Path to Well-being: Moderated Mediation Model of Perfectionism,Family

Abstract

The purpose of this article is twofold. First, it aims to investigate the mediating role of family–work conflict (FWC) on the relationship between the dimensions of perfectionism (adaptive vs. maladaptive) and well-being, and second, it aims to explore whether gender moderates this mediated relationship. Data are gathered from 238 dual working and married employees working in different sectors. The moderated mediation analyses are conducted using PROCESS macro developed by Hayes and Preacher (2013). The findings reveal that FWC plays a critical mediating role in transmitting the effects of maladaptive perfectionism to well-being. Regarding it the moderated relationship, we find that the positive relationship between maladaptive perfectionism and FWC is stronger for men than it is for women. However, the effect of adaptive perfectionism on FWC is found to be stronger for women compared to that for men. We discuss these findings in relation to gender roles and FWC policies and research.

Keywords

adaptive perfectionism maladaptive perfectionism family–work conflict well-being

Over the last few decades, most societies have transformed from industrial economies to service economies, which are defined as the “24/7 economy” by Presser (2003). With the prevalence of the 24/7 economy, a vast majority of individuals work on the weekends and face conflicting needs from their work and family life. Such conflicting needs seem to increase job stress, thus threatening the well-being levels of employees.

Well-being refers to the presence of positive emotions (e.g., happiness), lack of negative emotions (e.g., anxiety), and the presence of overall life satisfaction (Diener, 1984). In its broadest definition, well-being captures the combination of “effective functioning” and “feeling good” (Kowalski & Loretto, 2017). It is a concept of growing interest to practitioners and researchers because it is critical to the sustainability of the organizations (Zheng et al., 2015). In the current fast-paced and competitive work environments, lower levels of well-being may lead to adverse physical, mental, and psychological consequences for individuals and induce negative organizational outcomes, such as increased absences and reduced productivity and performance of employees (Grawitch et al., 2006).

Despite the accumulated knowledge regarding the effects of well-being, countries are experiencing problems in sustaining the well-being of individuals. This issue is becoming valid particularly for developing countries like Turkey. According to a recent OECD report (2017), Turkey has been ranked among the highest perceived job stress in OECD countries. Although individuals have reported an improvement in their life satisfaction since 2005, their well-being levels are still considered as below the average level in Turkey.

Thus, it seems worthwhile to explore the antecedents of well-being in the Turkish context. In understanding well-being, the current study focuses its attention on perfectionism, family–work conflict (FWC), and gender, simultaneously. The majority of the evidence has indicated that conflicts in family and work domains are negative predictors of individuals’ well-being. Perfectionism, on the other hand, might be regarded as an important individual variable in shaping one’s well-being (Stoeber & Rennert, 2008) both directly and indirectly. Previous studies have thus far concentrated on the key effects of perfectionism and FWC on the well-being of individuals; however, they have not paid attention to the underlying mechanisms and processes of how perfectionism might influence well-being with a focus on FWC and gender.

As perfectionism involves striving for flawlessness and setting high standards for performance (Frost et al., 1990), it may affect employees’ perceptions of FWC, an inter-role conflict wherein the resources spent on the family role adversely affect the resources available in their work role (Netemeyer et al., 1996). This is primarily because perfectionism, as an individual variable, might affect the individuals’ tendencies to evaluate their ability in dealing with the situations, either positively or negatively. Therefore, this study argues that perfectionist employees, who strive to achieve better outcomes, are more likely to engage in processes where they perceive higher levels of FWCs, and subsequently experience lower levels of well-being.

Considering these arguments, the purpose of this study is to explore the mediating effect of FWC on the linkage between perfectionism dimensions (i.e., adaptive and maladaptive) and well-being and subsequently, investigate the conditional role of gender in these mediated relationships. Based on the premises of gender role theory, it is expected that perfectionism-FWC and well-being relations will vary, with respect to ascribed “caregiving” and “breadwinner” roles of women and men, respectively (Eagly & Steffen, 1984; Langford & MacKinnon, 2000). Thus, the present study aims to fill three gaps in the literature: (a) to uncover the intervening role of FWC in the relationship between perfectionism dimensions and well-being, (b) to explore the potential moderating role of gender on the probable mediated relationships, given that the overwhelming focus of previous literature has been on women, and (c) to shed light on the previously mentioned relationships from a non-Western perspective.

The Relationship between Perfectionism and Employee Well-being

Although the concept of perfectionism has been widely researched and discussed in academia, the precise definition is still elusive. In the extant literature, perfectionism has evolved from a unidimensional construct (Burns, 1980) to a multidimensional one, encompassing maladaptive and adaptive characteristics (Frost et al., 1990; Johnson & Slaney, 1996). According to Frost et al. (1990), it is shortsighted to define perfectionism by just focusing on “setting high standards” dimension simply because such a definition cannot distinguish maladaptive perfectionist individuals from adaptive ones, who are highly competent and successful.

This study utilizes Hill et al.’s (2004) two-dimensional view of perfectionism (i.e., conscientious perfectionism and self-evaluative perfectionism). Conscientious perfectionism, akin to perfectionistic strivings, involves a tendency to be neat and orderly, plan and deliberate over decisions, pursue perfect results and high standards, and expect others to meet those perfectionist standards. Conversely, self-evaluative perfectionism, akin to perfectionistic concerns, involves a tendency to have excessive concern over making mistakes, feel a need to perform perfectly to obtain parental approval, obsessively worry about past errors, or future mistakes, seek validation from others and to be sensitive to criticism (Hill et al., 2004, p. 83). For an easier understanding, in this study, we use “adaptive perfectionism” in lieu of conscientious perfectionism, as it reflects the positive side of perfectionism, whereas “maladaptive perfectionism” instead of self-evaluative perfectionism, given its negative connotation.

The current study bases its expectations on the premise that adaptive and maladaptive perfectionism will differentially predict well-being. Ryan and Deci (2000) define well-being as a multidimensional construct containing eudaimonic and hedonic elements. Eudaimonic elements of well-being refer to experiencing personal growth and meaning in life by being fully engaged with activities that are congruent with personal values (Waterman, 1993); however, the hedonic element of well-being refers to experiencing pleasure and happiness (Ryan & Deci, 2000). The literature has revealed that individuals differ in the degree to which they conceptualize well-being in hedonic and eudaimonic terms (McMahan & Estes, 2011). Employee well-being that the current study focuses on represents the hedonic and eudaimonic elements of one’s well-being (Zheng et al., 2015).

The link between adaptive perfectionism and well-being is based on the learned resourcefulness theory (Rosenbaum, 1990). Accordingly, the premises of this theory note that intrinsic motivation and persistence that are inherent in adaptive perfectionism make adaptive perfectionists more occupied with stress management and thus enhance their well-being. In their review of 35 studies, Stoeber and Otto (2006) revealed that adaptive perfectionists demonstrate positive characteristics that are associated with better psychological adjustment. Similarly, Flett et al. (1991) argue that adaptive dimensions of perfectionism could be related to higher levels of self-control that enhance one’s resourcefulness, and thus well-being. Employees with adaptive perfectionist tendencies are found to experience lower strain compared to workers having maladaptive perfectionist tendencies (Özbilir et al., 2015). In a recent study, adaptive perfectionism is associated with eudaimonic well-being, which is mostly affected by a sense of self-fulfillment, personal growth, and meaning in life (Suh et al., 2017). Thus, we assert:

H1: Adaptive perfectionism is positively related to well-being.

