates varied across the two groups.
Examination of the univariate modification indices for each of
the 16 between-group constraints revealed two differences.
First, the relationship between job involvement and W -* F
conflict was significantly different across blue- and white-col-
lar workers, x20, N = 631) = 4.96, p = .026. Specifically, job
involvement was positively related to W -* F conflict among
white-collar workers (standardized coefficient = . 11, p = .056),
whereas these two variables were unrelated among blue-collar
workers (standardized coefficient = -.02, p = .688). This find-
ing lends qualified support for a relationship between job in-
volvement and W - F conflict. Second, the relationship be-
tween W - F conflict and family distress was significantly
different across the two collar-color groups, x2(l, N = 631) =
6.59, p = .010. Consistent with the results from the full sample,
W -* F conflict was not significantly related to family distress
among white-collar workers (standardized coefficient = -.09,
p = . 139). However, W -* F conflict was positively related to
family distress among blue-collar workers (standardized coeffi-
cient =. 12, p = .061). Thus, this finding lends qualified support

Table 3
Goodness-of-Fit Information for Within- and Between-Group Comparisons
Group 4f NFI NNFI CFI

Gender
Male (within-group, n = 278) 8.82 12 .712 .985 1.000 1.000
Female (within-group, n = 353) 14.86 12 .249 .977 .986 .995
Unconstrained between-group model 23.68 24 .480 .981 1.000 1.000
Constrained between-group model 40.10 40 .466 .968 1.000 1.000
X2 difference (constrained-unconstrained) 16.42 16 .424

Race
White (n = 262) 16.15 12 .185 .968 .974 .991
Non-White (n = 369) 13.64 12 .325 .982 .993 .998
Unconstrained 29.79 24 .192 .977 .986 .995
Constrained 45.06 40 .269 .965 .992 .996
Difference 15.27 16 .505
Job type
Blue-collar (n = 312) 14.81 12 .252 .979 .988 .996
White-collar ( = 319) 12.88 12 .378 .979 .995 .998
Unconstrained 27.69 24 .273 .979 .991 .997
Constrained 63.83 40 .010 .952 .966 .981
Difference 36.14 16 .003
Note. NFI = normed fit index; NNFI = nonnormed fit index; and CFI = comparative fit index.
74 M. FRONE, M. RUSSELL, AND M. COOPER
for the path between W -* F conflict and family distress in our
model.
Discussion
The primary goal of this study was to examine the anteced-
ents and outcomes of WFC and to assess whether WFC plays an
important integrative function in work and family stress re-
search. Given that WFC was the primary focus of this study, we
begin our discussion by examining findings directly related to
W - F and F -* W conflict. We then discuss, in turn, findings
regarding within-domain relationships, the generalizability of
our model, study limitations, and directions for future research.
Work-Family Conflict
The present results revealed several general findings con-
cerning WFC. First, as hypothesized, there was a positive recip-
rocal relationship between W -* F conflict and F - W con-
flict. This finding is consistent with conceptual definitions of
WFC, which suggest that the conflict relationship between
work and family is bidirectional or reciprocal (e.g., Greenhaus
& Beutell, 1985). Second, both types of WFC were associated
with unique antecedent conditions. As one would expect, job
stressors and job involvement were positively related to the fre-
quency of W - F conflict. Conversely, family stressors and
family involvement were positively related to the frequency of
F -* W conflict. Although the findings concerning the direct
predictors of W -* F conflict are consistent with previous re-
search, our investigation of the direct predictors of F - W
conflict and the reciprocal relationship between W -* F and
F -* W conflict represents an extension of previous research.
Consequently, this study clarifies the positive relationship be-
tween family stressors and W - F conflict documented in
previous studies (e.g., Burke, 1988; Kopelman et al., 1983; Voy-
danoff, 1988), suggesting that any positive relationship between
these two variables is indirect via increased F -* W conflict.
