Sex,Gender Dynamics,Differential Exposure,and Work

Abstract

This study tested a differential exposure explanation of the association between sex categories and work–family conflict. It addresses the question of why men and women may experience similar or dissimilar levels of work–family conflict and tests whether differences are due to their different gendered demands and resources. Drawing from a sample of 1,751 employed adults from 63 workplaces, the results suggest that women spend less time in paid employment than do men; a gendered response that is associated with lower work-to-family conflict, but higher family-to-work conflict. Women were also found to be less involved in irregular work schedules, which is associated with lower work-to-family conflict. The differential exposure explanation was also supported by indirect effects involving commute time, family income, and social support outside work.

Keywords

gender work–family conflict demands resources stress

Much research investigating the relationship between work and family has focused on the conflict between these two important life domains. Considering work–family conflict as a gendered issue, this study does not ask whether men and women experience higher or lower work–family conflict but rather why men and women may have similar or at times dissimilar levels of self-reported work–family conflict.

Defined as “a form of interrole conflict in which the pressures from the work and family domains are mutually incompatible in some respect” (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985, p. 77) work–family conflict is associated with important individual outcomes such as burnout/exhaustion, work- and family-related stress, depression, and work satisfaction (Amstad, Meier, Fasel, Elfering, & Semmer, 2011). Initially presented as a unidimensional concept, research has revealed that work–family conflict is bidirectional in nature (Byron, 2005; Mesmer-Magnus & Viswesvaran, 2005) with spillover from work to family as well as from family to work. Research into the antecedents of work–family conflict further identifies a wide range of work, family, and personality variables that are associated with this source of strain. Meta-analytic evidence finds work role overload, work stressors, work role conflict, negative affect/neuroticism, family climate, family stressors, and family role conflict to be strongly related to work–family conflict (Michel, Kotrba, Mitchelson, Clark, & Baltes, 2011).

Gender is another central theme in work–family research (Kossek, 2015; Schockley, Shen, DeNunzio, Arvan, & Knudsen, 2017). The influx of women into the labor force clearly sparked research and media interest in work–family issues (Eby, Casper, Lockwood, Bordeaux, & Brinley, 2005) and the identity and gender-role socialization perspectives were taken by scholars to explain how women and men might experience work–family conflict differently (Calvo-Salguero, Martínez-de-Lecea, & del Carmen Aguilar-Luzón, 2012; Cinamon & Rich, 2002; Duxbury & Higgins, 1991; Foley, Hang-Yue, & Lui, 2005; Frone, 2000; Frone, Russell, & Barnes, 1996; Fu & Shaffer, 2001; Grzywacz & Marks, 2000; Gutek, Searle, & Klepa, 1991; Lyonette, Crompton, & Wall, 2007; Minnotte, 2012; Pleck, 1977). There is, however, very little empirical evidence of this outlook as studies often report no statistically significant differences between men and women in their perceived levels of work–family conflict (Duxbury & Higgins, 1991; Eagle, Miles, & Icenogle, 1997; Frone, 2000; Kinnunen, Feldt, Geurts, & Pulkkinen, 2006; Kinnunen, Geurts, & Mauno, 2004; Kinnunen & Mauno, 1998; McIlveen et al., 2018; Minnotte, 2012) or differences on only one facet (i.e., work-to-family or family-to-work) of this bidirectional interrole conflict (Cinamon & Rich, 2002; Duxbury, Higgins, & Lee, 1994; Frone et al., 1996; König & Cesinger, 2015; McElwain, Korabik, & Rosin, 2005). Taken together, these findings suggest similar levels or overall small differences in work–family conflict reported by men and women; a conclusion supported by both qualitative (Barnett & Gareis, 2006; Eby et al., 2005; Geurts & Demerouti, 2003; Korabik, McElwain, & Chappell, 2008) and quantitative (Byron, 2005; Schockley et al., 2017) reviews.

This conclusion is puzzling nevertheless in light of the evidence showing that women, in addition to major work commitments, still take on greater responsibilities in the home domain and spend more time in housework than do men (Davis, Greenstein, & Marks, 2007; Sayer, 2010). For some time, work–family conflict was thus considered a woman’s issue (Winslow, 2005) and “many scholars have hypothesized that women experience more work–family conflict than men because of their typically greater home responsibilities and their allocation of more importance to family roles” (Cinamon & Rich, 2002, p. 532). This perspective implies that to achieve a level of work–family conflict that is similar to that of men, women would need to reduce their exposure to some demands or improve their access to resources or both. Hence, rather than simply testing whether there are significant differences in work–family conflict between women and men, the aim of this study is to clarify and empirically test such work–family dynamics to identify the specific gendered work and family circumstances (i.e., demands, resources) that are associated with work–family conflict for men and women. In this pursuit, the study we advance tests the suggestion that the experience of work–family conflict by men and women may stem from their gendered demands and resources, rather than their sex categories.

A first contribution of this study is the use of a differential exposure approach that contrasts with the stratified approach taken in most work–family conflict studies that address gender differences. The predominant stratified approach compares models of work–family conflict to determine whether they generalize across men and women (e.g., Duxbury et al., 1994; Duxbury & Higgins, 1991; Frone, Russell, & Cooper, 1992; Kinnunen & Mauno, 1998; Loerch, Russell, & Rush, 1989). Figure 1 illustrates how this approach is modeled; exposing how various demands and resources are associated with work–family conflict dissimilarly for women and men. Although research is revealing of gender-based reactions or sensitivities to various demands and resources (Simon, 1995; Thoits, 2013), this model does not directly address the question of why men and women may experience similar or dissimilar levels of work–family conflict. It is rather revealing of associations between demands/resources and work–family conflict and of how patterns of associations are somewhat different for men and women.

Figure 1.

Stratified approach.

In contrast, the differential exposure approach treats sex categories as an exogenous variable in a single mediation model predicting work–family conflict. Figure 2 illustrates how the process is modeled as it is in this study addressing the “why” question (Frazier, Tix, & Barron, 2004) as it illuminates which gendered work and home domain demands and resources mediate the associations between sex categories and work–family conflict. It thus seeks to make clear whether women and men are exposed in similar or dissimilar ways to the antecedents of work–family conflict and whether they transmit the effect of sex categories to work–family conflict. The differential exposure approach might thereby find that women are not as exposed as men are to some demands (e.g., long work hours) that are in turn associated with work–family conflict. The commensurate reduction in work–family conflict resulting from the lower exposure might then compensate for the work–family conflict arising from their higher involvement in the home domain. This approach thereby advances gender-based explanations of the reasons for higher or lower levels of work–family conflict.

