University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

A multilevel model of work-family conflict in a global context: a comparative study across 24 countries

(USC Thesis Other)

A multilevel model of work-family conflict in a global context: a comparative study across 24 countries

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content - 1 -

A Multilevel Model of Work-Family Conflict in a Global Context:
A Comparative Study across 24 Countries

by
Hsin-Yi Hsiao

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(SOCIAL WORK)
August 2013

Copyright 2013 Hsin-Yi Hsiao
- 2 -
Acknowledgements
The 6 years I spent pursuing a PhD in social work at USC has been the most wonderful
time in my life. I never thought I would pursue a career in social work until I was kidnapped by a
stranger a week before my wedding day in 2005. The vow I made to Buddha and Master Cheng
Yen (founder of the Tzu Chi Foundation) at the critical moment of my abduction helped me
return home safe and sound and inspired me to change my career trajectory from finance to
social work, a field in which I could help people who were suffering and make this world a better
place to live.
I would like to offer my gratitude to Master Cheng Yen, who has guided me spiritually
since I was a teenager. Without her inspiring guidance to practice Buddhism in daily life, I could
not have survived the kidnapping incident and followed my instinct to apply to the PhD program
at the USC School of Social Work.
I would like to offer my deepest gratitude to Professor Michàlle E. Mor Barak, who has
guided me since I began my doctoral studies at USC. Dr. Mor Barak’s enthusiasm and
knowledge of research on global diversity and inclusion have inspired my own research interests
in work–life balance in the cross-cultural context. I clearly remember when I first proposed the
idea of my dissertation as a two-nation comparative study in 2011, she encouraged me to think
globally and broaden knowledge regarding the international work–family framework. For me, Dr.
Mor Barak is not only a mentor but also an exemplary role model in my life. Without her support
and guidance, I could not have finished my dissertation successfully.
- 3 -
I would also like to thank my committee members, Dr. Lawrence Palinkas and Dr. Chih-
Ping Chou, for their thoughtful guidance and helpful input on my dissertations. I am truly
grateful for Dr. Chou’s advice on my future career in academia.
Special thanks are due to our PhD services specialist, Malinda Sampson, who has given
me fully support throughout the 6-year program. She always responded promptly to my inquiries
and requests. I am truly touched by her hospitality and warm-hearted attitude towards me as an
international student.
I would like to thank my colleagues in the PhD program, especially Dahlia Fuentes, Min-
Kyoung Rhee, Ling Xu, Rohini Pahwa, and Ian Holloway, for the support, encouragement, and
great times we shared throughout our experiences at USC.
Most importantly, from the bottom of my heart, I am incredibly grateful for my parents
and brother, Kuo-Kan Hsiao, Ching-Wu Lee, and Mu-Fong Hsiao, for their unconditional
support and love, which allowed me to pursue master’s and doctoral degrees abroad.
Finally, I would like to thank my husband, Yao-Chang Yang, for his continuous support,
encouragement, and companionship throughout my graduate years. His love and patience
enabled me to finish this journey.

- 4 -
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................... 2
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. 7
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. 9
Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... 10
Chapter 1: Introduction and Conceptual Framework .................................................................... 14
Background ............................................................................................................................... 14
Purpose of the Study ................................................................................................................. 16
Conceptual Framework ............................................................................................................. 17
Chapter 2: Overarching Theories across Three Studies ................................................................ 20
Work-Family Conflict ............................................................................................................... 20
Culture Dimensions Applied to the Work-Family Interface .................................................... 20
The GLOBE Study ................................................................................................................... 22
GLOBE’s Cultural Dimensions ............................................................................................... 23
Description of the Data ............................................................................................................. 24
Chapter 3: Do National Family-Friendly Policy Bundles Reduce Working Parents’ Work-Family
Conflict: A Multilevel Study ........................................................................................................ 27
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 27
Family-Friendly Policies ........................................................................................................... 28
Policy Dimensions .................................................................................................................... 29
Gender Egalitarianism and Work-Family Conflict ................................................................... 31
Organizational Type and Work-Family Conflict ...................................................................... 32
Family Characteristics, Gender, and Work-Family Conflict .................................................... 34
The Present Study ..................................................................................................................... 36
Methods..................................................................................................................................... 38
Data ....................................................................................................................................... 38
Sample ................................................................................................................................... 38
Measurement ......................................................................................................................... 39
Data Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 41
Results ....................................................................................................................................... 43
Work-to-Family Conflict as an Outcome Variable ............................................................... 46
- 5 -
Family-to-Work Conflict as an Outcomes Variable ............................................................. 52
Discussion ................................................................................................................................. 57
Implications for Research ......................................................................................................... 63
Chapter 4: A Cross-Cultural Study of Organizational Work-Family Initiatives, Work Demands
and Conflict, and Consequences ............................................................................................... 65
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 65
Organizational Work-Family Initiatives and Work-Family Conflict ....................................... 66
Work Demands and Work-Family Conflict .............................................................................. 68
Organizational Work-Family Initiatives , Work Demands, Work-Family Conflict, and
Outcomes ................................................................................................................................... 70
Gender and Work-Family Conflict ........................................................................................... 72
The Present Study .................................................................................................................... 72
Methods..................................................................................................................................... 76
Data ....................................................................................................................................... 76
Sample ................................................................................................................................... 76
Measurement ......................................................................................................................... 79
Data Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 80
Results ....................................................................................................................................... 81
Work-Family Initiatives and Work-Family Conflict ............................................................ 85
Work Demands and Work-Family Conflict .......................................................................... 86
Work Demands and Job-Related Outcomes.......................................................................... 86
Work-Family Initiatives and Work Demands ...................................................................... 87
Work-Family Initiatives and Job-Related Outcomes ............................................................ 88
Work-Family Conflict and Job-Related Outcomes ............................................................... 89
Discussion ................................................................................................................................. 91
Implications for Research and Practice ..................................................................................... 97
Chapter 5: Personality, Work-Family Conflict, and Well-Being at Work in a
Cross-Cultural Context ................................................................................................................ 99
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 99
Personality, Work-Family Conflict, and Culture .................................................................... 100
Personality and Job satisfaction .............................................................................................. 103
- 6 -
Work Resources, Work-Family Conflict and Job Satisfaction ............................................... 104
Gender Differences in Personality Traits and Culture ............................................................ 105
The Present Study .................................................................................................................. 106
Methods................................................................................................................................... 110
Data ..................................................................................................................................... 110
Sample ................................................................................................................................. 110
Measurement ....................................................................................................................... 111
Data Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 113
Results ..................................................................................................................................... 113
Personality and Work-Family Conflict ............................................................................... 117
Personality and Job Satisfaction ......................................................................................... 117
Work Resources, Work-Family Conflict, and Job Satisfaction .......................................... 118
Discussion ............................................................................................................................... 123
Implications for Research and Practice ................................................................................... 128
Chapter 6: Conclusions and Implications ................................................................................... 130
Summary of Major Research Findings ................................................................................... 130
Implications for Research ....................................................................................................... 135
Implications for Policies and Practices ................................................................................... 136
References ................................................................................................................................... 139

- 7 -
List of Tables
Table 2.1 Gender Egalitarianism and Collectivism Scores for 24 countries in 8 Cultural
Clusters . ....................................................................................................................................... 26
Table 3.1. Individual Descriptive Statistics of the Sample (N = 6,878) ....................................... 39
Table 3.2. Country-Level Descriptive Statistics (N = 6,878) ....................................................... 45
Table 3.3. Hierarchical Linear Model Results for Individual- and Country-Level Effects
On Work-to-Family Conflict among Men and Women (Model 1) ............................................... 46
Table 3.4. Hierarchical Linear Model Results for Individual- and Country-Level Effects
On Work-to-Family Conflict among Men and Women (Model 2 and 3) ..................................... 48
Table 3.5. Hierarchical Linear Model Results for Individual- and Country-Level Effects
On Work-to-Family Conflict among Men and Women (Model 4) ............................................... 51
Table 3.6. Hierarchical Linear Model Results for Individual- and Country-Level Effects
On Family-to-Work Conflict among Men and Women (Model 1) ............................................... 52
Table 3.7. Hierarchical Linear Model Results for Individual- and Country-Level Effects
On Family-to-Work Conflict among Men and Women (Model 2 and 3) ..................................... 54
Table 3.8. Hierarchical Linear Model Results for Individual- and Country-Level Effects
On Family-to-Work Conflict among Men and Women (Model 4) ............................................... 56
Table 4.1. Collectivism Scores for 24 Countries in Four Cultural Clusters(N = 6,878) ............... 78
Table 4.2. Comparison of Variable Means by Cultural Cluster and Gender ............................... 82
Table 4.3. Correlations among Variables by Cultural Cluster among Men ................................. 83
Table 4.4. Correlations among Variables by Cultural Cluster among Women ........................... 84
Table 4.5. Standardized Parameter Estimates for a Four-Group Cross-Cultural Model
among Men .................................................................................................................................. 90
Table 4.6. Standardized Parameter Estimates for a Four-Group Cross-Cultural Model
among Women ............................................................................................................................. 91
Table 5.1. Collectivism Scores for 14 Countries in Two Cultural Clusters (N = 4,340) ............ 111
Table 5.2. Comparison of Variable Means by Cultural Cluster and Gender (N = 4,340) .......... 114
Table 5.3. Correlations among Variables by Cultural Cluster among Men ............................... 115
Table 5.4. Correlations among Variables by Cultural Cluster among Women .......................... 116
Table 5.5. Standardized Parameter Estimates for a Two-Group Cross-Cultural Model
among Men ................................................................................................................................ 122
- 8 -
Table 5.6. Standardized Parameter Estimates for a Two-Group Cross-Cultural Model
among Women ........................................................................................................................... 122

- 9 -
List of Figures
Figure 1.1. A Multilevel Conceptual Model ................................................................................. 19
Figure 3.1. Family-Friendly Public Policy Bundles and Work-Family Conflict .......................... 37
Figure 4.1. Four-Group Cross-Cultural Model (High Collectivism, Mid Collectivism/Low
Individualism, Mid Individualism/Low Collectivism, High Individualism ................................. 75
Figure 5.1. Two-Group Cross-Cultural Model .......................................................................... 109
Figure 5.2. Two-Group Cross-Cultural Model among Men ...................................................... 120
Figure 5.3.Two-Group Cross-Cultural Model among Women ................................................... 121

- 10 -
Abstract
During recent decades, in response to economic changes, the typical family structure in
most countries has transformed from traditional breadwinner families to a dual-earner model.
Accordingly, increasing demands from work and family placed on dually employed parents have
intensified levels of conflict between work and family roles. Prior research has examined work–
family conflict separately at micro levels (individuals and families) or macro levels (social
policies such as parental leave and benefits), neglecting to acknowledge that individual work–
family experiences are greatly susceptible to cultural values. Although some cross-national
studies have taken into account cultural differences, their findings were derived from nonrandom
samples that lacked representation of many populations. To fill the void in international work–
family research, this dissertation investigated the applicability of a multilevel work–family
interface based on theories developed in Western societies to different cultural populations and
by gender. The theoretical framework for this dissertation was based on the following
perspectives: role stress theory (Kahn et al., 1964), GLOBE’s gender egalitarianism and in-group
collectivism (Gelfand et al., 2004), job demands–resources theory (Demerouti et al., 2001),
social exchange theory (Rhodes & Eisenberger, 2002), the five-factor model of personality
(McCrae & John, 1992), gender role perspective (Gutek, Searle, & Klepa, 1991), and
institutional theory.
Using data collected by the International Social Survey Program (ISSP) in 2005 from
random samples in countries located in Africa, Asia, Europe, and North and South America, this
dissertation features three interconnected studies investigating the similarities and differences in
the work–family interface between cultures and gender at three levels (macros, mezzo, and
micro): (1) the effects of public family-friendly policies on work-to-family conflict and family-
- 11 -
to-work conflict in the cultural context of gender egalitarianism; (2) the applicability of the
interface when examining organizational flexibility, work demands, work–family conflict, and
affective consequences among working parents in the context of individualism versus
collectivism; and (3) the influence of individual personality traits on perceptions of work–family
conflict and well-being at work.
This dissertation identified both similarities and differences in the work–family interface
across cultures and gender. From the perspective of macro environment, the first study examined
the effect of public family-friendly policies on bidirectional work–family conflict by gender.
Using hierarchical linear models that combined information on individuals and countries, the
study showed that parental leave policies at macro levels have greater effects on work–family
conflict among men compared to women. Individual dimensions of parental leave policies on
men’s experience of work–family conflict impinged on workplace characteristics (e.g.,
organizational type) and family characteristics (e.g., having spouses with full-time employment).
Implementing parental leave policies with high flexibility and higher rates of income
replacement may help men with working spouses or who are employed in the public sector to
reduce bidirectional conflicts between work and family. Women generally were not protected by
individual dimensions of parental leave policies. Instead, societal attitudes towards gender
played a key role in helping women reduce bidirectional conflicts between work and family roles.
From the perspective of mezzo settings, the second study investigated the work–family
interface in terms of organizational work–family initiatives, work demands, work–family conflict,
and job-related outcomes at mezzo levels. Using multigroup structural equation modeling for
data analyses, the study found that for men in individualist countries, allowance for personal
leave had stronger effects on reducing work–family conflict, whereas job autonomy significantly
- 12 -
lessened the strain of working long hours and work–family conflict among women in collectivist
countries. Furthermore, having control over work time lessened work strain and reduced the
desire of men in individualist countries to leave their work organizations. In contrast, allowance
for personal leave significantly reduced work stress and increased the commitment of women in
collectivist countries to their organizations. Interestingly, work demands had no effect on
intention to leave among men in individualist cultures.
From a perspective of micro settings, the third study examined individual differences
(personality traits) in perceptions of work–family conflict and job satisfaction in the context of
individualist versus collectivist cultures. Different dimensions of personality resulted in differing
perceptions of work–family conflict based on culture. Among three types of personality traits,
openness to experience served as a risk factor predisposing employees in collectivist cultures to
experience high levels of work–family conflict. In contrast, neuroticism had a greater influence
on work and family discord among employees in individualist countries. The deleterious effects
of neuroticism on job satisfaction differed by culture and gender. Men with high levels of
neuroticism in individualist cultures were more dissatisfied with their jobs, whereas women in
collectivist cultures who were characterized by neuroticism tended to have lower levels of job
satisfaction. Compared to the other two dimensions of personality (neuroticism and
conscientiousness), openness to experience was the only trait that increased job satisfaction
among women in collectivist countries. In sum, gender differences were most pronounced in
collectivist cultures.
Altogether, findings of this dissertation examining the work–family interface from
macro-, mezzo-, and micro perspectives suggested that experiencing conflicts between work and
family greatly impinged on cultural values and gender roles among working parents.
- 13 -
Investigating the applicability of a multilevel work–family interface based on theories developed
in Western societies to different cultural populations and by gender, the results of this
dissertation broaden knowledge regarding the international work–family framework.

- 14 -
Chapter 1: Introduction and Conceptual Framework
Background
During the mid-20th century, globalization spurred a transformation in advanced
industrialized societies as married women increasingly left home to pursue paid employment. In
response, major changes relevant to work–family challenges have taken place throughout the
world that captured the attention of demographers, economists, policy makers, and the public.
On one hand, new models reflective of dual-earner families have emerged. In the United States,
the percentage of dual-earner families has increased dramatically, by approximately 15% from
1975 to 2008, whereas traditional breadwinner families have decreased by 25% during the past
35 years (Harrington, Deusen, &Humberd, 2011). Because both parents work outside the home
without a stay-at-home parent focused on family demands and tasks, the responsibilities of both
employed parents have intensified levels of conflict between work and family roles. The rise in
dual-earner families has had a significant effect on the ability of individuals to balance work and
family roles. On the other hand, the total fertility rate has sharply decreased in most developed
countries and is now below the replacement rate. Some national leaders have viewed negative
consequences of conflicts in negotiating work and family demands (e.g., rapidly declining birth
rates) as national security issues that ultimately might change a nation’s social landscape (China
Post, 2011).
Public policies and family-friendly practices have been implemented at macro and mezzo
levels to address work–family conflict experienced by working parents and to promote a better
work–life balance. Western countries have enacted family-friendly policies allowing parents to
take time to fulfill familial responsibilities, including caring for an infant or young child, while
remaining secure in the knowledge that they would be able to return to the same or a comparable
- 15 -
job at the end of their leave (Ray, Gornick, & Schmitt, 2009). Research has examined work–
family conflict separately at micro levels (individuals and families) or macro levels (social
policies such as parental leave and benefits). However, social policies impinge on daily lives of
individuals and affect work and family demands. Individuals work under country-specific legal
and normative constraints that further affect how they negotiate work and family demands. A
wide variety of cross-national research has investigated the effects of parental policies on
maternal and child health (Tanaka, 2005) and gender division of household work (Fuwa, 2004;
Greenstein, 2009; Knudsen & Wæ rness, 2008). However, little is known about whether family-
friendly policies at macro levels effectively decrease work–family conflict among working
parents or whether organizational work–family initiatives at mezzo levels help to ease work–
family tensions and strengthen positive job-related outcomes. Furthermore, at micro levels,
individual factors (e.g., personality characteristic) have received far less attention as antecedents
of both work–family conflict and well-being at work.
Societal and national culture has played a key role in shaping the work–family interface
(Powell, Francesco, & Ling, 2009). However, the majority of extant research on policy analysis,
organizational work–family initiatives, and personality traits has been conducted in Western
societies that share comparable cultural values and economic circumstances. It remains unclear
whether the same theoretical model developed in Western societies applies to populations in
different cultural contexts, such as Asia and Latin America. Although some studies have used a
cross-cultural or international approach to explore the influences of cultural, economic, and
social differences on governmental and organizational flexibility and individual perceptions of
work–family conflict (Spector et al., 2003, 2007), methodological issues (e.g., nonrandom
samples from managers or white-collar employees) have resulted in less representative and less
- 16 -
conclusive findings. Moreover, scholars have suggested gender differences have significant
effects on perceptions or experiences of work and family discord (Bakker, Demerouti, & Dollard,
2008; Ichino & Enrico, 2007). However, findings have been inconsistent due to considerable
differences among samples used in these studies. To address gaps in the international work–
family literature, this dissertation investigated the effect of public family-friendly policies,
organizational work-family practices, and personality traits on individual work–family
experiences and processes at macro, mezzo, and micro levels.
Purpose of the Study
Using national probability samples from countries in Africa, Asia, Europe, and North and
South America, this dissertation aimed to:
(1) explore whether research models based on theories developed in Western societies are
transportable across diverse cultures;
(2) examine multilevel effects of family-friendly policies, organizational type (e.g.,
public), and family characteristics (e.g., marital status, having a spouse with full-time
employment) on work–family conflict by gender among working parents in 24 countries divided
into eight clusters based on gender egalitarianism;
(3) examine relationships among organizational work–family initiatives (i.e., job
autonomy, allowance for personal leave), work demands, work–family conflict, and affective
consequences (i.e., intention to leave and organizational commitment) among working parents in
24 countries divided into four cultural clusters based on level of collectivism as well as by
gender; and
- 17 -
(4) examine how personality traits affect work–family conflict, work resources, and well-
being at work (i.e., job satisfaction) by gender among working parents with full-time
employment randomly drawn from 14 countries divided into two cultural clusters (individualist
and collectivist).
Conceptual Framework
The theoretical framework for this dissertation was based on the following perspectives:
role stress theory (Kahn et al., 1964), GLOBE’s gender egalitarianism and in-group collectivism
(Gelfand et al., 2004), job demands–resources theory (Demerouti et al., 2001), social exchange
theory (Rhodes & Eisenberger, 2002), the five-factor model of personality (McCrae & John,
1992), gender role perspective (Gutek, Searle, & Klepa, 1991), and institutional theory. Based on
existing theoretical and empirical findings, a multilevel conceptual framework was constructed
to represent the work–family interface in a cross-cultural context (see Figure 1.1). This
dissertation consisted of three interconnected studies examining the similarities and differences
in the work–family interface between cultures and gender at three levels (macros, mezzo, and
micro), including (1) Do National Family-Friendly Policy Bundles Reduce Work–Family
Conflict among Working Parents? A Multilevel Study; (2) A Cross-Cultural Study of
Organizational Work–Family Initiatives, Work Demands and Conflict, and Consequences; and
(3) Personality, Work–Family Conflict, and Well-Being at Work in a Cross-Cultural Context.
The data this dissertation used came from the International Social Survey Program (ISSP), which
has a strong reputation for methodological rigor. This use of cross-national data collected from
random samples allowed findings to be more representative and conclusive.
- 18 -
From the perspective of the macro environment, the first study examined whether family-
friendly policies effectively decreased bidirectional work–family conflict among men and
women in the context of gender egalitarianism using hierarchical linear models with information
regarding both individuals and countries. From the perspective of mezzo settings, the second
study investigated the work–family interface in terms of organizational work–family initiatives,
work demands, work–family conflict, and job-related outcomes. It focused on whether
organizational flexible arrangements effectively decreased work demands and work–family
conflict but strengthened positive work-related outcomes in the context of individualist versus
collectivist cultures using structural equation modeling with a multiple-group approach. From a
perspective of micro settings, the third study focused on individual differences in experiences of
work–family conflict and well-being at work in the context of individualist versus collectivist
cultures using structural equation modeling with a multiple-group approach. Different
dimensions of personality resulted in differing perceptions of work–family conflict based on
culture. The study examined similarities and differences in personality, conflict, and well-being
between genders and cultures.
- 19 -

- 20 -
Chapter 2: Overarching Theories across Three Studies
Work–Family Conflict
Much of the research on work and family issues has relied on the occupational stress
perspective and role stress theory (Kahn et al., 1964). According to role stress theory, roles are
the result of the expectations of others about the appropriate behavior of someone in a particular
position. When various members of the role set hold different role expectations for the focal
person, they may impose pressures that result in psychological conflict. Work–family conflict
(WFC) has been defined as “a form of interrole conflict in which the role pressures from the
work and family domains are mutually incompatible in some respect” (Greenhaus & Beutell,
1985, p. 77) and consists of two broad dimensions: work-to-family conflict (i.e., work interfering
with family) and family-to-work-conflict (i.e., family interfering with work; Frone, Russell, &
Cooper, 1997). It has been treated as an outcome of stress. On the other hand, WFC often has
been considered a potential source of stress that has adverse effects on affective work outcomes
such as organizational commitment (Lambert, Pasupuleti, Cluse-Tolar, Jennings, & Baker, 2006;
Mesmer-Magnus & Viswesvaran, 2005) and job satisfaction (Allen, 2001; Kopelman, Prottas,
Thompson, & Jahn, 2006). Moreover, WFC has been associated with intention to quit, because
leaving a job is regarded as a way to cope with the stress created by conflicting work and family
roles (Nissly, Mor Barak, & Levin, 2005).
Cultural Dimensions Applied to the Work–Family Interface
Societal and national culture has played a key role in shaping the work–family interface
(Powell, Francesco, & Ling, 2009). The nature and strength of the relationship between
individual experiences in the work and family domains may be affected by norms and values
- 21 -
related to the cultural meaning (Ashforth, Kreiner, & Fugate, 2000). Culture has been defined as
“shared motives, values, beliefs, identities, and interpretations or meanings of significant events
that result from common experiences of members of collectives that are transmitted across
generations” (House & Javidan, 2004, p. 15). Two dimensions of culture that have been used to
explain phenomena related to the work–family interface are gender egalitarianism and
individualism and collectivism. Emphasizing social norms regarding gender roles, gender
egalitarianism has been defined as “the degree to which an organization or a society minimizes
gender role differences while promoting gender equality” (House & Javidan, 2004, p. 12).
Cultures with higher levels of gender egalitarianism have a higher proportion of women in
positions of authority, more female participation in the labor force, and less gender segregation
in the workforce (Powell et al., 2009). For example, Canada, Colombia, and Kazakhstan have
more egalitarian practices and values, whereas Egypt, Kuwait, and Morocco have less egalitarian
practices and values (Emrich, Denmark, & Den Hartog, 2004). With more women entering the
global labor market, gender roles are becoming less strictly defined. However, traditional gender
roles are more likely to be emphasized in cultures with low levels of gender equality (Javidan et
al., 2004). Individuals in cultures with less gender equality may exhibit more pronounced gender
segregation in work and family domains than those in cultures with high levels of gender
egalitarianism.
Individualism and collectivism refers to “the extent to which people see themselves as an
integral part of a social group with primary alliance to the group or as separate individuals with
primary responsibility for themselves and their very immediate family only” (Mor Barak, 2011,
p. 194). Individualism indicates the extent to which individuals prioritize their goals over group
goals and prefer casual relationships to close personal ties, whereas collectivism is the extent to
- 22 -
which individuals express pride in being part of a group, community, or family (Masuda et al.,
2011). Individualists care primarily about their own needs, whereas collectivists enjoy
interacting closely with others (Falicov, 2001). Individualistic nations include Hungary, Sweden,
and the United States, whereas Bulgaria, Guatemala, and Taiwan are considered collectivist
(Hofstede, 2010).
The GLOBE Study
Hofstede’s (1980) cultural dimensions have been used extensively in cross-national
work–family research. Hofstede’s study was the first large-scale empirical project to examine
national cultures by administering 117,000 questionnaires in 1967 and 1973 among employees
working in subsidiaries of IBM, a large technology company, in 40 countries (Mor Barak, 2011).
Nevertheless, Hofstede’s findings have been criticized for poor reliability, validity,
generalizability, and robustness. First, he used training opportunities and good physical working
conditions as core concepts of collectivism (House et al., 2004). The scale used to measure
collectivism lacked face validity. Second, the samples used in his study only included employees
of IBM, which did not ensure representativeness. Third, operating under the assumption that
national cultures are uniform, Hofstede’s study ignored the increased diversity within nations
(Mor Barak, 2011).
To augment knowledge of cross-cultural interactions, a 10-year cross-national research
project, known as the Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness (GLOBE)
program, was conceived by Robert J. House of the Wharton School at the University of
Pennsylvania in 1991. He led a research team of 170 social scientists and management scholars
that collected data from 17,000 middle managers from 951 organizations in financial services,
- 23 -
food processing, and telecommunications functioning in 62 countries (House et al., 2004). The
GLOBE study empirically established nine cultural dimensions that measured the similarities
and/or differences in norms, values, beliefs, and practices among societies. This dissertation used
GLOBE cultural dimensions to examine the work–family interface due to their distinguishing
features. First, GLOBE’s cultural dimensions expanded on findings by Hofstede (1980),
Schwartz (1994), Smith (1996), Inglehart (1998), and others. Second, constructs were defined,
conceptualized, and operationalized by a cross-cultural research team consisting of natives or
those with a strong working knowledge of the cultures being studied (Mor Barak, 2011). The
authors measured nine dimensions both as practices (the way things are) and values (the way
things should be): performance orientation, assertiveness, future orientation, human orientation,
institutional collectivism, in-group collectivism, gender egalitarianism, power distance, and
uncertainty avoidance (House et al., 2004). Using the results of previous empirical studies and
other factors such as common language, geography, religion, work-related values, and economic
similarities, the GLOBE team grouped 62 societies into 10 cultural clusters: Anglo, Confucian
Asia, Eastern Europe, Germanic Europe, Latin America, Latin Europe, Middle East, Nordic
Europe, Southern Asia, and Sub-Saharan Africa.
GLOBE’s Cultural Dimensions
The multilevel theoretical framework of this dissertation relied on GLOBE’s cultural
dimensions of gender egalitarianism and in-group collectivism. In the GLOBE study, gender
egalitarianism was defined as the way in which societies divide roles between women and men.
The more gender egalitarian a society is, the less it relies on biology to determine gender roles.
The construct was assessed at both the societal and organizational level; one construct measured
individual perceptions of the current degree of gender egalitarianism in their society, and the
- 24 -
other measured perceptions of the ideal degree of gender egalitarianism. The authors proposed
that societies with greater gender equality would have higher levels of human development and
psychological health (Emrich et al., 2004). The authors conducted correlation analysis between
two GLOBE gender egalitarianism measures and Hofstede’s (1980) masculinity/femininity
dimension but failed to find a significant link. The clusters with the highest gender egalitarianism
practice scores were Anglo, Eastern Europe, Latin America, and Nordic Europe (see Table 2.1).
In-group collectivism is a construct that assesses the degree to which individuals express pride,
loyalty, and interdependence in their families (Gelfand, Bhawuk, Nishi, & Bechtold, 2004). The
The geographical clusters with the highest in-group collectivism practice scores were Confucian
Asia, Eastern Europe, Latin America, Middle East, and Southern Asia, which is similar to
patterns identified by Hofstede (see Table 2.1).
Description of the Data
The data used in this dissertation came from the International Social Survey Program
(ISSP). The ISSP is an annual social survey conducted in 40 countries throughout the world.
Since 1985, a different topic has been selected by a subcommittee each year as a module of focus
in addition to standard background items. The annual topics for ISSP are developed over several
years and pretested in various countries. During the annual plenary meeting of ISSP, researchers
adopt the final questionnaire. The ISSP team concentrates on developing the questions that are (1)
meaningful and relevant to all countries and (2) can be expressed in an equivalent manner in all
relevant languages. The questionnaire is originally drafted in British English and then translated
to other languages using standard back-translation procedures. ISSP data are gathered using a 15-
to 20-minute questionnaire conducted in tandem with regular national surveys or as a separate
survey. The ISSP’s official data archive is the Zentralarchiv at the University of Cologne in
- 25 -
Germany. Data used for this dissertation were collected via a multistage, stratified, probability-
proportional-to-size sampling method. All samples were probability samples. The data collected
by ISSP have been used widely by other social scholars (Fuwa, 2004; Fuwa & Cohen, 2007;
Knudsen & Wæ rness, 2008; Lu, Kao, Chang, Wu, & Cooper, 2008).
Topics of focus in the ISSP change from year to year, with to the goal of replicating
various issues approximately every five years. This dissertation used ISSP data from 2005,
which included a special topic of “work orientations” that covered issues related to employment
arrangements, job characteristics, subjective job experiences, work outcomes, work–life balance,
work centrality, and solidarity and conflict in work relationships. Furthermore, the ISSP data set
contained several sociodemographic variables. The data on work orientations were collected
from 31 countries: Australia, Bulgaria, Canada, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican
Republic, Finland, Flanders, France, Germany, Great Britain, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Japan,
Latvia, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Philippines, Portugal, Russia, Slovenia, South Africa,
South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, and the United States. Based on GLOBE
study classifications, 24 countries were grouped into regional clusters: Anglo, Confucian Asia,
Eastern Europe, Germanic Europe, Latin America, Latin Europe, Nordic Europe, and Southern
Asia. Seven countries (i.e., Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Dominican Republic, Flanders,
Latvia, and Norway) were excluded from the analysis because these countries were not included
in the GLOBE study. To investigate work–family challenges faced by dual-earner families, only
those participants with children and full-time employment were selected for analysis in this
dissertation. Data were collected from one member of each household. Therefore, the final
sample featured 6,878 parents (4,015 men and 2,863 women) across 24 countries (see Table 2.1).