The characteristics of displaying excessive concern over making mistakes, obsessively worrying about making mistakes, feeling a discrepancy between expectations and performance, and being overly sensitive to criticism could make maladaptive perfectionists more vulnerable to anxiety and thereby reduce their resourcefulness (Stoeber et al., 2018). Nevertheless, in several studies, dimensions of maladaptive perfectionism were found to positively predict depression and psychological distress (e.g., Enns & Cox, 2005; Kung & Chan, 2014). Contrary to adaptive perfectionism, Stoeber and Otto (2006) state that maladaptive perfectionists demonstrate psychologically devastating negative characteristics. Mitchelson and Burns (1998) revealed that maladaptive perfectionism is associated with parental distress at home, job burnout, and a decreased sense of satisfaction with life. Similarly, Kanten and Yesiltas (2015) reported a negative association between maladaptive perfectionism and well-being with the data gathered from Turkey. Thus, we propose:

H2: Maladaptive perfectionism is negatively related to well-being.

The Mediating Effect of FWC on Perfectionism–Well-being Linkage

Family and work are the primary domains of an individual’s life, and each domain has its own set of responsibilities and role expectations. Work–family conflict (WFC) refers to “a form of inter-role conflict in which the role pressures from the work and family domains are mutually incompatible in some respect” (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985, p. 77). WFC is unidirectional because it occurs when role demands and expectations in the work domain interfere with the responsibilities in the home domain. Initially, researchers assumed that only work interferes with family responsibilities. However, it has been recognized that family responsibilities can also interfere with work responsibilities and WFC might be operationalized as bidirectional. Within this bidirectional view, FWC arouses. A prominent definition of FWC was offered by Netemeyer et al. (1996) as “a form of inter-role conflict in which the general demands of, time devoted to, and strain created by the family interfere with performing work-related responsibilities (p. 401)”. That is, fulfilling the demands of the family domain result in difficulties to accomplish the responsibilities of the work role.

Most research on predictors of FWC primarily focuses on situational variables (e.g., family support and family characteristics), while neglecting the role of dispositional variables (e.g., personality factors and positive–negative affectivity). Similarly, a limited number of studies addressed perfectionism as a dispositional variable that predicts family work interference (e.g., Buyuksahin-Sunal et al., 2016; Mitchelson, 2009). For instance, Buyuksahin-Sunal et al. (2016) explored the impact of perfectionism on both FWC and WFC while testing the moderating effect of marital satisfaction on this relationship on a sample of 132 married partners in Turkey. By using a multidimensional perfectionism scale, the findings revealed that perfectionism has an important effect only on FWC. Nevertheless, the effect of perfectionism on FWC was found to be moderated by marital satisfaction such that perfectionism leads to higher levels of FWC when the marital satisfaction of the partner is low.

Regarding the subdimensions of perfectionism, the principal difference between adaptive and maladaptive perfectionism arises from the failure to achieve the standards (Alexandra-Beauregard, 2012). Thus, it is proposed that (Friede & Ryan, 2005) individuals may differ in their perceptions of home and work role demands—as being either conflictual or enriching—and choose different strategies to cope with home and work responsibilities. While maladaptive perfectionists experience higher levels of stress, adaptive perfectionists experience a lower level of stress caused by the discrepancy between standards and performance (Slaney et al., 2001). Accordingly, adaptive perfectionism has been associated with conscientiousness (Rice et al., 2007). In this sense, conscientiousness can be treated as a proxy of adaptive perfectionism; moreover, the characteristics of conscientiousness—achievement-oriented, hardworking, self-disciplined, and organized—are also found in the adaptive perfectionists. Kossek et al. (1999) indicate that conscientiousness may increase the conflict between the work and life domains, as conscientious individuals invest more energy and time in work and family roles and “do their best.” On the other hand, it is indicated that using time efficiently and having a high tolerance to the environment (Wayne et al., 2004) result in lower levels of FWC among such individuals (Bruck & Allen, 2003; Wayne et al., 2004). It is assumed that conscientious individuals who use resources in the home domain do not use these resources for other domains (Soni & Bakhru, 2019), and thus these individuals tend to experience lower levels of FWC. Similarly, according to the recent meta-analysis results, conscientiousness has a strong negative association particularly with time and strain-based FWC (Allen et al., 2012). In other words, tending to be organized and planned is negatively related to FWC.

Based on these studies, the self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000) may be used to explain the expected relationship between adaptive perfectionism and FWC. It suggests that self-regulation is determined by the degree to which a person internalizes their behavior based on intrinsic versus extrinsic types of motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Intrinsic motivation can lead to more controlled behaviors that are integrated into the self and autonomous (Hodgins & Knee, 2002). Accordingly, it is reported that adaptive perfectionism was positively related to autonomous motivation (Jowett et al., 2013). Thus, individuals, who have a greater sense of personal control and are intrinsically motivated, set higher personal standards, develop strategies to meet their goals, and eliminate distractions. Moreover, it is also highlighted that more autonomous and internal motivation leads to better psychological well-being (PWB) (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Thus, drawing from the self-determination theory, it can be expected that adaptive perfectionist individuals experience lower levels of FWC:

H3: Adaptive perfectionism is negatively related to FWC.

In contrast, individuals high in maladaptive perfectionism are characterized by tendencies to be critical in self-evaluations (Frost et al., 1990). These individuals view their environments as competitive and believe that they must achieve their goals. Thus, when they fail to meet their standards, the discrepancy between their standards and performance leads to frustrations and negative attitudes (Stoltz & Ashby, 2007).

In terms of personality dispositions, maladaptive perfectionism is associated with negative affect (Franche & Gaudreau, 2016) and neuroticism (Rice et al., 2007). Individuals high on negative affect and neuroticism are more likely to experience worry, apprehension, fear, sadness, and irritability. Like maladaptive perfectionists, they tend to view situations as threatening and exhibit less disposition toward coping with stress effectively. Thus, the evidence suggests that neuroticism is positively related to FWC (Andreassi, 2011; Blanch & Aluja, 2009, Bruck & Allen, 2003; Rantanen et al., 2008; Wayne et al. 2004). Considering the relationship between neuroticism and FWC, the positive association between the maladaptive perfectionism and FWC could be reasonable. Mitchelson (2009) demonstrates that compared with adaptive perfectionists, individuals with maladaptive perfectionism seem to demonstrate a high level of time-based FWC. Similarly, Calışkan et al. (2014) investigated the differential effects of adaptive and maladaptive perfectionism on WFC and FWC on a sample of white-collar employees working in Turkish SMEs. The results provide evidence that adaptive and maladaptive perfectionism have differential effects on WFC and FWC; thus, the maladaptive aspects of perfectionism are positively associated with FWC and WFC, whereas the adaptive aspects of perfectionism are negatively associated with them.