Figure 2.

Differential exposure approach.

A second contribution of this study is found in the development of a structural model that includes work- and family-related antecedents of work–family conflict. Most research to date has focused on gender differences in work–family conflict and on the variables related to the work–family conflict. In such studies, gender is one of many independent variables related directly to work–family conflict. Few studies have yet examined the gendered process through which women and men differentially experience work–family conflict (Korabik et al., 2008; McElwain et al., 2005), that is, the psychosocial implications of being male or female and how they relate to work–family conflict (cf. Powell & Greenhaus, 2010). This may be because gender research is not well-integrated with traditional work and family research (Kossek, 2015).

The comprehensiveness of the structural model we test in this study is considered a third contribution as it will allow us to pinpoint those gendered demands and resources from the work and family domains that mediate the associations between sex categories and work–family conflict and thereby explain why men and women experience similar or dissimilar overall levels of work–family conflict. This study thus challenges the narrow view of gender often taken in work–family research.

A fourth contribution lies in the methodological features of this study. Investigating more rather than fewer potential mediating variables is empirically important because there are several ways men and women can differentially increase or decrease their exposure to various demands and resources to thereby control or adjust their levels of work–family conflict. By including six work demands and six work resources as well as five family demands and two family resources in a single structural model, we increase our ability to pinpoint which specific gendered constraints and opportunities mediate the association between sex categories and work–family conflict. Taken together, the simultaneous consideration of these characteristics in the process leading to work–family conflict should provide a comprehensive account of how women and men balance work and family in relation to the demands and resources found in the work and home domains (cf. Shockley et al., 2017). In support of this approach, Preacher and Hayes (2008) discuss the merits of specifying and testing a single comprehensive mediation model in lieu of separate simple mediation models.

Another methodological feature is that the model and hypotheses are tested with a large sample of employed adults from a variety of workplaces. Another consideration is that the nested model includes controls for age, marital status, and number of children to increase the likelihood that we are assessing the distinct implications of sex categories in the gendered process leading to work-to-family and family-to-work conflict.

Theory and Hypotheses

Gender relational theories present gender as a social structure that can be noticed in numerous manifestations at different levels (Risman, 2004; Risman & Davis, 2013), including the sexual division of labor (Connell, 2009) that ultimately “differentiates opportunities and constraints based on sex categories” (Risman & Davis, 2013, p. 12) in the context of work and family cultural expectations and social differentiation. Despite numerous changes in industrialized countries, it seems that work continues to be culturally defined as a man’s world (despite the presence of women in it), while domestic life still defined as a woman’s world (despite the presence of men in it) (Connell, 2009; Ridgeway, 2011). As women are expected to be primarily responsible for the family, they are also more accountable for managing the balance between work and family (Connell, 2005). It would appear, for instance, that gender differences exist in residential decision making and that women have shorter commute distances to and from work (MacDonald, 1999). In turn, shorter commutes, conceptually related to lower time-based work–family conflict, seem to be associated with higher satisfaction with work–family balancing (Turcotte, 2011). Empirical support for this indirect effect based in the differential exposure explanation would suggest that women were able to alleviate some demands associated with work–family conflict. The end result of this implied process could be the observation of similar or not to different levels of work–family conflict between women and men. Although this indirect effect would support a differential exposure explanation, the empirical demonstration of actual mediation is lacking as current research only provides partial and disparate evidence of the process leading to the experience of work–family conflict for women and men.

In this study, we simultaneously test the potential mediating roles of work and family demands and resources. As in much occupational health (e.g., Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, Schaufeli, 2001) and work–family research (e.g., Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; Demerouti, Peeters, & van der Heijden, 2012; Mauno, Kinnunen, & Ruokolainen, 2006; Minnotte, 2012; Voydanoff, 2005a, 2005b), we identified a number of circumstances conceptualized as either demands or resources; a categorization that is consistent with the observation that “gender boundaries set up a hierarchical structure of constraints and opportunities which can affect work-family linkages” (Haas, 1995, p. 115).

From conservation of resources theory (Hobfoll, 1989), demands are factors that threaten or cause the depletion of resources and individuals strive to minimize net loss of resources. Considering that demands threaten or cause the depletion of resources, the model predicts that people will strive to minimize demands and one way to minimize work–family conflict is to reduce the occurrence of the demands that are associated with its occurrence. Individuals may also offset resource loss by employing the resources they possess or that are available to them. They may therefore call upon resources to minimize the net loss of resources. The availability of work and family domain resources could thereby serve to minimize work–family conflict. Considering work–family conflict as a demand (i.e., a stressor), this general prediction is consistent with meta-analytic evidence showing negative associations between work resources and demands (Luchman & González-Morales, 2013).

A final point about the differential exposure model derived from this theoretical framework is that it tests both facets of work–family conflict: work-to-family and family-to-work conflict. The specification of hypotheses is, however, similar in both cases because empirical findings show a fair degree of overlap in the antecedents of work-to-family and family-to-work conflict (Byron, 2005; Mesmer-Magnus & Viswesvaran, 2005). We therefore test all mediation hypotheses with both facets of work–family conflict.

Work Demands

Work demands are those physical, social, or organizational aspects of the job that require sustained physical or mental effort (Demerouti et al., 2001). Viewed as stressors, there is evidence that women and men are exposed in dissimilar ways to a number of the work demands that are associated with work–family conflict. Men, for instance, appear to experience more job insecurity than do women (Gaunt & Benjamin, 2007) and this work demand (or stressor) is associated with negative attitudinal and behavioral outcomes (Hartley, Jacobson, Klandermans, & Van Vuuren, 1991). Research also suggests that women work fewer hours in paid employment than do men (Plaisier et al., 2007; Sayer, 2005) and that working fewer hours is likely to reduce work–family conflict (Byron, 2005). From a gender perspective, reducing exposure to a work demand in such a way is an adaptive strategy that employed adults may use to manage competing demands (Keene & Reynolds, 2005). Indeed, to the extent that women experience greater demands in the home domain, working fewer hours may be regarded as a form of work restructuring or as a way of balancing things out, of managing their exposure to various demands in order to reduce work–family conflict.