Third, both types of WFC were positively related to a spe-
cific measure of within-domain distress. As hypothesized, F -*
W conflict was positively related to work distress, whereas
W - F conflict was positively related to family distress, at least
among blue-collar workers. These results suggest that if the
demands and responsibilities associated with one role fre-
quently interfere with the enactment of a second role, the qual-
ity of life associated with the second role may suffer. In contrast
to the present study, the principal hypothesis guiding past re-
search was that W -* F conflict would be negatively related to
both job and family satisfaction. It is also interesting to note
that a precise explanation for this general hypothesis has not
been offered other than that W -* F conflict is a type of
stressor and stressors are related to affective outcomes. The lack
of specificity concerning the relationship between W - F con-
flict and within-domain affect may reflect the fact that pre-
vious research has not simultaneously considered both types of
WFC. Thus, the present study offers a refinement to this gen-
eral hypothesis linking WFC and domain-specific affect. On
the basis of our findings, we would argue that the relationship
between W - F conflict and job-related affect found in pre-
vious studies (e.g., Beutell & O'Hare, 1987; Burke, 1988; Para-
suraman et al., 1989) is not direct, but rather is mediated by the
frequency of F -* W conflict.
Fourth, the unique pattern of domain-specific antecedents
and affective outcomes associated with the two forms of WFC
suggests that this construct plays a key mediating role in link-
ing work and family stress processes. By virtue of its central
location in models of the work-family interface, WFC draws
attention to the fact that work and family conditions (e.g., stress-
ors and involvement) may spill over to influence the quality of
life associated with the other life domain. For example, pre-
vious research suggests that family stressors (Parasuraman et
al., 1989) and homemaking commitment (Klein, 1988) are as-
sociated with decreased job satisfaction. Our results suggest
that any relationship between either family stressors or home-
making commitment and job-related affect is not direct, but is
mediated by the frequency of F - W conflict. Furthermore,
given the consistent positive relationship between F -* W con-
flict and job distress, coupled with the fact that W -* F conflict
was positively associated with family distress only among blue-
collar workers, family-related factors appear more likely to in-
fluence the quality of work life than vice versa. This pattern of
results is intriguing in light of Crouter's (1984) observation that
past research has emphasized the influence of work on the
family rather than the reverse.
Finally, the present study did not support a fully mediated
relationship, via work or family distress, between WFC and
depression as suggested by a strict interpretation of additive
models of overall quality of life (e.g., Rice et al., 1985, in press).
Specifically, F -* W conflict was both indirectly (via job dis-
tress) and directly related to depression. In contrast, the rela-
tionship of job and family stressors to depression was fully
mediated by job and family distress, respectively. These results
suggest that there may be a fundamental difference between
within-domain stressors and WFC that allows the latter to di-
rectly influence one's overall sense of well-being. For example,
viewed from self-identity theory (e.g., Schlenker, 1987), the two
forms of WFC may represent not only a source of pressure that
reduces the quality of life in a given domain, but also a threat or
impediment to self-identification. At the core of self-identity
theory is the notion that "people strive to construct and main-
tain desired identity images" (Schlenker, 1987, p. 274). Further-
more, people are threatened when their self-images are dam-
aged by impediments to self-identifying activities. As defined
by Schlenker (1987), an impediment represents a "blocking or
interruption of activity that has potential implications for peo-
ple's goals and identity" (p. 277). Thus, F -* W conflict might
represent a threat to constructing or maintaining a desired job-
related self-image that has direct implications for an individ-
ual's overall sense of well-being.
The fact that only F -* W conflict was related to depression
suggests that the relationship between W - F conflict and
overall psychological distress or life satisfaction reported in pre-
vious studies (e.g., Bedeian et al., 1988; Kopelman et al., 1983;
Parasuraman et al., 1989) may have been spurious because of a
failure to control for the positive relationship between W -* F
and F -* W conflict. Similarly, the two studies (Coverman,
1989; Rice et al., in press) that reported only an indirect rela-
tionship between WFC and overall life satisfaction (via job or
family satisfaction) may have suffered from a methodological
 WORK-FAMILY CONFLICT
weakness. Both studies used data from the 1977 Quality of
Employment Survey (Quinn & Staines, 1979), which used a
mixed directional measure of WFC (i.e., "How much do your
job and family life interfere with one another?"). If the esti-
mated relationship between a mixed directional measure of
WFC and overall life satisfaction is functionally equivalent to
averaging across the separate effects of W - F and F -* W
conflict, it is perhaps not surprising that no direct effect was
observed. This would be especially true if mixed directional
measures primarily assess the experience of W -* F conflict
(Frone et al., 1991; Gutek et al., 1991).