The impact of maladaptive perfectionism on FWC can also be examined from the perspective of rumination. Rumination refers to the tendency to engage in repetitive negative thinking (Papageorgiou & Siegle, 2003) and focus on negative emotions about perceived failure (Desnoyers & Arpin-Cribbie, 2015). Most of the studies report that rumination increases the emotional experience of frustration and distress (Bushman, 2002; Xie et al., 2019) and the intention to engage in self-criticism (Bushman, 2002). Maladaptive perfectionism is also characterized by experiencing a high frequency of rumination (O’Connor et al., 2007; Xie et al., 2019). Thus, the maladaptive perfectionist individuals who experience imperfection in their lives, might evaluate themselves critically and negatively and dwell on past negative emotions. Such self-criticism and frustration might accelerate their perceptions of FWC:

H4: Maladaptive perfectionism is positively related to FWC.

An imbalance between work and home responsibilities has been cited as an important negative contributor to the well-being levels of an individual (Grant-Vallone & Donaldson, 2001; Lunau et al., 2014). Similarly, there is growing empirical evidence of the negative consequences of FWC on the well-being of individuals (Amstad et al., 2011; Aycan & Eskin, 2005; O’Driscoll et al., 2006). Specifically, in a meta-analysis including 356 studies, Amstad et al. (2011) reported that FWC negatively predicts well-being, such that high levels of FWC lead to high levels of psychological strain and low levels of employee well-being. Kalliath and Kalliath (2013) and Drummond et al. (2017) also indicate that FWC induces negative outcomes for individuals by increasing strain and reducing job and family satisfaction. Thus, the FWC affects well-being directly and indirectly, and it is transmitted through psychological strain.

Consistent with the previous research findings cited earlier, FWC is expected to mediate the relationship between perfectionism and well-being. Although we do not infer any causal relationships, we reason that adaptive and maladaptive perfectionism will primarily influence the perception of FWC, which in turn gets transformed into different levels of well-being. Grounded by the self-determination theory, adaptive perfectionism—as a dispositional variable—is assumed to transmit its positive effect on well-being by dampening FWC. On the other hand, by leading rumination, the negative effect of maladaptive perfectionism on well-being may be transmitted through FWC. We reason that maladaptive perfectionism will initially manifest itself by aggravating FWC perceptions and these heightened levels of FWC perceptions will deteriorate the employee’s well-being:

H5: FWC acts as a mediator between adaptive perfectionism and well-being

H6: FWC acts as a mediator between maladaptive perfectionism and well-being

Moderating Effect of Gender

In the family and work literature, gender is regarded as a salient demographic characteristic (Haines III et al., 2019; Shockley et al., 2017). Researchers have reported that the individuals’ perception of FWC and their reactions to these role conflicts may be influenced by gender (Cinamon & Rich, 2002). Drawing on gender role theory (Eagly, 1987), the work role is assigned to men and family roles to women. Thus, men are encouraged to be responsible for financially supporting the family as a breadwinner, whereas the women are mostly encouraged to be responsible for the family domain. Consistent with this view, traditionally defined gender roles lead to different expectations about the experience of family and work roles for men and women (Butler & Skattebo, 2004). Evidence suggests that women are reported to feel guilty for being employed rather than fulfilling the family responsibilities at home (e.g., Derya, 2008; Etxebarria et al., 2009).

The traditional gender role expectations emanated from Eastern traditions continue to influence women’s and men’s roles and responsibilities at home and work (Metin Camgoz et al., 2016). Thus, examining the role of gender in countries where traditional and modern values are held simultaneously could be worthwhile (Gunay & Bener, 2011). Although family-related responsibilities are shared in a relatively modern and egalitarian way in the Turkish families (Gunay and Bener, 2011; Irak et al., 2020), working women are still assuming to do the majority of the housework, despite their increased participation in employment. Besides, stereotypes relating to women’s responsibilities at home are still prevalent (Gunay & Bener, 2011; Irak et al., 2020). Therefore, it is inevitable that women experience more FWC compared to men, which is also evidenced by previous studies (Aycan & Eskin, 2005; Boz et al., 2016; Yavas et al., 2008). We also propose that women experience more FWC compared to men.

However, in line with the premises of gender role theory, we argue that the effects of different dimensions of perfectionism on FWC could be contingent upon one’s gender. That is to say, the effect of adaptive perfectionism on FWC might change its direction differently for women and men. Although still experiencing higher levels of FWC, women might feel less triggering outcomes of FWC when they have adaptive perfectionist tendencies compared to men with adaptive perfectionist tendencies. We believe that as women naturalize their “caregiver” gender role by spending more time on household chores and parental roles (Dumas & Stanko, 2017), it might alleviate the effect of adaptive perfectionism of FWC for women, unlike men. Thus,

H7a: Gender moderates the negative effect of adaptive perfectionism on FWC, such that the effect of adaptive perfectionism on FWC will be stronger for women.

By the same token, for men, the effect of maladaptive perfectionism on FWC could be exacerbated. Since the breadwinner role is more salient for male gender identity compared with family roles (Dumas & Stanko, 2017), the male employees might be less occupied in dealing with conflicts arising from family responsibilities. Thus, when this incompetency is coupled with maladaptive perfectionism, it is reasonable to expect a stronger relationship between maladaptive perfectionism and FWC, particularly for male employees:

H7b: Gender moderates the effect of maladaptive perfectionism on FWC, such that the effect of maladaptive perfectionism on FWC will be stronger for men.

As can be seen in Figure 1, we propose that FWC will mediate the relationship between the dimensions of perfectionism and well-being, further we contend that gender will also moderate the indirect effects of perfectionism on well-being via FWC. This prediction suggests a moderated mediation model (Hayes & Preacher, 2013):

H8a: Gender moderates the indirect effect of adaptive perfectionism on well-being via FWC, such that the indirect effect of adaptive perfectionism on well-being will be stronger for women.

H8b: Gender moderates the indirect effect of maladaptive perfectionism on well-being via FWC, such that the indirect effect of maladaptive perfectionism on well-being will be stronger for men.

Figure 1.

Proposed model.

Method

Participants

Data were collected from married employees working in different sectors ranging from education, health, service, and banking with the assistance of a professional research firm. The final sample included 238 employees with 65% of women and 35% of men.

Measures

The survey was designed to gather information about the FWC, perfectionism, employee well-being, and demographic variables.

Family to work conflict (FWC)

FWC was measured by using the Netemeyer et al. (1996) scale. The scale was adapted for the Turkish by Derya (2008). It consists of five items. One sample item was “Family-related strain interferes with my ability to perform job-related duties.” The participants indicated their level of agreement with the items by using a seven-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (7). Higher scores in the scale denote higher levels of respondents’ interdomain conflict. Cronbach’s α score was .89.

Employee well-being scale (EWB)

We used the 18-item EWB scale developed by Zheng et al. (2015). The scale consists of three dimensions: life well-being (LWB), workplace well-being (WWB), and psychological well-being (PWB). Sample items for each dimension include “Most of the time, I do feel real happiness,” “In general, I feel fairly satisfied with my present job,” “I generally feel good about myself, and I’m confident,” respectively. This scale can also be used as a one-factor overall EWB scale. The original Cronbach’s α values of the LWB, WWB, PWB, and overall EWB scale were reported as .87, .87, .84, and .91, respectively. The Turkish translation of the employee well-being scale was borrowed from Bayhan Karapinar et al. (2019). For the overall EWB scale, this study reports Cronbach’s α value as .92.