Our hypotheses thus flow from this outlook in predicting a mediation process in which women experience fewer work demands than do men. In turn, fewer work demands are expected to be associated with less work–family conflict. Our first general hypothesis (H1) is thus that work demands will mediate the associations between sex categories and (a) work-to-family conflict and (b) family-to-work conflict. From the perspective of gender as structure, considering that family role identification relative to work role identification is given to be stronger for women than for men, we expect women to report fewer work demands. Conversely, lower participation in the home domain would allow men greater participation in the work domain, resulting in more work demands. In turn, more work demands should be associated with lower work-to-family and family-to-work conflict as evidenced by a meta-analytic review (Michel et al., 2011). The related specific hypotheses are that work hours (H1-1ab), shiftwork (H1-2ab), irregular work schedules (H1-3ab), psychological demands (H1-4ab), job insecurity (H1-5ab), and conflict at work (H1-6ab) mediate the associations between sex and (a) work-to-family and (b) family-to-work conflict.

Work Resources

According to Hobfoll (1989), resources are “those objects, personal characteristics, conditions, or energies that are valued by the individual or that serve as a means for attainment of these objects, personal characteristics, conditions, or energies” (p. 516). Work resources are those characteristics in the context of the workplace that are functional in the sense that they are expected to be associated with lower work–family conflict. Our hypotheses predict a mediation process in which women experience fewer work resources than do men. In turn, fewer work resources are associated with higher work–family conflict. Our second general hypothesis (H2) is therefore that gendered work resources will mediate the association between sex categories and (a) work-to-family conflict and (b) family-to-work conflict. From the perspective of gender as structure, considering that family role identification relative to work role identification is given to be stronger for women than for men, we expect women to report fewer work resources. There is evidence, for instance, that women report less career support than do men (Lyness & Thompson, 2005; O’Neil, Hopkins, & Bilimoria, 2008). Lower participation in the home domain for men would allow greater participation in the work domain, resulting in more work resources. In turn, more work resources are associated with lower work-to-family and family-to-work conflict (Byron, 2005). The related specific hypotheses are that recognition (H2-1ab), skill utilization (H2-2ab), decision authority (H2-3ab), support from colleagues (H2-4ab), supervisor support (H2-5ab), and having career perspectives (H2-6ab) mediate the associations between sex and (a) work-to-family and (b) family-to-work conflict.

Family Demands

Following the same line of reasoning, the third general hypothesis (H3) is therefore that gendered family demands will mediate the association between sex categories and (a) work-to-family conflict and (b) family-to-work conflict. Again, from the perspective of gender as structure, considering that family role identification relative to work role identification is given to be stronger for women than for men, we expect women to report more family demands. Women still take on greater responsibilities in the home domain and spend more time in housework than do men (Davis et al., 2007; Sayer, 2010). For men, lower participation in the home domain would result in fewer family demands. In turn, more family demands should be associated with higher work-to-family and family-to-work conflict. The related specific hypotheses are that housework (H3-1ab), marital strains (H3-2ab), parental strains (H3-3ab), caregiving (H3-4ab), and commute time (H3-5ab), mediate the associations between sex and (a) work-to-family and (b) family-to-work conflict.

Family Resources

Our fourth general hypothesis (H4) is that gendered family resources will mediate the association between sex and (a) work-to-family conflict and (b) family-to-work conflict. From the perspective of gender as structure, considering that family role identification relative to work role identification is given to be stronger for women than for men, we expect women to report more family resources. Conversely, the lower participation of men in the home domain would result in fewer family resources. For women, higher participation in the home domain would result in more family resources. In turn, more family resources should be associated with lower work-to-family and family-to-work conflict. This study thus proposes that two family resources may be gendered mediating mechanisms in the explanation of work–family conflict. The related specific hypotheses are that family income (H4-1ab) and social support outside work (H4-2ab) mediate the associations between sex and (a) work-to-family and (b) family-to-work conflict.

The general pattern of these associations was expressed graphically in simplified form in Figure 2. We add to this research model derived from the differential exposure explanation a direct association between sex and (a) work-to-family and (b) family-to-work conflict. This path is included in light of the abundant research that has addressed it (Barnett & Gareis, 2006; Byron, 2005; Eby et al., 2005; Geurts & Demerouti, 2003; Korabik et al., 2008; Shockley et al., 2017).

Method

Data

The SALVEO study on which we based our analysis was designed to assess the associations between work, family, individual characteristics, and the experience of mental health problems. Data were collected from 2009 to 2012 within 63 Canadian workplaces that were randomly selected from a list of client companies of a large insurance company. These workplaces were invited by their insurer to participate in the study and those accepting the invitation were referred to the research team. At this stage, the response rate was 41%, which is significantly higher than those usually found in organizational research (Baruch & Holtom, 2008). Moreover, the claim rates for mental health issues were not significantly different between participating and nonparticipating companies. Of the sampled workplaces, 19 operated in manufacturing and 44 in the service sector, 22 were unionized, and workforce sizes ranged from 25 to 1,900 employees (average of 247).

The research team first sent a communication to inform all employees about the research project. A random sample of employees was then selected and invited to complete a questionnaire on company time (excluding lunch and break periods) using a touch-screen monitor that helped reduce questionnaire completion time. Survey administration was overseen by onsite trained research assistants. Participating individuals signed an informed consent form beforehand and were given the necessary instructions. Overall, 2,162 employees agreed to complete the questionnaire for an overall response rate of 71.3%, ranging from 51.2% to 100% across workplaces. Managers (9.7%), supervisors (6.8%), professionals (15.3%), semiprofessionals/technicians (15.4%), office workers (27.2%), skilled laborers (5.4%), and unskilled/manual workers (20.2%) participated in the survey. After deleting cases with missing values, the available sample was 1,751 employed individuals with an average of about 41 years; 48.9% of which were female. The study protocol was approved by the Ethical Committees of five universities.

Measures

Sex Categories

Sex categories were coded 0 for man and 1 for woman.

Work Demands

Work hours were measured by asking respondents to estimate, on average, about how many hours a week they work at their job. Shiftwork is generally defined as working outside a standard Monday to Friday daytime schedule. The frequency to which work is performed on an evening or night shift thus measured shiftwork. We summed both scores from a response scale ranging from 1 (never) to 4 (all the time). Having irregular work schedules was assessed as the exposure to irregular or unpredictable work schedules with responses ranging from 1 (never) to 4 (all the time). We used the nine-item psychological demands scale from the Job Content Questionnaire (Karasek et al., 1985). A sample item from this scale is “my job requires working very fast” (α = .73). Responses on the psychological demands scale were on a 4-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). Job insecurity was assessed with two items. A sample item from this scale is “I have experienced or I expect to experience an undesirable change in my work situation” (α = .65). Responses to these two items were on a 4-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). Conflict at work was measured with five items from Harvey, Blouin, and Stout (2006). A sample item from this scale is “in your workplace, have you had an argument with someone” (α = .80). Responses were on a 4-point scale ranging from 1 (never) to 4 (very often).