It is not clear, however, why only F -* W conflict should be
directly related to overall assessments of well-being. Perhaps
F - W conflict is more likely to lead to diminished percep-
tions of overall self-efficacy or mastery, which then lead to
heightened depressive affect or decreased satisfaction with life
(e.g., Bandura, 1989; Marshall & Lang, 1990; Pearlin, Men-
aghan, Lieberman, & Mullen, 1981). Because individuals are
ultimately responsible for managing their family life in such a
way that it does not interfere with their jobs, the frequent experi-
ence of F - W conflict may indicate that any difficulty they
experience in constructing or maintaining a desired job-related
self-image is due to their inability to effectively manage their
family demands. In contrast, individuals may be less likely to
accept direct responsibility for managing their work roles in
such a way that they do not interfere with their family life.
Rather, individuals may be more likely to hold their organiza-
tions responsible for the occurrence of W -* F conflict. Thus,
the experience of W - F conflict may be less likely to under-
mine one's overall sense of self-efficacy or mastery.
Within-Domain Relationships
The results of this study replicated and extended several find-
ings reported in previous research. First, job and family stress-
ors were positively related to their respective within-domain
measures of distress (e.g., Bedeian et al., 1988; Kandel et al,
1985; Kopelman et al, 1983; Parasuraman et al, 1989). Second,
job involvement and family involvement were negatively related
to job distress and family distress, respectively. Although the
relationship between job involvement and job distress is consis-
tent with previous research (e.g, Rabinowitz & Hall, 1977; Se-
karan, 1989; Weiner et al, 1987; Weiner & Vardi, 1980), our
finding of a negative relationship between family involvement
and family distress extends such research. Third, both job dis-
tress and family distress were related to depression (e.g,
Bedeian et al, 1988; Coverman, 1989; Kandel et al, 1985; Ko-
pelman et al, 1983; Rice et al, in press). Fourth, the relation-
ships of the stressor and involvement measures were indirectly
related to depression via their corresponding within-domain
measures of distress. Although the indirect relationships be-
tween the stressors and depression via within-domain distress
are consistent with previous research (Bedeian et al, 1988; Co-
verman, 1989; Kandel et al, 1985; Kopelman et al, 1983), the
parallel finding involving the relationships between psychologi-
cal involvement and depression extends work and family re-
search. An additional finding was that family stressors and
family involvement were indirectly related to depression via
F -* W conflict. It should be pointed out, however, that al-
75
though both indirect relationships (via F -* W conflict and
family distress) between family stressors and depression are
positive, family involvement has both a positive (via F -* W
conflict) and a negative (via family distress) indirect relation-
ship to depression.
Generalizability of the Model
Analyses examining the generalizability of our model
yielded no evidence of significant gender or racial differences
in the overall fit of the model or in the magnitude or direction
of the 16 hypothesized relationships. The lack of observed
gender differences supports the results of two previous studies
that tested for gender differences in models of WFC (Bedeian
et al, 1988; Rice et al, in press). In addition, the lack of racial
differences is consistent with one study that tested for such
differences (Rice et al, in press). These results suggest that
models of the work-family interface may operate similarly
across gender and race.
In contrast, although the model fit well among both blue-
and white-collar workers, the parameter estimates for two paths
differed across these two groups. Specifically, the hypothesized
relationship between W -* F conflict and family distress was
only observed among blue-collar workers, whereas the hypoth-
esized relationship between job involvement and W -* F con-
flict was only observed among white-collar workers. Although
we do not have a ready explanation for the first cross-group
difference, the second difference is interesting because pre-
vious research documenting a relationship between job involve-
ment and W -* F conflict has only used respondents holding
white-collar jobs (Beutell, 1983; Beutell & O'Hare, 1987; Frone
& Rice, 1987; Greenhaus & Kopelman, 1981; Greenhaus et al,
1989; Wiley, 1987). The fact that job involvement and W -* F
conflict were positively related among white-collar workers and
were unrelated among blue-collar workers may reflect differ-
ences in the structural characteristics of jobs occupied by these
two groups. For example, the hypothesized relationship be-
tween job involvement and W -* F conflict was based on the
premise that high levels of psychological involvement in one's
job would lead to a higher probability of spending discretion-
ary time at work, completing work at home, or being psychologi-
cally engaged with work-related matters at home (Greenhaus &
Beutell, 1985). However, even though blue-collar workers may
attach high levels of psychological importance to their jobs, the
nature of their jobs may be such that they are enacted within a
fixed period of time (e.g, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.). In other words,
blue-collar workers may be less likely to spend discretionary
time at their place of employment and be less likely to bring
work home than white-collar workers.