Perfectionism scale (PI)

We measured perfectionism using the eight items “perfectionism scale” instrument, developed by Hill et al. (2004). This scale is designed to capture the important constructs provided by the two existing multidimensional perfectionism scales’ (MPS; Frost et al., 1990; Hewitt & Flett, 1991) measures, along with new perfectionism scales (cf. Hill et al., 2004). The eight item PI contains two composite subfactors labeled as conscientious perfectionism (i.e., I always like to be organized and disciplined) and self-evaluative perfectionism ( i.e., I spend a lot of time worrying about things I’ve done, or things I need to do). As previously indicated, adaptive and maladaptive perfectionisms were used in place of “conscientious perfectionism” and “self-evaluative perfectionism,” respectively. The collaborative translation technique was utilized while translating the perfectionism scale into Turkish. Considering the conceptual equivalence of the items, two researchers translated the scale independently, and a third researcher analyzed the translation quality of the two items. No analogous items were identified, and thus, the comparability of the translations was assumed.

Each dimension is measured with four items that were rated with a five-point rating scale ranging from 1-strongly disagree to 5-strongly agree. Cronbach’s α values were found to be .83 and .88 for adaptive and maladaptive perfectionism, respectively.

Procedure

The informed consent and questionnaire forms were distributed to participants via sealed envelopes. Participants were informed that our study aimed to address several variables, including well-being, FWC and perfectionism. Then, the anonymity of their answers was assured. After obtaining Ethics Committee approval, data were collected based on convenience sampling. It lasted for 3 months, starting from March through June 2017. No incentives were offered for participation. Of the 350 questionnaires distributed, 240 (68.57%) were returned.

Results

Preliminary Analysis

Prior to analysis, data were examined for accuracy of an entry, missing values, and normality. Missing values were replaced with mean values of the respective variables. Univariate normality was assessed with skewness and kurtosis values. All the values were found to be less than 3.29 (in absolute terms), as suggested by Tabachnick and Fidell (1996). The measurement model was examined to determine whether the number of factors (i.e., adaptive / maladaptive perfectionism, FWC, and well-being) and the loadings of the questionnaire items were in line with the four-factor structure. Three subdimensions of well-being were hypothesized to load on second-order general well-being construct. Initial analyses revealed that all the items were significantly loaded on respective constructs. After adding the error covariance terms between the items measuring the same construct, the fit indices of the revised model turned out to be better compared to the initial one (χ² [df] = 2.02, RMSEA = .06; TLI = .87, CFI = .89). Given the acceptable levels of factor loadings of the revised model, ranging from .45 to .91, we decided to use 31 items to calculate the composite scores for adaptive perfectionism (4 items), maladaptive perfectionism (4 items), FWC (5 items), and well-being (18 items). Composite scores were calculated by taking the average of the items.

Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, and correlations among study variables. As can be seen in Table 1, the correlations between variables provide initial support for the hypotheses, such that there was a positive correlation between adaptive perfectionism and well-being (r = .33, p < .01) and negative correlation between FWC (r = −.23, p < .01) and well-being. Moreover, maladaptive perfectionism was found to be positively correlated with FWC (r = .37, p < .01). The results of the independent t-test revealed that there were no significant differences between women and men concerning well-being (t [233] = −.59; p > .05) and adaptive perfectionism (t [233] = −.43; p > .05). However, there was a significant difference between women and men in terms of perceived FWC (t [233] = 3.56; p < .001) and maladaptive perfectionism (t [233] = −.43; p >.05). The average levels of FWC (mean = 2.61; SD = .95) and maladaptive perfectionism (mean = 3.6; SD = .73) for women were higher compared with that of FWC (mean = 2.15; SD = .91) and maladaptive perfectionism (mean = 2.90; SD = .63) for men.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics of Variables of Interest.

	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5
1. Adaptive perfectionism	2.52	.5	.83
2. Maladaptive perfectionism	2.7	.9	.39**	.88
3. FWC	3.5	.7	−.02	.37**	.89
4. Well-being	5.0	.9	.33**	.01	−.23**	.92
5. Gender	−	−	−.03	−.14*	−.20**	.05	−

Note: FWC = family–work conflict, *p < .05, **p < .01. Numbers in the diagonal represent Cronbach’s α values. Gender: 0 = Women (65%), 1 = Men (35%).

Hypotheses Testing

We used a regression-based approach to test the mediation and moderated mediation models, which involve bootstrapping to calculate 95% bootstrap confidence intervals (e.g., Hayes & Preacher, 2013). In the first and second analyses, the mediating role of FWC on adaptive perfectionism–well-being and maladaptive perfectionism–well-being linkages were examined, respectively. As seen from Table 2, the direct effect of adaptive perfectionism on employee well-being turned out to be positive and significant, supporting Hypothesis 1. The adaptive perfectionism negatively predicted FWC (b = −.20, t = 1.85; p = .04), supporting H3, which in turn also negatively predicted well-being of the participants (b = −.21, t = −3.66; p = .04). According to the bootstrap results, the lower-level and upper-level confidence intervals for the indirect effect included 0 (LLCI-ULCI [−.03, .04]). Contrary to Hypothesis H5, this finding disconfirmed the existence of the indirect effect of adaptive perfectionism’s significance.

Table 2.

Regression Results for Mediating Role of FWC on the Relationship between Adaptive Perfectionism and Well-being.

	b	SE	t	p
	Direct and total effects
Adaptive perfectionism → well-being	.44	.08	5.38	.00
Adaptive perfectionism → FWC	−.20	.11	−1.85	.05
FWC → well-being	−.21	.06	−3.66	.00
	Bootstrap results for indirect effect
	Boot b/boot β	SE	Boot LLCI	Boot ULCI
Effect	.001 /.001	.02	−.03	.04

Note: b: unstandardized regression estimate, β: standardized regression estimate, SE: standard error of unstandardized estimate, CI (lower): confidence interval lower bound, CI (higher): confidence interval higher bound.

As seen from Table 3, although the direct effect of maladaptive perfectionism on well-being was found to be insignificant (refuting H2), its indirect effect was significant. Maladaptive perfectionism had a positive effect on FWC (b = .50, t = 6.05; p = .00), supporting H4, and FWC was found to be negatively associated with well-being (b = −.25, t = −3.83; p = .00). Using 5,000 bootstrapping samples and 95% confidence interval, the indirect effect of FWC was found to be significant (boot b = −.12, SE = .04; 95% CI [−.22, −.06]), supporting H6. The normal theory test for the indirect effect also verified the significance of the mediated effect of FWC (Z = −3.20; p = .00).

Table 3.

Regression Results for Mediating Role of FWC on the Relationship between Maladaptive Perfectionism and Well-being.

	b	SE	t	p
	Direct and total effects
Maladaptive perfectionism → well-being	.12	.08	1.41	.15
Maladaptive perfectionism → FWC	.50	.08	6.05	.00
FWC → well-being	−.25	.06	−3.83	.00
	Bootstrap results for indirect effect
	Boot b/boot β	SE	Boot LLCI	Boot ULCI
Effect	−.12/−.09	.05	−.22	−.06

For testing the moderated mediation hypotheses, we used PROCESS macro developed by Hayes and Preacher (2013). The first moderated mediation model (H8a and H8b) tested the conditional indirect effect of adaptive perfectionism on well-being via FWC as a function of gender (women and men). The regression coefficients and the results of the tests regarding the conditional indirect and direct effects are presented in Table 4.

Table 4.

Regression for Moderated Mediation Results for Adaptive Perfectionism.