Work Resources

The measure of recognition, a work resource, was from the Effort-Reward Imbalance Questionnaire (Siegrist & Peter, 1996). A sample item from this six-item scale is “I receive the respect I deserve from my superiors” (α = .82). Responses were recorded on a 4-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). Six items from the Job Content Questionnaire (Karasek et al., 1985) assessed skill utilization. A sample item is “my job requires that I learn new things” (α = .80). The decision authority scale had three items (Karasek et al., 1985). A sample item is “my job allows me to make a lot of decisions on my own” (α = .79). Social support from colleagues was measures with four items (Karasek et al., 1985). A sample item is “the people I work with are helpful in getting the job done” (α = .83). A four-item scale measured supervisor support. A sample item is “my supervisor is helpful in getting the job done” (α = .89). Responses on the skill utilization, decision authority, support from colleagues, and supervisor support scales were from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). The four-item measure of having career perspectives was from the Effort-Reward Imbalance Questionnaire (Siegrist & Peter, 1996). A sample item is “my job promotion prospects are poor” (reverse scored; α = .69). Responses were on a 4-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree).

Family Demands

Housework was measured by the number of hours per week of involvement in such activity. Marital strains were assessed with a scale suggested by Wheaton (1994). A sample item is “your partner doesn’t understand you” (α = .70). Three items from the marital strains scale had a false–true response format and one had a no–yes response format. Again, from Wheaton (1994), the parental strains scale had three items with a false–true response format. A sample item is “a child’s behavior is a source of serious concern to you” (α = .60). Caregiving was assessed as the sum of the number of hours per week spent taking care of an elderly parent or a handicapped person. Commute time was assessed as the daily minutes it takes to get to work.

Family Resources

Social support outside work was assessed with three items from the Statistics Canada National Population Health Survey (Catlin & Will, 1992) asking respondents if they had among family or friends someone they can confide in or talk freely about their problems, someone who would help them in time of need, or someone they feel close to, who shows affection. With a no–yes response format, the scale items were summed (α = .55). Family income was reported as the total combined past year income, before taxes and deductions, of all household members from all sources.

Work–Family Conflict

Scale items from Gutek et al. (1991) measured work–family conflict. Four items from assessed work-to-family conflict (e.g., my work takes up time that I’d like to spend with family/friends) (α = .79) and the other four assessed family-to-work conflict with mirror statements (e.g., my family/friends take up time that I’d like to spend at work) (α = .74). The responses were recorded on a 5-point scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree.

Control Variables

The review conducted by Schockley et al. (2017) underlined that research on work–family conflict often fails to equate men and women on work and family characteristics (p. 1602). Our study controls for age, marital status, and the number of children in the household. Age was measured in years. Marital status was coded 1 for respondents who indicated that they were married or living in a civil union and 0 for those who did not. To measure the number of children, respondents indicated how many children were living with them at the time of the study.

Analysis

Considering the nested nature of the data (i.e., 1,751 individuals in 63 workplaces), we performed a multilevel path analysis using Mplus software, version 7.2. This analysis tests all direct and indirect relations while taking into account nonindependence caused by clustered sampling (Muthén & Muthén, 1998-2010). Dependent and mediating variables were regressed on the three control variables. This was done to better assess the unique influence of sex categories on demands, resources, and work–family conflict.

Because one of the mediator variables is ordinal (i.e., irregular work schedules), the weighted least-squares parameter estimates (WLSMV) method of estimation was applied to test the associations (Muthén & Muthén, 1998-2010). The WLSMV is a robust weighted least squares estimator using a diagonal weight matrix with standard errors and mean- and variance-adjusted chi-square test statistic.

Model fit was assessed with a chi-square test, the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), a comparative fit index (CFI), and the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR). A significant chi square is an indication of poor fit to the data whereas an RMSEA less than .06, a CFI greater than .95, and an SRMR less than .08 are assumed to be indices of good model fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013).

Results

Descriptive statistics are in Table 1 and the correlation matrix between the study variables is presented in supplementary materials (Appendix A available in the online version of the article). The results from the multilevel path analysis indicate adequate model fit, χ² = 186.42 (df = 78), p < .00, CFI = .98; RSMEA = .03; SRMR = .00.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics.

	Total (1,751)				Men (890)		Women (861)
	M or %	SD	Min	Max	M or %	SD	M or %	SD
Sex (women)	49.17%
Outcomes
Work-to-family conflict	9.88	3.48	4	20	9.60	3.44	10.15	3.49
Family-to-work conflict	8.17	2.82	4	20	8.18	2.86	8.15	2.78
Work demands
Work hours	40.46	9.28	7	168	41.43	6.80	39.45**	5.38
Shiftwork	2.64	1.26	2	8	2.73	1.27	2.55	1.24
Irregular work schedules	1.51	0.78	1	4	1.57	0.81	1.44**	0.74
Psychological demands	23.43	3.85	10	36	23.23	3.84	23.64	3.86
Job insecurity	3.75	1.29	2	8	3.75	1.28	3.75	1.30
Conflict at work	7.34	2.20	4	20	7.31	2.21	7.37	2.16
Work resources
Recognition	15.70	2.62	5	20	15.58	2.63	15.82	2.61
Skill utilization	17.81	3.36	6	24	18.19	3.48	17.42**	3.18
Decision authority	8.67	2.00	3	12	8.87	2.01	8.46**	1.96
Support from colleagues	12.55	1.93	4	16	12.51	1.92	12.58	1.95
Supervisor support	11.94	2.61	4	16	11.89	2.57	12.00	2.65
Career perspectives	10.38	2.37	4	16	10.43	2.37	10.32	2.37
Family demands
Housework	4.87	7.15	0	120	4.72	8.65	5.03**	5.15
Marital strains	0.45	0.91	0	4	0.46	0.92	0.44	0.90
Parental strains	0.21	0.56	0	3	0.19	0.54	0.23	0.58
Caregiving	1.07	5.71	0	169	1.24	7.21	0.90	3.54
Commute time	31.78	21.10	0	120	29.69	20.59	33.92	21.38
Family resources
Family income	7.03	3.38	1	12	6.95	3.44	7.11**	3.32
Social support outside work	0.84	0.37	0	1	0.81	0.39	0.87**	0.34
Control variables
Number of children at home	0.88	1.01	0	5	0.91	1.05	0.84	0.97
Marital status (couple)	70%				74%		67%**
Age (years)	40.70	10.81	17	69	40.00	10.92	41.43	10.67

p < .05. **p < .01.