- 26 -

Table 2.1
Gender Egalitarianism and Collectivism Scores for 24 Countries in 8 Cultural Clusters
Gender
Egalitarianis
m Scores
In-Group
Collectivism
Scores
Countries Cultural
Clusters

Gender
Egalitarianism
Cluster Scores
In-Group
Collectivism
Cluster Scores
3.34 4.25
US-United
States
Anglo

3.4 4.30
3.70 4.26 CA-Canada
3.40 4.17 AU-Australia
3.22 3.67
NZ-New
Zealand
3.67 4.08
GB-Great
Britain
3.21 5.14 IE-Ireland
3.66 5.09
ZA-South
Africa
3.10 4.02 DE- Germany Germanic
Europe

3.14 4.21
2.97 3.97 CH-Switzerland
3.64 4.37 FR-France
Latin
Europe

3.36 4.80
3.01 5.45 ES-Spain
3.66 5.51 PT-Portugal
3.19 4.70 IL-Israel
3.35 4.07 FI-Finland Nordic
Europe

3.71 3.75 3.93 3.53 DK-Denmark
3.84 3.66 SE-Sweden
4.08 5.25 HU-Hungary Eastern
Europe

3.84 5.53 3.96 5.43 SI-Slovenia
4.04 5.63 RU-Russia
3.64 5.71 MX-Mexico
Latin
America
3.41 5.52
3.18 5.59 TW-Taiwan Confucian
Asia

3.18 5.42 3.19 4.63 JP-Japan
2.50 5.54 KR-South Korea
3.64 6.36 PH-Philippines
Southern
Asia
3.28 5.87
Source: Emich et al.,, 2004 & Gelfand et al., 2004

- 27 -
Chapter 3: Do National Family-Friendly Policy Bundles Reduce Working Parents’
Work–Family Conflict? A Multilevel Study
Introduction
During the past few decades, changes in family structure worldwide have been profound.
Among the most significant changes has been the dramatic decrease in traditional breadwinner
families consisting of one parent who works and one parent who stays at home to handle family
demands and responsibilities. In the United States, the percentage of traditional breadwinner
families has decreased by 25% during the past 35 years, whereas dual-earner families have
increased dramatically, by approximately 15% from 1975 to 2008 (Harrington, Deusen, & Ladge,
2010). Given that both parents work outside the home without a stay-at-home parent focused on
family demands and tasks, the responsibilities of both employed parents have increased
accordingly. The rise in dual-earner families has a significant effect on balancing work and
family roles.
To address conflicts experienced by employed parents in negotiating work and family
demands, family-friendly policies enacted by Western countries allow working parents to take
time off to fulfill familial responsibilities (Ray et al., 2009). Social policies impinge on daily
lives of individuals and affect work and family demands. Individuals work under country-
specific legal and normative constraints that further affect how they negotiate work and family
demands. Although objectives of family-friendly leave policies are to reduce work–family
conflict and promote work–life balance, little is known about whether these policies effectively
decrease work–family conflict. Research has examined work–family conflict (WFC) separately
at micro levels (individuals and families) or macro levels (social policies such as parental leave
- 28 -
and benefits). A wide variety of cross-national research has investigated the effects of parental
policies on maternal and child health (Tanaka, 2005) and gender division of household work
(Fuwa, 2004; Greenstein, 2009; Knudsen & Wæ rness, 2008), rather than on decreasing work–
family conflict. Moreover, findings of previous studies regarding gender differences in WFC
have been inconsistent (Korabik, McElwain, & Chappell, 2008). Recognizing the gaps in
international work–family research, drawing on role stress theory (Kahn et al., 1964), gender
egalitarianism (Emrich et al., 2004), and institutional theory (Meyer & Rowan, 1977) the present
study examined multilevel effects of family-friendly policies, organizational type (e.g., public),
and family characteristics (e.g., marital status, having a spouse with full-time employment) on
working parents’ work–family conflict by gender, using data collected in 2005 from 6,878
individuals in 24 countries in Africa, Asia, Europe, and North and South America.
Family-Friendly Policies
Working parents in most countries today are entitled to different types of leave known by
various labels. The distinction between types of leave is increasingly blurred in many countries.
The most common types of leave include maternity leave, parental leave, and paternity leave.
Maternity leave aims to protect working women during pregnancy and recovery from childbirth.
By safeguarding employment and income security during and after maternity, maternity
protection contributes to the health and well-being of women and their babies and the realization
of gender equality and women’s empowerment (ILO, 2010). Parental leave is gender-neutral,
job-protected leave designed to allow employed parents to care for small children at home (Hass,
2003). In some countries, taking parental leave is considered an individual right, whereas the
remainder is a family right (Moss, 2009). Parental leave has been considered an effective
strategy for increasing involvement of women in the labor market, promoting gender equality
- 29 -
and active participation in child care, facilitating work–family reconciliation, and increasing the
national fertility rate (VanDoorne-Huiskes et al., 1999). Paternity leave also allows men to spend
a few days or weeks with family after childbirth or adoption with job protection (Hass, 2003).
Policy Dimensions
Parental leave provisions vary in terms of four main dimensions: (1) length of total
continuous leave available (maternity, paternity, parental, and child-care leave; typically ranging
from 9 months to 3 years and not always with pay); (2) entitlement—a mix of family and
individual entitlements with the remainder divided equally between individuals (which may or
may not be transferable); (3) income replacement—flat, means-tested, partial rates, or a
combination of methods; and (4) flexibility, or how leave can be used (at times chosen by the
employee, in one segment or in shorter blocks of time, on a full-time or part-time basis, or the
ability to take additional leave in special circumstances; Moss, 2009). Compared with the United
States providing only 12 weeks of unpaid parental leave (Moss & O’Brien, 2006), the Swedish
parental-leave scheme offers the most generous combination of time and financial support to
parents (Fuwa & Cohen, 2007). It provides 480 days of leave per child up to the age of 8 or until
they complete their first year of school, a high income replacement rate (80%) for most of the
leave period, and significant flexibility in terms of using leave in more than one block and on a
part-time or full-time basis (Moss & O’Brien, 2006).
A wide variety of cross-national research has investigated the effects of parental policies
on maternal and child health, well-being of preschool children and their parents, labor market
attachment among women, and gender roles within families. Previous empirical studies using
macro data from Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries
- 30 -
found that extended parental and maternity leave have positive effects on child health outcomes.
Using data from 18 OECD countries from 1969 to 2000, Tanaka (2005) found that the length of
job-protected paid leave significantly decreased infant mortality rates. Similarly, using data from
16 European countries from 1969 to 1994, Ruhm (2000) showed that paid leave reduced
mortality during the postneonatal period and early childhood (between 1 and 5 years of age).
Recent sociological research has studied the gender division of housework in terms of national
context (Fuwa, 2004; Greenstein, 2009; Knudsen & Wæ rness, 2008). Using 44 time-use surveys
between 1965 and 2003 from 20 countries combined with original national-level data, Hook
(2006) employed a multilevel model to examine the relationship between national context and
unpaid work behavior among men. He found that unpaid work time among men increased with
national levels of employment of women. The effects of children on men’s unpaid work time
depended on women’s national employment hours, the length of available parental leave, and the
eligibility of men to take parental leave, indicating that particular public policies affect men in
specific household situations. It is believed that family-friendly policies ease the burden of
negotiating work and family demands and lead to lower levels of WFC (Michel et al., 2011);
however, few if any studies have examined the effects of parental policies on work–family
conflict using cross-national random samples. Thus, the findings of previous studies led to the
following hypothesis:
H1: Parents in countries with more family-friendly leave policy bundles—characterized
by (a) higher flexibility of use, (b) longer length of leave, and (c) higher income replacement—
would report lower levels of work–family conflict (both work-to-family and family-to-work
conflict).

- 31 -
Gender Egalitarianism and Work–Family Conflict
Gender egalitarianism and gender-role attitudes are interwoven in the work–family
literature and generally conceived of as precursors to work–family conflict. Gender
egalitarianism has been defined as the way in which societies divide roles between women and
men (Emrich et al., 2004). Understanding the gender-role attitudes (traditional/egalitarian) of
individuals is critical to predicting how much conflict they experience in negotiating work and
family demands. The more gender egalitarian a society is, the less it relies on biology to
determine gender roles. Korabik et al. (2008) posited that women with traditional gender-role
attitudes might experience higher levels of work-to-family conflict if they have paid employment
compared to those with more egalitarian attitudes about work and life. Similarly, men with
traditional gender-role attitudes might experience higher levels of family-to-work conflict if they
spend time taking care of children or performing domestic tasks compared to those with more
egalitarian attitudes.
There are several empirical studies examining the association between gender
egalitarianism and work–family conflict. A study conducted by Rajadhyaksha and Velgach
(2009) in India investigated the relationship between gender, gender-role ideology, and WFC
among 405 employees. Using moderated regression analyses, they found individuals with more
traditional ideologies experienced more work–family conflict. Moreover, gender had moderating
effects on the relationship between gender ideology and family-to-work conflict specifically.
Women with traditional attitudes experienced greater family-to-work conflict than egalitarian
women and men and traditional men. Using cross-national data collected in Canada, Spain,
Taiwan, and the United States, Poelmans et al. (2006) examined the relationship between gender
egalitarianism and work–family conflict among 835 parents with full-time jobs. After controlling
- 32 -
for job sector and job level, they found that parents with traditional gender-role attitudes
experienced greater WFC than those with egalitarian attitudes.
H2: Parents in countries with more egalitarian gender practices (e.g., Nordic Europe,
Eastern Europe) would report lower levels of work–family conflict (both work-to-family and
family-to-work conflict).
Organizational Type and Work–Family Conflict
Some organizational characteristics may moderate the relationship between family-
friendly public policy bundles and work–family conflict. According to institutional theory,
organizations are influenced by normative pressures arising from external sources such as the
government (Meyer & Rowan, 1977). Under some conditions, these pressures may cause
organizations to be guided by legitimated environment (Zucker, 1987). During recent decades,
governments have strongly encouraged employers to provide family-friendly programs, such as
child care and flexible scheduling (Goodstein, 1994). Social welfare professionals and other
researchers have also urged organizations to proactively engage in key work–family practices to
help employees balance their work and family roles (Hewlett, 1991; Kamerman & Kahn, 1987).
Hence, these social and political forces form various institutional pressures on organizations to
adopt family-friendly practices in the workplace.
Oliver (1991) purported that organizational conformity to institutional pressures may
depend on congruence of those expectations with organizational goals. This congruence is likely
to be strong for public organizations, which will be more likely to conform to pressure to adopt
family-friendly practices. Governments can use their power to authorize policies and structures
that other organizations in the public sector will adopt (Scott, 1987). In the United States, federal
- 33 -
and state governments have taken leading roles to promote child care and flexible workplace
options in the public sector. In 1974, the federal government adopted a flexible scheduling policy,
becoming the first major organization to adopt work–family programs (Fernandez, 1986).
Subsequently, California mandated that all state agencies provide child care information and
referral services to their employees, whereas other states such as Michigan and New York
introduced initiatives that fostered public support of child care for state employees (Hayghe,
1988). Australia did not introduce statutory maternity leave until 2011. However, in 2004,
approximately 45% of women employed in the public sector had access to paid maternity leave
through industrial awards or workplace agreements (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2004).
Similarly, only public employees had access to unpaid parental leave before Taiwan’s
government introduced the Gender Equality in Employment Act in 2002 (Li, 2006).
H3: Parents working in public organization would report lower levels of work–family
conflict (both work-to-family and family-to-work conflict).
H4: The association between public organizations and parents’ work–family conflict
(both work-to-family and family-to-work conflict) would be more negative in countries with
more family-friendly leave policy bundles—characterized by (a) higher flexibility of use, (b)
longer length of leave, and (c) higher income replacement.
H5: The association between public organizations and parents’ work–family conflict
(both work-to-family and family-to-work conflict) would be more negative in countries with
more egalitarian gender roles (e.g., Nordic Europe, Eastern Europe).

- 34 -
Family Characteristics, Gender, and Work–Family Conflict
Family characteristics and gender may have a significant effect on work–family conflict.
Individuals who are married and have children typically have more family role responsibilities.
When confronted with antecedents such as work domain stressors, married parents may
experience greater work–family conflict than those who are single and/or without parental
responsibilities (Ford, Heinen, & Langkamer, 2007). Family characteristics (e.g., marital status,
parental status, having a working spouse) may also lead to higher levels of family-to-work
conflict (Michel et al., 2010). Moreover, levels of work–family conflict may differ by gender.
Some studies have found that men experience greater work-to-family conflict than women
(Galinsky, Aumann, & Bond, 2008; Harrinton, Deusen, & Humberd, 2011). Using data from the
National Study of the Changing Workforce, Galinsky et al. (2008) found that fathers in dual-
earner couples experienced significantly greater work–family conflict than women, and the level
of conflict has increased about 25% from 1977 to 2008.
Similarly, the results of a study using a sample of 963 white-collar American men
showed men felt work caused more conflict with family life than family life caused conflict with
work (Harrinton et al., 2011). Their family life was more than four times as likely to be
interrupted quite often or very often by work than their time at work was likely to be interrupted
by family matters. However, other studies have found that women report higher levels of work–
family conflict than men (Carlson, Kacmer & Williams, 2000; McElwain, Korabik, & Rosin,
2005). Most studies have found no difference in WFC between men and women (Byron, 2005).
Byron (2005) conducted a meta-analysis of 61 published studies that suggested gender has no
effects on either work-to-family conflict or family-to-work conflict. Due to inconsistencies in the
- 35 -
literature, there is a need to examine how gender and marital status affect levels of WFC among
employed parents with spouses who are also employed full-time.
H6: Family characteristics related to (a) marital status and (b) having a spouse with full-
time employment would increase parents’ work–family conflict (both work-to-family and
family-to-work conflict).
H7: The association between marital status and parents’ work–family conflict (both
work-to-family and family-to-work conflict) would be weaker in countries with more family-
friendly leave policy bundles—characterized by (a) higher flexibility of use, (b) longer length of
leave, and (c) higher income replacement.
H8: The association between marital status and parents’ work–family conflict (both
work-to-family and family-to-work conflict) would be weaker in countries with more egalitarian
gender roles (e.g., Nordic Europe, Eastern Europe).
H9: The association between having a spouse with full-time employment and parents’
work–family conflict would be weaker in countries with more family-friendly leave policy
bundles—characterized by (a) higher flexibility of use, (b) longer length of leave, and (c) higher
income replacement.
H10: The association between having a spouse with full-time employment and parents’
work–family conflict (both work-to-family and family-to-work conflict) would be weaker in
countries with more egalitarian gender roles (e.g., Nordic Europe, Eastern Europe).

- 36 -
The Present Study
The literature reviewed earlier has shown that employees’ work–family conflict has been
examined separately at micro levels (individuals and families) or macro levels (social policies
such as parental leave and benefits that aim to create a more family-friendly work environment).
However, because social policies affect individuals, as do various legal and societal constraints
unique to individual nations, additional research is needed to explore how social policies
influence work–family conflict at an individual level. It remains unclear whether family-friendly
policies can decrease work–family conflict. Furthermore, discrepancies in the results of previous
studies examining the effects of gender egalitarianism, marital status, and gender on WFC could
be attributed to differences in methodologies. For example, participants included in these studies
differed considerably. Some studies employed only managerial employees (Masuda et al., 2012;
McElwain et al., 2005; Spector et al., 2007), whereas others have used samples that were skewed
toward one gender or the other (Huffman, Payne, & Castro, 2003). The samples also differed in
terms of employment status (full-time vs. part time). Moreover, in terms of international research,
some studies only examined participants from one country, with no between-country
comparisons (Fu & Schaffer, 2001), whereas others used samples restricted to Caucasian
participants from the United States and Canada (Byron, 2005) or employees of a multinational
corporation (Hill, Yang, Hawkins, & Ferris, 2004).
Recognizing these gaps in the international work–family literature, the present study
examined multilevel effects of family-friendly policies, organizational type (e.g., public
organization), and family characteristics (e.g., marital status and having a spouse with full-time
employment) on work–family conflict among working parents, using data collected in 2005 from
national probability samples in 24 countries in Africa, Asia, Europe, and North and South
- 37 -
America. The conceptual model is presented in Figure 3.1. Because results of studies examining
gender differences and WFC have been inconsistent, we ran multilevel conceptual models
separately by gender to better understand the effect of family-friendly policies on WFC among
both men and women.
Figure 3.1 Family-Friendly Public Policy Bundles and Work-Family Conflict

Maternity Leave/Paternity Leave/Parental Leave
Work-to-Family
Conflict

(Macro Level) Family-Friendly Government
Policy Bundles
Family-to-Work
Conflict

(Mezzo-Level)
Organizational
Type

Outcome
Variable
(Micro-Level)
Marital
Status
Having a Spouse
with Full-Time
Job
Flexibility of Use/Length of Leave/Income Replacement Rate
Culture
Gender Egalitarianism
Private
Sector
Public Sector
Family
Characteristics
- 38 -
Methods
Data
This study used data from the 2005 International Social Survey Program: Work
Orientation modules, a cross-national collaboration in which independent institutions replicated
survey questions in their own countries (Zentralarchiv fǘr Empirische Sozialforschung, 2004).
Data used in the present study were collected in 24 countries: Australia, Denmark, Finland,
France, Germany, Great Britain, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway,
the Philippines, Portugal, Russia, Slovenia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sweden,
Switzerland, Taiwan, and the United States. The sample was restricted to participants who had
children and full-time jobs. Data were collected from one member of each household. A random
sample of 6,878 participants (4,015 men and 2,863 women) was included in our analysis.
Sample
Table 3.1 shows individual-level descriptive statistics for all 24 countries. Men averaged
40.11 years old, compared to 38.38 years old for women. Most participants—86% of men and
73% of women—were married. Thirty-five percent of women worked for public organizations
compared to 22% of men. More men were supervisors than women (42% vs. 29%, respectively).
Men and women received about the same length of education (12.18 years vs. 12.74 years,
respectively). Thirty-seven percent of men had spouses with full-time jobs, whereas 66% of
women had spouses with full-time job. The average score of work-to-family conflict was 2.67
for men, compared to 2.63 for women. The average score of family-to-work conflict was 2.11 for
women, slightly higher than family-to-work conflict scores of men (M = 2.09).

- 39 -

Measurement
Dependent Variables
Work–family conflict. Reflecting a bidirectional conceptualization of work–family
conflict, two items were used to measure the degree of stress caused by difficulty balancing work
and family domains. Participants were asked whether the demands of their job interfered with
their family life (work-to-family conflict) and whether the demands of their family life interfered
with their job (family-to-work conflict). Responses were scored on a 5-point Likert scale (1 =
always to 5 = never). After reverse coding, higher scores indicated higher levels of work-to-
family or family-to-work conflict.

Table 3.1
Individual Descriptive Statistics of the Sample (N = 6,878)
Variable Men (n = 4,015) Women (n = 2,863)
M SD Range M SD Range
Work-to-family conflict 2.67 1.08 1–5 2.63 1.08 1–5
Family-to-work conflict 2.09 0.96 1–5 2.11 0.97 1–5
Public organization 0.22 0.41 0–1 0.35 0.48 0–1
Married 0.86 0.35 0–1 0.73 0.44 0–1
Spouse works full-time 0.37 0.48 0–1 0.66 0.47 0–1
Supervisor 0.42 0.49 0–1 0.29 0.45 0–1
Education 12.18 4.33 0–36 12.74 3.74 0–31
Age 40.11 9.27 18–78 38.38 8.97 18–79
- 40 -
Independent Variables
Individual-level variables.
Organizational type. Organizational type is assessed with a single item measuring
whether respondents worked for a private or public employer, or were self-employed. Responses
were coded as 1 = public sector and 0 = private sector or self-employed.
Family characteristics. Marital status (1 = married, 0 = other) and dual-earner family
status (1 = having a spouse with full-time employment, 0 = other) were dichotomous variables.
Control variables. Two covariates, job position and education, were included in the
models. Job position (1 = supervisor, 0 = other) was measured as a dichotomous variable.
Education was measured in years.
Macro-level variables.
Family-friendly public policy. Three variables were created to measure three dimensions
of family-friendly public policy: flexibility of use, length of leave, and income replacement rate.
Adapted from Devon and Moss (2002), flexibility of use was assessed as 1 = no flexibility; 2 =
leave can be taken full-time or part-time; 3 = leave can be taken in one block or several blocks of
time; 4 = leave can be taken for a shorter period with a higher income replacement rate or for
longer period with a lower income replacement rate; 5 = leave can be transferred to nonparents;
and 6 = leave can be taken at any time until a child reaches a certain age (see Table 3.2). Length
of leave was measured as total statutory postnatal leave, ranging from 67 days (the Philippines)
to 1,206 days (France). This variable was categorized as 1 = less than 180 days; 2 = between 180
and 360 days; 3 = between 361 and 540 days; 4 = between 541 and 720 days; and 5 = more than
- 41 -
720 days. Income replacement rate was measured as each country’s financial support for parents
taking parental leaves in 2005. The rate of income replacement was calculated as average income
replacement provided by each government to each parent who took parental leave during 2005
divided by per capita gross domestic product of each country (World Bank, 2011; see Table 3.2).
The rate of income replacement indicated how well each nation financially supported parents
who took leave, ranging from 15.38% (Taiwan) to 105.45% (Slovenia). Economic development
(indicated by per capita gross domestic product) was embedded in the income replacement
formula because previous research has suggested that economic development is an important
factor that may affect the work–family interface (Joplin, Shaffer, Francesco, & Lau, 2003;
Korabik, Lero, & Ayman, 2003; Poelman, 2003).
Gender egalitarianism. The present study used GLOBE’s cultural dimensions of gender
egalitarianism (House et al., 2004), defined as the way in which societies divided roles between
women and men. According to GLOBE’s gender egalitarianism practice score, each country in
the present study was classified into one of eight clusters: Anglo, Confucian Asia, Eastern
Europe, Germanic Europe, Latin America, Latin Europe, Nordic Europe, and Southern Asia (see
Table 2.1). The Eastern Europe cluster scored highest on gender egalitarianism practice (M =
3.84), whereas the Germanic Europe cluster scored lowest (M = 3.14). Higher scores indicated
more egalitarian gender practices.
Data Analysis
Hierarchical linear models allowed for multilevel analysis of work–family conflict using
individual- and country-level variables simultaneously, including tests for cross-level
interactions between national family-friendly policies and organizational type, marital status, and
- 42 -
the effects of dual-earner families on WFC. This allowed for separate error terms and thus
correct estimations of standard errors at both individual and country levels. Because the results
of gender differences in the literature have been inconsistent, data analyses were conducted
separately by gender to better understand the influence of gender on effects of family-friendly
policies on WFC (both work-to-family and family-to-work conflict).
The individual-level model was
Yij = β0j + β1j*(PUBLIC) + β2j*(MARRIED) + β3j*(SPUS_FUL) + Ʃβkj Xikj + rij
in which Yij was level of work-to-family or family-to-work conflict for a parent i in country j;
β0j was the level-1 intercept, β1j was the effect of public organization, β2j was the effect of
marital status (being married); β3j was the effect of having a spouse with full-time employment,
βkj X was the slopes for k control variables X, and rij was the level-1 error term.
The country-level model was
β0j = G00 + G01*(FLEXLEAV) + G02*(LEAVELEN) + G03*(CASHRATI) +
G04*(GENEQUAL) + U0j
β1j = G10 + G11*(FLEXLEAV) + G12*(LEAVELEN) + G13*(CASHRATI) +
G14*(GENEQUAL) + U1j
β2j = G20 + G21*(FLEXLEAV) + G22*(LEAVELEN) + G23*(CASHRATI) +
G24*(GENEQUAL) + U2j
β3j = G30 + G31*(FLEXLEAV) + G32*(LEAVELEN) + G33*(CASHRATI) +
G34*(GENEQUAL) + U3j
- 43 -
βkj = Gk
in which G00 was the country-level intercept, G01 was the effect of flexibility of use on the
intercept (β0j), G10 was the country-level intercept for the public organization slope, G11 was
the effect of flexibility of use on β1j, G20 was the country-level intercept for the marital status
(being married) slope, G21 was the effect of flexibility of use on β2j, G30 was the country-level
intercept for the having a spouse with full-time employment slope, G31 was the effect of
flexibility of use on β3j, and U0j, U1j, U2j, and U3j were the country-level error terms, assumed
to be normally distributed with mean zero and variance σ2. All individual- and country-level
variables were centered on their grand means; the intercept indicated average levels of work-to-
family or family-to-work conflict for men and women in a country with average characteristics.
Results
Country-level descriptive statistics are shown in Table 3.2. For work-to-family conflict,
British men reported highest levels of work-to-family conflict (M = 3.26), whereas Taiwanese
men had the lowest work-to-family conflict (M = 2.18) among 24 countries. Australian women
had highest levels of work-to-family conflict (M = 3.14), whereas Taiwanese women had the
lowest work-to-family conflict (M = 2.05). Men and women in Switzerland experienced the
highest levels of family-to–work conflict (men = 2.65, women = 2.67), compared to those in
Russia with the lowest levels of family-to-work conflict (men = 1.53, women = 1.64).
Family-friendly policy bundles—specifically, flexibility of use, length of leave, and
income replacement—varied widely across 24 countries. Anglo countries (e.g., Great Britain,
Ireland), Latin European countries (e.g., France, Portugal, Eastern European countries (e.g.,
Hungary, Slovenia), Germanic European countries (e.g., Germany), and Nordic European
- 44 -
countries (e.g., Sweden) have implemented highly flexible parental leave policies. Parents in
these countries could take leave at any time until a child reached a certain age. In terms of total
statutory postnatal leave, France, Germany, Hungary, Russia, Spain, and Taiwan offered more
than 720 days. In contrast, Israel, Mexico, the Philippines, South Africa, Switzerland, and the
United States had the shortest parental leave, ranging between 67 and 120 days. Except for the
United States, the parental leave policy in the latter countries had no flexibility. In terms of
income replacement during parental leave, Nordic European countries such as Denmark (100%)
and Sweden (82.19%) and Eastern European countries such as Hungary (103.68%), Slovenia
(105.45%), and Russia (93.15%) offered high replacement rates, whereas Taiwan (15.38%) and
the Philippines (18.36%) had the lowest replacement rates.