Predictor	b	SE	t	p
	FWC
Constant	3.38	.43	7.95	.00^**
Adaptive perfectionism	−.20	.11	−1.85	.05
Gender	−2.40	.73	−3.26	.00^**
Gender* adaptive perfectionism	.51	.19	2.68	.00^**
	Well-being
Constant	3.94	.34	11.44	.00^**
Adaptive perfectionism	.44	.08	5.38	.00^**
FWC	−.21	.06	−3.66	.00^**
	Boot indirect effect	Boot SE	Boot LLCI	Boot ULCI
	Conditional indirect effect at gender (0 = women,1 = men)
0	.04	.03	.002	.10
1	−.06	.03	−.15	−.01

Note: FWC = family–work conflict, gender: 0 = women; 1 = men. *p < .05, **p < .01.

As can be seen in Table 4, the relationship between adaptive perfectionism and well-being was moderated by gender, such that the first-order moderation effect (the interaction term of adaptive perfectionism by gender) was significant (b = .51, SE = .19, t = 2.68; p = .00). Furthermore, the index of the moderated mediation in Table 4 was significant, (index = −.11, boot SE = .05, 95% CI [−.22, −.03]) thereby supporting the proposed hypothesized moderated mediation model (H8a). Thus, the magnitude of the mediating effect of FWC on the linkage between adaptive perfectionism and well-being vary by gender (women and men). The conditional indirect effect was found to be significant for men and women, thus far in opposite directions (i.e., the positive indirect effect for women; negative indirect effect for men), such that the mediating effect of FWC between adaptive perfectionism and well-being was negative for men (boot effect = −.06, boot SE = .03, 95% CI [−.15, −.01]) and positive for women (boot effect = .04, boot SE = .03, 95% CI [.002, .10]).

When this moderating effect of gender (H7a) on the relationship between adaptive perfectionism and FWC is plotted (Figure 2), it was found that the effect of AP on FWC was much steeper for men compared with women contrary to H7a. Although women experience higher levels of FWC as presumed, the difference between men and women in terms of FWC seems to decrease as the level of adaptive perfectionism increases.

Figure 2.

The relationship between adaptive perfectionism and FWC with respect to gender.

The second moderated mediation model (H8b) tested the conditional indirect effect of maladaptive perfectionism on well-being via FWC as a function of gender (women and men). The regression coefficients and results of the tests regarding the conditional indirect and direct effects are presented in Table 5.

Table 5.

Regression for Moderated Mediation Results for Maladaptive Perfectionism.

Predictor	b	SE	t	p
	FWC
Constant	1.55	.31	4.89	.00^**
Maladaptive perfectionism	.34	.10	4.89	.00^**
Gender	−1.66	.56	−2.99	.00^**
Gender* maladaptive perfectionism	.45	18	2.44	.02^*
	Well-being
Constant	5.30	.26	20.10	.00^**
Maladaptive perfectionism	.12	.09	1.41	.16
FWC	−.25	.06	−3.83	.00^**
	Boot indirect effect	Boot SE	Boot LLCI	Boot ULCI
	Conditional indirect effect at gender (0 = women,1 = men)
0	−.08	.04	−.17	−.02
1	−.19	.05	−.32	−.09

Note: FWC = family–work conflict, gender: 0 = women; 1 = men. *p < .05, **p < .01.

As shown in Table 5, the relationship between maladaptive perfectionism and well-being was moderated by gender, such that the first-order moderation effect (the interaction term of maladaptive perfectionism by gender) was significant (b = .45, SE = .18, t = 2.44; p = .02). Moreover, the index of the moderated mediation was significant (index = −.11, boot SE = .05, 95% CI [−.24, .03]), indicating that the hypothesized moderated mediation model was supported. In other words, the mediating effect of FWC was contingent upon gender. As such, the bootstrap for confidence levels for the conditional indirect effects of FWC were significant for women (boot b = −.08; boot SE = .04; 95% CI [−.17, −.02]) and men (boot b = −.19; boot SE = .05; 95% CI [−.32, −.09]). These results suggest that the magnitude of the mediating effect of FWC on maladaptive perfectionism–well-being linkage varied by gender (supporting H8b). When the moderating effect of gender on the relationship between maladaptive perfectionism and FWC is plotted (Figure 3), it was found that the effect of maladaptive perfectionism on FWC was much steeper for men compared to women, thereby supporting Hypothesis 7b.

Figure 3.

The relationship between maladaptive perfectionism and FWC with respect to gender.

Discussion

This study seeks to examine an integrative model of the relationship between the dimensions of perfectionism (i.e., adaptive and maladaptive) and well-being, considering FWC as a mediating variable. Furthermore, the study explores whether gender (women or men) changes the magnitude of the mediated relationship between these dimensions, on a sample from a non-Western country.

In terms of direct effects, adaptive perfectionism is found to be positively related to employees’ well-being. Adaptive and maladaptive perfectionism were operationalized as interactions between high standards and discrepancy (Rice et al., 2007), such that employees who set high standards for themselves and feel low levels of a discrepancy between these standards and their performance have higher levels of well-being, by increasing their perception of self-control (Flett et al., 1991, Xie et al., 2019). Besides, by experiencing mostly positive thoughts and feelings, the adaptive perfectionists may develop thought–action repertoires, which may lead to building enduring personal resources to deal with life strain (Fredrickson, 2001). Different from the previous findings (Ozbilir et al., 2015; Xie et al., 2019), no direct relationship between maladaptive perfectionism and well-being was found. The absence of a direct relationship may be due to the existence of a full mediating effect of FWC, outlined as follows.

The dimensions of perfectionism are found to have significant effects on FWC. Aligned with our expectations, maladaptive perfectionism is found to be related to higher levels of FWC, supporting the notion that individuals may differ in their perceptions of home and work role demands, based on self-evaluations of their performance (Friede & Ryan, 2005). This is consistent with Beauregard’s (2006) findings based on UK public sector employees wherein maladaptive perfectionism positively relates to FWC, but adaptive perfectionism negatively relates to it. This finding demonstrates that compared to maladaptive perfectionists, adaptive perfectionists have more tendency to experience lower levels of strain and time-based FWC (Andreassi, 2011). Remarkably, the effect of adaptive perfectionism on FWC is found to be insignificant. If this finding is considered together with the significant effect of adaptive perfectionism on well-being, one might claim that as a positive orientation, adaptive perfectionism is more likely to predict positive outcomes (i.e., well-being, life satisfaction) more than the negative ones (i.e., depression, FWC, stress) (e.g., Goodhart, 1985). As Stoeber and Otto (2006) claim, healthy and adaptive perfectionists seem less likely to perceive hassles and conflicts arising from the home domain.

Our model revealed that FWC plays a critical mediating role in transmitting the effects of maladaptive perfectionism to well-being. Results revealed that the maladaptive perfectionists, who perceive the situations as more threatening, seem to have less tendency to cope with stress. This tendency leads to the experience of FWC and reduces well-being. This finding partly corroborates with Caliskan et al.’s (2014) study reporting the significant effect of maladaptive perfectionism on burnout through FWC, based on a data sample of Turkish white-collar employees. In this regard, the rumination tendency (Desnoyers & Arpin-Cribbie, 2015) causes maladaptive perfectionists to focus on and exacerbate negative emotions, which in turn decreases their stamina to cope with FWC. Such rising levels of conflict seem to threaten those individuals’ PWB levels.