The path analysis results (Table 2) show four significant associations between sex and work demands and resources. Whereas women do not appear to experience more shiftwork, psychological demands, job insecurity, or conflict at work than do men, they do report fewer work hours and a lower exposure to irregular work schedules than do men. With regard to work resources, although men and women report similar levels of recognition, support from colleagues and supervisors, and career perspectives, women appear to be in employment with less skill utilization and decision authority than are men. Hence, with regard to work conditions, there appears to be some stark differences in the experiences of women and men.

Table 2.

Path Analysis Results.

	Sex	WFC	FWC
Sex (women)		0.522**	−0.025
Work demands
Work hours	−2.459**	0.027**	0.197
Shiftwork	−0.099	0.152**	−0.009
Irregular work schedules	−0.171**	0.440**	−0.109
Psychological demands	−0.017	0.276**	0.045**
Job insecurity	−0.026	0.425**	0.187**
Conflict at work	0.003	0.013	0.079**
Work resources
Recognition	0.291	−0.147**	−0.113
Skill utilization	−0.834**	−0.008	−0.011
Decision authority	−0.457**	−0.040	−0.040
Support from colleagues	0.093	−0.060	−0.033
Supervisor support	0.031	0.010	0.111**
Career perspectives	−0.171	0.016	−0.022
Family demands
Housework	0.324	0.019	0.012
Marital strains	0.031	0.272**	0.524**
Parental strains	0.058	0.239	0.540**
Caregiving	−0.463	−0.018	0.008
Commute time	4.277**	0.008**	0.003
Family resources
Family income	0.316**	0.023	−0.070**
Social support outside work	0.062**	−0.766**	−0.452**
Random part
σ² (workplace)		0.716*
σ² (workers)		8.130**	6.689**
Goodness-of-fit
χ²		186.418 (df = 78)**
CFI		0.977
RMSEA		0.028
SRMSR		0.000

Note. Estimates adjusted for age, marital status, and number of children. CFI = comparative fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; SRMR, standardized root mean square residual.

p < .05. **p < .01.

In terms of family demands and resources, no gender differences were found on housework, marital or parental strains, or caregiving. Women did, however, report longer commute time, higher family income, and more social support outside work than did men.

The path analysis also largely supports meta-analytic findings relating work demands to greater work-to-family and family-to-work conflict (Michel et al., 2011). Work hours, shiftwork, irregular work schedules, psychological demands, and job insecurity were positively associated with work-to-family conflict whereas psychological demands, job insecurity, and conflict at work were positively associated with family-to-work conflict. Family demands, expressed in marital and parental strains and commute time, were also positively associated with work-to-family or family-to-work conflict or both. The expected associations, between work and family resources and work–family conflict, were not as unambiguous. Recognition was associated with lower reported work-to-family conflict, but supervisor support was associated with higher family-to-work conflict. Higher family income was related to lower family-to-work conflict and social support outside work with lower work-to-family conflict and family to work conflict. Other work and family resources were not significantly associated with either facet of work–family conflict.

The next step in the analysis was to test the differential exposure explanation, that is, the indirect effects expressed in Hypotheses 1 through 4. The significant indirect effects are reported in Table 3 and they suggest that work hours mediate the association between sex and work-to-family conflict (H1-1a). The process involved in this significant indirect effect suggests that women work fewer hours in paid employment than do men and thereby reduce their work-to-family conflict. Conversely, men apparently increase their work-to-family conflict by dedicating more time to work. Irregular work schedules were also found to mediate the association between sex and work-to-family conflict (H1-3a). It would seem that women are not as exposed as are men to an irregular work schedule and such work conditions are associated with greater work-to-family conflict. Commute time mediated the association between sex and work-to-family conflict (H3-5a). Women reported longer commute times than did men and this demand is associated with higher work-to-family conflict. Family income mediated the association between sex and family-to-work conflict (H4-1b). Women reported higher family income than did men and this resource is associated with lower family-to-work conflict. Social support outside work mediated the associations between sex and both work-to-family and family-to-work conflict (H4-2ab). Women reported more social support outside work and this resource was associated with lower work-to-family and family-to-work conflict.

Table 3.

Indirect Effects of Sex on Work-to-Family and Family-to-Work Conflict.

	Path coefficient	SE	t	p
Sex—Work hours—Work-to-family conflict	−0.067	0.020	−3.425	.001
Sex—Irregular work schedules—Work-to-family conflict	−0.075	0.023	−3.301	.001
Sex—Commute time—Work-to-family conflict	0.033	0.013	2.665	.008
Sex—Social support outside work— Work-to-family conflict	−0.047	0.018	−2.615	.009
Sex—Family income—Family-to-work conflict	−0.022	0.008	−2.906	.004
Sex—Social support outside work—Family-to-work conflict	−0.028	0.014	−1.923	.054

Note. Estimates adjusted for age, marital status, and number of children. SE = standard error.

Discussion

In this study, we explored the occurrence of work–family conflict as a gender-related social structural process from the perspective that men and women differentially experience demands and resources (Odle-Dusseau, McFadden, & Britt, 2015). The general process of differential exposure was supported as women reported fewer work demands and resources but more family demands and resources than did men and, in turn, demands were generally associated with higher and resources with lower work–family conflict. An important indirect effect that exemplifies this process and that is supported by our results involves time spent in paid employment. Our findings first suggest that women work fewer hours than do men. This is consistent with the observation that working mothers are more likely than their male counterparts to adjust their working hours around their family responsibilities (Craig & Powell, 2011) and thereby restructure their work conditions to meet family needs (Karambayya & Reilly, 1992). In turn, longer work hours were associated with higher levels of work-to-family conflict, a finding that is consistent with the rational view of work–family conflict (Gutek et al., 1991). The associations involved in this process provide initial evidence of mediation; that is, of a significant indirect effect in which the association between sex categories and work–family conflict is mediated by work hours. This finding suggests that employed men and women may experience similar or dissimilar levels of work–family conflict not simply because of their sex categories but rather because they are in a gendered dynamic that involves work hours.