- 45 -
Table 3.2
Country-Level Descriptive Statistics (N = 6,878)
Cluster n Work-to-Family
Conflict
Family-to-
Work Conflict
Flexibility
of Use
Length
of
Leave
IRR
(%)
Per
Capita
GDP
Men Women Men Women
Anglo
Australia 280 3.15 3.14 2.37 2.42 1 3 0.00 $37,474
Canada 192 2.89 2.93 2.36 2.53 4 3 52.88 $35,093
Great Britain 97 3.26 3.09 2.36 2.16 6 3 20.20 $37,838
Ireland 186 2.69 2.57 2.14 2.01 6 2 35.00 $48,208
New Zealand 243 2.94 2.95 2.13 2.32 3 3 26.92 $27,453
South Africa 396 2.75 2.68 2.34 2.45 1 1 20.00 $5,139
United States 309 2.88 2.54 2.12 2.31 3 1 0.00 $41,553
Germanic Europe
Germany 242 3.09 2.81 2.00 1.97 6 5 39.94 $33,836
Switzerland 164 2.92 2.93 2.65 2.67 1 1 21.54 $50,057
Latin Europe
France 393 2.98 2.88 1.91 2.11 6 5 56.70 $34,152
Israel 228 2.53 2.28 2.00 1.71 1 1 26.92 $20,064
Portugal 420 2.47 2.53 2.03 2.20 6 2 38.81 $18,127
Spain 263 2.43 2.58 1.99 2.15 3 5 31.32 $26,246
Nordic Europe
Denmark 453 2.75 2.70 2.24 2.18 4 3 100.00 $47,567
Finland 238 2.86 2.74 2.25 2.08 3 2 54.04 $37,302
Sweden 229 3.04 3.09 2.46 2.33 6 3 82.19 $40,874
Eastern Europe
Hungary 198 2.68 2.52 1.72 1.67 6 5 103.68 $10,924
Russia 390 2.18 2.41 1.53 1.64 2 5 93.15 $5,340
Slovenia 225 2.87 2.88 1.64 1.70 6 3 105.45 $17,865
Latin America
Mexico 327 2.58 2.64 2.07 2.29 1 1 23.08 $8,033
Confucian Asia
Japan 125 2.38 2.97 2.02 2.43 3 3 66.92 $35,718
South Korea 325 2.24 2.37 1.75 2.09 1 3 50.73 $16,308
Taiwan 625 2.18 2.05 1.89 1.83 3 5 15.38 $15,203
Southern Asia
Philippines 330 2.63 2.81 2.42 2.59 1 1 18.36 $1,156
Note. GDP = gross domestic product; IRR = income replacement rate. One-item scale for work-to-family conflict and family-to-
work-conflict ranging from 1 to 5. Flexibility of use was measured as how leave can be used, ranging from 1 = no flexibility to 6 =
leave can be taken at any time until a child reaches a certain age. Length of leave was measured as total statutory postnatal leave,
ranging from 1 = less than 180 days to 5 = more than 720 days. Income replacement rate indicated how well each nation
financially supported parents who took leave and was measured as average income replacement provided by each government to
each parent who took parental leave during 2005 divided by per capita gross domestic product of each country.

- 46 -
Work-to-Family Conflict as an Outcome Variable
Tables 3.3, 3.4, and 3.5 present the results of four hierarchical linear models of work-to-
family conflict run separately for men and women. Before predictor variables were included in
the model, an analysis of variance model (Model 1) was conducted to examine overall
individual- and country-level variance of work-to-family conflict by gender. As shown in Table
3.3, the intraclass correlation (ICC) results indicate that between-country variance constituted
7.2% of the overall variance in work-to-family conflict among men, whereas between-country
variance constituted 5.6% of the overall variance in work-to-family conflict among women. The
between-country (level-2) variance on the intercept was statistically significant (Raudenbush &
Bryk, 2002) for men and women in Model 1. Therefore, it was appropriate to examine the
multilevel model posited. The intercept showed that men had an average work-to-family score of
2.72, compared to 2.70 for women.
Table 3.3
Hierarchical Linear Model Results for Individual- and Country-Level Effects on
Work-to-Family Conflict among Men and Women (Model 1)
Men Women
Coefficient SE Coeffic
ient
SE
Intercept β
0
2.720* .061 2.699* .056
Variance Components
ICC .072 -- .056 --
Level-2 residual (U
0
) .085* .290 .068* .254
Level-1 residual (R) 1.081 1.040 1.098 1.048
Note. ICC = intraclass correlation.
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .00

Model 2 included the three main individual-level variables—organizational type, marital
status, and having a spouse with full-time employment. Table 3.4 shows that working in a public
organization had a negative effect on men’s work-to-family conflict (G10 = -.078, p = .045),
- 47 -
which supported Hypothesis 3. With respect to family characteristics, being married significantly
increased levels of work-to-family conflict among men across countries (G20 = .172, p = .002),
which supported Hypothesis 6a but having a spouse with full-time employment had no effect on
work-to-family conflict among men. Conversely, intercept coefficients of the three main family
characteristics variables at the individual level had no effect on work-to-family conflict among
women. Therefore, the results failed to support Hypothesis 6 relative to women.
In Model 3, individual-level control variables were added. For the men’s model,
coefficients of public organization (G10 = -.080, p = .023) and marital status (G20 = .138, p
= .013) variables were allowed to vary across countries. Job position (G40 = .163, p = .001) and
education (G50 = .017, p = .005), had significant effects on men’s work-to-family conflict; being
a supervisor and having higher levels of education increased levels of work-to-family conflict
among men. After controlling for job position and education, cross-national differences in terms
of the effects of public organization and marital status on work-to-family conflict among
remained significant. All individual-level variables explained 5.9% (.119 versus .112) of the
variance in country-level intercepts among men. Thus, nearly 6% of the variation in men’s work-
to-family conflict across countries was accounted for by cross-national variations in
organizational type (public) and marital status (being married). However, in the women’s model,
none of the three main individual-level variables (organizational type, marital status, having a
spouse with full-time employment) had significant effects on work-to-family conflict. Instead,
job position (G40 = .157, p = .002) and education (G50 = .022, p =.008) were associated with
higher levels of work-to-family conflict among women. All individual-level variables explained
1.5% of the variance in country-level intercepts among men.

- 48 -
Table 3.4
Hierarchical Linear Model Results for Individual- and Country-Level Effects on Work-to-Family Conflict
among Men and Women (Models 2 and 3)
Model 2 Model 3
Men Women Men Women
Coeff. SE Coeff. SE Coeff. SE Coeff. SE
Intercept β
0
2.593*** .080 2.630*** .061 2.536*** .080 2.589*** .064
Individual variables
Public organization -.078* .037 .085 .051 -.080* .033 .063 .056
Married .172** .049 .026 .069 .138* .051 .002 .080
Spouse works
full-time
-.013 .044 .034 .064 -.018 .044 .029 .066
Control variables
Supervisor -- -- -- -- .163** .040 .157** .044
Education -- -- -- -- .017** .005 .022** .045
Variance Components
Level-2 residual (U
0
) .119*** .346 .068** .249 .112*** .335 .067** .259
Level-1 residual (R) 1.073 1.036 1.086 1.042 1.052 1.025 1.063 1.031
R
2
within countries -- -- -- -- 1.96% -- 2.11% --
R
2
between countries -- -- -- -- 5.88% -- 1.47% --
Note. Coeff. = coefficient; ICC = intraclass correlation.
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .00

Model 4 included parental leave policies and gender egalitarianism on the intercept and
slopes of the three individual-level variables. For men, parental leave policies had significant
effects on the intercept. Rate of income replacement had a negative effect on the intercept (G03
= -1.094, p = .008), whereas flexibility of use had a positive effect on work-to-family conflict
(G01 = .113, p = .010). That is, men in countries that offered more generous rates of income
replacement during parental leave had lower levels of work-to-family conflict, supporting
Hypothesis 1c. In contrast, countries with more flexibility of use with regard to parental leave
had higher levels of work-to-family conflict among men. Length of leave had no significant
effect on work-to-family conflict among men across countries. Therefore, Hypothesis 1a and 1b
were not supported. In terms of gender egalitarianism, men in countries with more egalitarian
gender practices experienced more work-to-family conflict (G04 = 1.05, p = .0029), which failed
- 49 -
to support Hypothesis 2. Among women, only flexibility of use had a significant effect on work-
to-family conflict (G01 = .069, p = .026), suggesting that women in countries with more flexible
parental leave policies experienced higher levels of work-to-family conflict. Therefore,
Hypotheses 1 and 2 were not supported relative to work-to-family conflict experienced by
women.
Cross-level interaction. With regard to moderating effects of parental leave policies on
the association between individual-level variables and work-to-family conflict, flexibility of use
(G11 = -.052, p = .001), length of leave (G12 = .079, p = .001), and rate of income replacement
(G13 = .214, p = .045) interacted with working for a public organization to predict work-to-
family conflict among men. The effects of length of leave and rate of income replacement on
working for a public organization were positive, whereas flexibility of use had a negative effect.
The results offered support for Hypothesis 4a. For marital status, only rate of income
replacement had a moderating effect (G23 = .622, p = .085); however, the direction of this effect
was in opposition to expectations. In countries offering better rates of income replacement,
work-to-family conflict increased among men. With respect to having a spouse with full-time
employment, flexibility of use (G31 = .038, p = .096) and length of leave (G32 = .080, p = .001)
had positive moderating effects. That is, in countries that had policies that offered more flexible
or longer parental leave, men with spouses working full-time experienced higher levels of work-
to-family conflict. However, this conflict was reduced by higher rates of income replacement
(G33 = -.385, p = .013), which supported Hypothesis 4c. Gender egalitarianism had no
moderating effect on the individual-level variables among men. Adding the three family-friendly
policy bundles and gender egalitarianism to Model 4 reduced the between-country variance on
the intercept by 34.16% among men. In contrast, for women, none of parental leave policies had
- 50 -
moderating effect on the association between individual-level variables and work-to-family
conflict. Only gender egalitarianism interacted with having a spouse with full-time employment
(G34 = -1.188, p = .025). Women who had working spouses with full-time employment
countries with more egalitarian gender practices reported lower levels of negative conflict from
the work domain to the family domain. Adding the three family-friendly policy bundles and
gender egalitarianism to the final model reduced the between-country variance on the intercept
by 22.4% (from .067 to .052) among women.

- 51 -
Table 3.5
Hierarchical Linear Model Results for Individual- and Country-Level Effects on Work-to-
Family Conflict among Men and Women (Model 4)
Men Women
Coefficient SE Coefficient SE
Intercept β
0
2.543*** .063 2.584*** .051
Individual variables
Public organization -.089** .030 .061 .062
Married .137** .045 -.003 .081
Spouse works full-time -.028 .046 .046 .062
Country variables
Flexibility of use .113** .039 .069* .029
Length of leave -.055 .061 -.069 .050
Income replacement -1.094** .363 -.181 .292
Gender egalitarianism 1.050** .445 .477 .314
Cross-level interaction
Public x flexibility of use -.052** .014 .012 .029
Public x length of leave .079** .019 -.016 .047
Public x income replacement .214* .100 -.005 .327
Public x gender egalitarianism -.150 .149 -.063 .444
Married x flexibility of use -.039† .030 -.000 .045
Married x length of leave -.013 .037 -.018 .056
Married x income replacement .622† .342 -.083 .495
Married x gender egalitarianism -.366 .436 .554 .638
Spouse works full-time x flexibility of use .038† .022 -.0347 .033
Spouse works full-time x length of leave .080** .020 .057 .045
Spouse works full-time x income replacement -.385** .139 .398 .380
Spouse works full-time x gender egalitarianism .092 .176 -1.188* .489
Control variables
Supervisor .166*** .039 .151** .045
Education .017** .005 .023** .008
Variance Components
Level-2 residual (U
0
) .074*** .272 .052* .227
Level-1 residual (R) 1.052 1.026 1.061 1.030
R
2
within countries .0023% -- 1.88% --
R
2
between countries 34.16% -- 22.38% --
† p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .00

- 52 -
Family-to-Work Conflict as an Outcome Variable
Tables 3.6, 3.7, and 3.8 present the results of four hierarchical linear models of family-to-
work conflict run separately by gender. Before predictor variables were included in the model, an
analysis of variance model (Model 1) was conducted to examine overall individual- and country-
level variance for family-to-work conflict for men and women. As shown in Table 3.6, the
intraclass correlation (ICC) results indicated that between-country variance constituted 7.6% of
the overall variance in men’s family-to-work conflict, whereas between-country variance
constituted about 8.1% of the overall variance in women’s family-to-work conflict. The between-
country (level-2) variance on the intercept was statistically significant (Raudenbush & Bryk,
2002) for analysis of variance models for both genders. Therefore, it was appropriate to examine
the multilevel model posited. The intercept showed that the average family-to-work conflict
score among men was 2.09, compared to 2.15 among women.
Table 3.6
Hierarchical Linear Model Results for Individual- and Country-Level Effects on
Family-to-Work Conflict among Men and Women (Model 1)
Men Women
Coefficient SE Coefficien
t
SE
Intercept β
0
2.099*** 0.055 2.153*** 0.058
Variance Components
ICC 0.076 -- 0.081 --
Level-2 residual (U
0
) 0.070*** 0.290 0.076*** 0.276
Level-1 residual (R) 0.855 0.924 0.873 0.934
Note. ICC = intraclass correlation.
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .00

Model 2 included the three individual-level variables: organization type, marital status,
and having a spouse with full-time employment. Only marital status had a significant positive
effect on family-to-work conflict among men (G20 = .128, p = .029) and women (G20 = .145, p
- 53 -
= .007), which supported Hypothesis 6a. In other words, both married men and women
experienced higher levels of conflict from the family domain to the work domain compared to
single parents.
In Model 3, all individual-level control variables were added. The coefficient for marital
status remain significant for family-to-work conflict among men (G20 = .127, p = .029) and
women (G20 = .166, p = .004). Education was the only control variable with significant effects
on levels of family-to-work conflict for both men (G50 = .015, p= .006) and women (G50 = .010,
p = .044). Model 4 included parental leave policies and gender egalitarianism on the intercept
and slopes of the individual-level variables. The results of Model 4 (see Table 3.8) suggested
obvious differences between genders in terms of country-level effects on family-to-work conflict.
For men, flexibility of use significantly increased family-to-work conflict (G01 = .063, p = .048),
whereas rate of income replacement had a negative effect on the intercept (G03 = -.609, p
= .036). In countries with more flexible parental leave policies, fathers experienced higher levels
of conflict from the family domain to the workplace. In contrast, in countries that offered more
generous rates of income replacement, men had lower levels of family-to-work conflict, which
supported Hypothesis 1c. For women, none of the country-level variables had significant effects
on family-to-work conflict.

- 54 -

Cross-level interaction. With regard to the moderating effects of parental leave policies
on the association between individual-level variables and family-to-work conflict, flexibility of
use (G11 = -.037, p = .017) and length of leave (G12 = .071, p = .004) interacted with working
for a public organization to predict family-to-work conflict among men. The interaction between
flexibility of use and public organization was negative, whereas the interaction between length of
leave and public organization was positive rather than negative as hypothesized; therefore, only
Hypothesis 4a was supported. In terms of marital status, rate of income replacement (G23 = .574,
p = .016) and gender egalitarianism (G24 = -.478, p = .064) had moderating effects among men.
That is, in countries offering better rates of income replacement, married men’s levels of family-
Table 3.7
Hierarchical Linear Model Results for Individual- and Country-Level Effects on Family-to-Work
Conflict among Men and Women (Models 2 and 3)
Model 2 Model 3
Men Women Men Women
Coeff. SE Coeff. SE Coeff. SE Coeff. SE
Intercept β
0
1.991*** .065 2.060*** .068 1.973*** .067 2.059*** .069
Individual variables
Public organization -.017 .032 -.003 .039 -.028 .032 -.025 .043
Married .128* .053 .145** .048 .127* .054 .166** .050
Spouse works
full-time
.019 .039 -.030 .050 .011 .040 -.046 .052
Control variables
Supervisor -- -- -- -- .058 .038 -.019 .064
Education -- -- -- -- .015** .004 .010* .005
Variance Component
ICC .076 -- .081 -- -- -- -- --
Level-2 residual (U
0
) .075*** .262 .087*** .285 .072*** .269 .084*** .289
Level-1 residual (R) .848 .921 .861 .928 .832 .913 .841 .917
R
2
within countries -- -- -- -- 1.88% -- 2.32% --
R
2
between countries 4.00% 3.44%
Note. Coeff. = coefficient; ICC = intraclass correlation.
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .000
- 55 -
to-work conflict increased. However, in countries with more egalitarian gender practices,
married men had lower levels of family-to-work conflict, which supported Hypothesis 8. In
terms of having a spouse with full-time employment, rate of income replacement had a
significant moderating effect (G33 = -.443, p = .001), whereas gender egalitarianism had a
marginal moderating effect (G43 = .310, p = .078). Men whose spouses had full-time jobs
experienced higher levels of family-to-work conflict in countries with more egalitarian gender
roles; however, they were less likely to experience family-to-work conflict in countries that
offered better rates of income replacement, which supported Hypothesis 9c. Adding the three
family-friendly policy bundles and gender egalitarianism to Model 4 reduced the between-
country variance on the intercept by 8.87% among men.
For women, only flexibility of use interacted with working for a public organization (G11
= -.054, p = .003) to predict family-to-work conflict, which supported Hypothesis 4a. Women
working in public organizations in countries with highly flexible parental leave experienced
lower levels of family-to-work conflict. None of country-level variables interacted with marital
status among women. Women whose spouses had full-time jobs experienced higher levels of
family-to-work conflict (G33 = .839, p = .004) in countries that provided more generous rates of
income replacement, whereas family-to-work conflict decreased (G34 = .907, p = .031) in
countries with more egalitarian gender practices, which supported Hypothesis 10. Adding the
three family-friendly policy bundles and gender egalitarianism to the final model reduced the
between-country variance on the intercept by 16.19% among women.

- 56 -
Table 3.8
Hierarchical Linear Model Results for Individual- and Country-Level Effects on Family-to-
Work Conflict among Men and Women (Model 4)
Men Women
Coefficient SE Coefficient SE
Intercept β
0
1.988*** .059 2.049*** .063
Individual variables
Public organization -.037 .029 -.022 .036
Married .097* .049 .175*** .041
Spouse works full-time .012 .037 -.036 .047
Country variables
Flexibility of use .063* .031 .022 .029
Length of leave -.066 .041 -.068 .041
Income replacement -.609* .269 -.494 .317
Gender egalitarianism .327 .282 .259 .393
Cross-level interaction
Public x flexibility of use -.037** .014 -.054** .015
Public x length of leave .071** .022 -.022 .029
Public x income replacement .045 .124 .373 .231
Public x gender egalitarianism .006 .175 -.238 .315
Married x flexibility of use -.046 .030 .011 .024
Married x length of leave -.057 .036 .028 .030
Married x income replacement .574* .215 -.327 .329
Married x gender egalitarianism -.478† .243 -.053 .463
Spouse works full-time x flexibility of use .011 .021 -.066 .027
Spouse works full-time x length of leave -.002 .025 -.038 .030
Spouse works full-time x income replacement -.443** .115 .839** .251
Spouse works full-time x gender egalitarianism .310† .166 -.907* .389
Control variables
Supervisor .052 .038 -.025 .064
Education .014* .005 .011* .005
Variance Component
Level-2 residual (U
0
) .066** .257 .070*** .265
Level-1 residual (R) .832 .912 .840 .916
R
2
within countries .12% -- .019% --
R
2
between countries 8.87% -- 16.19% --
Note. ICC = intraclass correlation.
† p <.10,*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .000