On the other hand, the effect of adaptive perfectionism on well-being was not found through FWC as adaptive perfectionism has a strong direct effect on well-being. This implies that adaptive perfectionists who can cope with problems actively and develop strategies to meet their goals effectively can affect their well-being positively. As the self-determination theory suggests that high personal standards of adaptive perfectionist may help them to boost their performance in different roles, to cope with competing demands in life, and thus experience higher levels of well-being (Ozbilir et al., 2015; Stoeber & Rennert, 2008).

In terms of the moderated relationship, the study findings suggest that the positive relationship between maladaptive perfectionism and FWC is stronger for men than women. However, the effect of adaptive perfectionism on FWC is found to be stronger for women compared with men. These effects can be interpreted in several ways. First, a maladaptive perfectionist man, who places unrealistic parental and household standards upon himself, might experience family stress and conflict. This family stress may create a drawback in fulfilling the work responsibilities, which might lead to a decrease in his well-being level. Second, the gender role theory may function differently for men than for women. It is suggested that the home domain includes more ambiguous expectations than the work domain (Mitchelson & Burns, 1998). In this vein, based on the gender role theory, it can be assumed that as the men have a breadwinner role, family responsibilities may be vaguer for men than for the women. Moreover, women’s employment may also increase the household demands for men, which means they become more involved in household chores (Helgeson, 2016). Thus, particularly for maladaptive perfectionist men, this ambiguous situation might aggravate their perfectionist tendencies, resulting in higher levels of FWC and thus dampen their well-being.

In this study, it appears that men are more sensitive to the effects of maladaptive perfectionism compared with women, even though women are found to have more maladaptive perfectionist tendencies. This finding can also be interpreted as maladaptive men and women reacting differently according to gender role expectations when they face conflicting demands from home and work. A recent meta-analysis of Johnson and Whisman (2013) and a study by Tamres et al. (2002) report that women are more likely to ruminate than men. However, these studies examined rumination tendencies without considering different life roles. At this point, it can be argued that responsibilities in different domains of life could alleviate or augment the rumination tendencies of individuals. As they view family responsibilities to be secondary, men seem to be more affected by the maladaptive perfectionist tendencies, and thus are more likely to ruminate on their family responsibilities and the conflicts arising from their families.

In contrast, the effect of adaptive perfectionism on well-being through FWC seems to be more prominent for women probably due to gender roles. Family responsibilities and household chores are accepted as part of their gender roles as women. Women still consider themselves to be primarily responsible for their home and children. Therefore, the family domain might have clear demarcations of expectations for women, which helps them in balancing the demands arising from family and work roles. This situation might cause adaptive perfectionist women to feel more secure and have an increased sense of competence in their family roles. Although we expect higher levels of FWC for women, the interactive effect of perfectionism and gender indicates that as adaptive perfectionism increases, FWC levels of women seem to decrease. For men, however, the interactive effect works in the opposite way such that as men become more adaptive perfectionists, they tend to experience more FWC.

Limitations and Future Research

This study is not without its limitations. First, the nature of the data is cross-sectional, which limits the conclusions about causality. Longitudinal or experimental designs can be employed in future research for examining these relationships. Second, the findings of the current study are constrained in terms of their generalizability beyond the cultural context. Moreover, one must also acknowledge that, in this study, culture is assumed and not measured directly. Future research may require a larger scope of data collection, including different cultural contexts for achieving wider generalizability. Moreover, data collection relies on self-reported assessments; thus, future research could endeavor to build relevant rated measures into the study design. Nevertheless, several remedies, such as the use of different scale anchors, Harman’s test, CFA, and validity analysis are considered for alleviating the concerns about common method bias.

This study employed adaptive and maladaptive perfectionism as an individual trait because some people, more than others, find it easy to attain a balance in roles and responsibilities they are linked to. However, future research could also explore domain-based perfectionism (Haase et al., 2013) to examine its effects concerning WFC, FWC, and well-being. An additional line of work could explore the plausible explanations for the relationship between perfectionism and well-being by examining the moderating effects of social support, economic stress, and job insecurity perceptions.

Conclusion and Implications

The current study revealed that FWC plays a critical mediating role in transmitting the effects of both adaptive and maladaptive perfectionism to well-being. As the perfectionist individuals set higher standards for themselves, organizations could provide training to empower such employees so that they can cope with stress and with these higher standards. This type of training could be designed to increase the self-regulation capacity for dealing with stress arising from home and work-related responsibilities.

The findings also expanded the literature by examining gender as a moderating variable on the perfectionism, FWC, and well-being linkage. The negative effect of adaptive perfectionism on FWC turned out to be stronger for women compared with men, whereas the positive relationship between maladaptive perfectionism and FWC is found to be stronger for men compared with women. Particularly, this study sheds light on the impact of perfectionism on well-being through the FWC. It has shown that the impact is not limited to women, and that organized, well-planned women can better manage the FWC. Although the organizations consider the WFC, they may ignore the FWC. However, the findings also revealed that the FWC, particularly for men, affects the well-being negatively.

Despite the prevalence of the traditional gender roles, currently, there is an increasing tendency to define the ideal men by his breadwinner role and his role as an involved father and spouse (Cinamon & Rich, 2002). In this sense, like women, men feel distressed while providing income and participating in household chores. As discussed by Ashforth et al. (2000), a segmentation strategy could be used by the organizations for balancing the family and work domains. When individuals can segment the home and work domains, they might experience less conflict between the family and work domains and increase their well-being levels. In this sense, organizations could incorporate family friendly practices, such as flexible timing, work from home, and onsite daycare to address these issues (Cloninger et al., 2015). Moreover, other interventions might be designed to allow women and men to get more involved in the home domain while keeping up with their work responsibilities. These interventions could particularly contribute to the well-being of male employees because they may perceive these as indications of not being penalized for nonparticipation family roles. Besides the organizational interventions, there seems to be a need for changing the family responsibilities and segregation of responsibilities for women and men. We believe that to avoid the adverse impact of FWC, men should be raised to internalize their family responsibilities and accept household chores as part of their responsibilities beyond their breadwinner roles. Moreover, by clarifying home responsibilities within the family, men could be in a better position to schedule their activities, and thus experience fewer emergencies and conflicts arising from their family domain. With such interventions and scheduling, maladaptive perfectionist men’s well-being could be less affected by FWC.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The proofreading and editing of the article were undertaken by HT-TTM.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Ozge Tayfur Ekmekci

References

Allen

T. D.

Johnson

R. C.

Saboe

K. N.

Cho

Dumani

Evans

(2012). Dispositional variables and work–family conflict: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80(1), 17–26.

Alexandra-Beauregard

(2012). Perfectionism, self-efficacy, and OCB: The moderating role of gender. Personnel Review, 41(5), 590–608.

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(2), 151–169.

Andreassi

J. K.

(2011). What the person brings to the table: Personality, coping, and work–family conflict. Journal of Family Issues, 32(11), 1474–1499.

Ashforth

B. E.

Kreiner

G. E.

Fugate

(2000). All in a day’s work: Boundaries and micro role transitions. Academy of Management Review, 25(3), 472–491.

Aycan

Eskin

(2005). Relative contributions of childcare, spousal support, and organizational support in reducing work–family conflict for men and women: The case of Turkey. Sex Roles, 53(7–8), 453–471.