The process exposed in our study therefore indicates that time spent at work is an important consideration in gender-based explanations of work–family conflict. By working fewer hours, individuals may enjoy commensurate reductions in other work demands, so that work hours can be conceived as a meta work demand that is associated with the length of exposure to other structural work demands (Haines, Marchand, Genin, & Rousseau, 2012). Working fewer hours, in this sense is a component of a gendered process in which individuals manage their levels of work-to-family conflict.

If working fewer hours may thereby initially appear to be an adaptive response to role overload allowing individuals to balance their work and family commitments, some costs, however, may have their origins in this response. To this point, a meta-analysis convincingly reported positive associations between hours worked and salary, promotion, and career satisfaction (Ng, Eby, Sorensen, & Feldman, 2005). The downside of working shorter hours to balance work and family commitments might therefore be revealed in truncated career prospects for women who resort to this adaptive strategy more than do men. Taken together, increasing or reducing one’s time spent in paid employment appears to be a null sum response to the challenge of achieving work–life balance.

Our study also points to other time-related demands that may intervene in the association between sex categories and work–family conflict. Irregular work schedules were found to mediate the association between sex categories and work-to-family conflict. As with the above time-related work demand, women are not as involved in irregular schedules as are men and such schedules are associated with higher work-to-family conflict. This process suggests a gendered process in which women tend to avoid the uncertainty of irregular work schedules in order to better deal with the combined pressures of the work and family domains. Such schedules therefore appear to be incompatible with some of the challenges involved in balancing work and family; not in terms of the amount of time spent at work, but rather in terms of the uncertainty about time spent at work. Whereas other studies have associated irregular work schedules with work–family conflict (Yildirim & Aycan, 2008) and other outcomes such as alcohol intake (Saade & Marchand, 2012), our findings suggest that they are involved in a gender-based social structural process.

Commute time was another time-relevant intervening variable in our study that has not received much attention in work–family research. It was therefore interesting to find that the time spent in commutes from home to work is involved in a mediating process involving sex categories and work-to-family conflict. This process suggests that the women in our sample spend more time in this commute than do the men. This may be because women take on the responsibility of getting children to school or daycare, lengthening their commute time. Whatever the motive, this longer commute translates into higher reported work–family conflict. Hence, from the perspective of managing work and family commitments, some of the advantages associated with working fewer hours or regular schedules may be offset by longer commute times. With regard to studies that investigate commute distance, our consideration of commute time provides a different perspective in need of more research.

Two home domain resources appear to be involved in the process that relates sex categories to work–family conflict. The finding that family income mediates the association between sex and family-to-work conflict is revealing of the importance of this resource in dealing with competing commitments. Women report higher family income and this resource, in turn, appears to be associated with lower family-to-work conflict. Social support is another resource that appears to be instrumental in this gendered process. Women reported more social support outside work than did men and this resource is associated with lower family-to-work and work-to-family conflict. Taken together, these significant indirect effects support the contention that, in a context of competing interests, to achieve a level of work–family conflict that is similar to that of men, women would need to reduce their exposure to demands or improve their access to resources or both.

Although the model tested in this study supports a gender-related social structural process, the significant direct path between sex categories and work-to-family conflict supports the idea that simply being a man or a woman remains a relevant variable in terms of understanding work–family conflict. The association between sex and family-to-work conflict was not significant, however, adding to the inconsistent and inconclusive findings of previous research (Byron, 2005; Korabik et al., 2008).

Limitations

Gender patterns are dynamic and changing (Wood & Eagly, 2012) and the specific indirect effects detected in this study may be different in other social or cultural contexts. Gender is a contextual phenomenon (Risman, 2004; Risman & Davis, 2013) and the actual indirect effects we observed in this study may vary from one cultural or institutional context to another. This again raises the issue of generalization and we encourage research in other national contexts that would associate gender, demands, resources, and work–family conflict. The general pattern of our results may, however, generalize to other settings in support of the differential exposure explanation, even if other variables are involved in the process outlined by our research. We would therefore expect the general tendency for women to balance work and family by reducing their exposure to some work demands and increasing their access to home domain resources to be reproduced in other contexts. Other work and family variables not included in our study may therefore be involved in the process we tested. Future research might consider, for instance, business travel or overtime work and other such work or family characteristics that may be involved in restructuring arrangements (Karambayya & Reilly, 1992).

Conclusion

This study found support for the differential exposure explanation for the associations between sex categories and work-to-family and family-to-work conflict. This outlook suggests that men and women are exposed in dissimilar ways to work and home domain demands and resources and that this differential exposure accounts for some of the variance in expressed levels of work–family conflict. More specifically, the process that relates sex categories to work–family conflict supported by this study is revealing of the importance of managing time constraints and securing resources in the form of higher family income and social support.

Supplemental Material

Appendix_A – Supplemental material for Sex, Gender Dynamics, Differential Exposure, and Work–Family Conflict

Supplemental material, Appendix_A for Sex, Gender Dynamics, Differential Exposure, and Work–Family Conflict by Victor Y. Haines, Jaunathan Bilodeau, Andrée Demers, Alain Marchand, Nancy Beauregard, Pierre Durand and Marie-Eve Blanc in Journal of Family Issues

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Standard Life Canada for assistance in recruiting participating workplaces, Julie Dextras-Gauthier for her participation in data collection, and Lesley Lee for her helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (Grant Nos. 200607MHF-164381-MHF-CFCA-155960 and 201309MOP-309828-GSH-CFCA-155960) and a grant from the Fonds de recherche du Québec-Santé (Grant No. 13928).

ORCID iD

Marie-Eve Blanc

Supplemental Material

The online supplementary material is available at

References

Amstad

F. T.

Meier

L. L.

Fasel

Elfering

Semmer

N. K.

(2011). A meta-analysis of work–family conflict and various outcomes with a special emphasis on cross-domain versus matching-domain relations. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 16, 151-169.

Bakker

A. B.

Demerouti

(2007). The job demands-resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22, 309-328.

Barnett

R. C.

Gareis

K. C.

(2006). Role theory perspectives on work and family. In Pitt-Catsouphes

Kossek

E. E.

Sweet

(Eds.), The work and family handbook: Multi-disciplinary perspectives and approaches (pp. 209-221). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Baruch

Holtom

B. C.

(2008). Survey response rate levels and trends in organizational research. Human Relations, 61, 1139-1160.