- 57 -
Discussion
Drawing on role stress theory (Kahn et al., 1964), gender egalitarianism (Emrich et al.,
2004), and institutional theory (Meyer & Rowan, 1977), the present study examined multilevel
effects of family-friendly policies, organizational type, and family characteristics on work–
family conflict among working men and women across 24 countries. Results showed that
flexibility of use and rate of income replacement during parental leave had significant effects on
both work-to-family and family-to-work conflict among men, whereas only flexibility of use had
a significant effect on family-to-work conflict among women. Consistent with the literature
(Michel et al., 2010), receiving a high rate of income replacement from the government while
taking parental leave was an effective policy to lessen strain related to negotiating work and
family demands among men. To our surprise, flexibility of use exacerbated a sense that work
was interfering with family life and family life was interfering with work among men. This
negative effect was only significant among women in terms of work-to-family conflict.
Brandth and Kvande (2009) found that employees in the knowledge professions such as
high-tech engineers have a high degree of independence and responsibility in their work, and
often work at home and juggle working hours. Many who are deeply involved in their vocations
work beyond normal working hours. Hence, in countries with parental leave policies with greater
flexibility of use, the intrusion of work into family life or family life into work may blur the
boundaries between the work and family domains and result in higher conflict among both men
and women. This deserves further investigation, especially among professionals with limitless
jobs. In the work–family literature, few studies have examined the relationship between
flexibility of use among parental leave policies and work–family conflict. Two studies in the
United States and New Zealand illustrated a positive relationship between flexibility of use and
- 58 -
work–family conflict (Brough, O’Driscoll, & Kalliath, 2005; Hammer, Neal, Newsom,
Brockwood, & Colton, 2005). These results implied that having greater control over work
schedule strengthened feelings of family life interfering with work among employees, decreasing
their ability to fulfill both work and family responsibilities.
Regarding the effect of organizational type on work–family conflict, working in public
organizations significantly reduced men’s work-to-family conflict but not their family-to-work
conflict. Unlike those in the knowledge professions, which are characterized by flexible work
arrangements (e.g., working at home; Brandth & Kvande, 2009), employees of public
organizations with rigid work schedules may be less likely to work at home and have flexible
working hours. Therefore, men who work for public organizations may be less likely to feel the
intrusion of work into family life. With regard to the moderating effects of family-friendly leave
policy bundles on the association between organizational type and both work-to-family and
family-to-work conflict, the effect of working in public organizations on both types of conflict
among men was stronger in countries with greater flexibility with regard to taking leave. The
same moderating effect was found among women who worked for public organizations. Public
organizations are often characterized by low job control, time-demanding paperwork, and
administrative work (Rupert, Stevanotic, & Hunley, 2009). Accordingly, public employees may
experience more conflicts when negotiating work and family domains due to a lack of flexibility
and high work overload. Our results showed that parental leave policies with high levels of
flexibility of use may help men working in public organizations decrease their bi-directional
work–family conflict and women in the same type of organization decrease their work-to-family
conflict.
- 59 -
However, we found that taking longer parental leaves exacerbated conflict experienced
between work and family among men working in public organizations. Im (2009) pointed out
that public employees may be required by their employers to assume more work responsibilities
and to do a better job in less time to maintain efficiency. Absences due to parental leave may
cause production loss, costs associated with replacements, or more work for colleagues (Bygren
& Duvander, 2006). Those who take longer parental leave might be stigmatized (e.g., viewed as
less productive). Men may worry about negative consequences on their career prospects (Callus,
2005), potentially strengthening work–family conflict.
Receiving high rates of income replacement during parental leave period had a greater
effect on men’s strain in negotiating work and family roles than among women. Results showed
that higher income replacement rates reduced both forms of work–family conflict among men
during parental leave. However, the significant moderating effect of high income replacement
rates on the relationship between marital status and work–family conflict among men indicated
that married men experienced greater conflicts between work and family domains in countries
that offered higher rates of income replacement. Traditional gender roles have maintained that
work is more important for men than women (Bakker, Demerouti, & Dollard, 2008). Men have
been much less likely to take parental leave compared to women. For example, in Spain, the
percentage of men who took parental leave in 2009 was 4%, compared to 96% of women
(Bygren & Duvander, 2006; EU, 2012; Moss, 2011). In addition to negative consequences
associated with career prospects, lower rates of income replacement during parental leave may
be a key factor contributing to lower rates of parental leave among men. In the present study,
only three (Denmark, Hungary, and Slovenia) of 24 countries offered replacement rates greater
than or equal to 100% of earnings. Because most countries did not offer financial support
- 60 -
equivalent to previous earnings shown by the results of income replacement rate, taking leave
represented a considerable financial setback, requiring married men who served as breadwinners
of household to change their lifestyle (Drews et al., 2005) and resulting in more conflict between
work and family roles. Similarly, a high income replacement rate was found to positively
moderate work–family conflict experienced by men working in public organizations. Jobs in the
public sector tend to have lower pay (Bygren & Duvander, 2006). As a result, even though
public employees receive a high rate of income replacement based on the salary they earn, their
lower pay to begin with results in financial setbacks during parental leave periods and has a
negative effect on work and family conflict among men.
Cross-level interactions between rate of income replacement and having a working
spouse affected men and women in dual-earner families, albeit in opposite directions. In
countries offering high rates of income replacement, men in dual-earner families reported less
work–family conflict. Having a working spouse who makes financial contributions to the
household during the parental leave period may help men ease the financial burden of taking
leave. On the contrary, in countries that offered high rates of income replacement for parental
leave, women in dual-earner families were more likely to experience family-to-work conflict.
Although women are generally more likely to take parental leave (Bygren & Duvander, 2006;
EU, 2009), doing so may reduce their opportunities in the labor market. Examining the effects of
family policies on income inequality by gender across 20 countries, Mandel and Semyonov
(2005) found that taking parental leave was costly to women. Taking leave interrupted work
continuity and discouraged employers from hiring women for high-status and managerial
positions, thereby decreasing their ability to compete successfully with men for the best-paying
jobs.
- 61 -
With respect to gender egalitarianism, results of the present study showed that men in
countries with more egalitarian gender practices experienced greater conflict from work to
family life, contrary to expectations. As gender egalitarianism theory posits (Emrich et al., 2004),
men in egalitarian societies are expected to devote more time to family matters and household
labor. Therefore, if they spend more time at work, violating societal expectations, men may
experience greater work-to-family conflict. This may also explain why gender egalitarianism
positively moderated the relationship between having a spouse with full-time employment and
family-to-work conflict among men. In countries with more egalitarian gender roles, men in
dual-earner families may be expected to devote more time to family life. However, responding to
family needs may interfere with their work.
In contrast, gender egalitarianism negatively moderated the relationship between having
spouses with full-time employment and both forms of work–family conflict among women.
Traditionally, women are more identified with the family domain. They bear a higher burden of
household labor and are more likely to be responsible for responding to unique or unplanned
family demands, such as leaving work to pick up a sick child from school (Scott & McClellan,
1990). Gender egalitarianism theory postulates that when a society is more gender egalitarian, it
is less likely to rely on biology to determine gender roles (Emrich et al., 2004). In such societies,
women’s spouses with full-time employment may be expected to assume more family
responsibilities, easing women’s burden of household labor or family demands. Hence, the
present study found that in countries with more egalitarian attitudes regarding gender, women
who had spouses working full-time were less likely to feel that work was interfering with family
life and family life was interfering with work.
- 62 -
Using a solid theoretical framework and cross-national data, this multilevel study
expanded cross-national research beyond its focus either on work–family conflict at micro levels
or family-friendly policies at macro levels. Using hierarchical linear models combining
information on both individuals and countries, the study showed that parental leave policies have
greater effects on work–family conflict among men compared to women. Individual dimensions
of parental leave policies on men’s experience of work–family conflict impinged on workplace
characteristics (e.g., organizational type) and family characteristics (e.g., having working spouses
with full-time employment). Implementing parental leave policies with high flexibility and
higher rates of income replacement may help men with working spouses or who are employed in
the public sector to better balance their work and family demands. Although the main objectives
of family-friendly policies are to reduce the conflict between family roles and commitment to
work and to allow more women to join the labor force, the present study found that women
generally were not protected by individual dimensions of parental leave policies. Instead, societal
attitudes towards gender played a key role in helping women reduce bidirectional conflicts
between work and family roles. The results indicated that both men and women were likely to
face costs associated with taking leave from work, which deserves attention in future research.
Moreover, the data used for the present study have a strong reputation for methodological rigor.
This use of cross-national data collected from random samples allows findings to be generalized
to populations in countries included in the present study.
Although a solid theoretical framework and cross-national data with probability samples
were used, the present study has certain limitations. First, the use of secondary data for analysis
has inherent limitations. To better understand the interplay between work and family among
dual-earner couples, information on participants’ occupational prestige, class, workplace size,
- 63 -
workplace gender composition, or earlier parental leave-taking should have been collected.
Second, variables created specifically for the current study were used to measure three
dimensions of family-friendly public policies. Certain nuances associated with flexibility of use,
length of leave, income replacement rate, and work–family conflict for female employees may
have been overlooked. Third, cultural values of gender egalitarianism used in the present study
were based on inferences about national differences in GLOBE’s study (Gelfand et al., 2004). It
should be noted that individuals within countries vary in values; for example, not all people in an
egalitarian society will have egalitarian attitudes towards gender. Fourth, the present study
focused on examining work–family conflict among dual-earner couples; therefore, the samples
were restricted to those with children and full-time employment. Work–family challenges among
single-parent families with part-time employment was not explored. Finally, social desirability in
self-reporting posed a threat to internal validity.
Implications for Research
The findings of the present study suggest the importance of considering workplace
context and gender roles when implementing family-friendly policies. We found that workplace
characteristics influenced men more than women in terms of the effects of parental leave
flexibility of use, length of leave, and income replacement rates on work–family conflict. More
research is needed to investigate relationships among workplace gender composition and size to
reveal the mechanisms that link policy, work characteristics, and work–family conflict.
Furthermore, work–family conflict among men and women may be significantly influenced by
earlier parental leave-taking by colleagues, workplace-specific social networks, and hierarchies
in the workplace. A more detailed examination will elucidate the diffusion and patterns of
parental leave use in the workplace. Negative consequences may be associated with absence
- 64 -
from workplace, especially among women. To guide workplace policies regarding leave to cater
to the specific needs of women, researchers could explore the mechanisms that link parental
leave policies, work–family conflict, and consequences of taking leave to provide more nuanced
information about how women may be negatively affected by taking a leave of absence.
- 65 -
Chapter 4: A Cross-Cultural Study of Organizational Work–Family Initiatives, Work
Demands and Conflict, and Consequences
Introduction
Globalization has changed the nature of work and family structure. Working long hours
and engaging in work-related activities at home have become common practices for dual–earner
couples. This phenomenon has changed the dynamics between work and family lives. Seeking
legitimacy as good corporate citizens and responding to normative values of being good
employers with family-friendly environments, organizations have adopted work–family
initiatives that offer more flexibility to address the challenges of ever-increasing work demands
(Masuda et al., 2012). Work–family initiatives such as flexible work arrangements and
allowance for personal leave for family matters increase employee control of work time and
reduce work–family conflict (WFC) (Kelly et al., 2008; Macik-Frey, Quick, Quick, & Nelson,
2009; Michel et al., 2011). However, the majority of extant research on flexible work
arrangements, work demands, and work–family conflict has been conducted in the cultural
context of Western societies.
The experience of work–family conflict is influenced by values, beliefs, and role-related
self-conceptions that are internalized through socialization (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985; Kahn et
al., 1964). However, it’s unclear whether the same model applies to populations in different
cultural contexts, such as Asia and Latin America. Although there has been a stream of cross-
cultural and cross-national research examining work–family initiatives, work–family conflict,
work demands, and job-related outcomes (Hill et al., 2004; Lu et al., 2008; Masuda et al., 2012;
Spector et al., 2007), samples were drawn nonrandomly and exclusively from managers or white-
- 66 -
collar samples, which resulted in a lack of representation of the general working population. In
addition, most studies measured access to benefits rather than intensity of use, which caused
outcomes to be less conclusive. Furthermore, results regarding the moderating effects of gender
have been inconsistent in the work–family literature due to considerable differences among
samples used in these studies (Bakker et al., 2008; Galinsky, Aumann, & Bond, 2009; Harrinton,
Deusen, & Humberd, 2011; Valcour, 2007). Globalization and increasing interdependence
among economies worldwide have highlighted the need to further investigate work–family
relationships in differing national contexts (Powell et al., 2009). Using job demands–resources
models (Bakker, Demerouti, & Euwema, 2005; Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, & Schaufeli,
2001), social exchange theory (Rhodes & Eisenberger, 2002), role theory (Kahn et al., 1964),
and GLOBE’s in-group collectivism scale (Gelfand et al., 2004) as its theoretical framework, the
present study involved examining relationships among organizational work–family initiatives
(i.e., job autonomy, allowance for personal leave), work demands, work–family conflict, and
affective consequences (i.e., intention to leave and organizational commitment) among 6,878
randomly sampled individuals with full-time employment drawn from 24 countries in four
cultural clusters (high collectivism, mid collectivism/low individualism, mid individualism/low
collectivism, and high individualism) by gender.
Organizational Work–Family Initiatives and Work–Family Conflict
Job demands–resources theory (JD-R) posits that all occupations have specific risk
factors categorized as either job resources or demands (Bakker et al., 2005; Demerouti et al.,
2001). Job resources include work-related factors that reduce job demands, help facilitate the
completion of work goals, and/or engender personal learning, growth, or development
(Demerouti et al., 2001). To improve employee well-being and offer a family-friendly work
- 67 -
environment, organizations often adopt work–family initiatives, or programs that reduce tension
surrounding work and family demands among employees (Kelly et al., 2008). Studies have found
a negative association between work–family initiatives and WFC (Madsen, 2003; Mennino,
Rubin, & Brayfield, 2005). Common work–family initiatives include flexible work arrangements,
such as greater job autonomy, and family leave. Flexible work arrangements refer to granting
employees a certain level of control over when and where they work, rather than a standard work
schedule (Lambert, Marler, & Gueutal, 2008). Flexible work arrangements were found to be
associated with less work–family conflict (Gajendran & Harrison, 2007).
In reference to job autonomy, one study noted that “having freedom in regards to your
job and its responsibilities can lessen the extent to which work conflicts with the demands of
family” (Michel, Kotrba, Mitchelson, Clark, & Baltes, 2011 p. 698). Research has revealed a
negative relationship between job autonomy and WFC (Hill, Yang, Hawkins, & Ferris, 2004;
Masuda et al., 2012; Michel et al., 2011). In a meta-analysis of 142 articles based on 1,080
correlations from 178 samples to examine an organizational and theoretical framework of work–
family conflict, job autonomy was found to negatively predict WFC (Michel et al., 2011).
International work–family research on flexible work arrangements suggested that providing more
control of work schedules might be more helpful to employees in individualist countries in terms
of coping with work–family conflict than in collectivist countries, in which people tend to
tolerate a more rigorous work schedule. Examining the effects of flexible work schedules on
work–family conflict and job attitudes across 15 countries, Masuda et al. (2012) found that
managers in individualist countries had more access to flexible schedules, a compressed work
week, part-time work, and telecommuting compared with managers in collectivist countries. In
terms of allowance for personal leave, the freedom to take brief leaves of absence to attend to
- 68 -
family matters has been perceived by Chinese employees as care and support from immediate
supervisors and management, and as a practical work–family initiative in the Chinese context to
address work and family demands (Lu et al., 2009). These findings inspired the following
hypotheses:
H1a: Job autonomy would reduce work–family conflict, and the relationship would be
most negative among countries characterized by high individualism.
H1b: Allowance for personal leave would reduce work–family conflict, and the
relationship would be most negative among countries characterized by high collectivism.
Work Demands and Work–Family Conflict
In the JD-R model, demands are defined as the physical, psychological, organizational,
and social responsibilities of a job that require sustained physical or psychological effort
(Demerouti et al., 2001). Work demands are primarily related to (1) heavy workload; (2)
uncomfortable physical working conditions, such as heat, noise, dust, or the presence of toxic
substances; (3) fast-paced and repetitive work, a demand for speed, or monotonous work; and (4)
complicated tasks that must be performed under time constraints (Cooper & Payne, 1988).
Karasek (1979) posited that workers with high work demands and low work control are more
likely to experience higher levels of stress than workers with high demands and high job control.
Work and family are interlinked in part through allocation of resources, of which time seems to
be the most tangible (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). Because time is a finite resource that cannot
be expanded by engaging in multiple roles, an hour devoted to work represents an hour that will
not be available in the family domain (Valcour, 2007). The competing concept between work
and family roles suggests that when people devote longer hours to work, they are less likely to
- 69 -
meet family demands. Research has shown that working longer hours is associated with greater
work–family conflict (Bruck et al., 2002; Spector et al., 2004; Voydanoff, 2005). Working hours
and work stress are important indicators of work demands and have been identified as
antecedents of WFC (Michel et al., 2011; Spector et al., 2004).
People in individualist cultures often perceived time spent at work as fulfilling a personal
ambition rather than making a contribution to the family (Spector et al., 2004). To them, the
work and family domains exert competing demands; therefore, addressing one would come at the
expense of the other. When work demands are high, workers in individualist cultures tend to
experience higher levels of work–family conflict. Furthermore, individualists in the Anglo region
were more likely to respond to adverse job conditions with dissatisfaction and thoughts of
turnover (Spector et al., 2007).Conducting cross-national studies among managers, Spector et al.
(2004, 2007) found relationships between work demands and work–family conflict were stronger
in countries with individualist cultures than those with collectivist cultures. Conversely, people
in countries with collectivist cultures such as Taiwan and the Philippines have larger social
networks with extended families or work groups in which family connectedness and
cohesiveness take priority over individual goals and ambitions (Falicov, 2001; Mor Barak, 2011).
For people in collectivist societies, work is seen primarily as a means of supporting the family.
They perceived work demands as serving the needs of the family rather than competing with
them (Spector et al., 2007). These findings suggested the following hypotheses:
H2: Work demands related to (a) working hours and (b) work stress would increase
work–family conflict, and the relationship would be most positive among countries characterized
by high individualism.
- 70 -
H3: Work demands related to (a) working hours and (b) work stress would reduce
organizational commitment, and the relationship would be most negative among countries
characterized by high individualism.
H4: Work demands related to (a) working hours and (b) work stress would increase
intention to leave, and the relationship would be most positive among countries characterized by
high individualism.
Organizational Work–Family Initiatives, Work Demands, Work–Family Conflict, and
Outcomes
Flexible work arrangements are considered an important resource to help employees
balance their work and family roles. Having greater control in the work domain helps employee
meet their work and family demands (Thomas & Ganster, 1995).Further, the literature has shown
that flexible work arrangements have beneficial effects on job-related outcomes. Social exchange
theory posits that when favorable treatment is perceived by one party, it feels obligated to
reciprocate (Rhodes & Eisenberger, 2002), offering an explanation of why flexible work
arrangements have been related to organizational commitment. When employees feel their
employers are helping them manage work and family roles by offering greater control of work
time, the norm of reciprocity promotes greater psychological commitment and lower intention to
leave (Masuda et al., 2012). Studies using Western samples found a negative relationship
between flexible work arrangements and intention to leave (Batt & Valcour, 2003; McNall,
Masuda, & Nicklin, 2010). Using a sample of 220 employed adults, McNall et al. (2010) found
that availability of flexible work schedules and a compressed work week were related to lower
levels of intention to leave. Cultural differences have been shown with regard to the influence of
- 71 -
work–family conflict on intention to leave a job. Using a sample of 5,270 managers from 20
countries, Spector et al. (2007) found that a stronger positive relationship between work–family
conflict and intention to leave in individualist Anglo countries than in more collectivist regions
of the world, specifically Asia, East Europe, and Latin America.
H5: Work–family initiatives related to job autonomy would be negatively related to work
demands of (a) working hours and (b) work stress, and the relationship would be most negative
among countries characterized by high individualism. Similarly, work–family initiatives related
to allowance for personal leave would be negatively related to work demands of (c) working
hours and (d) work stress, and the relationship would be most negative among countries
characterized by high individualism.
H6: Work–family initiatives related to (a) job autonomy would increase organizational
commitment, and the relationship would be most positive among countries characterized by high
individualism. Similarly, work–family initiatives related to (b) allowance for personal leave
would increase organizational commitment, and the relationship would be most positive among
countries characterized by high collectivism.
H7: Work–family initiatives related to (a) job autonomy and (b) allowance for personal
leave would reduce intention to leave, and the relationship would be most negative among
countries characterized by high individualism.
H8: Work–family conflict would reduce organizational commitment, and the relationship
would be most negative among countries characterized by high individualism.
H9: Work–family conflict would increase intention to leave, and the relationship would
be most positive among countries characterized by high individualism.
- 72 -
Gender and Work–Family Conflict
According to normative gender roles, men are more work centered, whereas women are
more family oriented (Gutek, Searle, & Klepa, 1991). Due to greater involvement in the
workplace, men allow stress to build up in the work domain, which ultimately interferes with
family life (Bakker et al., 2008). Emotionally demanding interactions with clients and heavy
workload result in increases work-related worry among men at home. On the contrary, women
often identify more with the family domain. Successful management of family demands helps
women gain their identity and perceptions of success. Regardless of increasing rates of labor
force participation, women continue to devote more time to domestic matters, despite spending
as much time in paid work as men (Sarkisian & Gerstel, 2004). In addition, women bear a higher
burden of household labor and are more likely to be responsible for responding to unique or
unplanned family demands, such as leaving work during the day to pick up a sick child from
school (Scott & McClellan, 1990). Demands in the family domain, especially those related to
children, were more strongly associated with higher rates of absenteeism from work among
women than men (Ichino & Enrico, 2007; Vistnes, 1997). Unpredictable demands challenge
mothers to manage work and family roles, especially when they have low control over work time.
Hence, the demands–resources framework and traditional gender role perspective both provide
rationales for the argument that gender difference plays an key role within the work–family
interface.
The Present Study
The work–family literature has shown beneficial effects of work–family initiatives on
work demands, work–family conflict, and job-related outcomes among employees across
- 73 -
cultures. However, two methodological issues limit the conclusions that can be drawn from this
stream of cross-cultural and cross-national research. The first issue is related to the use of
relevant samples for appropriate comparisons across countries. Several studies conducted by a
cross-national research team used data collected exclusively from managers across countries
(Masuda et al., 2012; Spector et al., 2004, 2007). In each country, data collection procedures
varied in terms of recruiting participants—either by referral from management associations or by
consulting alumni lists from business schools. Two-nation comparative studies conducted by
Yang et al. (2000) and Lu et al. (2008) drew samples from a single site or business classes in one
individualist (e.g., United States, United Kingdom) and one collectivist country (e.g., China,
Taiwan). Hill et al. (2004) used survey responses from 25,380 managers employed by IBM, a
multinational technology corporation, in 48 countries to test a cross-cultural model of the work–
family interface among four cultural groups: West-developing, West-affluent, West-United
States, and East. The results of the study showed that despite some differences in the magnitude
of the paths by culture groups, the work–family interface was cross-culturally transportable
rather than culturally specific. However, the strong corporate culture of IBM may have
diminished national culture in terms of work and family, which may explain the dominant
pattern of similarity across four cultural subgroups. Samples were drawn nonrandomly, which
resulted in a lack of representation of the general working population.
The second issue arises from methods used to evaluate the effect of offering work–family
initiatives to employees. Most studies measured access to benefits rather than intensity of use,
which affected work-related outcomes and was less conclusive (Gajendran & Harrison, 2007). It
is important to consider the influence of the intensity of use of work–family initiatives on work–
family conflict and work-related outcomes across cultures. The third issue arises from
- 74 -
inconsistent findings regarding the effects of gender on the work–family interface. Although the
nature of role demands differ among men and women according to the gender role perspective
(Westmen, Vinokur, Hamilton, & Roziner, 2004), some studies found men experienced greater
work-to-family conflict than women (Galinsky, Aumann, & Bond, 2008; Harrinton et al., 2011),
whereas others found gender had no moderating effect (Bakker et al., 2008; Valcour, 2007).
These discrepancies could be attributed to differences in methodologies; for example,
participants included in these studies differed considerably. To address the gaps in the
international work–family literature, the present study aimed to explore whether the flexibility,
conflict, and consequence model developed in Western societies is transportable across
individualist and collectivist cultures by using multigroup structural equation modeling to
analyze data collected from 6,878 randomly sampled parents with full-time employment from 24
countries in four cultural clusters (high collectivism, mid collectivism/low individualism, mid
individualism/low collectivism, and high individualism). The conceptual model is presented in
Figure 4.1. In addition, recognizing the important influence of gender on societal and work roles,
the present study performed statistical analyses separately by gender rather than included it as a
control variable to more thoroughly explore similarities and differences between men and
women in terms of the effects of organizational work–family initiatives that on the relationship
between work demands, work–family conflict and affective consequences.
- 75 -
Figure 4.1. Four-Group Cross-Cultural Model (High Collectivism, Mid Collectivism/Low Individualism,
Mid Individualism/Low Collectivism, High Individualism)

Note. Solid lines indicate positive relationships and dotted lines indicate negative relationships.

- 76 -
Methods
Data
This study used ISSP data from the 2005 International Social Survey Program: Work
Orientation modules. The data were collected via a cross-national collaboration in which
independent institutions replicated survey questions in their own countries (Zentralarchiv fǘr
Empirische Sozialforschung, 2004). The topic of the 2005 survey was “Work Orientations,”
which included issues related to employment arrangements, job characteristics, subjective job-
related experiences, work outcomes, work–life balance, work centrality, and solidarity and
conflict in work relations. Furthermore, the ISSP data set contains several sociodemographic
variables. The present study used data collected in 2005 from 24 countries: Australia, Canada,
Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Great Britain, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Japan, Mexico,
New Zealand, Norway, the Philippines, Portugal, Russia, Slovenia, South Africa, South Korea,
Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, and the United States. The sample was restricted to
participants who had children and full-time jobs. Data were collected from one member of each
household.
Sample
Based on GLOBE’s in-group collectivism scale scores (Gelfand et al., 2004), the 24
countries were ranked based on mean in-group collectivism scores. The 24 countries included in
the present study were grouped based on whether their cultural values tended to be individualist
or collectivist according to the work of Hofstede et al. (2010) and Hill et al. (2004) and divided
into four cultural clusters: high collectivism, mid collectivism/low individualism, mid
individualism/low collectivism, and high individualism (see Table 4.1). The high-collectivism
- 77 -
cluster included six countries: Mexico, the Philippines, Portugal, Russia, Spain, and Slovenia.
Countries in the East (Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan) have been considered as those with
Confucian ideology and collectivist cultures by Hofstede at el. (2010) and GLOBE study (2004).
Hence, the mid-collectivism/low-individualism cluster included three countries: Japan, South
Korea, and Taiwan. The mid-individualism/low-collectivism cluster included five countries:
France, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, and South Africa. The high-individualism cluster included the
remaining 10 countries with individualist cultures: Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland,
Germany, Great Britain, New Zealand, Sweden, Switzerland and the United States. In-group
collectivism scores of countries in the high-collectivism cluster (M = 5.68) were higher than
scores in the other three clusters: mid collectivism/low individualism (M = 5.25), mid
individualism/low collectivism (M = 4.91), and high individualism (M = 3.97).The present study
used a random sample of 6,878 parents (4,015 men and 2,863 women) across the four cultural
clusters (see Table 4.1). A series of analyses of variance were conducted to test grouping
assumptions by cluster. Results of all F-tests were significant.

- 78 -
Table 4.1
Collectivism Scores for 24 Countries in Four Cultural Clusters(N = 6,878)
Cluster n In-Group
Collectivism Score
Cluster Collectivism
Score
High Individualism 3.97
Denmark 453 3.53
Sweden 229 3.66
New Zealand 243 3.67
Switzerland 164 3.97
Germany 242 4.02
Finland 238 4.07
Great Britain 197 4.08
Australia 280 4.17
United States 309 4.25
Canada 192 4.26
Mid Individualism/
Low Collectivism
4.91
France 393 4.37
Israel 228 4.70
South Africa 396 5.09
Ireland 186 5.14
Hungary 198 5.25
Mid Collectivism/
Low Individualism
5.25
Japan 125 4.63
South Korea 325 5.54
Taiwan 625 5.59
High Collectivism 5.68
Slovenia 225 5.43
Spain 263 5.45
Portugal 420 5.51
Russia 390 5.63
Mexico 327 5.71
Philippines 330 6.36
Note. Higher scores indicate greater collectivism. In-group collectivism scores obtained from
GLOBE’s study (Gelfand et al., 2004).

- 79 -
Measurement
Dependent Variables
Organizational commitment. A 3-item scale was used to measure affective, normative,
and continuance commitment (Mayer & Allen, 2001). Items included “I am willing to work
harder than I have to in order to help the firm or organization I work for succeed” and “I am
proud to be working for my firm or organization.” Responses were scored on a 5-point Likert
scale (1 = strongly agree, 5 = strongly disagree). After reverse coding, higher scores indicated
higher levels of organizational commitment.
Intention to leave. Turnover intention was assessed with a single item: “How likely is it
that you will try to find a job with another firm or organization within the next 12 months?”
Response choices ranged from 1 = very likely to 4 = very unlikely. After reverse coding, higher
scores indicated greater intention to leave the organization.
Independent Variables
Organizational work–family initiatives. Two types of flexible work arrangements were
assessed: job autonomy and allowance for personal leave. Job autonomy was measured in terms
of flexibility of work time and daily work organization. Items included “Start and finish times
are decided by my employer and I cannot change them on my own” and “I can decide how my
daily work is organized within certain limits” Responses were rated on a 3-point Likert scale (1 =
no flexibility to 3 = complete flexibility). After reverse coding one item, higher scores indicated a
higher degree of work autonomy. Allowance for personal leave was assessed with a single item:
“How difficult would it be for you to take an hour or two off during working hours to take care
- 80 -
of personal or family matters?” Response choices ranged from 1 = not difficult at all to 4 = very
difficult. After reverse coding, higher scores indicated higher degrees of personal leave flexibility.
Work demands. Two subsections of this variable were surveyed: (1) working hours, in
which respondents were asked how many hours they worked in a typical week; and (2) work
stress, in which four items assessed levels of stress experienced in the workplace (hard physical
work, stressful work, dangerous work, and general exhaustion). Sample items included “Do you
come home from work exhausted?” and “Do you find your work stressful?” Responses were
rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = always to 5 = never). After reverse coding, higher scores
indicated higher levels of work demands.
Work–family conflict. Reflecting a bidirectional conceptualization of work–family
conflict, a 2-item scale was used to measure the degree of stress caused by difficulty balancing
work and family domains. Participants were asked whether the demands of their job interfered
with their family life (work-to-family conflict) and whether the demands of their family life
interfered with their job (family-to-work conflict). Responses were scored on a 5-point Likert
scale (1 = always to 5 = never). After reverse coding, higher scores indicated higher levels of
work–family conflict.
Demographics. Control variables included age, marital status (1 = married, 0 = single),
job position (supervisor = 1, other = 0), and years of education.
Data Analysis
Structural equation modeling with a multiple-group approach using AMOS 18.0 was
performed to estimate the model (see Figure 4.1). A single group model was estimated first with
all respondents included, regardless of any heterogeneity in paths due to differences in cultures
- 81 -
or gender. This analysis helped determine whether the model was plausible with all parents
across 24 countries, regardless of culture or gender. To capture cultural differences, a four-group
model was reestimated using the four cultural clusters. Then, to capture possible differences by
gender, the four-group model was reestimated separately for men and women. These models
were first analyzed without equality constraints on paths across groups. These freely estimated
models served as the baseline models to be compared to subsequent models with equality
constraints on certain paths. Model fit was assessed using chi-square tests, comparative fit index
(CFI), normed fit index (NFI), and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA).
Results
Table 4.2 presents comparisons of variables by cultural clusters. Participants in the high-
individualism cluster were more educated (men = 13.37 years; women = 13.73 years) and older
(men = 41.58 years; women = 39.63 years) than the participants in the other three clusters. More
parents in the high-individualism cluster were supervisors than those in the other three clusters
(men = 53%; women = 35%). In terms of work flexibility, participants in individualist cultures
reported the highest levels of control over work time (men = 4.0; women = 3.75) and freedom to
take a brief leave to attend family matters (men = 3.16; women = 2.88 years). However, parents
in the high-individualism cluster had the highest levels of work–family conflict (men = 5.22;
women = 5.08). Parents in the mid-collectivism cluster worked longer hours compared to other
participants (men = 51.58; women = 46.70). Men in the high-collectivism cluster had the highest
levels of work stress among men (M = 12.19), whereas mothers in the mid-collectivism cluster
had the most work stress among women (M = 11.08). Mothers in individualist cultures were
more committed to their organizations than their counterparts in more collectivist countries (M =
10.07), whereas fathers in collectivist cultures were more loyal to their employers (M = 10.68).
- 82 -
Parents in the mid–individualism/low-collectivism cluster were more likely to report intentions
to leave their job than those in the other three clusters (men = 2.09; women = 1.97). Results of
correlations among variables by cultural cluster and gender are presented in Table 4.3 and Table
4.4.
Table 4.2
Comparison of Variable Means by Cultural Cluster and Gender
Variable High
Individualism
Mid
Individualism
Mid
Collectivism
High
Collectivism
Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women
Job autonomy 4.00 3.75 3.56 3.40 3.95 3.53 3.62 3.30
Allowance for
personal leave
3.16 2.88 2.88 2.72 2.82 2.73 2.75 2.64
Work–family conflict 5.22 5.08 4.79 4.69 4.08 4.14 4.49 4.65
Working hours
(weekly)
45.02 40.59 44.16 40.07 51.58 46.70 46.66 43.32
Work stress 11.51 10.89 12.01 11.01 11.89 11.08 12.19 10.89
Organizational
commitment
10.37 10.07 10.11 9.80 10.68 10.03 10.43 9.98
Intention to leave 1.93 1.96 2.09 1.97 1.79 1.88 2.08 1.90
Supervisor (yes) 53% 35% 40% 31% 42% 21% 29% 24%
Education 13.37 13.73 12.88 13.03 13.04 12.99 10.76 11.29
Married 88% 76% 80% 66% 90% 77% 83% 72%
Age 41.58 39.63 39.16 38.15 41.31 38.04 38.03 37.34
Sample size 1,492 955 747 654 671 404 1,105 850
Note. Job autonomy was a 2-item scale measuring flexibility of work time and daily work and organization and
responses ranged from 2 to 6. Allowance for personal leave was 1-item scale measuring degree of personal leave
flexibility and responses ranged from 1 to 4. Work–family conflict was a 2-item scale was used to measure the
degree of stress caused by difficulty balancing work and family domains and responses ranged from 2 to 10. Work
stress was a 4-item scale assessing levels of stress experienced in the workplace and responses ranged from 4 =
never to 20 = always. Organizational commitment was a 3-item scale and responses were rated on a 5-point Likert
scale (1 = strongly agree to 5 = strongly disagree). Intention to leave was 1-item scale with range from 1 to 4, higher
scores indicating greater intention to leave the organization.