Bayhan Karapinar

Camgoz

S. M.

Ekmekci

O. T

. (2019). Employee wellbeing, workaholism, work–family conflict, and instrumental spousal support: A moderated mediation model. Journal of Happiness Studies, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-019-00191-x

Beauregard

A.T.

(2006). Predicting interference between work and home: A comparison of dispositional and situational antecedents. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(3), 244–264.

Boz

Martínez-Corts

Munduate

(2016). Types of combined family-to-work conflict and enrichment and subjective health in Spain: A gender perspective. Sex Roles, 74(3–4), 136–153.

10.

Blanch

Aluja

(2009). Work, family, and personality: A study of work–family conflict. Personality and Individual Differences, 46(4), 520–524.

11.

Bruck

C. S.

Allen

T. D.

(2003). The relationship between big five personality traits, negative affectivity, type A behavior and work–family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63(3), 457–472.

12.

Burns

D. D.

(1980, November). The perfectionist's script for self-defeat. Psychology Today, 34–51.

13.

Bushman

B. J.

(2002). Does venting anger feed or extinguish the flame? Catharsis, rumination, distraction, anger, and aggressive responding. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(6), 724–731.

14.

Butler

A. B.

Skattebo

(2004). What is acceptable for women may not be for men: The effect of family conflicts with work on job-performance ratings. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77(4), 553–564.

15.

Buyuksahin-Sunal

A. B.

Keskin

(2016). İş-aile çatışması boyutları ile mükemmeliyetçilik arasındaki ilişkide evlilik doyumunun düzenleyici rolü [The moderating role of marital satisfaction on the relationship between dimensions of work-family conflict and perfectionism]. Ankara Üniversitesi Dil ve Tarih-Coğrafya Fakültesi Dergisi [Ankara University Journal of Languages and History-Geography], 56(1), 144–162.

16.

Cinamon

R. G.

Rich

(2002). Gender differences in the importance of work and family roles: Implications for work–family conflict. Sex Roles, 47(11–12), 531–541.

17.

Caliskan

A. S. C.

Arikan

A. S. C.

Saatci

A. E. Y.

(2014). SMEs context of Turkey from the relational perspective of members' perfectionism, work–family conflict, and burnout. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 5(4),129–139.

18.

Cloninger

P. A.

Selvarajan

T. T.

Singh

Huang

(2015). The mediating influence of work–family conflict and the moderating influence of gender on employee outcomes. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 26(18), 2269–2287.

19.

Derya

(2008). Crossover of work–family conflict: Antecedent and consequences of the crossover process in dual-earner couples (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Koç University, Istanbul, Turkey.

20.

Desnoyers

Arpin-Cribbie

(2015). Examining cognitive performance: Do perfectionism and rumination matter? Personality and Individual Differences, 76, 94–98.

21.

Diener

(1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95(3), 542–575.

22.

Drummond

O’Driscoll

M. P.

Brough

Kalliath

Siu

O. L.

Timms

Riley

Sit

(2017). The relationship of social support with well-being outcomes via work–family conflict: Moderating effects of gender, dependants, and nationality. Human Relations, 70(5), 544–565.

23.

Dumas

T. L.

Stanko

T. L.

(2017). Married with children: How family role identification shapes leadership behaviors at work. Personnel Psychology, 70(3), 597–633.

24.

Eagly

A. H.

(1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social role interpretation. Erlbaum.

25.

Eagly

A. H.

Steffen

V. J.

(1984). Gender stereotypes stem from the distribution of women and men into social roles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(4), 735–754.

26.

Enns

M. W.

Cox

B. J.

(2005). Perfectionism, stressful life events, and the 1-year outcome of depression. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 29(5), 541–553.

27.

Etxebarria

Ortiz

M. J.

Conejero

Pascual

(2009). Intensity of habitual guilt in men and women: Differences in interpersonal sensitivity and the tendency towards anxious-aggressive guilt. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 12(2), 540–554.

28.

Flett

G. L.

Hewitt

P. L.

Blankstein

O’Brien

(1991). Perfectionism and learned resourcefulness in depression and self-esteem. Personality and İndividual Differences, 12(1), 61–68.

29.

Fredrickson

B. L.

(2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56(3), 218–226.

30.

Friede

Ryan

A. M

. (2005). The importance of the individual: How self-evaluations influence the work–family interface. In Work and life integration: Organizational, cultural, and individual perspectives (pp. 185–200). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

31.

Franche

Gaudreau

(2016). Integrating dispositional perfectionism and within-person variations of perfectionism across life domains into a multilevel extension of the 2× 2 models of perfectionism. Personality and Individual Differences, 89, 55–59.

32.

Frost

R. O.

Marten

Lahart

Rosenblate

(1990). The dimensions of perfectionism. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 14(5), 449–468.

33.

Goodhart

D. E.

(1985). Some psychological effects associated with positive and negative thinking about stressful event outcomes: Was Pollyanna right? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(1), 216–232.

34.

Grant-Vallone

E. J.

Donaldson

S. I.

(2001). Consequences of work–family conflict on employee well-being over time. Work & Stress, 15(3), 214–226.

35.

Grawitch

M. J.

Gottschalk

Munz

D. C.

(2006). The path to a healthy workplace: A critical review linking healthy workplace practices, employee well-being, and organizational improvements. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 58(3), 129–147.

36.

Greenhaus

J. H.

Beutell

N. J.

(1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Academy of Management Review, 10(1), 76–88.

37.

Gunay

Bener

. (2011). Perception of family life in frame of gender roles of women. TSA, 15(3), 157–171.

38.

Haase

A. M.

Prapavessis

Owens

R. G.

(2013). Domain-specificity in perfectionism: Variations across domains of life. Personality and Individual Differences, 55(6), 711–715.

39.

Haines

III

V. Bilodeau

Demers

Marchand

Beauregard

Durand

Blanc

M. E

. (2019). Sex, gender dynamics, differential exposure, and work–family conflict. Journal of Family Issues, 40(2), 215–239.

40.

Hayes

A. F.

Preacher

K. J.

(2013). Conditional process modeling: Using structural equation modeling to examine contingent causal processes. In Hancock

G. R.

Mueller

R. O.

(Eds.), Quantitative methods in education and the behavioral sciences: Issues, research, and teaching. Structural equation modeling: A second course (pp. 219–266). IAP Information Age Publishing.

41.

Helgeson

(2016). Psychology of Gender. Routledge.

42.

Hewitt

P. L.

Flett

G. L.

(1991). Perfectionism in the self and social contexts: Conceptualization, assessment, and association with psychopathology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(3), 456–470.

43.

Hill

R. W.

Huelsman

T. J.

Furr

R. M.

Kibler

Vicente

B. B.

Kennedy

(2004). A new measure of perfectionism: The perfectionism inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 82(1), 80–91.

44.

Hodgins

H. S.

Knee

C. R.

(2002). The integrating self and conscious experience. In Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 87–100). University of Rochester Press.

45.

Irak

D. U.

Kalkışım

Yıldırım

(2020). Emotional support makes the difference: Work–family conflict and employment related guilt among employed mothers. Sex Roles, 82, 53–65.

46.

Johnson

D. P.

Slaney

R. B.

(1996). Perfectionism: Scale development and a study of perfectionistic clients in counseling. Journal of College Student Development, 37(1), 29–41.

47.