Byron

(2005). A meta-analytic review of work-family conflict and its antecedents. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67, 169-198.

Calvo-Salguero

Martínez-de-Lecea

J.-M. S.

del Carmen Aguilar-Luzón

(2012). Gender and work–family conflict: Testing the rational model and the gender role expectations model in the Spanish cultural context. International Journal of Psychology, 47, 118-132.

Catlin

Will

(1992). The National Population Health Survey: Highlights of initial developments. Health Reports, 4, 313-319.

Cinamon

R. G.

Rich

(2002). Gender differences in the importance of work and family roles: Implications for work–family conflict. Sex Roles, 47, 531-541.

Connell

R. W.

(2005). Change among the gatekeepers: Men, masculinities, and gender equality in the global arena. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 30, 1801-1825.

10.

Connell

R. W.

(2009). Gender in world perspective (2nd ed.). Cambridge, England: Polity Press.

11.

Craig

Powell

(2011). Non-standard work schedules, work-family balance and the gendered division of childcare. Work, Employment & Society, 25, 274-291.

12.

Davis

S. N.

Greenstein

T. N.

Marks

J. P. G.

(2007). Effects of union type on division of household labor: Do cohabiting men really perform more housework? Journal of Family Issues, 28, 1246-1272.

13.

Demerouti

Bakker

A. B.

Nachreiner

Schaufeli

W. B.

(2001). The job demands-resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 499-512.

14.

Demerouti

Peeters

M. C.

van der Heijden

B. I.

(2012). Work–family interface from a life and career stage perspective: The role of demands and resources. International Journal of Psychology, 47, 241-258.

15.

Duxbury

L. E.

Higgins

C. A.

(1991). Gender differences in work-family conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 60-74.

16.

Duxbury

L. E.

Higgins

C. A.

Lee

(1994). Work-family conflict a comparison by gender, family type, and perceived control. Journal of Family Issues, 15, 449-466.

17.

Eagle

B. W.

Miles

E. W.

Icenogle

M. L.

(1997). Interrole conflicts and the permeability of work and family domains: Are there gender differences? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50, 168-184.

18.

Eby

L. T.

Casper

W. J.

Lockwood

Bordeaux

Brinley

(2005). Work and family research in IO/OB: Content analysis and review of the literature (1980-2002). Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 124-197.

19.

Foley

Hang-Yue

Lui

(2005). The effects of work stressors, perceived organizational support, and gender on work-family conflict in Hong Kong. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 22, 237-256.

20.

Frazier

P. A.

Tix

A. P.

Barron

K. E.

(2004). Testing moderator and mediator effects in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51, 115-134.

21.

Frone

M. R.

(2000). Work–family conflict and employee psychiatric disorders: The national comorbidity survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 888-895.

22.

Frone

M. R.

Russell

Barnes

G. M.

(1996). Work–family conflict, gender, and health-related outcomes: A study of employed parents in two community samples. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 1, 57-69.

23.

Frone

M. R.

Russell

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.

24.

C. K.

Shaffer

M. A.

(2001). The tug of work and family: Direct and indirect domain-specific determinants of work-family conflict. Personnel Review, 30, 502-522.

25.

Gaunt

Benjamin

(2007). Job insecurity, stress and gender. Community, Work & Family, 10, 341-355.

26.

Geurts

S. A.

Demerouti

(2003). Work/non-work interface: A review of theories and findings. Handbook of Work and Health Psychology, 2, 279-312.

27.

Greenhaus

J. H.

Beutell

N. J.

(1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Academy of Management Review, 10, 76-88.

28.

Grzywacz

J. G.

Marks

N. F.

(2000). Reconceptualizing the work–family interface: An ecological perspective on the correlates of positive and negative spillover between work and family. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 111-126.

29.

Gutek

B. A.

Searle

Klepa

(1991). Rational versus gender role explanations for work-family conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 560-568.

30.

Haas

(1995). Structural dimensions of the work-family interface. In National Council on Family Relations (Ed.), The work family interface, families in focus series (pp. 113-121). Minneapolis, MN: National Council on Family Relations.

31.

Haines

V. Y.

III Marchand

Genin

Rousseau

. (2012). A balanced view of long work hours. International Journal of Workplace Health Management, 5, 104-119.

32.

Hartley

Jacobson

Klandermans

Van Vuuren

(1991). Job insecurity: Coping with jobs at risk. London, England: Sage.

33.

Harvey

Blouin

Stout

(2006). Proactive personality as a moderator of outcomes for young workers experiencing conflict at work. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 1063-1074.

34.

Hobfoll

S. E.

(1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44, 514-524.

35.

L. T.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1-55.

36.

Karambayya

Reilly

A. H.

(1992). Dual earner couples: Attitudes and actions in restructuring work for family. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 585-601.

37.

Karasek

Gordon

Pietrokovsky

Frese

Pieper

Schwartz

. . . Schirer

(1985). Job content questionnaire: Questionnaire and users’ guide. Lowell: University of Massachusetts.

38.

Keene

J. R.

Reynolds

J. R.

(2005). The job costs of family demands gender differences in negative family-to-work spillover. Journal of Family Issues, 26, 275-299.

39.

Kinnunen

Feldt

Geurts

Pulkkinen

(2006). Types of work-family interface: Well-being correlates of negative and positive spillover between work and family. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 47, 149-162.

40.

Kinnunen

Geurts

Mauno

(2004). Work-to-family conflict and its relationship with satisfaction and well-being: A one-year longitudinal study on gender differences. Work & Stress, 18, 1-22.

41.

Kinnunen

Mauno

(1998). Antecedents and outcomes of work-family conflict among employed women and men in Finland. Human Relations, 51, 157-177.

42.

König

Cesinger

(2015). Gendered work–family conflict in Germany: Do self-employment and flexibility matter? Work, Employment & Society, 30, 1-19.

43.

Korabik

McElwain

Chappell

D. B.

(2008). Integrating gender-related issues into research on work and family. In Korabik

Lero

D. S.

Whitehead

D. L.

(Eds.), Handbook of work-family integration: Research, theory and best practices (pp. 215-232). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

44.

Kossek

E. E.

(2015). Foreword. In Mills

M. J.

(Ed.). Gender and the work-family experience: An intersection of the two domains (pp. vii-xii). New York, NY: Springer.

45.

Loerch

K. J.

Russell

J. E.

Rush

M. C.

(1989). The relationships among family domain variables and work-family conflict for men and women. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 35, 288-308.