Limitations
Two important methodological limitations should be ac-
knowledged. First, although our model was conceptualized in
terms of putative causes and effects, it is recognized that the use
of cross-sectional, correlational data does not allow us to draw
causal inferences concerning the various hypothesized rela-
tionships. Second, because the data were based on self-reports,
the magnitude of relationships may have been inflated because
76 M. FRONE, M. RUSSELL, AND M. COOPER
of method variance or general personality dispositions such as
negative affectivity (Brief, Burke, George, Robinson, & Web-
ster, 1988). Although we cannot directly rule out such a possibil-
ity, it is useful to point out that the influence of these two meth-
odological artifacts should be relatively constant across all rela-
tionships. Thus, if the relationships observed in this study were
largely a function of either method bias or personality disposi-
tions, we would have expected to find significant structural
relationships where none were predicted. Given the strong sup-
port for the specific pattern of relationships outlined in our
model, it seems unlikely that our findings are solely attributable
to either method variance or stable personality dispositions.
Moreover, in a systematic examination of this issue with regard
to relationships between chronic job stressors and affective out-
comes, Chen and Spector (1991) found that such relationships
are largely unaffected by controls for negative affectivity (see
Schaubroeck & Ganster, 1991, for a review).
Future Research
Future research can extend the present study in several im-
portant ways. Because many of the relationships outlined in our
model have not been examined previously, future research
should attempt to replicate our findings. Ideally a replication of
the present study would use longitudinal data. Assuming one's
model is correctly specified, longitudinal data have two poten-
tial advantages over cross-sectional data. First, longitudinal
data allow stronger inferences concerning cause and effect than
do cross-sectional data. Second, as noted by Gollub and Rei-
chardt (1987), longitudinal data are more appropriate than
cross-sectional data for estimating the magnitude of causal ef-
fects. However, these advantages are only realized if one knows
a priori the optimal time lag for a given relationship. In the
absence of appropriate time lags, longitudinal data will provide
biased parameter estimates that may be worse than those ob-
tained from cross-sectional data (Gollub & Reichardt, 1987;
Kessler, 1987; Kessler & Greenberg, 1981; Leventhal & Tomar-
ken, 1987).
Testing the present model using longitudinal data would be a
complex task given that no theory exists to elucidate the opti-
mal time lag associated with the various relationships and that
the optimal time lag would undoubtedly differ across relation-
ships. Given these difficulties, a daily diary study, perhaps last-
ing 8 to 12 weeks, would seem to provide an appropriate data
collection strategy (see Kessler, 1987, for a discussion of ana-
lytic issues involved in diary studies). Such a design would allow
work-family researchers to examine the various relationships
outlined in our model using time lags of different lengths. This
approach would allow stronger causal inferences, provide more
accurate information concerning the magnitude of causal rela-
tionships, and contribute to the development of knowledge
concerning optimal time lags.
Future research also could broaden the domain of the family-
related variables. For example, our family-related stressor, in-
volvement, and psychological distress measures contained
items that assessed each of these constructs with respect to
marital and parental roles. Although these two roles form the
core of the nuclear family, family-related measures could be
broadened to incorporate roles associated with extended fam-
ily, such as sibling or offspring. Broadening family-related mea-
sures would provide a more complete picture of the role of
family in models of the work-family interface.
The mediational processes assumed to underlie many of the
individual relationships also should be examined in future re-
search. For example, the hypothesized positive relationship be-
tween family involvement and F -* W conflict was based on
the assumption that high levels of family involvement lead to an
increase in time and energy devoted to family responsibilities
and in the likelihood of being psychologically preoccupied
with family-related matters while at work. Presumably it is
these differences in time and in physical and psychological
energy devoted to family that ultimately link family involve-
ment to the frequency of F -* W conflict. A detailed examina-
tion of the mediational processes thought to underlie the rela-
tionships documented in this study would provide a more com-
plete understanding of the work-family interface.