- 83 -
Table 4.3
Correlations among Variables by Cultural Cluster among Men
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
High individualism (upper right) versus mid individualism (lower left)
1. Age 1.00 .21** .06* .05 .10** .02 .04 -.13** .01 .03 -.12**
2. Married .42** 1.00 .07* .07** .05* .09** .01 -.07** .07** .03 -.03
3. Supervisor .09* .14** 1.00 .13** .23** .11** .16** -.05 .13** .20** -.08**
4. Education -.01 .14** .23** 1.00 .20** .16** -.01 -.30** .11** .03 .03
5. JA .16** .18** .28** .22** 1.00 .44** .16** -.29** .09** .28** -.15**
6. PL .13** .08* .21** .10* .44** 1.00 -.05 -.30** -.18** .22** -.14**
7. Work hours .01 .06 .17** .01 .17** .00 1.00 .17** .23** .17** -.03
8. Work stress -.04 -.06 -.13** -.23** -.14** -.27** .21** 1.00 .19** -.05 .11**
9. WFC -.02 .02 .07 .03 -.02 -.18** .10* .30** 1.00 .00 .05
10. OC .10** .11** .18** -.03 .27** .20** .17** -.08* .02 1.00 -.40**
11. IL -.09* -.14** .04 .08* -.02 .01 -.03 .04 .07 -.38** 1.00
High collectivism (upper right) versus mid collectivism (lower left)
1. Age 1.00 .34** .06 -.04 .12** .05 -.04 -.02 .05 .08* -.23**
2. Married .25** 1.00 .01 .02 .06 .00 -.01 .02 .08** .05 -.10**
3. Supervisor .05 .16** 1.00 .25** .08* .09** .02 -.06 .00 .14** -.05
4. Education -.26** .05 .21** 1.00 -.02 .04 -.10** -.25** -.02 -.05 -.06
5. JA .06 .07 .21** -.05 1.00 .27** .25** -.06 .08** .29** .01
6. PL .00 .01 .13** -.04 .45** 1.00 -.04 -.19** -.10** .15** -.07*
7. Work hours .03 .06 .01 -.09* .13** .00 1.00 .12** .14** .14** .09**
8. Work stress -.10* .06 .00 -.03 -.05 -.19** .27** 1.00 .31** -.07* .08*
9. WFC -.07 .05 .13** .16** .01 -.11** .15** .29** 1.00 .04 .10**
10. OC .13** .09* .20** -.03 .24** .22** .02 -.02 -.10* 1.00 -.11**
11. IL -.20** -.18** -.05 .07 -.06 .00 -.05 -.04 .08* -.31** 1.00
Note. IL = intention to leave; JA = job autonomy; OC = organizational commitment; PL = personal leave; WFC =
work–family conflict.
*p < .05, **p < .01

- 84 -
Table 4.4
Correlations among Variables by Cultural Cluster among Women
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
High individualism (upper right) versus mid individualism (lower left)
1. Age 1.00 .11** .03 .05 .08* .05 .01 -.01 -.01 .08* -.17**
2. Married .10* 1.00 .03 .06 .05 .10** -.01 -.04 .00 .06 -.14**
3. Supervisor .11** .05 1.00 .07* .18** .05 .12** .05 .13** .16** -.03
4. Education -.07 .18** .16** 1.00 .08* .03 -.01 -.12** .11** -.01 .06
5. JA .10* .05 .20** .20** 1.00 .47** .11** -.23** .03 .30** -.17**
6. PL .02 .02 .17** .03 .47** 1.00 -.01 -.33** -.14** .27** -.17**
7. Work hours .01 -.01 .13** -.01 .07 .02 1.00 .12** .12** .11** -.03
8. Work stress .04 -.07 -.06 -.17** -.23** -.25** .11** 1.00 .29** -.20** .14**
9. WFC .02 .01 .05 .01 -.02 -.14** .05 .31** 1.00 -.04 .15**
10. OC .08 .06 .10* -.07 .18** .16** .08 -.15** -.09* 1.00 -.38**
11. IL -.20** -.12** .03 .10* -.06 -.07 -.04 .13** .18** -.34** 1.00
High collectivism (upper right) versus mid collectivism (lower left)
1. Age 1.00 -.03 -.01 -.17** .10** .03 .10** .07* .06 .05 -.17**
2. Married .28** 1.00 .04 -.04 .06 .03 .02 .06 .06 .04 -.07
3. Supervisor .01 .01 1.00 .22** .15** .04 .03 -.02 .01 .17** -.06
4. Education -.32** -.05 .15** 1.00 -.01 -.07* -.16** -.12** -.03 -.03 .05
5. JA .04 -.07 .27** .02 1.00 .35** .34** -.09** .03 .28** -.04
6. PL .06 -.02 .05 -.12* .35** 1.00 .01 -.18** -.17** .30** -.09*
7. Work hours .02 -.11* .05 -.18** .16** .04 1.00 .10** .19** .05 .07
8. Work stress -.02 -.06 .12* -.07 -.16** -.27** .17** 1.00 .36** -.08* .06
9. WFC -.05 .16** .03 .18** -.13* -.22** .15** .38** 1.00 -.04 .11**
10. OC .12* .08 .19** .04 .20** .20** .06 -.11* .00 1.00 -.22**
11. IL -.34** -.15** -.03 .04 -.07 -.03 .01 .08 .02 -.35** 1.00
Note. IL = intention to leave; JA = job autonomy; OC = organizational commitment; PL = personal leave; WFC = work–family
conflict.
- 85 -
Using multi-group structural equation modeling for data analyses, the results showed that
a single-group model (χ
2
= 442.74, df = 20, p < .000; CFI = .929, NFI = .926, RMSEA = .055)
and the four-group model (χ
2
= 577.00, df = 80, p < .000; CFI = .922, NFI = .926, RMSEA
= .055) both fit the data well. Our conceptual model fit the data well for men (χ
2
= 378.80, df =
80, p < .000; CFI = .926, NFI = .912, RMSEA = .031) and women (χ
2
= 238.00, df = 80, p < .000;
CFI = .936, NFI = .913, RMSEA = .026). These freely estimated models served as the baseline
models to be compared with subsequent models that had equality constraints on certain paths;
however, chi-square values increased significantly and other fit statistics became worse for most
paths. Chi-square differences showed that many of the paths differed across cultural clusters.
Due to space limitations, the chi-square differences are not reported here. Standardized
parameter estimates for the four-group cross-cultural model based on gender are presented in
Table 4.5 (men) and Table 4.6 (women).
Work–Family Initiatives and Work-Family Conflict
Rather than a negative association as stated in Hypothesis 1a, a positive association was
found between job autonomy and work–family conflict for both men and women. For men, the
relationship was stronger in the high-individualism cluster (β = .175, p = .000) than in the high-
collectivism cluster (β = .096, p = .002). For women, the positive relationship was significant for
both high-individualism and mid-individualism/low-collectivism clusters (β = .112, p = .002 and
β = .091, p = .037, respectively), as well as the high-collectivism cluster (β = .074, p = .041). The
relationship was strongest in the high-individualism cluster for both genders.
Hypothesis 1b was partially supported. Allowance for personal leave significantly
reduced work–family conflict for both genders. For men, this pattern held true across four
- 86 -
cultural clusters; the magnitude of the path coefficient was strongest in the high-individualism
cluster (β = -.227, p = .000) rather than in the high-collectivism cluster (β = -.067, p = 026),
contrary to expectations. As for women, the negative relationship was significant for both
individualism clusters. The relationship was more negative in the high-collectivism cluster (β = -
.136, p = .000), as expected. Surprisingly, work–family initiatives had no effect on work–family
conflict among women in countries in the mid-collectivism/low individualism cluster (i.e., Japan,
South Korea, Taiwan).
Work Demands and Work–Family Conflict
Working hours had significantly positive effects on work–family conflict among men in
the high-individualism cluster (β = .118, p = .000) and mid-collectivism cluster (β = .077, p
= .039). Work stress had even stronger effects on work–family conflict among men. This pattern
held true across cultures; the magnitude of the path coefficient was strongest for men in the mid-
individualism cluster (β = .310, p = .000) and weakest in the high-individualism cluster (β = .209,
p = .000). Hence, Hypothesis 2a and 2b were supported by the results found among men. There
was a positive relationship between working hours and work–family conflict for women in
collectivism clusters but not for those in individualism clusters. The effect of working hours on
work–family conflict was strongest among women in the mid–collectivism cluster. Furthermore,
positive associations between work stress and work–family conflict were found among women
across clusters; the relationship was strongest in the mid-collectivism cluster (β = .357, p = .000).
Work Demands and Job-Related Outcomes
For both genders, the relationship between working hours and organizational commitment
did not fit the hypotheses. For men, a positive association between working hours and
- 87 -
organizational commitment was found in high-individualism (β = .120, p = .000), mid-
individualism (β = .090, p = .019), and high-collectivism clusters (β = .070, p = .026). Among
women, this positive association was only found in the high-individualism cluster (β = .079, p
= .014). Hence, Hypothesis 3a was not supported by the results. Work stress was not associated
organizational commitment among men. For women, work stress and organizational
commitment were negatively associated only in the individualism clusters; the relationship was
strongest among women in the high–individualism cluster (β = -.120, p = .000), which supported
Hypothesis 3b.
Surprisingly, working hours had no effect on intention to leave across cultural clusters
regardless of gender, which failed to support Hypothesis 4a. There was no positive relationship
between work stress and intention to leave among men, whereas significant associations emerged
among women in the mid-individualism cluster (β = .091, p = .035). Hence, Hypothesis 4b was
partially supported.
Work-Family Initiatives and Work Demands
Hypothesis 5 was partially supported by results. Job autonomy was significantly and positively
associated with working hours across all four clusters, which failed to support Hypothesis 5a.
The relationship between the two variables was strongest for men in the high-collectivism cluster
(β = .240, p = .000). Similarly, a positive association between job autonomy and working hours
was found among women in three clusters, high individualism (β = .114, p = .002), mid
collectivism (β = .122, p = .022), and high collectivism (β = .310, p = .000). A negative
association between job autonomy and work stress was only found among men in the high-
individualism cluster (β = -.147, p = .000) and among women in the high-individualism (β = -
- 88 -
.084, p = .016) and mid-individualism (β = -.101, p = .019) clusters. Therefore, Hypothesis 5b
was supported by the results.
As expected, allowance for personal leave had negative effects on working hours among
men except those in the mid-individualism cluster. The magnitude of the path coefficient was
strongest for men in the high-individualism cluster (β = -.113, p = .000), which supported
Hypothesis 5c; however, the association among women was strongest in the high-collectivism
cluster (β = -.119, p = .001). Allowance for personal leave significantly decreased levels of work
stress among men across cultures, especially for those in the mid-individualism cluster (β = -.246,
p = .000). Similarly, this pattern held true among mothers across all cultural clusters. The
relationship was strongest for mothers in the high-individualism cluster (β = -.287, p = .000).
Hence, Hypothesis 5a was supported.
Work–Family Initiatives and Job-Related Outcomes
As stated in Hypothesis 6, work–family initiatives increased levels of organizational
commitment among men in all cultural contexts. Job autonomy was positively associated with
organizational commitment, particularly in the high-collectivism cluster (β = .239, p = .000) and
less so in the high-individualism cluster (β = .194, p = .000), which partially supported
Hypothesis 6a. A similar positive relationship was found between allowance for personal leave
and organizational commitment among men in all four clusters. However, this relationship was
strongest among men in countries with highly individualist cultures (β = .133, p = .000).
Positive effects of job autonomy on organizational commitment were found for mothers
in both individualism clusters and the high-collectivism cluster. Similarly, the positive
association between availability of personal leave and organizational commitment was
- 89 -
significant for mothers in the high-individualism and high-collectivism clusters. The effects of
work–family initiatives related to job autonomy (β = .183, p = .000) and allowance for personal
leave (β = .228, p = .000) on organizational commitment were strongest among women in the
high-collectivism cluster. Hence, Hypothesis 6b was supported.
The effects of job autonomy (β = -.089, p = .003) and allowance for personal leave (β = -
.077, p = .010) on intention to leave were significant for men only in the high-individualism
cluster, which supported Hypothesis 7a and 7b. Similarly, the negative relationship between job
autonomy and intention to leave was only found among mothers in the high-individualism
cluster (β = -.115, p = .002); allowance for personal leave had no effect on intention to leave
among women in any clusters.
Work-Family Conflict and Job-Related Outcomes
The relationship between work–family conflict and organizational commitment was
significant among men in the mid-collectivism cluster only (β = -.123, p = .002). Further, work–
family conflict was positively related to men’s intention to leave in collectivist cultures,
especially those in the mid-collectivism cluster (β = .105, p = .009). Hypothesis 8 was partially
supported by the results found among men. In contrast, work–family conflict had no effect on
organizational commitment among women, but was positively related to intention to leave
among women. The relationship was strongest among women in the high-individualism (β
= .132, p = .000), which supported Hypothesis 9.

- 90 -

Table 4.5
Standardized Parameter Estimates for a Four-Group Cross-Cultural Model among Men
Path High
Individualism
Mid
Individualism
Mid
Collectivism
High
Collectivism
β SD β SD β SD β SD
JA → WFC .175*** .036 .050 .057 .043 .051 .096** .043
JA → WH .184*** .005 .155*** .009 .136** .010 .240*** .006
JA → WS -.147*** .065 .032 .096 .049 .096 -.006 .082
JA → OC .194*** .061 .169*** .087 .157*** .073 .239*** .062
JA → IL -.089** .026 -.011 .033 -.052 .028 .043 .024
APL → WFC -.227*** .043 -.149*** .072 -.081* .067 -.067* .055
APL → WH -.113*** .007 -.068 .011 -.092* .013 -.109*** .008
APL → WS -.195*** .079 -.246*** .122 -.215*** .127 -.185*** .106
APL → OC .133*** .074 .108** .111 .130** .097 .080** .079
APL → IL -.077** .031 .040 .042 .018 .038 -.055 .030
WH → WFC .118*** .172 -.043 .246 .077* .202 .056 .217
WH → OC .120*** .292 .090* .373 .011 .293 .070* .314
WH → IL -.038 .124 -.023 .144 -.056 .114 .022 .120
WS → WFC .209*** .014 .310*** .022 .261*** .021 .304*** .015
WS → OC .042 .023 -.057 .033 .051 .031 -.054 .023
WS → IL .044 .010 .024 .013 -.073 .012 .035 .009
WFC → OC -.039 .044 .055 .057 -.123** .055 .035 .044
WFC → IL .042 .019 .069 .022 .105** .021 .081** .017
Note. APL = allowance for personal leave; IL = intention to leave; JA = job autonomy; OC = organizational commitment;
WFC = work–family conflict; WH = working hours; WS = work stress.
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001
- 91 -
Table 4.6
Standardized Parameter Estimates for a Four-Group Cross-Cultural Model among Women
Path High
Individualism
Mid
Individualism
Mid
Collectivism
High
Collectivism
β SD β SD β SD β SD
JA → WFC .112** .053 .091* .067 -.040 .059 .074* .053
JA → WH .114** .007 .037 .010 .122* .014 .310*** .008
JA → WS -.084* .091 -.101* .113 -.068 .116 -.034 .092
JA → OC .180*** .088 .125** .108 .105 .090 .183*** .079
JA → IL -.115** .035 .000 .038 -.055 .037 -.010 .028
APL → WFC -.107** .056 -.114** .075 -.074 .075 -.136*** .062
APL → WH -.071 .007 -.024 .011 -.013 .017 -.119** .009
APL → WS -.287*** .094 -.187*** .127 -.259*** .146 -.183*** .111
APL → OC .143*** .093 .061 .122 .138* .114 .228*** .092
APL → IL -.066 .037 -.022 .043 .033 .048 -.059 .033
WH → WFC .056 .251 -.010 .292 .156*** .213 .107** .243
WH → OC .079* .417 .023 .468 .036 .327 -.018 .359
WH → IL -.039 .166 -.050 .166 .019 .137 .035 .129
WS → WFC .285*** .019 .309*** .023 .357*** .025 .326*** .019
WS → OC -.120*** .032 -.086* .039 -.102 .040 -.017 .030
WS → IL .058 .013 .091* .014 .086 .017 .025 .011
WFC → OC -.018 .054 -.061 .065 .068 .073 .008 .051
WFC → IL .132*** .022 .150*** .023 -.026 .030 .096* .018
Note. APL = allowance for personal leave; IL = intention to leave; JA = job autonomy; OC = organizational
commitment; WFC = work–family conflict; WH = working hours; WS = work stress.
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