46.

Luchman

J. N.

González-Morales

M. G.

(2013). Demands, control, and support: A meta-analytic review of work characteristics interrelationships. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 18, 37-52.

47.

Lyness

K. S.

Thompson

D. E.

(2005). Climbing the corporate ladder: Do female and male executives follow the same route? Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 86-101.

48.

Lyonette

Crompton

Wall

(2007). Gender, occupational class and work–life conflict: A comparison of Britain and Portugal. Community, Work & Family, 10, 283-308.

49.

MacDonald

H. I.

(1999). Women’s employment and commuting: Explaining the links. Journal of Planning Literature, 13, 267-283.

50.

Mauno

Kinnunen

Ruokolainen

(2006). Exploring work-and organization-based resources as moderators between work–family conflict, well-being, and job attitudes. Work & Stress, 20, 210-233.

51.

McElwain

A. K.

Korabik

Rosin

H. M.

(2005). An examination of gender differences in work-family conflict. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement, 37, 269-284.

52.

McIlveen

Perera

H. N.

Baguley

van Rensburg

Ganguly

Jasman

Veskova

(2018). Impact of teachers’ career adaptability and family on professional learning. Asia Pacific Journal of Teacher Education. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/1359866X.2018.1444141

53.

Mesmer-Magnus

J. R.

Viswesvaran

(2005). Convergence between measures of work-to-family and family-to-work conflict: A meta-analytic examination. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67, 215-232.

54.

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, 689-725.

55.

Minnotte

K. L.

(2012). Family structure, gender, and the work–family interface: Work-to-family conflict among single and partnered parents. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 33, 95-107.

56.

Muthén

L. K.

Muthén

B. O.

(1998-2010). Mplus user’s guide (6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén and Muthén.

57.

T. W.

Eby

L. T.

Sorensen

K. L.

Feldman

D. C.

(2005). Predictors of objective and subjective career success: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 58, 367-408.

58.

O’Neil

D. A.

Hopkins

M. M.

Bilimoria

(2008). Women’s careers at the start of the 21st century: Patterns and paradoxes. Journal of Business Ethics, 80, 727-743.

59.

Odle-Dusseau

McFadden

A. C.

Britt

T. W.

(2015). Gender, poverty, and the work-family interface. In Mills

M. J.

(ed.). Gender and the work-family experience: An intersection of the two domains (pp. 39-56). New York, NY: Springer.

60.

Plaisier

de Bruijn

J. G.

de Graaf

ten Have

Beekman

A. T.

Penninx

B. W.

(2007). The contribution of working conditions and social support to the onset of depressive and anxiety disorders among male and female employees. Social Science & Medicine, 64, 401-410.

61.

Pleck

J. H.

(1977). The work-family role system. Social Problems, 24, 417-427.

62.

Powell

G. N.

Greenhaus

J. H.

(2010). Sex, gender, and the work-to-family interface: Exploring negative and positive interdependencies. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 513-534.

63.

Preacher

K. J.

Hayes

A. F.

(2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879-891.

64.

Ridgeway

C. L.

(2011). Framed by gender: How gender inequality persists in the modern world. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

65.

Risman

B. J.

(2004). Gender as a social structure theory wrestling with activism. Gender & Society, 18, 429-450.

66.

Risman

B. J.

Davis

(2013). From sex roles to gender structure. Current Sociology, 61, 733-755.

67.

Saade

S. L.

Marchand

(2012). Work organisation conditions, alcohol misuse: The moderating role of personality traits. Work, 44, 191-200.

68.

Sayer

L. C.

(2005). Gender, time and inequality: Trends in women’s and men’s paid work, unpaid work and free time. Social Forces, 84, 285-303.

69.

Sayer

L. C.

(2010). Trends in housework. In Treas

Drobnic

(Eds.), Dividing the domestic: Men, women, and household work in cross-national perspective (pp. 19-38). Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.

70.

Schockley

K. M.

Shen

DeNunzio

M. M.

Arvan

M. L.

Knudsen

E. A.

(2017). Disentangling the relationship between gender and work-family conflict: An integration of theoretical perspectives using meta-analytic methods. Journal of Applied Psychology, 12, 1601-1635.

71.

Siegrist

Peter

(1996). Measuring effort-reward imbalance at work: Guidelines. Düsseldorf, Germany: Heinrich Heine University.

72.

Simon

R. W.

(1995). Gender, multiple roles, role meaning, and mental health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 36, 182-194.

73.

Tabachnick

B. G.

Fidell

L. S.

(2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Pearson.

74.

Thoits

P. A.

(2013). Self, identity, stress, and mental health. In Aneshensel

C. S.

Phelan

J. C.

Bierman

(Eds.), Handbook of the sociology of mental health (pp. 357-377). New York, NY: Springer.

75.

Turcotte

(2011). Commuting to work: Results of the 2010 General Social Survey. Canadian Social Trends, 92, 25-36.

76.

Voydanoff

(2005a). Toward a conceptualization of perceived work-family fit and balance: A demands and resources approach. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 822-836.

77.

Voydanoff

(2005b). Work demands and work-to-family and family-to-work conflict direct and indirect relationships. Journal of Family Issues, 26, 707-726.

78.

Wheaton

(1994). Sampling the stress universe. In Avison

W. R.

Gotlib

I. H.

(Eds.), Stress and mental health: Contemporary issues and prospects for the future (pp. 77-114). Boston, MA: Springer.

79.

Winslow

(2005). Work-family conflict, gender, and parenthood, 1977-1997. Journal of Family Issues, 26, 727-755.

80.

Wood

Eagly

A. H.

(2012). Biosocial construction of sex differences and similarities in behavior. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 55-123.

81.

Yildirim

Aycan

(2008). Nurses’ work demands and work–family conflict: A questionnaire survey. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 45, 1366-1378.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.30 MB

Sex,Gender Dynamics,Differential Exposure,and Work–Family Conflict

Abstract

Keywords

Theory and Hypotheses

Work Demands

Work Resources

Family Demands

Family Resources

Method

Data

Measures

Sex Categories

Work Demands

Work Resources

Family Demands

Family Resources

Work–Family Conflict

Control Variables

Analysis

Results

Discussion

Limitations

Conclusion

Supplemental Material

Appendix_A – Supplemental material for Sex, Gender Dynamics, Differential Exposure, and Work–Family Conflict

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iD

Supplemental Material

References

Supplementary Material