Johnson

D. P.

Whisman

M. A.

(2013). Gender differences in rumination: A meta–analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 55(4), 367–374.

48.

Jowett

G. E.

Hill

A. P.

Hall

H. K.

Curran

(2013). Perfectionism and junior athlete burnout: The mediating role of autonomous and controlled motivation. Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology, 2(1), 48–61.

49.

Kalliath

(2013). Work–family conflict and its impact on job satisfaction of social workers. British Journal of Social Work, 45(1), 241–259.

50.

Kanten

Yesıltas

(2015). The effects of positive and negative perfectionism on work engagement, psychological well-being, and emotional exhaustion. Procedia Economics and Finance, 23, 1367–1375.

51.

Kossek

Noe

R. A.

DeMarr

B. J.

(1999). Work–family role synthesis: Individual and organizational determinants. International Journal of Conflict Management, 10(2), 102–129.

52.

Kowalski

T. H.

Loretto

(2017). Well-being and HRM in the changing workplace. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 28(16), 2229–2255.

53.

Kung

C. S.

Chan

C. K.

(2014). Differential roles of positive and negative perfectionism in predicting occupational eustress and distress. Personality and Individual Differences, 58, 76–81.

54.

Langford

MacKinnon

N. J.

(2000). The affective bases for the gendering of traits: Comparing the United States and Canada. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63(1), 34–48.

55.

Lunau

Bambra

Eikemo

T. A.

van Der Wel

K. A.

Dragano

(2014). A balancing act? Work–life balance, health, and well-being in European welfare states. The European Journal of Public Health, 24(3), 422–427.

56.

McMahan

E. A.

Estes

(2011). Hedonic versus eudaimonic conceptions of well-being: Evidence of differential associations with self-reported well-being. Social Indicators Research, 103(1), 93–108.

57.

Metin Camgoz

Tayfur Ekmekci

Bayhan Karapinar

Kumbul Guler

. (2016). Job insecurity and turnover intentions: Gender differences and the mediating role of work engagement. Sex Roles, 75(11–12), 583–598.

58.

Mitchelson

J. K

. (2009). Seeking the perfect balance: Perfectionism and work–family conflict. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82(2), 349–367.

59.

Mitchelson

J. K.

Burns

L. R.

(1998). Career mothers and perfectionism: Stress at work and at home. Personality and Individual Differences, 25(3), 477–485.

60.

Netemeyer

R. G.

Boles

J. S.

McMurrian

(1996). Development and validation of work–family conflict and family–work conflict scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(4), 400–410.

61.

O’Connor

D. B.

O’Connor

R. C.

Marshall

(2007). Perfectionism and psychological distress: Evidence of the mediating effects of rumination. European Journal of Personality: Published for the European Association of Personality Psychology, 21(4), 429–452.

62.

OECD (2017). How’s life? 2017: Measuring well-being. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/how_life-2017-en.

63.

O'Driscoll

Brough

Kalliath

. (2006). Work–family conflict and facilitation. In Jones

Burke

R. J.

Westman

(Eds.), Work–life balance: A psychological perspective (pp. 117–142). Psychology Press.

64.

Ozbilir

Day

Catano

V. M.

(2015). Perfectionism at work: an investigation of adaptive and maladaptive perfectionism in the workplace among Canadian and Turkish employees. Applied Psychology, 64(1), 252–280.

65.

Papageorgiou

Siegle

G. J.

(2003). Rumination and depression: Advances in theory and research. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 27(3), 243–245.

66.

Presser

H. B

. (2003). Race-ethnic and gender differences in-standard work shifts. Work and Occupations, 30(4), 412–439

67.

Rantanen

Kinnunen

Feldt

Pulkkinen

(2008). Work–family conflict and psychological well-being: Stability and cross-lagged relations within one-and six-year follow-ups. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73(1), 37–51.

68.

Rice

K. G.

Ashby

J. S.

Slaney

R. B.

(2007). Perfectionism and the five-factor model of personality. Assessment, 14(4), 385–398.

69.

Rosenbaum

M. E.

(1990). Learned resourcefulness: On coping skills, self-control, and adaptive behavior. Springer Publishing Co.

70.

Ryan

R. M.

Deci

E. L.

(2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54–67.

71.

Shockley

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, 102(12), 1601–1635.

72.

Slaney

R. B.

Rice

K. G.

Mobley

Trippi

Ashby

J. S.

(2001). The revised almost perfect scale. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 34(3), 130.

73.

Soni

Bakhru

K. M.

(2019). Understanding the triangulated collaboration of work–life balance, personality traits, and eudaimonic well-being. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 17(2), 63–82.

74.

Stoeber

Edbrooke-Childs

J. H.

Damian

L. E.

(2018). Perfectionism. In Levesque

R. J. R.

(Ed.), Encyclopedia of adolescence (2nd ed., Vol. 4, pp. 2732–2739). Springer.

75.

Stoeber

Otto

(2006). Positive conceptions of perfectionism: Approaches, evidence, challenges. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(4), 295–319.

76.

Stoeber

Rennert

(2008). Perfectionism in school teachers: Relations with stress appraisals, coping styles, and burnout. Anxiety, Stress, And Coping, 21(1), 37–53.

77.

Stoltz

Ashby

J. S.

(2007). Perfectionism and lifestyle: Personality differences among adaptive perfectionists, maladaptive perfectionists, and no perfectionists. Journal of Individual Psychology, 63(4), 414–423.

78.

Suh

Gnilka

P. B.

Rice

K. G.

(2017). Perfectionism and well-being: A positive psychology framework. Personality and Individual Differences, 111(1), 25–30.

79.

Tabachnick

B. G.

Fidell

L. S.

(1996). Using multivariate statistics (3rd ed.). Harper Collins.

80.

Tamres

L. K.

Janicki

Helgeson

V. S.

(2002). Sex differences in coping behavior: A meta-analytic review and an examination of relative coping. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6(1), 2–30.

81.

Waterman

A. S.

(1993). Two conceptions of happiness: Contrasts of personal expressiveness (eudaimonia) and hedonic enjoyment. Journal of personality and social psychology, 64(4), 678–691.

82.

Wayne

J. H.

Musisca

Fleeson

(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(1), 108–130.

83.

Xie

Kong

Yang

Chen

(2019). Perfectionism, worry, rumination, and distress: A meta-analysis of the evidence for the perfectionism cognition theory. Personality and Individual Differences, 139, 301–312.

84.

Yavas

Babakus

Karatepe

(2008), Attitudinal and behavioral consequences of work–family conflict and family–work conflict: Does gender matter? International Journal of Service Industry Management, 19 (1), 7–31.

85.

Zheng

Zhu

Zhao

Zhang

(2015). Employee well-being in organizations: Theoretical model, scale development, and cross-cultural validation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(5), 621–644.

Path to Well-being: Moderated Mediation Model of Perfectionism,Family–Work Conflict,and Gender

Abstract

Keywords

The Relationship between Perfectionism and Employee Well-being

The Mediating Effect of FWC on Perfectionism–Well-being Linkage

Moderating Effect of Gender

Method

Participants

Measures

Family to work conflict (FWC)

Employee well-being scale (EWB)

Perfectionism scale (PI)

Procedure

Results

Preliminary Analysis

Hypotheses Testing

Discussion

Limitations and Future Research

Conclusion and Implications

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iD

References