Another avenue for future research would be to examine
both W -* F and F -* W conflict with respect to a broader set
of outcome variables, such as job performance, tardiness or
absenteeism, and turnover. For example, one might expect to
find a direct relationship between F -* W conflict and tardi-
ness or absenteeism, whereas W -* F conflict may be directly
related to voluntary turnover. Finally, future research should
examine whether different types of family supportive programs
or coping behaviors are needed to deal with exposure to the two
different types of WFC. For example, limiting overtime hours
or allowing employees to work extra hours when it is most con-
venient (e.g., later in the evening after children have gone to
bed) may be more likely to reduce W -* F conflict, whereas
reliable child care arrangements may be more likely to reduce
F -* W conflict.
Conclusion
The present study examined the intricate relationships be-
tween work and family within the context of a complex multi-
variate model of the work-family interface. Consequently, new
insights into WFC and its integrative role in models of the
work-family interface were revealed. The results of this study
clearly underscore the fundamental importance of distinguish-
ing between W -+ F and F -* W conflict and support the use of
multivariate models in future research on the work-family in-
terface. If researchers continue to examine bivariate relation-
ships or relatively incomplete models, they may risk the develop-
ment of erroneous and incomplete conclusions regarding the
interplay of these two important domains of life.
References
Andrews, F. M., & Withey, S. (1976). Social indicators of well-being in
America: Americans' perceptions of life quality. New \brk: Plenum
Press.
Bacharach, S. B., Bamberger, P., & Conley, S. (1991). Work-home con-
flict among nurses and engineers: Mediating the impact of role
stress on burnout and satisfaction at work. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 12, 39-53.
Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive therapy. Ameri-
can Psychologist, 44,1175-1184.
Bedeian, A. G., Burke, B. G., & Moffett, R. G. (1988). Outcomes of
 WORK-FAMILY CONFLICT
work-family conflict among married male and female profes-
sionals. Journal of Management, 14, 475-491.
Beehr, T. A. (1976). Perceived situational moderators of the relation-
ship between subjective role ambiguity and role strain. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 61, 35-40.
Bentler, P. M. (1989). EQS structural equations program manual. Los
Angeles: BMDP Statistical Software.
Berry, W D. (1984). Nonrecursive causal models. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Beutell, N. J. (1983, August). An investigation of conflict between work
and nonwork roles: Work-role salience, family role expectations, and
satisfaction. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy
of Management, Dallas.
Beutell, N. I, & O'Hare, M. M. (1987). Work-nonwork conflict among
MBAs: Sex differences in role stressors and life satisfaction. Work
and Stress, 1, 35-41.
Blau, G. J. (1985). A multiple study investigation of the dimensionality
of job involvement. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 27,19-36.
Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New
York: Wiley.
Brief, A. P., Burke, M. J., George, J. M., Robinson, B. S., & Webster, J.
(1988). Should negative aflectivity remain an unmeasured variable
in the study of job stress? Journal of Applied Psychology, 73,193-198.
Burke, R. J. (1988). Some antecedents and consequences of work-fam-
ily conflict. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 3, 287-302.
Burke, R. J., & Greenglass, E. R. (1987). Work and family. In C. L.
Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial
and organizational psychology 1987 (pp. 273-320). New York: Wiley.
Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., & Rodgers, W (1976). The quality of
American life: Perceptions, evaluations, and satisfactions. New York:
Russell Sage Foundation.
Chen, P. Y, & Spector, P. E. (1991). Negative affectivity as the underly-
ing cause of correlations between stressors and strain. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 76, 398-407.
Coverman, S. (1989). Role overload, role conflict, and stress: Address-
ing consequences of multiple role demands. Social Forces, 67, 965-
982.
Crouter, A. C. (1984). Spillover from family to work: The neglected side
of the work-family interface. Human Relations, 37, 425-442.
Eckenrode, J., & Gore, S. (1990). Stress and coping at the boundary of
work and family. In J. Eckenrode & S. Gore (Eds.), Stress between
work and family (pp. 1-16). New York: Plenum Press.
Farkas, A. J., & Tetrick, L. E. (1989). A three-wave longitudinal analysis
of the causal ordering of satisfaction and commitment on turnover
decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 855-868.