Discussion
Drawing on resources-demands theory (Demerouti et al., 2001), social exchange theory
(Rhodes & Eisenberger, 2002), role theory (Kahn et al., 1964), and GLOBE’s in-group
collectivism scale (Gelfand et al., 2004), the present study tested a model of work–family
interface, examining organizational work–family initiatives, work demands, work–family
conflict, and affective consequences among parents with full-time employment randomly drawn
from 24 countries. Results showed that the model fit the data based on four cultural subgroups.
There were some cultural similarities in terms of the strength of the relationships among
variables based on gender. As expected, job autonomy and allowance for personal leave have
- 92 -
beneficial effects on both men and women in terms of meeting their work demands. Having
greater control over their work schedule helped parents in individualist countries reduce their
work stress. Similarly, being able to take leave to attend to family matters significantly lessened
work stress among all participants.
Contrary to prior findings (Michel et al., 2011), the present results showed that job
autonomy exacerbated feelings of work interfering with family life for both genders in highly
individualist countries (e.g., Germany, Great Britain, Sweden, the United States). To
individualists, the work and family domains exert competing demands; therefore, flexible
arrangements have been viewed as an organizational support to cope with work–family conflict
(Masuda et al., 2012; Spector et al., 2007). Employees in individualist countries were found to
have more access to flexible time, a compressed work week, part-time work, and telecommuting
compared with employees in collectivist countries (Masuda et al., 2012). Although employees
could control how their work was organized, the intrusion of work into the home blurred the
boundaries between work and family life, and may have increased conflict between the two
domains. Two studies conducted among individualists in New Zealand and the United States
found positive relationships between flexible work arrangements and work–family conflict
(Brough, O’Driscoll, & Kalliath, 2005; Hammer, Neal, Newsom, Brockwood, & Colton, 2005).
As found in the present study, job autonomy strengthened the strain parents feel when family life
makes it difficult to fulfill work responsibilities. The effects of job autonomy on organizational
commitment and intention to leave differed based on cultural context. Congruent with the
literature (McNall et al., 2010; Spector et al., 2007), the positive relationship between job
autonomy and organizational commitment was strongest among parents in highly collectivist
- 93 -
countries. In contrast, the negative association between job autonomy and intention to leave was
strongest in highly individualist cultures.
Notably, these results differed both by cultural grouping and gender. Men in highly
individualist countries (e.g., Germany, Great Britain, Sweden, and the United States) were most
affected by the work–family interface in general, whereas women in highly collectivist countries
(e.g., Mexico, the Philippines, Russia, and Spain) were most influenced by the research model.
With respect to the relationship between work demands and work–family conflict, working
longer periods of time strongly increased work–family conflict among participants, especially
men in highly individualist countries and mothers in certain Asian countries with collectivistic
cultures (i.e., Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan). Work stress significantly increased work–family
conflict among men across all clusters, especially those in mid-individualist cultures (e.g., France,
Hungary, Ireland, Israel, and South Africa). In contrast, this relationship was strongest for
mothers in certain collectivist Asian countries. This finding suggests that the effects of work
stress on some Asian mothers may be derived from traditional gender roles and demanding
working environments. With globalization, employees in Asia have been greatly affected by
Western and industrial work practices. Studies have found that Asian employees work longer
hours (up to 51.58 hours a week for men and 46.70 hours a week for women in the present study;
see Table 4.2) than their Western counterparts (Lu et al., 2008). Collectivist people are more
likely to put work before family; therefore, working long hours to support the family is often
considered a social norm. Given the traditional gender role of women assuming more
responsibility to meet family demands (Joplin, Shaffer, Francesco, & Lau, 2003; Roehling, Jarvis,
& Swope, 2005), work-related demands may have an even greater effect on mothers in Asia
- 94 -
countries with collectivistic cultures. Lu et al. (2009) found a stronger relationship between work
demands and work–family conflict in Taiwan than the United Kingdom.
Compared with the exacerbating effects of work demands on work–family conflict, the
present study showed that allowance for personal leave had protective effects for parents seeking
to balance work and family demands. Having the freedom to take brief leaves of absence to
respond to family demands significantly reduced work–family conflict among men across
cultures, especially those in highly individualist countries. In contrast, this relationship was
strongest for women in highly collectivist countries. Moreover, being able to take personal leave
helped men ease tension from working long hours, especially in highly individualist countries.
However, this relationship was only found among women in the high-collectivism cluster
(Mexico, the Philippines, Russia, and Spain). This suggests that allowance for personal leave
helped lessen strain from working long hours among women in collectivist cultures. Furthermore,
we found differences in the relationship between allowance for personal leave and affective
outcomes by gender. Consistent with the literature, results showed that having freedom to take a
brief leave increased organizational commitment and reduced the desire to leave a job among
men in highly individualist countries. However, this effect on organizational commitment was
significant only for women in highly collectivist countries, and allowance for personal leave had
no effect on women’s intention to leave across cultural clusters. As discussed earlier, women,
especially those in collectivist countries, are expected to assume traditional gender roles and
place the needs of their children and family above their own (Joplin et al., 2003; Roehling et al.,
2005). Given this strain from traditional gender role expectations and long working hours,
having the autonomy to decide when to start and finish daily work, as well as more freedom to
take time off to attend to family matters, can help mothers in collectivist countries balance their
- 95 -
work and family life (Lu et al., 2008) and increase their loyalty to organizations that offer such
family-friendly support.
In terms of the relationships among work demands and affective outcomes, results
showed that working long hours was positively related to organizational commitment in highly
individualistic countries regardless of gender, in contrast to findings in the literature (Spector et
al., 2007). Individualist people may view work as a means to personal achievement and
development (Yang, 2005; Yang et al., 2000). The length of time individualists devoted to work
suggested a sense of achievement they gained from work and emotional attachment to their
employer. The mechanisms underlying this finding deserve attention in future research using a
longitudinal design. Interestingly, we found that neither working hours nor work stress
influenced men’s intention to leave, whereas only work stress increased women’s intention to
leave in individualist countries such as France, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, and South Africa, which
is consistent with other cross-national studies (Spector et al., 2007). Traditional gender roles
prescribe that work is more important for men as breadwinners of households rather than women.
Increased involvement in work may lead to men to better tolerate strain in the work domain
(Bakker et al., 2008). With respect to the relationship between work–family conflict and
affective outcomes, men in certain Asian countries with collectivist cultures (Japan, South Korea,
and Taiwan) were less likely to be committed to their employers and more likely to report
intentions to leave when experiencing high levels of work–family conflict. The results of
multigroup path analysi showed that although working hours and stress had no direct effects on
affective outcomes among men in some collectivist Asian cultures, they had significant indirect
effects via work–family conflict on organizational commitment and intention to leave. Indirect
effects of work demands may strengthen negative attitudes among some Asian men towards their
- 96 -
employers. In contrast, women in individualist countries were more likely to leave their jobs
when they experienced high conflict in negotiating work and family roles, which is consistent
with findings in the literature. Individualists perceive the needs of the self and the family as
distinct. To them, time and energy spent at work compete with their duties to family (Lu et al.,
2010). Therefore, when facing high conflict between work and family roles, individualist
mothers may choose to leave the job to fulfill family responsibilities.
This study contributed to international work–family research in several important ways.
First, drawing on solid theories developed in individualist societies, the research model tested the
effects of culture and gender to examine relationships among job autonomy, allowance for
personal leave, work demands, work–family conflict, and affective consequences (i.e., intention
to leave and organizational commitment) across 24 countries in four distinct cultural
subcategories. Second, findings highlighted the importance of culture and gender on job
autonomy and allowance for personal leave across countries. For men in individualist countries,
allowance for personal leave had stronger effects on reducing their work–family conflict,
whereas having control over work schedules significantly lessened strain from working long
hours and work–family conflict among women in collectivist countries. Furthermore, having
control over work time lessened individualist men’s work strain and reduced their desire to leave
organizations. In contrast, for collectivist mothers, allowance for personal leave significantly
reduced work stress and increased their commitment to their organizations. Lastly, the study
from which data was obtained for this study has a strong reputation for methodological rigor.
This use of cross-national data collected from random samples allows findings to be generalized
to populations in countries included in the present study.
- 97 -
Although a solid theoretical framework and cross-national data with probability samples
were used, the present study has certain limitations. First, the use of cross-sectional data does not
allow for inferences with respect to causality, which limits the study’s internal validity, or the
ability to exclude competing explanations for findings. Second, the use of secondary data for
analysis has inherent limitations. Well-established and theory-based multi-item measures of
flexible work arrangements, work–family conflict, organizational commitment, and intention to
leave should have been adopted in the questionnaires used across countries. The use of single-
item measures for allowance for personal leave and intention to leave may have hampered
examination of work–family issues. Hence, comparisons between cultures and nations must be
conducted with caution. Third, cultural values used in the present study were drawn from
inferences about national differences based on GLOBE’s study (Gelfand et al., 2004). It should
be noted that individuals within countries vary in values; therefore, not all people in an
individualist society will be individualists, and so forth. Fourth, the present study did not rule out
the possibility of other explanations, such as economic and political factors or other cultural
differences. These differences may explain some findings that differ from those in the literature.
Fifth, the present study focused on examining work–family conflict among dual-earner couples;
therefore, the samples were restricted to those with children and full-time employment.
Therefore, work–family challenges among single-parent families with part-time employment
were not explored. Finally, social desirability in self-reporting posed a threat to internal validity.
Implications for Research and Practice
Future studies examining the consequences of job autonomy and allowance for personal
leave should use frequency and intensity of usage on affective outcomes to better understand the
role of these policies across cultures. In addition, efforts to investigate relationships among job
- 98 -
autonomy, allowance for personal leave, work demands, work–family conflict, and affective
consequences (i.e., intention to leave and organizational commitment) should feature
longitudinal designs. Scholars and researchers exploring the mechanism that links work–family
demands and consequences may consider collecting data from additional sources, such as
coworkers, supervisors, and family members. Family-related outcomes such as marital
satisfaction and family well-being should have been included to broaden the research framework.
Lastly, well-established and theory-based multi-item measures of flexible work arrangements,
work–family conflict, organizational commitment, intention to leave, and cultural values should
be used for future cross-cultural research.
The results of this study highlight the need for organizational support and work–family
initiatives for both individualist and collectivist parents to better balance their work and family
lives. Furthermore, results highlight the importance of general and culture-specific practices for
multinational organizations to help their employees address work–family issues. It is important
to consider cultural context and gender roles when implementing family-friendly programs.
Based on these findings, organizations in individualist countries (e.g., Germany, Great Britain,
Sweden, and the United States) could provide allowance for personal leave to male employees
with children as an effective strategy to reduce their work–family conflict and desire to leave
their jobs. In contrast, to increase organizational commitment among female employees,
organizations in collectivist countries (e.g., Mexico, the Philippines, Russia, and Spain) may
offer more job autonomy to effectively lessen strain from work demands and imbalanced work
and family roles. In general, the results of this large-scale, cross-national investigation may assist
parents to balance work and family roles, help employers design family-friendly programs and
initiatives, and motivate future cross-sectional and longitudinal studies on these critical topics.
- 99 -
Chapter 5: Personality, Work–Family Conflict, and Well-Being at Work in a Cross-
Cultural Context
Introduction
Seeking solutions to reduce the negative consequences of WFC among employees, work–
family research scholars have focused on the stressor-strain model, which examines the influence
of environmental factors such as family-friendly public policies and organizational work–family
initiatives. However, conflicts may exist between the priorities of work and family domains.
Individual perceptions of work–family conflict may be related to personality (Wayne, Musisca,
& Fleeson, 2004). Even in the same conditions, individuals with different personality types may
perceive situations involving work–family conflict differently (Friede & Ryan, 2005). Very few
studies in Western societies have examined personality characteristics in the context of work and
family domains (Kinnunen, Vermulst, Gerris, & Makikangas, 2003; Rantanen, Pulkkinen, &
Kinnunen, 2005; Wayne et al., 2004). Friede and Ryan (2005) concluded that the underlying
mechanism of how self-evaluation influences the work–family interface is still unclear in the
literature. Among personality traits, neuroticism, openness to experience, and conscientiousness
have been found to be associated with conflict between work and family (Kinnunen et al., 2003;
Wayne et al., 2004). Conducting multinational comparisons using mean levels of personality
traits among large samples across cultures, psychology scholars have found that personality traits
are associated with culture and gender differences (Costa et al., 2001; Heine & Buchtel, 2009;
Hofstede & McCrae, 2004; McCrae et al., 2005; Schmitt et al., 2008). A review of research on
personality traits by Heine and Buchtel (2009) found that individuals in collectivist cultures seem
to rely less on traits compared to those from individualist cultures. They concluded that too little
research on personality has been conducted outside of Western settings.
- 100 -
Well-being at work, known as job satisfaction, has been regarded as one of the most
important predictors of well-being (Judge & Watanabe, 1993). Research has shown that work–
family conflict (WFC), a potential source of stress, is related to job dissatisfaction (Kelly et al.,
2008; Lu et al., 2010). Furthermore, a stream of research in psychology and personality has
shown that job satisfaction is dispositionally based (Dormann & Zapf, 2001; Michel & Clark,
2009). Similarly, extant research has not adequately examined whether personality plays a role in
job satisfaction in a cross-cultural context. There is very little knowledge relevant to the interplay
among personality dimensions, work–family conflict, and job satisfaction. According to job
demands–resources theory (JD-R), resources in the workplace such as relationships with
management and coworkers have been found to be protective factors for handling work and
family issues and significantly increase employees’ satisfaction toward their jobs (Allen, 2001;
Batt & Valcour, 2003; Lu et al., 2005, 2008). Associations among work resources, WFC, and job
satisfaction have been well documented in the Western literature; however, the interface among
personality traits, work–family conflict, work resources, and job satisfaction deserves further
investigation in differing national contexts. It is important to examine the role of dispositional
factors in the work–family interface. Recognizing this void in work–family research, the present
study explored whether the personality, conflict, and well-being model developed in Western
societies is transportable across individualist and collectivist cultures by using structural equation
modeling with multi-group approach to analyze data collected from randomly sampled
individuals with full-time employment in 14 countries.
Personality, Work–Family Conflict, and Culture
Personality may affect individual perceptions of work–family role requirements (Friede
& Ryan, 2005). A comprehensive assessment of personality traits, such as the Big Five Inventory
- 101 -
(McCrae & John, 1992), has been used to fully investigate the role of personality in WFC. The
five-factor model features five key dimensions—neuroticism, extraversion, openness to
experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness—that together represent the basic dimensions
of personality (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Neuroticism, as a broad domain of negative affectivity,
refers to anxiety, insecurity, defensiveness, tension, and worry (Judge & Higgins, 1999). It has
been considered a risk factor that predisposes individuals to experience negative affectivity
regarding themselves and the surrounding world (McCrae & Costa, 1990). Individuals who
report higher levels of neuroticism may experience emotional instability and be less likely to
control their ability to cope with stress (Rantanen et al., 2005). Previous studies showed a direct
and positive link between neuroticism and work–family conflict (Michel et al., 2010; Rantanen
et al., 2005). Using a national random sample of 2,130 respondents in the United States, Wayne
et al. (2004) investigated the relationship between personality traits and work–family conflict.
Findings revealed that personality traits significantly predicted the levels of work–family conflict
experienced by participants, accounting for approximately 15% of the variance in work–family
conflict. Neuroticism was positively and bidirectionally related to work–family conflict (Wayne
et al., 2004).
Openness to experience, as one dimension of personality, has been described as
intelligence, unconventionality, imagination, curiosity, creativity, and originality (Costa &
McCrae, 1992). Individuals with a higher level of openness to experience might be more willing
to transfer new skills and behaviors learned in one domain to benefit another (Wayne et al.,
2004). The basic elements of conscientiousness include achievement orientation, orderliness,
organization, determination, and thoroughness (Costa & McCrae, 1991; McCrae & John, 1992).
Individuals with a high level of conscientiousness are more effective at managing their time,
- 102 -
responsibilities, and tasks, and consequently report less work-to-family and family-to-work
conflict (Rantanen et al., 2005; Wayne et al., 2004). Findings of previous studies examining
associations between work–family conflict and openness to experience and conscientiousness
have been mixed. Conducting a longitudinal study among 155 participants in Finland, Rantanen
et al. (2005) found a positive relationship between openness to experience and family-to-work
conflict among men, whereas Stoeva et al. (2002) found that openness to experience had no
effect on either work-to-family or family-to-work conflict. Furthermore, a negative relationship
between conscientiousness and work–family conflict was found among American samples
(Wayne et al., 2004), but the same relationship was not found among Finnish samples (Rantanen
et al., 2005).
Personality and culture are two domains influenced by social learning, genetics, and their
interactions (Diener et al., 2003). Hofstede and McCrae (2004) explored the relationship between
personality and culture and found that mean scores on five personality dimensions among
comparative samples of employees of a large technology company from 33 countries correlated
significantly with four cultural dimensions of the organization. Neuroticism scores were higher
in uncertainty-avoiding masculine cultures, whereas extraversion scores were higher in
individualist cultures. Realo, Allik, and Vadi (1997) found a negative correlation between
openness to experience and collectivist cultures and a positive correlation between
conscientiousness and collectivist cultures.
Among five dimensions of personality, neuroticism has received the most empirical
attention in work–family research, whereas extraversion and agreeableness have been shown to
have little effect on work–family conflict (Rantanen et al., 2005; Wayne et al., 2004). As
discussed earlier, associations between work–family conflict and openness to experience and
- 103 -
conscientiousness have been inconsistent in the literature and thus deserve further investigation
using random samples across cultures. The present study focused on three dimensions of
personality: neuroticism, openness to experience, and conscientiousness. Based on prior findings,
the following hypotheses were proposed.
H1: Openness to experience would reduce work–family conflict, and the relationship
would be most negative among countries characterized by individualism.
H2: Neuroticism would increase work–family conflict, and the relationship would be
most positive among countries characterized by individualism.
H3: Conscientiousness would reduce work–family conflict, and the relationship would be
most negative among countries characterized by collectivism.
Personality and Job Satisfaction
A meta-analysis found that job satisfaction is the most researched outcome variable
associated with work–family conflict (Allen, Herst, Bruck, & Sutton, 2000). Extensive research
has shown that job satisfaction is dispositionally based (House, Shane, & Herold, 1996; Judge,
Heller, & Mount, 2002). Personality traits have been linked with job satisfaction (DeNeve &
Cooper, 1998). A meta-analytic study using 334 correlations from 163 independent samples to
investigate the relationship between the five-factor model of personality and job satisfaction
found that neuroticism and conscientiousness were strong correlates of job satisfaction, whereas
extraversion had no relationship with job satisfaction. On the other hand, openness to experience
had a weak correlation with job satisfaction (Judge et al., 2002). These findings inspired the
following hypotheses.
- 104 -
H4: Openness to experience would increase job satisfaction, and the relationship would
be most positive among countries characterized by individualism.
H5: Neuroticism would reduce job satisfaction, and the relationship would be most
negative among countries characterized by individualism.
H6: Conscientiousness would increase job satisfaction, and the relationship would be
most negative among countries characterized by collectivism.
Work Resources, Work–Family Conflict, and Job Satisfaction
According to job demands–resources theory, job resources include work-related factors
that reduce demands in the workplace, facilitate the completion of work goals, and/or engender
personal learning, growth, or development (Demerouti et al., 2001). Social support has been
identified as a coping mechanism that can reduce the negative effects of stressors (Fisher 1985;
Thomas & Ganster, 1995). Social support has been conceptualized as the perception that
assistance is available or the degree to which an individual is integrated in a social network (i.e.,
work relations). The degree of social support an individual receives in a given situation could
affect the stress process (Carlson & Perrewe, 1999). Kamerman and Kahn (1987) indicated that
support at work has beneficial effects on both integrating work–family roles and work
performance. Social support from immediate supervisors or coworkers in the form of acting as
confidants and giving advice or information directly related to work issues helps reduce work–
family conflict (Buunk & Verhoeven, 1991; Lapierre & Allen, 2006).
Research in individualist countries has revealed a significant relationship between
employees’ perception of the supportiveness of their supervisor and lower levels of work–family
conflict (Behson, 2005; Lapierre & Allen, 2006; Seiger & Wiese, 2009). In a cross-cultural
- 105 -
comparative study, Lu et al. (2010) found that work resources had a stronger effect among
Taiwanese (collectivist) than British (individualist) respondents in terms of reducing work–
family conflict. Furthermore, the positive relationship between work resources and job
satisfaction was stronger for British than Taiwanese. Work–family conflict has found to be
negatively related to job satisfaction in both individualist and collectivist countries (Allen, 2001;
Batt & Valcour, 2003; Lu et al., 2005, 2008). Using a sample of 5,270 managers from 20
countries, Spector et al. (2007) found that the negative relationship between work–family
conflict and job satisfaction was stronger in individualist Anglo countries than in more
collectivist regions of the world, specifically Asia, East Europe, and Latin America. Based on
these findings, the following hypotheses were proposed.
H7: Work resources would reduce work–family conflict, and the relationship would be
most negative among countries characterized by collectivism.
H8: Work resources would increase job satisfaction, and the relationship would be most
positive among countries characterized by individualism.
H9: Work–family conflict would reduce job satisfaction, and the relationship would be
most negative among countries characterized by individualism.
Gender Differences in Personality Traits and Culture
Psychology research has suggested that men and women differ in a number of personality
traits. Sex differences observed in personality traits such as anxiety has been found to be
culturally pervasive (Costa, Terracciano, & McCrae, 2001; McCrae, 2002). Conducting the first
comprehensive study on the consistency of sex differences in personality across cultures, Costa
et al. (2001) used the revised NEO Personality Inventory to assess personality factors and
- 106 -
characteristics among more than 23,000 men and women from 26 cultures and found that women
in most countries were more likely to have personality traits related to neuroticism and openness
to feelings, whereas men scored higher on scales measuring assertiveness and openness to ideas.
Findings of a large-scale comparative study conducted by Schmitt, Realo, Voracek, and Allik
(2008) examining sex differences in personality traits across 55 nations in 10 regions indicated
that sex differences were most pronounced on the neuroticism dimension. In 49 nations, women
scored significantly higher on the neuroticism subscale of the Big Five Inventory than men,
whereas in Indonesia and Botswana, men scored slightly higher than women. Furthermore,
women scored higher than men on the conscientiousness subscale in 23 countries. However,
findings of research on sex differences regarding openness to experience have been somewhat
mixed. Women scored higher than men on openness to aesthetics, feelings, and actions in Costa
et al.’s (2001) study, whereas men scored higher than women in 37 countries in Schmitt et al.’s
(2008) study. Research has shown that Western countries with individualist values have greater
gender differences in terms of personality traits than collectivist cultures (Costa et al., 2001;
Heine & Buchtel, 2009). Gender differences in personality were found to be the most significant
in prosperous, healthy, and egalitarian cultures in which women and men have similar or equal
opportunities (Schmitt et al., 2008).
H10: Greater gender differences in personality traits would be more prevalent among
countries characterized by individualism.
The Present Study
The literature has suggested that personality should be given greater consideration in
understanding how an individual views and experiences multiple roles. Nevertheless, extant
- 107 -
studies focusing on work and family issues have examined antecedents of work–family conflict
related to situational factors (e.g., work overload, long working hours, family-friendly policies)
rather than personal factors (e.g., personality traits), which have received far less attention in
research on the work–family interface. Furthermore, personality traits have been associated with
culture (Costa et al., 2001; Diener et al., 2003; Heine & Buchtel, 2009; Hofstede & McCrae,
2004). Some scholars in psychology have conducted multinational comparisons using mean
levels of personality traits across large samples of cultures (Costa et al., 2001; McCrae et al.,
2005; Schmitt et al., 2008); however, it is difficult to understand the interplay among personality
dimensions, work–family conflict, and job satisfaction by comparing self-reported data across
cultures. Cross-cultural research on the role of dispositional factors into research on work–family
interface would be informative. In addition, although the protective effects of social support in
the workplace have been well documented in the Western literature, very few cross-cultural
comparison studies have examined the protective effects of work resources on work–family
conflict and its deleterious effects on job satisfaction. To fill the void of the literature, the present
study was designed to illuminate the interplay among personality, work–family conflict, work
resources, and job satisfaction in different cultural contexts. Drawing on the five-factor model of
personality (McCrae & John, 1992), resources–demands theory (Demerouti et al., 2001), role
stress theory (Kahn et al., 1964), and GLOBE’s in-group collectivism scale (Gelfand et al., 2004),
the present study used multigroup structural equation modeling to examine how personality
affects work–family conflict, work resources, and job satisfaction among parents with full-time
employment randomly drawn from 14 countries divided in two cultural clusters—individualist
and collectivist (see Figure 5.1). In addition, recognizing the important influence of gender on
societal and work roles, the present study performed statistical analyses separately by gender
- 108 -
rather than included it as a control variable to more thoroughly explore similarities and
differences between men and women in terms of the effects of personality characteristics that on
the relationship between work–family conflict and job satisfaction.

- 109 -

Note. Solid lines indicate positive relationships and dotted lines indicate negative relationships.
- 110 -
Methods
Data
The data used in this study come from the International Social Survey Program (ISSP).
The ISSP is an ongoing annual collaboration across nations that began in 1985. Data for the ISSP
are collected by independent institutions in several countries. Topics change annually, with to the
goal of replicating issues approximately every 5 years. The ISSP’s official data archive is the
Zentralarchiv at the University of Cologne in Germany. The topic of the 2005 survey was “Work
Orientations,” which included issues related to employment arrangements, job characteristics,
subjective job-related experiences, work outcomes, work–life balance, work centrality, and
solidarity and conflict in work relations. Furthermore, the ISSP data set contains several
sociodemographic variables. The data on Work Orientations were collected from 31 countries, of
which only 14 participated in an optional survey of personality traits. Informed by the GLOBE
study’s classification system (Gelfand et al., 2004), the present study used the personality data
from 14 countries, restricting the sample to participants who had children and full-time jobs.
Sample
In the GLOBE study, all participating countries were ranked based on mean in-group
collectivism scores (Gelfand et al., 2004). The 14 countries included in the present study were
grouped based on whether their cultural values tended to be individualist or collectivist
according to the work of Hofstede et al. (2010) and Hill et al. (2004).The individualism cluster
included eight countries with individualist cultures: Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Israel,
New Zealand, Switzerland, and the United States. The collectivism cluster included six countries:
Japan, Mexico, the Philippines, Russia, South Korea, and Taiwan. Not surprisingly, the average
- 111 -
collectivism score of the collectivist cluster (M = 5.57) was higher than that of the individualist
cluster (M = 4.20; see Table 5.1). The present study used a random sample of 4,340 working
parents with full-time employment.
Table 5.1
Collectivism Scores for 14 Countries in Two Cultural Clusters (N = 4,340)
Cluster Sample Size In-Group
Collectivism Score
Cluster Collectivism
Score
Individualist 4.20
Denmark 453 3.53
New Zealand 243 3.67
Switzerland 164 3.97
Germany 242 4.02
United States 309 4.25
France 393 4.37
Israel 228 4.70
Ireland 186 5.14
Collectivist 5.57
Japan 125 4.63
South Korea 325 5.54
Taiwan 625 5.59
Russia 390 5.63
Mexico 327 5.71
Philippines 330 6.36
Note. Higher scores indicate greater collectivism. In-group collectivism scores obtained from
GLOBE’s study (Gelfand et al., 2004).

Measurement
Dependent Variable
Job satisfaction. Job satisfaction was assessed with a single item: “How satisfied are you
in your (main) job?” Response choices ranged from 1 = completely satisfied to 7 = completely
dissatisfied. After reverse coding, higher scores indicated higher levels of job satisfaction.

- 112 -
Independent Variables
Personality traits. Three dimensions of personality—openness to experience,
neuroticism, and conscientiousness—were assessed using the revised version of the Big Five
Inventory (John et al., 1991). Openness to experience was assessed with a 2-item scale: “I see
myself as someone who has active imagination” and “I see myself as someone who has few
artistic interests.” Neuroticism was measured with 3 items, including “I see myself as someone
who tends to find fault with others” and “I see myself as someone who gets nervous easily.” A 2-
item scale was used to measure conscientiousness. Items were “I see myself as someone who
does a thorough job” and “I tend to be lazy.” Responses were scored on a 5-point Likert scale (1
= strongly agree to 5 = strongly disagree). After reverse coding 4 items, higher scores indicated
the presence of a specific trait.
Work–family conflict. Reflecting a bidirectional conceptualization of work–family
conflict, a 2-item scale was used to measure the degree of stress caused by difficulty balancing
work and family domains. Items measured whether the demands of their job interfered with each
respondent’s family life (work-to-family conflict) and whether the demands of their family life
interfered with their job (family-to-work conflict). Responses were scored on a 5-point Likert
scale (1 = always to 5 = never). After reverse coding, higher scores indicated higher levels of
work–family conflict.
Work resources. A 2-item scale was used to assess two work resources: (1) relationship
with management and (2) relationship with colleagues. Items were “How would you describe
relations at your workplace between management and employees?” and “How would you
describe relations at your workplace among workmates/colleagues?” Items on the scale were
- 113 -
rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = very good to 5 = very bad). After reverse coding, higher
scores represented better workplace relations.
Demographics. Control variables included marital status (1 = married, 0 = single), job
position (supervisor = 1, other = 0), and years of education.
Data Analysis
Structural equation modeling was performed to estimate the personality, conflict, and
well-being model (see Figure 4.1). A single group model was estimated first with all respondents
included, regardless of any heterogeneity in paths due to differences in culture or gender. This
analysis helped determine whether the model was plausible with all participants across 14
countries. To capture cultural differences, a two-group model was reestimated using the two
cultural clusters. Then, to capture possible differences by gender, the two-group model was
reestimated separately for men and women. These models were first analyzed without equality
constraints on paths across groups. These freely estimated models served as the baseline models
to be compared to subsequent models with equality constraints on certain paths. The model
parameters were estimated with the maximum likelihood (ML) method of estimation. Model fit
was assessed using chi-square tests, comparative fit index (CFI), normed fit index (NFI), and
root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA).
Results
Table 5.2 presents comparisons of variables by cultural cluster and gender. More than
70% of participants in both individualist and collectivist clusters were married. In both clusters,
women were more educated (individualist = 14.06 years; collectivist = 12.38 years), whereas
men were more likely to occupy supervisory positions in the workplace (individualist = 52.67%;
- 114 -
collectivist = 35.68%). In terms of personal traits, men in both clusters scored high on openness
to experience (individualist = 52.67%; collectivist = 35.68%), whereas women scored higher on
neuroticism (individualist = 7.35; collectivist = 8.13). Participants in the individualist cluster had
higher levels of conscientiousness than those in the collectivist cluster. They also had more
work-related resources. In the individualist cluster, men had higher levels of work–family
conflict than women, whereas in the collectivist cluster, women had greater feelings of conflicts
between work and family. Overall, participants in the individualist cluster had higher levels of
work–family conflict (men = 4.99, women = 4.82) and job satisfaction (men = 5.41, women =
5.34) than those in the collectivist group. Results of correlations among variables by cultural
cluster and gender are presented in Table 5.3 and Table 5.4.
Table 5.2
Comparison of Variable Means by Cultural Cluster and Gender (N = 4,340)
Variable Individualism Collectivism
Men Women Men Women
M SD M SD M SD M SD
Openness to experience 7.22 1.66 7.19 1.70 6.79 1.65 6.65 1.66
Neuroticism 7.29 2.06 7.35 2.15 7.60 2.14 8.13 2.07
Conscientiousness 8.54 1.26 8.78 1.18 7.84 1.45 7.80 1.32
Work resources 8.18 1.49 8.06 1.54 7.94 1.36 7.85 1.33
Work–family conflict 4.99 1.66 4.82 1.68 4.29 1.84 4.37 1.84
Job satisfaction 5.41 1.12 5.34 1.21 5.23 1.26 5.16 1.23
Supervisor (yes) 52.67% .49 36.75% .48 35.68% .47 23.13% .42
Education 13.41 3.58 14.06 3.10 11.79 3.96 12.38 3.49
Married 84.83% .35 74.03% .44 86.56% .34 71.96% .45
n 1320 898 1305 817
Note. Two-item scales were for openness to experience, conscientiousness, work–family conflict, and work
resources. Neuroticism was a 3-item scale. Job satisfaction was 1-item scale ranging from 1 to 7. Responses were
rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly agree to 5 = strongly disagree) except job satisfaction, supervisor
status, education, and marital status.