Frone, M. R., & Rice, R. W (1987). Work-family conflict: The effect of
job and family involvement. Journal of Occupational Behaviour, 8,
45-53.
Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M. L. (1991). Prevalence of work-
family conflict: Are work and family boundaries asymmetrically per-
meable? Manuscript submitted for publication.
Gollub, H. F., & Reichardt, C. S. (1987). Taking account of time lags in
causal models. Child Development, 58, 80-92.
Greenhaus, J. H. (1988). The intersection of work and family roles:
Individual, interpersonal, and organizational issues. Journal of So-
cial Behavior and Personality, 3, 23-44.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conflict between
work and family roles. Academy of Management Review, 10, 76-88.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Kopelman, R. E. (1981). Conflict between work
and nonwork roles: Implications for the career planning process.
Human Resource Planning, 4,1-10.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Parasuraman, S. (1986). A work-nonwork interac-
tive perspective of stress and its consequences. Journal of Organiza-
tional Behavior Management, 8, 37-60.
77
Greenhaus, J. H., Parasuraman, S., Granrose, C. S., Rabinowitz, S., &
Beutell, N. J. (1989). Sources of work-family conflict among two-
career couples. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 34,133-153.
Gutek, B. A., Searle, S., & Klepa, L. (1991). Rational versus gender role
explanations for work-family conflict. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 76, 560-568.
Hall, D. T., & Richter, J. (1988). Balancing work life and home life:
What can organizations do to help? Academy of Management Execu-
tive, 2,213-223.
Holahan, C. K., & Gilbert, L. A. (1979). Conflict between major life
roles: Women and men in dual career couples. Human Relations, 32,
451-467.
House, J. S., McMichael, A. J., Wells, J. A., Kaplan, B. H., & Lander-
man, L. R. (1979). Occupational stress and health among factory
workers. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 20,139-160.
Insel, P. M., & Moos, R. H. (1974). Work Environment Scale, Form R.
Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist Press.
Jackson, S. E., & Schuler, R. S. (1990). Human resource planning: Chal-
lenges for industrial/organizational psychology. American Psycholo-
gist, 45, 223-239.
Kandel, D. B., Davies, M., & Raveis, V H. (1985). The stressfulness of
daily social roles for women: Marital, occupational and household
roles. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 26, 64-78.
Kanungo, R. N. (1982). Measurement of job and work involvement.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 341-349.
Kessler, R. C. (1985). [1985 Detroit area survey]. Unpublished ques-
tionnaire. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Institute for Social
Research.
Kessler, R. C. (1987). The interplay of research design strategies and
data analysis procedures in evaluating the effects of stress on health.
In S. V Kasl & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Stress and health: Issues in re-
search methodology (pp. 113-140). New \brk: Wiley.
Kessler, R. C., & Greenberg, D. F. (1981). Liner panel analysis: Models
of quantitative change. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Klein, H. (1988). Job satisfaction in professional dual-career couples:
Psychological and socioeconomic variables. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 32, 255-268.
Kline, M., & Cowan, P. A. (1988). Re-thinking the connections among
work and family well-being: A model for investigating employment
and family work contexts. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality,
3, 61-90.
Kopelman, R. E., Greenhaus, J. H., & Connolly, T. F. (1983). A model of
work, family, and interrole conflict: A construct validation study.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 32,198-215.
Lambert, S. J. (1990). Processes linking work and family: A critical
review and research agenda. Human Relations, 43, 239-257.
Leventhal, H., & Tomarken, A. (1987). Stress and illness: Perspectives
from health psychology. In S. V Kasl & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Stress
and health: Issues in research methodology (pp. 27-55). New York:
Wiley.
Lodahl, T. M., & Kejner, M. (1965). Definition and measurement of
job involvement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 49, 24-33.
Marshall, G. N., & Lang, E. L. (1990). Optimism, self-mastery, and
symptoms of depression in women professionals. Journal ofPerson-
ality and Social Psychology, 59,132-139.
Matthews, K. A., & Rodin, J. (1989). Women's changing work roles:
Impact on health, family, and public policy. American Psychologist,
44,1389-1393.
Michalos, A. C. (1985). Multiple discrepancy theory (MDT). Social
Indicators Research, 16, 347-413.
Netemeyer, R. G, Johnston, M. W, & Burton, S. (1990). Analysis of role
conflict and role ambiguity in a structural equations framework.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 75,148-157.
78 M. FRONE, M. RUSSELL, AND M. COOPER
Offerman, L. R., & Cowing, M. K. (1990). Organizations of the future:
Changes and challenges. American Psychologist, 45, 95-108.
Parasuraman, S., Greenhaus, J. H., Granrose, C. S., Rabinowitz, S., &
Beutell, N. J. (1989, August). Stressors, social support, and well-being
among two-career couples. Paper presented at the annual meeting of
the Academy of Management, Washington, DC.
Pearlin, L. I., Menaghan, E. G., Lieberman, M. A., & Mullen, J. T.
(1981). The stress process. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 22,
337-356.
Pearlin, L. I., & Schooler, C. (1978). The structure of coping. Journal of
Health and Social Behavior, 19, 2-21.
Pleck, J. H., Staines, G. L., & Lang, L. (1980). Conflicts between work
and family life. Monthly Labor Review, 103, 29-32.
Quinn, R., & Staines, G. (1979). Quality of Employment Survey. Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research.
Rabinowitz, S., & Hall, D. T. (1977). Organizational research on job
involvement. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 265-288.
Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D scale: A self-report depression scale
for research in the general population. Applied Psychological Mea-
surement, I, 385-501.
Rice, R. W, Frone, M. R., & McFarlin, D. B. (in press). Work-nonwork
conflict and the perceived quality of life. Journal of Organizational
Behavior.
Rice, R. W, McFarlin, D. B., Hunt, R. G, & Near, J. P. (1985). Organiza-
tional work and the perceived quality of life. Academy of Manage-
ment Review, 10, 296-310.
Rizzo, J., House, R. 1, & Lirtzman, S. I. (1970). Role conflict and
ambiguity in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quar-
terly, 75,150-163.
Schaubroeck, J. (1990). Investigating reciprocal causation in organiza-
tional research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11,17-28.
Schaubroeck, J., Cotton, J. L., & Jennings, K. R. (1989). Antecedents
and consequences of role stress: A covariance structure analysis.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 10, 35-58.
Schaubroeck, J., & Ganster, D. C. (1991). The role of negative affectiv-
ity in work-related stress. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality,
6,319-330.
Schlenker, B. R. (1987). Threats to identity: Self-identification and so-
cial stress. In C. R. Snyder & C. E. Ford (Eds.), Coping with negative
life events: Clinical and social psychological perspectives (pp. 273-
321). New York: Plenum Press.
Sekaran, U. (1989). Paths to the job satisfaction of bank employees.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 10, 347-359.
Sims, H. P., Szilagyi, A. D, & Keller, R. T. (1976). The measurement of
job characteristics. Academy of Management Journal, 19, 547-559.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. (1982). 1980
Census of Population: Alphabetical index of industries and occupa-
tions (Final ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
Voydanoff, P. (1987). Work and family life. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Voydanoff, P. (1988). Work role characteristics, family structure de-
mands, and work/family conflict. Journal of Marriage and the Fam-
ily, 50,749-761.
Wayne, S. J., & Ferris, G. R. (1990). Influence tactics, affect, and ex-
change quality in supervisor-subordinate interactions: A laboratory
experiment and field study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 487-
499.
Weiner, Y, Muczyk, J. P., & Gable, M. (1987). Relationships between
work commitments and experience of personal well-being. Psycho-
logical Reports, 60, 459-466.
Weiner, Y, & Vardi, Y. (1980). Relationships between job, organiza-
tion, and career commitments and work outcomesAn integrative
approach. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 26,
81-96.
Wiley, D. L. (1987). The relationship between work/nonwork role con-
flict and job-related outcomes: Some unanticipated findings. Jour-
nal of Management, 13, 467-472.
Williams, L. J., & Hazer, J. T. (1986). Antecedents and consequences of
satisfaction and commitment in turnover models: A reanalysis using
latent variable structural equation methods. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 71, 219-231.
Zedeck, S., & Mosier, K. L. (1990). Work in the family and employing
organization. American Psychologist, 45, 240-251.
Received March 25,1991
Revision received August 30,1991
Accepted September 4,1991