- 115 -

Table 5.3
Correlations among Variables by Cultural Cluster among Men
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Individualist (n = 1,320)
1. Married 1.00
2. Supervisor .06* 1.00
3. Education .07* .13** 1.00
4. OE -.07* .02 .07* 1.00
5. Neuroticism -.07* -.01 -.01 -.18** 1.00
6. Conscientiousness .08** .06* .03 .15** -.24** 1.00
7. WR .00 .11** .07* .03 -.20** .05 1.00
8. WFC .07* .14** .07* .03 .07* -.04 -.06* 1.00
9. JS .01 .13** .02 .04 -.22** .12** .49** -.14** 1.00
Collectivist (n = 1,305)
1. Married 1.00
2. Supervisor .09** 1.00
3. Education .09** .24** 1.00
4. OE -.03 .03 .03 1.00
5. Neuroticism .04 .09** .09** -.16** 1.00
6. Conscientiousness .04 .02 -.10** .19** -.26** 1.00
7. WR -.05 .08** .00 .11** -.15** .14** 1.00
8. WFC .06* .04 -.02 .07* .08** -.07** -.14** 1.00
9. JS -.02 .11** -.01 .14** -.17** .16** .38** -.07* 1.00
Note. JS = job satisfaction; OE = openness to experience; WFC = work–family conflict; WR = work resources.
*p < .05, **p < .01
- 116 -
Table 5.4
Correlations among Variables by Cultural Cluster among Women
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Individualist (n = 898)

1. Married
1.00

2. Supervisor
.03 1.00

3. Education
.06 .05 1.00

4. OE
-.03 .07 .06 1.00

5. Neuroticism
-.04 -.04 .06 -.21** 1.00

6. Conscientiousness
.07 .01 .00 .19** -.22** 1.00

7. WR
.13** .07* -.10** -.02 -.13** .03 1.00

8. WFC
.02 .09* .11** .01 .20** -.06 -.17** 1.00

9. JS
.14** .12** -.06 .02 -.17** .07* .51** -.20** 1.00
Collectivist (n = 817)

1. Married
1.00

2. Supervisor
.05 1.00

3. Education
.01 .18** 1.00

4. OE
-.06 .13** .15** 1.00

5. Neuroticism
.04 .01 .03 -.11** 1.00

6. Conscientiousness
.06 .05 -.05 .15** -.23** 1.00

7. WR
.01 .11** -.05 .07 -.17** .11** 1.00

8. WFC
.09** .01 .00 .06 .00 .00 -.11** 1.00

9. JS
.01 .14** .01 .15** -.18** .09* .36** -.04 1.00
Note. JS = job satisfaction; OE = openness to experience; WFC = work–family conflict; WR = work resources.
*p < .05, **p < .01,

Using multi-group structural equation modeling for data analyses, the results showed that
a single group model (χ
2
= 177.13, df = 7, p < .000, CFI = .919, NFI = .918, RMSEA = .075),
and the two-group model both fitted the data (χ
2
= 195.69, df = 14, p < .000, CFI = .915, NFI
= .912, RMSEA = .055). Our conceptual model also fitted the data well for men (χ
2
= 131.04, df
= 14, p < .000, CFI = .907, NFI = .903, RMSEA = .046) and women (χ
2
= 76.08, df = 14, p
< .000, CFI = .911, NFI = .907, RMSEA = .051). The results of standardized parameter estimates
for the two-group cross-cultural model based on gender are presented in Table 5.5 (men) and
Table 5.6 (women). Adding equality constraints on certain paths resulted in chi-square values
- 117 -
increasing significantly and other fit statistics becoming worse for most paths. Chi-square
differences showed that many of the paths differed across the cultural clusters. Due to space
limitations, the chi-square differences are not reported here. The results of freely estimated
models are reported by gender (see Figure 5.2 and Figure 5.3).
Personality and Work–Family Conflict
Rather than a negative association as stated in Hypothesis 1, a positive association was
found between openness to experience and work–family conflict for both men and women. For
men, the relationship was stronger in the collectivist cluster (β = .105, p = .000) than in the
individualist cluster (β = .055, p = .048). Similarly, for women, a statistically significant positive
relationship was only found for collectivist cultures (β = .079, p = .029). As expected,
neuroticism significantly increased work–family conflict among men, especially those in the
individualist cluster (β = .068, p = .021). For women, the positive relationship was only found in
the individualist cluster (β = .190, p = .000). Therefore, Hypothesis 2 was supported by the
results. Conscientiousness had negative effects on work–family conflict among men in the
collectivist cluster (β = -.064, p = .028), supporting Hypothesis 3; however, the relationship was
nonsignificant among women in either cluster.
Personality and Job Satisfaction
Positive effects of openness to experience on job satisfaction were only found among
women in the collectivist cluster (β = .083, p = .018), which failed to supported Hypothesis 4. A
significant relationship was not found among men in either cluster. As stated in Hypothesis 5,
neuroticism was negatively related to satisfaction among men in the individualist cluster (β = -
.109, p = .000), whereas a negative relationship was found among women in the collectivist
- 118 -
cluster (β = -.098, p = .005), which partially supported Hypothesis 5. For both genders,
conscientiousness had no effect on job satisfaction, which did not validate Hypothesis 6.
Work Resources, Work–Family Conflict, and Job Satisfaction
Work resources significantly reduced work–family conflict among men in the collectivist
cluster (β = -.121, p = .000), whereas this association was found among women in both clusters,
especially those in the individualist cluster (β = -.156, p = .000). Hypothesis 7 was supported by
the results found among men. Hypothesis 8 stated that the positive relationship between work
resources and job satisfaction would be strongest in the individualist cluster. The results showed
that work resources significantly increased men’s and women’s job satisfaction. For both
genders, the magnitude of the path coefficient was strongest in the individualist cluster (β = .416,
p = .000 for men and β = .437, p = .000 for women). Hypothesis 8 was supported. Furthermore, a
negative relationship between work–family conflict and job satisfaction was found only among
men and women in the individualist cluster (β = -.134, p = .000 for men and β = -.084, p = .007
for women), which supported Hypothesis 9. With respect to gender differences in the
relationships between personality dimensions and outcome variables across culture, there were
four paths in the collectivist model that significantly differed between genders, compared to two
paths in the individualist model. Thus, Hypothesis 10 was not supported.
Among control variables, marital status positively related to work–family conflict. The
magnitude of the path coefficient was strongest for men in the individualist cluster (β = .078, p
= .006) and women in the collectivist cluster (β = .101, p = .004). Supervisors had higher levels
of job satisfaction, especially men in the collectivist cluster (β = .102, p = .000) and women in
the individualist cluster (β = .090, p = .003). Furthermore, supervisors reported having more
- 119 -
resources in the workplace, particularly men in the individualist cluster (β = .097, p = .000) and
women in the collectivist cluster (β = .114, p = .002). For men in the individualist cluster (β
= .053, p = .048), having higher levels of education increased the likelihood of having more
work resources. On the contrary, women in the individualist cluster received fewer resources at
work if they were more educated (β = -.104, p = .003).

- 120 -

Note. Solid lines indicate positive relationships and dotted lines indicate negative relationships. Path coefficients are
standardized estimates and are presented as individualist/collectivist. Model fit statistics: χ
2
= 131.04, df = 14, p < .000, CFI
= .907, NFI = .903, RMSEA = .046.
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001
- 121 -

Note. Solid lines indicate positive relationships and dotted lines indicate negative relationships. Path coefficients are standardized
estimates and are presented as individualist/collectivist. Model fit statistics: χ
2
= 76.08, df = 14, p < .000, CFI = .911, NFI = .907,
RMSEA = .051.
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001
- 122 -

Table 5.5
Standardized Parameter Estimates for a Two-Group Cross-Cultural Model among Men
Path Individualist Collectivist
β SD β SD
OE → WFC .055* .029 .105*** .032
OE → JS -.009 .004 .036 .005
Neuroticism → WFC .068* .023 .065* .025
Neuroticism → JS -.109*** .003 -.102 .004
Conscientiousness → WFC -.032 .038 -.064* .037
Conscientiousness → JS .027 .005 .055 .006
WFC → JS -.134*** .004 -.030 .004
WR → WFC -.045 .032 -.121*** .039
WR → JS .416*** .004 .320*** .006
Marital status → WFC .078** .130 .054* .148
Supervisor → JS .098*** .013 .102*** .017
Supervisor → WR .097*** .085 .085** .088
Education → JS .005 .002 .008 .002
Education → WR .053* .012 -.015 .011
Note. JS = job satisfaction; OE = openness to experience; WFC = work–family conflict; WR = work resources.
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

Table 5.6
Standardized Parameter Estimates for a Two-Group Cross-Cultural Model among Women
Path Individualist Collectivist
β SD β SD
OE → WFC .054 .034 .079* .040
OE → JS -.015 .006 .083* .007
Neuroticism → WFC .190*** .027 -.020 .033
Neuroticism → JS -.057 .004 -.098** .005
Conscientiousness → WFC -.025 .049 -.013 .051
Conscientiousness → JS .026 .008 -.020 .008
WFC → JS -.084* .006 -.011 .006
WR → WFC -.156*** .037 -.117** .050
WR → JS .437*** .006 .318*** .008
Marital status → WFC .050 .127 .101** .144
Supervisor → JS .090* .019 .073* .026
Supervisor → WR .072* .109 .114* .117
Education → JS .011 .003 .007 .003
Education → WR -.104* .017 -.068 .014
Note. JS = job satisfaction; OE = openness to experience; WFC = work–family conflict; WR = work resources.
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

- 123 -
Discussion
Drawing on the five-factor model of personality (McCrae & John, 1992), job demands–
resources theory (Demerouti et al., 2001), role stress theory (Kahn et al., 1964), and GLOBE’s
in-group collectivism scale (Gelfand et al., 2004), the present study tested a model examining
personality traits, work–family conflict, and job satisfaction among 4,340 working parents across
14 countries in two cultural clusters. Results showed that the model fitted the data based on two
cultural subgroups. There were some cultural similarities based on gender. With respect to the
effects of personality traits, neuroticism was positively related to work–family conflict for both
genders. Employees in individualist countries (e.g., Germany, Great Britain, Sweden, and the
United States) experienced higher levels of conflict between work and family when they had
high levels of neuroticism. Contrary to Hypothesis 1, openness to experience was found to be
positively related to work–family conflict in the present study. In collectivist countries (e.g.,
Japan, Mexico, the Philippines, Russia, Spain, and Taiwan) employees with personality traits of
curiosity, creativity, and originality had greater feelings of conflict between work and family. In
a longitudinal study, Rantanen et al. (2005) found that openness to experience was a risk factor
for men, predisposing them to a sense that family was interfering with work. They noted that
men with the personality trait of openness to experience, characterized by entrepreneurship and
work orientation, may perceive family demands as taking time away from and interrupting their
work schedule. In addition, residents of collectivist countries such as Japan and Taiwan may
perceive work as a means of supporting their family (Spector et al., 2007). Therefore, those with
higher levels of openness to experience may experience higher levels of conflicts between work
and family when they have to devote time to family responsibilities.
- 124 -
Work resources and work–family conflict were found to be important determinants of job
satisfaction. These associations confirm aspects of JD-R theory. On one hand, receiving more
resources in the workplace (e.g., having better relationships with supervisors and coworkers)
increased job satisfactions among employees, especially those in individualist countries. On the
other hand, experiencing conflicts between work and family roles had deleterious effects on job
satisfaction. This relationship was only found in individualist cultures, which is congruent with
findings of cross-national research (Spector et al., 2004, 2007). To individualists, work and
family exert competing demands and addressing one will come at the expense of the other one.
Therefore, employees in individualist countries may be more likely to be adversely affected by
work–family conflict than those in collectivist countries.
More importantly, results of the present study differed by cultural grouping and gender.
With respect to the relationship between personality traits and work–family conflict,
conscientiousness was found to be negatively related to conflicts of negotiating work and family
roles for men in collectivist countries, which is consistent with the findings of a study by Realo
et al. (1997) that found conscientiousness was correlated with collectivist cultures. Furthermore,
descriptive statistics showed that men in the collectivist cluster had higher levels of
conscientiousness on average than women. In collectivist countries, men with personality traits
of orderliness and thoroughness were less likely to perceive conflicts between work and family.
However, this negative relationship was not found among women in either cultural cluster. The
effects of gender on the association between conscientiousness and work–family conflict deserve
further investigation in future studies. Moreover, the present results suggested that work resource
is a protective factor that helps employees reduce levels of work–family conflict; however, the
strength of the relationship differed by cultural cluster and gender. Having more work-related
- 125 -
resources (e.g., an integrated social network at work) helped men in collectivist countries ease
tensions in terms of negotiating work and family roles. In contrast, this relationship was stronger
for women in individualist countries. A two-nation comparative study conducted by Lu et al.
(2010) showed that work resources had a stronger effect for Taiwanese (collectivists) than
British (individualists) respondents in terms of reducing work–family conflict. However, that
study found gender had no effect on the negative relationship between work resources and WFC
among managers in either country. The results of the present study supplemented those findings
by showing that gender differences did exist in the relationship between work resources and
work–family conflict.
In terms of the effects of personality traits on job satisfaction, neuroticism and openness
to experience affected how employees perceived job satisfaction. Neuroticism significantly
affected job satisfaction among men in the individualist cluster and women in the collectivist
cluster. In individualist countries, men with high levels of neuroticism were more likely to be
dissatisfied with their jobs, whereas in collectivist countries, women characterized by
neuroticism tended to have lower levels of job satisfaction. These descriptive results supported
prior findings that women reported higher levels of neuroticism than men (Costa et al., 2001;
Schmitt et al., 2008). However, when examining the effect of neuroticism in the context of work,
gender appeared to moderate the relationship between neuroticism and job satisfaction among
employees who shared common cultural values, which deserves further investigation. For both
genders, conscientious had no effect on job satisfaction, contrary to Hypothesis 6. However,
openness to experience had significant effects on job satisfaction for one gender. Women in
collectivist countries who were more open to learning new skills and behavior tended to have
higher levels of job satisfaction; the relationship was insignificant among men in both clusters.
- 126 -
Previous studies show that women have higher levels of openness to experience than men do
(Costa et al., 2001). For women in collectivist countries, openness to experience might serve as
an adaptive coping strategy that helps them reinterpret their work situation in a positive way,
resulting in increased satisfaction with their jobs. Although the literature has indicated that
Western countries with individualist values have greater gender differences in personality traits
than collectivist cultures (Costa et al., 2001; Heine & Buchtel, 2009), results of the present study
revealed that observed gender differences in the relationships among personality traits, work–
family conflict, and job satisfaction were strongest in collectivist cultures.
The present study contributed to cross-cultural work–family research in several important
aspects. The results suggested that certain dimensions of personality traits were significantly
related to individual perceptions of work–family conflict and job satisfaction. Different
dimensions of personality and culture resulted in varying perceptions of work–family conflict
among participants. Of three personality traits examined in this study, openness to experience
emerged as a risk factor predisposing employees in collectivist cultures to experience higher
levels of work–family conflict. In contrast, neuroticism had a greater effect on work and family
discord among employees in individualist countries. People with higher levels of neuroticism
were more likely to detect incompatibilities between work and family roles and view these
conflicts as a threat to . Unlike the deleterious effects of the other two types of personality traits,
conscientiousness was found to be a resource factor that prevented men in collectivist countries
from experiencing conflict between work and family; a similar protective effect was not found
among employees in the individualist cluster.
Furthermore, results of the present study provided evidence that the deleterious effects of
neuroticism on job satisfaction differed by culture and gender. Men in individualist countries
- 127 -
with high levels of neuroticism were more dissatisfied with their jobs, whereas collectivist
women characterized by neuroticism tended to have lower levels of job satisfaction. Openness to
experience was the only personality trait that had beneficial effects on job satisfaction among
women in collectivist countries. This study highlighted that gender differences in the
relationships between personality traits and outcome variables were most pronounced in
collectivist cultures. Second, drawing on theories developed in individualist societies, this study
provided evidence that the positive association between work resources and job satisfaction
exists across cultures and between genders. Lastly, the use of cross-national data collected from
random samples in 14 countries enables the findings of the present study to be generalized to
populations in those countries.
This study has contributed to bridging gaps of knowledge in cross-cultural research on
personality and work and family issues; however, there are certain methodological limitations
that might affect its validity. First, the use of secondary data for analysis has inherent limitations.
The ISSP data set used a single item to assess job satisfaction, which hindered the evaluation of
internal consistency; the variance due to the specific wording of the item could not be
determined. The present study used a summed scale of work–family conflict to reflect a
conceptualization of both work-to-family conflict and family-to-work conflict. These two forms
of conflict were merged into one construct and were measured simultaneously. It’s unclear which
form of conflict was more affected by personality traits or had a greater influence on job
satisfaction. Second, the analysis was based on cross-sectional data, preventing a determination
of causality among certain variables. Third, culture values of individualism and collectivism used
in the present study were based on national differences in GLOBE’s study (Gelfand et al., 2004).
It should be noted that individuals within countries vary in values; e.g., not all people in an
- 128 -
individualist society will be individualists. Fourth, the present study did not rule out the
possibility of other explanations for disparities between countries, such as economic and political
factors or other cultural differences. These differences may explain some findings that differ
from those in the literature. Fifth, the present study focused on examining work–family conflict
among dual-earner couples; therefore, the samples were restricted to those with children and full-
time employment. Work–family challenges among single-parent families with part-time
employment were not examined. Finally, social desirability in self-reporting posed a threat to
internal validity.
Implications for Research and Practice
The present study has important implications for research on personality in the work and
family context. To understand better the harmful consequences of work–family conflict on well-
being in the workplace, researchers should consider the role of personality in conjunction with
situational factors and work and family experiences. To broaden the research framework, future
studies should include family-related outcomes such as marital satisfaction and family well-
being (e.g., physical health, psychological well-being) and examine the causal pathways for the
personality, conflict, and well-being model. The present study highlighted significant similarities
and differences between men and women in terms of personality characteristics that explained
the linked between work–family conflict and job satisfaction. Nevertheless, the role of gender in
the work–family interface should be studied more thoroughly, rather than including it as a
control variable in statistical analyses of other variables. Furthermore, researchers may want to
examine coping strategies (e.g., family-friendly supervisory support) in the context of work and
family. The evidence provided in this study suggests the pathway between work resources and
work–family conflict is likely an important factor that merits further investigation.
- 129 -
For managers in multinational corporations, knowing how job satisfaction of employees
can be influenced in different cultures is very important, and the findings of the present study
offer some guidance to those seeking to create positive outcomes. For employees with high
levels of neuroticism and individualist values or those with openness to experience and
collectivist values, managers could offer training to help them identify stressors or enhancers in
the working environment and select more effective coping strategies. Moreover, managers could
implement flexible work arrangements and family leave policies that foster work environments
in which employees with diverse cultures can successfully balance their work and family lives
and even thrive in both domains.

- 130 -
Chapter 6: Conclusions and Implications
The findings of the present study helped fill a void in the international work–family
research by testing a multilevel work–family interface based on theories developed in Western
societies among working parents in different cultural contexts. The theoretical framework for
this dissertation was based on the following perspectives: role stress theory (Kahn et al., 1964),
GLOBE’s gender egalitarianism and in-group collectivism (Gelfand et al., 2004), job demands–
resources theory (Demerouti et al., 2001), social exchange theory (Rhodes & Eisenberger, 2002),
the five-factor model of personality (McCrae & John, 1992), gender role perspective (Gutek,
Searle, & Klepa, 1991), and institutional theory. This dissertation consisted of three
interconnected studies examining the similarities and differences in the work–family interface
between cultures and gender at three levels (macros, mezzo, and micro), including (1) the effects
of public family-friendly policies on work-to-family conflict and family-to-work conflict in the
cultural context of gender egalitarianism; (2) the applicability of the interface when examining
organizational flexibility, work demands, and affective consequences among working parents in
the context of cultural individualism versus collectivism; and (3) individual differences
(personality traits) in perceptions of work–family conflict and job satisfaction. The data this
dissertation used came from the International Social Survey Program (ISSP), which has a strong
reputation for methodological rigor. This use of cross-national data collected from random
samples allowed findings to be more representative and conclusive.
Summary of Major Research Findings
From the perspective of macro environment, the first study focused on whether family-
friendly policies effectively decreased bidirectional work–family conflict among men and
- 131 -
women in the context of gender egalitarianism. Using hierarchical linear models combining
information on individuals and countries, the study showed that parental leave policies have
greater effects on work–family conflict among men compared to women. Among individual
dimensions of parental leave policies, results showed that flexibility of use and rate of income
replacement during parental leave had significant effects on both work-to-family and family-to-
work conflict among men, whereas only flexibility of use had a significant effect on family-to-
work conflict among women. The most important findings were that the influence of individual
dimensions of parental leave policies on men’s experiences of work–family conflict impinged on
workplace characteristics (e.g., organizational type) and family characteristics (e.g., having
working spouses with full-time employment). Implementing parental leave policies with high
flexibility and higher rates of income replacement may help men with working spouses or who
are employed in the public sector to reduce bidirectional conflicts between work and family.
Surprisingly, taking longer parental leaves exacerbated conflicts experienced between work and
family among men working in public organizations. Although the main objectives of family-
friendly policies are to reduce the conflict between family roles and commitment to work and to
allow more women to join the labor force, the present study found that women generally were
not protected by individual dimensions of parental leave policies. Instead, societal attitudes
towards gender played a key role in helping women reduce bidirectional conflicts between work
and family roles. The results suggested that both men and women are likely to face costs
associated with taking leave from work, which deserves attention in future research.
From the perspective of mezzo settings, the second study focused on whether
organizational flexible arrangements effectively decreased work demands and work–family
conflict but strengthened positive work-related outcomes in the context of individualist versus
- 132 -
collectivist cultures. Using multigroup structural equation modeling, the study revealed
similarities and differences in the work–family interface between cultures and genders. There
were some cultural similarities in the magnitude of the relationships among variables for both
genders. Having greater control over their work schedule helped parents in individualist
countries reduce their work stress. Similarly, being able to take leave to attend to family matters
significantly lessened work stress among most participants. However, job autonomy was found
to exacerbate feelings of work–family conflict for both genders in highly individualist countries
(e.g., Germany, Great Britain, Sweden, and the United States). In terms of positive work
outcomes, job autonomy had the greatest effect on organizational commitment among parents in
highly collectivist countries and intention to leave among those in highly individualist countries.
Most importantly, findings indicated that men in highly individualist countries (e.g., Germany,
Great Britain, Sweden, and the United States) were most affected by the work–family interface
in general, whereas women in highly collectivist countries (e.g., Mexico, the Philippines, Russia,
and Spain) were most influenced by the interface. The magnitude of positive relationship
between work demands (i.e., working hours, work stress) and work–family conflict was strongest
among men in high or mid individualist countries and among women in Asian counties with
collectivist cultures (i.e., Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan). Compared with the exacerbating
effects of work demands on work–family conflict, the present study showed that allowance for
personal leave had beneficial effects on the balance between work and family roles as well as
work-related outcomes, especially among men in highly individualist countries and women in
highly collectivist cultures. In summary, for men in individualist countries, allowance for
personal leave had stronger effects on reducing work–family conflict, whereas having control
over work schedules significantly lessened the strain of working long hours and work–family
- 133 -
conflict among women in collectivist countries. Furthermore, having control over work time
lessened work strain and reduced the desire of men in individualist countries to leave their job. In
contrast, allowance for personal leave significantly reduced work stress among women in
collectivist countries and increased their commitment to organizations.
From a perspective of micro settings, the third study focused on individual differences in
experiences of work–family conflict and well-being at work. Using multigroup path analysis, the
study examined similarities and differences in the personality, conflict, and well-being model
between genders and cultures. The results suggested that certain dimensions of personality traits
were significantly related to individual perceptions of work–family conflict and job satisfaction.
Different dimensions of personality resulted in different perceptions of work–family conflict by
culture. Among three types of personality traits, openness to experience served as a risk factor
that predisposed employees in collectivist cultures to experience high levels of work–family
conflict. In contrast, neuroticism had a greater effect on employees’ work and family balance in
individualist countries. People with higher levels of neuroticism were more likely to perceive
incompatibilities between work and family roles and view those conflicts as a threat. Unlike the
deleterious effects of the other two types of personality traits on work–family conflict,
conscientiousness was found to be a resource factor that prevented men in collectivist cultures
from experiencing conflict between work and family; a similar protective effect was not found
among individualist employees. Furthermore, results of the third study provided evidence that
the deleterious effects of neuroticism on job satisfaction differed by culture and gender. Men in
individualist countries with high levels of neuroticism were more dissatisfied with their jobs,
whereas women in collectivist countries who had higher levels of neuroticism tended to have
lower levels of job satisfaction. Openness to experience was the only trait that increased job
- 134 -
satisfaction among women in collectivist countries. Gender differences in the relationships
between personality traits and outcome variables were more significant in collectivist cultures.
The study also provided evidence that the positive association between work resources and job
satisfaction remained true across cultures and between genders.
Altogether, findings of this dissertation examining the work–family interface from macro,
mezzo, and micro perspectives revealed that experiencing conflicts between work and family
greatly impinged on cultural values and gender roles among working parents. The main objective
of family-friendly policies at macro levels is to reduce the conflict between family roles and
commitment to work for both genders; however, results showed that men were more affected by
the policies rather than women. As a matter of fact, women generally were not protected by
individual dimensions of parental leave policies; instead, they were more affected by gender role
ideology. Traditionally, women are more often associated with the family domain. They bear a
higher burden of household labor and are more likely to be responsible for responding to unique
or unplanned family demands, such as leaving work to pick up a sick child from school. Even
though countries may create a family-friendly environment for both genders, women are still
more likely to shoulder the burden of family demands. Therefore, compared with public policies,
societies with more egalitarian gender attitudes may be more effective in reducing women’s
work–family conflict. At mezzo levels, men in highly individualist countries (e.g., Germany,
Great Britain, Sweden, and the United States) were most affected by the relationships among
organizational flexible arrangement, work demand, and work-related consequences, whereas
women in highly collectivist countries (e.g., Mexico, the Philippines, Russia, and Spain) were
most influenced by the research model. When examining individual differences in the
- 135 -
relationships among personality, work–family conflict, and job satisfaction at micro levels,
gender differences were most pronounced in collectivist cultures.
Implications for Research
The findings of this dissertation broaden knowledge of work and family experiences in
multilevel settings from a cross-cultural perspective, and provide important implications for
future research. More research is needed to investigate relationships among workplace gender
composition to reveal the mechanisms that link policy, work characteristics, and work–family
conflict. Furthermore, work–family conflict among men and women may be significantly
influenced by prior parental leave-taking by colleagues, workplace-specific social networks, and
hierarchies in the workplace. A more detailed examination would elucidate the diffusion and
patterns of parental leave use in the workplace. Negative consequences may be associated with
absence from the workplace, especially among women. To guide workplace leave policies to
cater to the specific needs of women, researchers could explore the mechanisms that link
parental leave policies, work–family conflict, and consequences of taking leave to provide more
nuanced information about how women may be negatively affected by taking a leave of absence.
At mezzo levels, future studies examining the consequences of job autonomy and
allowance for personal leave should examine frequency and intensity of usage as they relate to
affective outcomes to better understand the role of these policies across cultures. In addition,
efforts to investigate relationships among job autonomy, allowance for personal leave, work
demands, work–family conflict, and affective consequences (i.e., intention to leave and
organizational commitment) should feature longitudinal designs. Scholars and researchers
exploring the mechanism that links work–family demands and consequences may consider
- 136 -
collecting data from additional sources, such as coworkers, supervisors, and family members.
Family-related outcomes such as marital satisfaction and family well-being should be included to
broaden the research framework. Lastly, well-established and theory-based multi-item measures
of flexible work arrangements, work–family conflict, organizational commitment, intention to
leave, and cultural values should be used for future cross-cultural research.
At micro levels, to understand better the harmful consequences of work–family conflict
on well-being in the workplace, researchers should consider the role of personality in
conjunction with situational factors and work and family experiences. To broaden the research
framework, future studies should include family-related outcomes such as marital satisfaction
and family well-being (e.g., physical health, psychological well-being) and examine the causal
pathways in the personality, conflict, and well-being model. Furthermore, researchers should
examine coping strategies (e.g., family-friendly supervisory support) in the context of work and
family. The evidence provided in this study suggests the pathway between work resources and
work–family conflict is an important issue that merits further investigation.
Implications for Policies and Practice
This dissertation has implications for policy makers and managers in multinational
corporations seeking to help working parents balance their work and family roles. At macro
levels, the findings suggest the importance of considering workplace context and gender roles
when implementing family-friendly policies. Workplace characteristics influenced men more
than women in terms of the effects of parental leave flexibility of use, length of leave, and
income replacement rates on work–family conflict. Governmental officials or policy makers
should develop strategies that facilitate implementation of parental leave policies in the work
- 137 -
setting. Employers may represent one of main barriers that make both men and women less
likely to take parental leave because they may face associated costs. Furthermore, government
leaders should take more active steps to promote equal gender roles in society to ease heavy
burdens of household labor and family responsibilities placed on women.
At mezzo levels, the results of this study highlight the need for organizational support
and work–family initiatives for both individualist and collectivist parents to better balance their
work and family lives. Furthermore, results suggest the importance of general and culture-
specific practices for multinational organizations to help their employees address work–family
issues. It is important to consider cultural context and gender roles when implementing family-
friendly programs. Based on these findings, organizations in individualist countries (e.g.,
Germany, Great Britain, Sweden, and the United States) could provide allowance for personal
leave to male employees with family responsibilities as an effective strategy to reduce their
work–family conflict and desire to leave their jobs. In contrast, to increase organizational
commitment among female employees, organizations in collectivist countries (e.g., Mexico, the
Philippines, Russia, and Spain) may offer more job autonomy to effectively lessen the strain
from work demands and imbalanced work and family roles.
At micro levels, for managers in multinational corporations, knowing how job
satisfaction among employees can be influenced in different cultures is very important. They
may want to adopt initiatives that create an environment that strengthens positive work-related
outcomes. For employees with high levels of neuroticism and individualist values or those with
openness to experience and collectivist values, managers could offer training to help employees
identify stressors or enhancers in the workplace and select effective coping strategies. Moreover,
managers could implement flexible work arrangements and family leave policies that foster
- 138 -
working environments in which employees of diverse cultures can successfully cope with the
difficulties of managing work and family lives and even thrive.
In summary, with an over-reliance on self-reported cross-sectional data, interpretation of
results of extant research is method-bound. Using longitudinal designs with archival data is
important to shed more light on the work–family interface across cultures. For future studies, it is
recommended that international researchers could explore more intensely the facilitation and
balance side of work–family interface. Using the opposite perspective of “facilitation” rather
than “conflict” can bring new insights to the dynamic interplay between work and family. To
advise multinational corporations on human resource policies that affect the work–family
interface, it is critical to generalize the results of non-US-based research findings to global
settings. Findings of this dissertation highlight the paucity of research in Asian, Latin, and East
European countries where many multinational corporations have based for a portion of their
operations. Broader coverage of these countries in work–family research is needed for future
research. The results of this dissertation with large-scale, cross-national investigation may assist
parents to balance work and family roles, help employers design family-friendly programs and
initiatives, and motivate future cross-sectional and longitudinal studies on these critical topics.

- 139 -
References
Allen, T.D. (2001). Family-supportive work environments: The role of organizational
perceptions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 414–435.
Allen, T. D., Herst, D., Bruck, C., & Sutton, M. (2000). Consequences associated with work-to-
family conflict: A review and agenda for future research. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 5, 278-308.
Aryee, S. (1992). Antecedents and outcomes of work-family conflict among married professional
women:Evidence from Singapore. Human Relations, 45, 813–837.
Ashforth, B. E., Kreiner, G. E., & Fugate, M. (2000). All in a day’s work: Boundaries and micro
role transitions. Academy of Management Review, 25, 472–491
Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Dollard, M. F. (2008). How job demands affect partners’
experience of exhaustion: Integrating work-family conflict and crossover theory. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 93(4), 901-911.
Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Euwema, M. C. (2005). Job resources buffer the impact of job
demands on burnout. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10(2), 170-180.
doi:10.1037/1076-8998.10.2.170
Batalova, J.A. & Cohen. P.N. (2002). Premarital cohabitation and housework: Couples in cross-
national perspective. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 64, 743-55.
Batt, R., & Valcour, P.M. (2003). Human resources practices as predictors of work–family
outcomes and employee turnover. Industrial Relations, 42, 189–220.
Behson, S.J. (2005). The relative contribution of formal and informal organizational work-family
support. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66: 487-500.
Beutell, N. J., & Greenhaus, J. H. (1980). Some sources and consequences of interrole conflict
among married women. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Eastern Academy of
Management, 17, 2–6.
Brandth, B., & Kvande, E. (2009). Gendered or gender-neutral care politics for fathers? The
Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 624(1), 177-
189.doi:10.1177/0002716209334119.
Brough, P., O’Driscoll, M., & Kalliath, T. J. (2005). The ability of “family friendly”
organizational resources to predict work-family conflict and job and family satisfaction.
Stress and Health, 21(4), 223-234. doi:10.1002/smi.1059
Bruck, C. S., Allen, T. D., & Spector, P. E. (2002). The relationship between work-family
conflict and job satisfaction: A finer grained analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 60,
336–353.
- 140 -
Buunk, B. P., & Verhoeven, K. (1991). Companionship and support at work: A microanalysis of
the stress-reducing features of social interaction. Basic and Applied Social Psychology,
12(3), 243-258. doi:10.1207/s15324834basp1203_1
Bygren, M., & Duvander, A-Z. (2006). Parents’ workplace situation and fathers’ parental leave
use. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 363-372.
Carlson, D.S., & Perrewé, P.L. (1999). The role of social support in the stressor-strain
relationship: An examination of work-family conflict. Journal of Management, 25, 513-540.
China Post. (2011). Gov’t needs to look at more complete fixes to birth rate. Retrieved on
October 11
th
, 2010 from http://www.chinapost.com.tw/editorial/world-
issues/2011/01/19/288104/Govt-needs.htm
Cooper, C. L., & Payne, R. (1988). Causes, coping and consequences of stress at work.
Chichester, Engliand: John Wiley & Sons.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1980). Influence of extraversion and neuroticism on
subjective well-being: Happy and unhappy people. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 38, 668–678.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1991). Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO
five-factor inventory (NEO-FFI): Professional Manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological
Assessment Resources.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and
NEO Five-Factor (NEO-FFI) Inventory professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological
Assessment Resources.
Costa, P.T., Terracciano, A., & McCrae, R. R. (2001). Gender differences in personality traits
across cultures: Robust and surprising findings. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 81, 322-331.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demands-
resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 499-512.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.499
DeNeve, K. M., & Cooper, H. (1998). The happy personality: A meta-analysis of 137 personality
traits and subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 197–229.
Deven, F., & Moss, P. (2002). Leave arrangements for parents: Overview and future outlook.
Community, Work, & Family, 5(3), 237-255.
Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Lucas, R. E. (2003). Personality, culture, and subjective well-being:
Emotional and cognitive evaluations of life. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 403-425.
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and
collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147- 160.
- 141 -
Dormann, C., & Zapf, D. (2001). Job satisfaction: A meta-analysis of stabilities. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 22(5), 483-504.
Drews, L.V., Cybulski, F. W., Gislason, I.V., Atlason, G. H., Reingardiene, Tereskinas, A.,
Zdanevicius, A., Callus, C. (2005). Fathers on parental leave: A joint report based on
qualitative research with fathers on leave, employers and decision makers in Lithuania,
Iceland, Denmark and Malta. Vilnius, Eugrimas: Center for Equality Advancement.
Emrich, C. G., Denmark, F. L., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2004). Cross-cultural differences in gender
egalitarianism: Implications for societies, organizations, and leaders. In R. J. House, P. J.
Hanges, M. Javidan, P. W. Dorfman, &V. Gupta (Eds.), Culture, leadership, and
organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies (pp. 343–394). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
European Union (2012). Parental leave in Europe and social of women from the labour market.
Retrieved from http://www.inclusionexclusion.eu/site/wp-
content/uploads/2012/07/RuttenCara_2012.05.25_paper.pdf
Fabrigard, L.R., & Wegener, D.T. (2009). Structural equation modeling. In J.P. Stevens, Applied
multivariate statistics for the social sciences (5th ed., pp 537-582). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Falicov CJ. (2001). The cultural meanings of money: The case of Latinos and Anglo-Americans.
American Behavioral Scientist, 45, 313–328.
Fernandez, J. P. (1986). Child care and corporate productivity: Resolving family/work conflicts.
Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Fisher, C. D. (1985). Social support and adjustment to work: A longitudinal study. Journal of
Management, 11, 39-53.
Friede, A., & Ryan, A. M. (2005). The importance of the individual: How self-evaluations
influence the work-family interface. In E.E. Kossek & s. J. Lambert (Eds.), Work and life:
Organizational, cultural, and individual perspectives (pp. 193-209). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M. L. (1992). Antecedents and outcomes of work-family
conflict: Testing a model of the work-family interface. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77,
65–78.
Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M.L. (1997). Relation of work-family conflict to health
outcomes: a four-year longitudinal study of employed parents. Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, 70 (4), 325-335.
Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M. L. (1992). Antecedents and outcomes of work-family
conflict: Testing a model of work-family interface. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 65–
75.
- 142 -
Fuwa, M. (2004). Macro-level gender inequality and the division of household labor in 22
countries. American Sociological Review, 69(6), 751-767.
Fuwa, M., & Cohen, P. N. (2007). Housework and social policy. Social Science Research, 36,
512-530.
Galinsky, E., Aumann, K., & Bond, J. T. (2009). Times are changing: Gender and generation at
work and at home. Retrieved from
http://familiesandwork.org/site/research/reports/Times_Are_Changing.pdf
Gajendran, R.S., & Harrison, D.A. (2007). The good, the bad and the unknown about
telecommuting: Meta-analysis of psychological mediators and individual consequences.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1524–1541.
Gelfand,M. J., Bhawuk, D. P. S., Nishi, L. H., & Bechtold, D. J. (2004). Individualism and
collectivism. In R. J. House, P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P. W. Dorfman & V. Gupta (Eds.),
Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies (pp. 178-215).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. V. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles.
Academy of Management Review, 10, 76-88.
Goodstein, J. D. (1994). Institutional pressures and strategic responsiveness: Employer
involvement in work-family issues. The Academy of Management Journal, 37, 2, 350-382.
Gupta, V., & Hanges, P. J. (2004). Regional and climate clustering of societal cultures. In R. J.
House, P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P. W. Dorfman & V. Gupta (Eds.), Culture, leadership,
and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies (pp. 178-215). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Hammer, L. B., Neal, M. B., Newsom, J. T., Brockwood, K. J., & Colton, C. L. (2005). A
longitudinal study of the effects of dual-earner couples’ utilization of family-friendly
workplace supports on work and family outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(4),
799-810.
Harrington, B., Deusen, F. V., Humberd, B. (2011). The new dad: Caring, committed and
conflicted. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College Center for Work & Family.
Harrington, B., Deusen, F. V., Ladge, J. (2010). The new dad: Exploring fatherhood within a
career context. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College Center for Work & Family.
Hass,L. (2003). Parental leave and gender equality: Lessons from the European Union. Review of
Policy Research, 20(1), 89-114.
Hayghe, H. V. (1988). Family members in the work force. Monthly Labor Review, March: 14-19.
Heine, S. J., & Buchtel, E. E. (2009). Personality: The universal and the culturally specific.
Annual Review Psychology, 60, 369-394. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163655
- 143 -
Hill, E.J., Yang, C., Hawkins, A. J., Ferris, M. (2004). A cross-cultural test of the work-family
interface in 48 countries. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66(5), 1300-1316.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences. Beverly Hill: Sage.
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the
mind. McGraw-Hill.
Hofstede, G., & McCrae, R. R. (2004). Personality and culture revisited: Linking traits and
dimensions of culture. Cross-Cultural research, 38(1), 52-88.
House, R.J., & Javidan, M. (2004). Overview of GLOBE. In R. J. House, P. J. Hanges, M.
Javidan, P. W. Dorfman & V. Gupta (Eds.), Culture, leadership, and organizations: The
GLOBE study of 62 societies (pp. 178-215). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
House, R. J., Shane, S. A., & Herold, D. M. (1996). Rumors of the death of dispositional
research are vastly exaggerated. Academy of Management Review, 21 (1), 203–224.
Heaney, C. A., Israel, B. A., & House, J. S. (1994). Chronic job insecurity among automobile
workers: Effects on job satisfaction and health. Social Science & Medicine, 38, 1431–1437.
Hewlett, S. A. (1991). When the bough breaks: The cost of neglecting our children. New York:
Basic Books.
Hofstede, G., & McCrae, R. R. (2004). Personality and culture revisited: Linking traits and
dimensions of culture. Cross-Cultural Research, 38(1), 52-88.
Hook, J. L. (2006). Care in Context: Men’s unpaid work in 20 countries, 1965-2003. American
Sociological Review, 71(4), 639-660.
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (2004). Culture,
leadership and organization: The GLOBE Study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Inglehart, R., Basanez, M., & Moreno, A. (1998). Human values and beliefs: A cross-cultural
sourcebook-political, religious, sexual, and economic norms in 43 societies. Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan Press.
Im, T. (2009). An exploratory study of time stress and its causes among government employees.
Public Administration Review, 69, 104-115.
International Labor Office (2010). Maternity at work: A review of national legislation: Findings
from the ILO database of conditions of work and employment law.
Judge, T.A., & Watanabe. S. (1993). Another look at the job satisfaction-life satisfaction
relationship. Journal of Applied Psychology.78(6), 939–948.
Judge, T. A., Heller, D., & Mount, M. K. (2002). Five-factor model of personality and job
satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 530-541.
- 144 -
John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., & Kentle, R. L. (1991). The "Big Five" Inventory--Versions 4a and
54. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley, Institute of Personality and Social
Research.
Joplin, J. R.W., Shaffer, M. A., Francesco, A. M., & Lau, T. (2003). The macro environment and
work-family conflict: Development of a cross-cultural comparative framework.
International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 3(3), 305-328.
Judge, T. A., Higgins, C. A., Thoresen, C. J., & Barrick, M. R. (1999). The big five personality
traits,general mental ability, and career success across the life span. Personnel Psychology,
52, 621–652.
Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R., Snoek, J. D., & Rosenthal, R. A. (1964). Organizational
Stress. New York: Wiley.
Kamerman, S. B., & Kahn, A. J. (1987). The responsive workplace. New York: Columbia
University Press.
Karasek, R. A. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implication for job
redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 285-308.
Kelly, E. L., Kossek, e. E. Hammer, L. B., Durham, L.B., Bray, J. Chermack, K., Murphy, L.A.,
& Kaskubar, D. (2008). Getting there from here: Research on the effects of work-family
initiatives on work-family conflict and business outcomes. Academy Management Annuals,
2, 305-349.
Kinnunen, U., Vermulst, A., Gerris, J., & Mäkikangas, A. (2003). Work-family conflict and its
relations to well-being: The role of personality as a moderating factor. Personality and
Individual Differences, 35(7), 1669-1683. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00389-6
Knudsen, K., & Wæ rness, K. (2008). National context and spouses’ housework in 34 countries.
European Sociological Review, 24(1), 97-113.
Korabic, K., Lero, D., & Ayman, R. (2003). A multi-level approach to cross-cultural work-
family research: A micro-and macro-perspective. International Journal of Cross-Cultural
Management, 3(3), 289-303.
Kopelman, R. E., Prottas, D. J., Thompson, C. A., & Jahn, E.W. (2006). A multilevel
examination of work-life practices: Is more always better? Journal of Managerial Issues,
18(2), 232-253.
Lambert, A.D., Marler, J. H., & Gueutal, H.G. (2008). Individual differences: Factors affecting
employee utilization of flexible work arrangements. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73,
107–117.
Lambert, E. G., Pasupuleti, S., Cluse-Tolar, T., Jennings, M., & Baker, D. (2006). The impact of
work-family conflict on social work and human service worker job satisfaction and
organizational commitment. Administration in Social Work, 30 (3), 55-74.
- 145 -
Lapierre, L.M., & Allen, T.D. (2006). Work-supportive family, family-supportive supervision,
use of organizational benefits, and problem-focused coping: Implications for work-Family
conflict and employee well-being. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11: 169-181.
Lu, L., Kao, S. F., Chang, T. T., Wu, H. P., & Cooper, C.L. (2008). Work/family demands, work
flexibility, work/family conflict, and their consequences at work: A national probability
sample in Taiwan. International Journal of Stress Management, 15, 1-21.
Lu, L., Kao, S., Cooper, C.L., Allen, T.D., Lapierre, L.M., O’Driscoll,M., Poelmans, S.Y.,
Sanchez, J., & Spector, P. (2009). Work resources, work-to-family conflict, and its
consequences: A Taiwanese–British cross-cultural comparison. International Journal of
Stress Management, 16, 25–44.
Lu, L., Cooper, C. L., Kao, S. F., Chang, T. T., Allen, T. D., Lapierre, L. M., O’driscoll, M. P.,
Poelmans, S. A. Y., Sanchez, J. I., & Spector, P. E. (2010). Cross-cultural differences on
work-to-family conflict and role satisfaction: A Taiwanese-British comparison. Human
Resources Management, 49 (1), 67-85.
Macik-Frey, M., Quick, J. D., Quick, J. C., & Nelson, D. L. (2009).Occupational health
psychology: From preventive medicine to psychologically healthy workplace. In A-S. G.
Antoniou, C. L. Cooper, G. P. Chrousos, C D. Spielberger & M. W. Eysenck (Eds.),
Handbook of managerial behavior and occupational health (pp. 3-19). Cheltenham, UK:
Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
Madsen, S. R. 2003. The effects of home-based teleworking on family conflict. Human Resource
Development Quarterly, 14: 35-58.
Mandel, H., & Semyonov, M. (2005). Family policies, wage structures, and gender gaps:
Sources of earning inequality in 20 countries. American Sociological Review, 70(6), 949-
967.
Mauno, S., Kinnunen, U., & Pyykko, M. (2005). Does work-family conflict mediate the
relationship between work-family culture and self-reported distress? Evidence from five
Finnish organizations. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78, 509-
530.
Masuda, A. D., Poelmans, S.A.Y., Allen, T.D., Spector, P.E., Lapierre, L.M., Cooper, C.L.,
Abarca, N., Brough, P., Ferreiro, P., Fraile, G., Lu, L., Lu, C. Q., Siu, O. L., O’Driscoll, M.
P., Simoni, A. S., Shima, S., Moreno-Velazquez, I. (2012). Flexible work arrangements
availability and their relationship with work-to-family conflict, job satisfaction, and
turnover intentions: A comparison of three country clusters. Applied Psychology: An
International Review, 61(1), 1-29.
McCrae, R. R. (2002). NEO-PI-R data from 36 cultures: Further intercultural comparisons. In R.
R. McCrae & J. Allik (Eds.), The five-factor model of personality across cultures (pp. 105-
125). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
- 146 -
McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor model and its
applications. Journal of Personality, 2, 175–215.
McNall, L.A, Masuda, A.D., & Nicklin, J.M. (2010). Flexible work arrangements and job
satisfaction/turnover intentions: The mediating role of work-to-family enrichment. Journal
of Psychology: Interdisciplinary & Applied, 144, 1-21.
Mennino, S. F., Rubin, B.A., & Brayfield, A. (2005). Home-to-job and job-to-home spillover:
The impact of company policies and workplace culture. The Sociological Quarterly, 46,
107-135.
Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., & Viswesvaran, C. (2005). Convergence between measures of work-to-
family and family-to-work conflict: A meta-analytic examination. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 67(2), 215-232.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (2001). A three-component conceptualization of organizational
commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1, 61–89.
Meyer, J.W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutional organizations: Formal structure as myth and
ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340-363.
Michel, J. S., & Clark, M. A. (2009). Has it been affect all along? A test of work-to-family and
family-to-work models of conflict, enrichment, and satisfaction. Personality and Individual
Differences, 47(3), 163-168. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2009.02.015
Michel, J.S., Kotrba, L.M., Mitchelson, J.K., Clark, M. A., & Baltes, B. B. (2011). Antecedents
of work-family conflict: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(5),
689-725.
Mor Barak, M.E. (2005).Managing diversity: Toward a globally inclusive workplace. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mor Barak, M. E. (2011). Managing diversity: Toward a globally inclusive workplace. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Moss, P. (2009). International review of leave policies and related research 2009. Employment
Relations Research Series, 102. London, UK: Department for Business Innovation & Skills.
Moss, P. (2011). International review of leave policies and related research 2011. Retrieved from
http://www.leavenetwork.org/fileadmin/Leavenetwork/Annual_reviews/Complete_review_
2011.pdf
Moss, P., & O’Brien, M. (2006). International review of leave policies and related research
2006. Employment Relations Research Series, 57. London, UK: Department of Trade and
Industry.
Nissly, J.A., Mor Barak, M.E., & Levin, A. (2005). Stress, social support and workers’ intentions
to leave their jobs in public child welfare. Administration in Social Work, 29(1), 79-100.
- 147 -
Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management
Review, 16, 145-179.
Parasuraman, S., Purohit, Y. S., & Godshalk, V. M. (1996). Work and family variables,
entrepreneurial career success and psychological well-being. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 48, 275–300.
Poelmans, S. (2003). The multi-level ‘fit’ model of work and family. Cross Cultural
Management, 3(3), 267-274.
Population Reference Bureau. (2011). 2011 World Population Data Sheet: The world at 7 billion.
Powell, G. N., Francesco, A. M., & Ling, Y. (2009). Toward culture-sensitive theories of the
work-family interface. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 597-616.
Rajadhyaksha, U. A., & Velgach, S. (2009). Gender, gender role ideology and work-family
conflict in India. Paper presented at the 2009 Academy of Management Annual Meeting,
Chicago, Illinois.
Raghuram, S., London, M., & Larse, H. H. (2001). Flexible employment practice in Europe:
Country versus culture. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 12(5), 738-
753.
Rantanen, J., Pulkkinen, L., & Kinnunen, U. (2005). The Big Five personality: Dimensions,
work-family conflict, and psychological distress. Journal of Individual Differences, 26(3),
155-166.
Ray, R., Gornick, J. C., & Schmitt, J. (2009). Parental leave policies in 21 countries: Assessing
generosity and gender equality. Washington, DC: Center for Economic and Policy Research.
Realo, A., Allik, J., & Vadi, M. (1997). The hierarchical structure of collectivism. Journal of
Research in Personality, 31, 93-116.
Rhoades, L. & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the
literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 698–714.
Ruhm, C. (2000). Parental leave and child health. Journal of Health Economics, 19, 931-960.
Rupert, P. A., Stevanovic, P.,& Hunley, H. A. (2009). Work-family conflict and burnout among
practicing psychologists. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 40(1), 54-61.
Sandvik, E., Diener, E., & Seidlitz, L. (2009). Subjective well-being: The convergence and
stability of self-report and non-self-report measures. Social Indicators Research Series, 39,
119-138.
Schmitt, D.P. (2004). The big five related to risky sexual behavior across 10 world regions:
Differential personality associations of sexual promiscuity and relationship infidelity.
European Journal of Personality, 18, 301-319.
- 148 -
Schmitt, D. P., Realo, A., Voracek, M., & Allik, J. (2008). Why can’t a man be more like a
women? Sex differences in Big Five personality traits across 55 cultures. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 94(1), 168-182.
Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Beyond individualism and collectivism: New cultural dimensions of
values. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S. C. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.),
Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method, and application (pp. 85-122). Newbury
Park: Sage.
Scott, W. R. (1987). The adolescence of institutional theory. Administrative Science Quarterly,
32, 493-511.
Smith, P. B., Dugan, S., & Trompenaars, F. (1996). National culture and the values of
organizational employees. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 27, 231-265.
Spector P. E., Allen, T.D., Poelmans S., Lapierre, L. M., Cooper, C.L, O’Driscoll, M., Sanchez,
J.I., et al. (2007). Cross-national differences in relationships of work demands, job
satisfaction, and turnover intentions with work-family conflict. Personnel Psychology, 60,
805-835.
Spector P. E., Cooper C.L, Poelmans S., Allen, T.D., O’Driscoll, M., Sanchez, J.I., et al. (2004).
A cross-national comparative study of work/family stressors, working hours, and well-being:
China and Latin America vs. the Anglo world. Personnel Psychology,57,119–142.
Stoeva, A. Z., Chiu, R., & Greenhaus, J. H. (2002). Negative a ffectivity, role stress, and work-
family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 60, 1–16.
Tanaka, S. (2005). Parental leave and child health across OECD countries. The Economic
Journal, 115, 7-27
Thomas, L. T., & Ganster, C. D. (1995). Impact of family-supportive work variables on work-
family conflict and strain: A control perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 6-15.
Treas, J., & Widmer, E. D. (2000). Married women's employment over the life course: Attitudes
in cross-national perspective. Social Forces, 78, 1409-1436.
United Nations. (2010). The World’s women 2010: Trends and statistics. Retrieved on October
11
th
, 2010 from
http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/products/Worldswomen/WW2010pub.htm
Valcour, M. (2007). Work-based resources as moderators of the relationship between hours and
satisfaction with work-family balance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6), 1512-1523.
Van Doorne-Huiskes, A., den Dulk, L, & Schippers, J. (1999). Work- family arrangements in the
context of welfare states. In Laura den Dulk, Anneke van Doorne-Huiskes, and Joop
Schippers (Eds.), Work-Family Arrangements in Europe (pp. 1-19). Amsterdam: Thela-
Thesis.
- 149 -
Voydanoff, P. (2005). Toward a conceptualization of perceived work-family fit and balance: A
demands and resources approach. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67(4), 822-836.
Wayne, J. H., Musisca, N., & Fleeson, W. (2004). Considering the role of personality in the
work-family experience: relationships of the big five to work-family conflict and facilitation.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64, 108-130.
World Bank (2011). Labor participation rate, female (5 of female population ages 15+).
Retrieved November 1, 2011, from
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.TLF.CACT.FE.ZS?page=1
Yang, N., Chen, C.C., Choi, J., Zou. Y. (2000). Sources of work-family conflict: A Sino-U.S.
comparison of the effects of work and family demands. Academy of Management Journal,
43(1), 113–123.
Yousef, D. A. (1998). Satisfaction with job security as a predictor of organizational commitment
and job performance in a multicultural environment. International Journal of Manpower, 19,
184–194.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract During recent decades, in response to economic changes, the typical family structure in most countries has transformed from traditional breadwinner families to a dual-earner model. Accordingly, increasing demands from work and family placed on dually employed parents have intensified levels of conflict between work and family roles. Prior research has examined work–family conflict separately at micro levels (individuals and families) or macro levels (social policies such as parental leave and benefits), neglecting to acknowledge that individual work–family experiences are greatly susceptible to cultural values. Although some cross-national studies have taken into account cultural differences, their findings were derived from nonrandom samples that lacked representation of many populations. To fill the void in international work–family research, this dissertation investigated the applicability of a multilevel work–family interface based on theories developed in Western societies to different cultural populations and by gender. The theoretical framework for this dissertation was based on the following perspectives: role stress theory (Kahn et al., 1964), GLOBE’s gender egalitarianism and in-group collectivism (Gelfand et al., 2004), job demands–resources theory (Demerouti et al., 2001), social exchange theory (Rhodes & Eisenberger, 2002), the five-factor model of personality (McCrae & John, 1992), gender role perspective (Gutek, Searle, & Klepa, 1991), and institutional theory. ❧ Using data collected by the International Social Survey Program (ISSP) in 2005 from random samples in countries located in Africa, Asia, Europe, and North and South America, this dissertation features three interconnected studies investigating the similarities and differences in the work–family interface between cultures and gender at three levels (macros, mezzo, and micro): (1) the effects of public family-friendly policies on work-to-family conflict and family-to-work conflict in the cultural context of gender egalitarianism

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Changing workplace and inequality in work-family policies

PDF

Family relationships and their influence on health outcomes over time among older adults in rural China

PDF

Maltreated adolescents and their families: a longitudinal examination of family functioning, parenting attitudes, & youth mental health

PDF

Participation in higher education diversity, equity, and inclusion work: a relational intersectionality of organizations analysis

Asset Metadata

Creator Hsiao, Hsin-Yi (author)

Core Title A multilevel model of work-family conflict in a global context: a comparative study across 24 countries

School School of Social Work

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Social Work

Publication Date 05/23/2013

Defense Date 04/03/2013

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag cross-cultural studies,family-friendly leave policies,individualism-collectivism,OAI-PMH Harvest,personality traits,work-family conflict

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Mor Barak, Michàlle E. (committee chair), Chou, Chih-Ping (committee member), Palinkas, Lawrence A. (committee member)

Creator Email gres227@gmail.com,hsinyihs@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-257553

Unique identifier UC11293720

Identifier etd-HsiaoHsinY-1699.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-257553 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-HsiaoHsinY-1699.pdf

Dmrecord 257553

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Hsiao, Hsin-Yi

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA