The Experience of Work–Family Conflict: Does Being the Only Child Matter?

Abstract

A lack of resistance resources in the family, such as a lack of sibling support, might cause the family to be more prone to family crises; however, little if anything is known about whether being the only child will influence the experience of work–family conflict (a family crisis). Using an online questionnaire sample of 622 Chinese employees, we investigated the influence of only child status on work–family conflict and further explored the moderating effect of only child status on the relationship between work–family conflict and its performance outcomes. Analyses revealed that being the only child would spend less time on family responsibilities, thereby decreasing the level of family-to-work conflict; in addition, being the only child would ease the negative impact of work-to-family conflict on family performance. The recommendations for future studies, implications of this study, and the need for further research on only child’s work–family conflict experience are discussed.

Keywords

work–family conflict only child work/family performance work–family guilt work/family time allocation

Introduction

Work–family conflict, a well-studied role conflict in the West (i.e. a conflict between work role and family role, see Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985), has become an increasingly common phenomenon worldwide due to the conflict between the traditional gender role and the development/change of workplace and family structure (Lu & Cooper, 2015); for example, the traditional gender role which defined men as the main breadwinner and women are the kin-keeper and caregiver of the family has conflicted with the increasing number of female labour and dual-earner and single-parent families (Korabik et al., 2008). Despite most Western findings being applicable in different cultures (e.g. Liu & Cheung, 2015; Lu & Cooper, 2015; Lu et al., 2006), in our literature review, the overwhelming Western focus seems to restrict the direction and scope of work–family conflict studies.

In particular, the term ‘family’ in most Western countries is represented by the nuclear family (i.e. adult parents and underaged child) (Shaffer et al., 2011); such limited conceptualization of ‘family’ has restricted the work–family conflict studies by only focussing on the units of a nuclear family (the adult parent or the underaged children as the main subject) and extend from this family structure in a limit; for example, the family support-related work–family conflict studies are simply focused on receiving support from spouse and/or partner (e.g. El-Kassem, 2019; Wallace, 2005); previous studies that investigated the effect of family structure on work–family conflict often centred on the single parent and/or partnered parents (e.g. Minnotte, 2012; Ohu et al., 2019); the term ‘family demands’ or ‘family involvements’ are generally emphasized on the influence of domestic chores (e.g. Cerrato & Cifre, 2018; Lu et al., 2006) and childrearing (e.g. Huffman et al., 2013) on work–family conflict; or the gender differences in domestic chores and work–family conflict (e.g. Cerrato & Cifre, 2018).

Moreover, with the influence of the caregiving practice of Western individualism, which relies more on formal health care services and has less expectation of providing/receiving care from family members (e.g. Pyke, 1999; Pyke & Bengtson, 1996). Accordingly, only two types of family roles are being well-studied in the field of work–family conflict: the parent and/or spouse roles (e.g. Huffman et al., 2013; Ohu et al., 2019; Allen & Finkelstein, 2014; Liu & Cheung, 2015; Ho et al., 2013; Nasurdin & O'Driscoll, 2012). Although few studies have jumped out of this ‘role restriction’, such as investigating the influence of relative support on work–family conflict (van Daalen et al., 2006) or the impact of eldercare on work–family conflict (Peng et al., 2020); however, these studies are too scarce to be included in the meta-analysis of work–family conflict (for meta-analysis, see Byron, 2005; Michel et al., 2011; French et al., 2018).

Nevertheless, family roles are not only restricted to the parent or spouse. Thus, our interest is particularly in how being the only child may affect the experience of work–family conflict because of the lack of study on this topic. Moreover, the decrease in mortality and fertility rates has changed the kinship structure and contributed to the ageing population (e.g. Harper & Levin, 2003; World Health Organization, 2015), thereby potentially challenging and increasing the caregiving burden worldwide. Furthermore, Hill (1958) suggested that sibling support is one resistance resource that might help the individual to cope better with the family crisis; a lack of these supports might cause the family to become more prone to family difficulties (e.g. work–family conflict). Thus, we believe that the family of the only child might be more prone to work–family conflict, which is worth investigating how they may experience work–family conflict differently.

The purpose of this study was twofold (Figure 1). First, to examine how being the only child may influence the time spent on work/family domains, thereby affecting the level of work–family conflict; second, to explore the moderating effect of being the only child on the relationships between work–family conflict and its performance outcomes. We conducted this study in China because the characteristics of China’s workplace, such as long working hours and heavy workloads, provide an excellent platform for conducting work–family issue studies (Zhang et al., 2019). Second, we believe that the influence of the strong family collectivism orientation, such as providing eldercare and receiving help from the kin group (Lu & Cooper, 2015), the ageing population structure, and the unique one-child policy in China (e.g. Liu et al., 2008; Zhang & Goza, 2006) might have created a sharp contrast between the people who are the only child and who have siblings in the experience of work–family conflict; hence, fitting for only child study and it is hoped to provide beneficial information for the future studies.

Figure 1.

A model linking being the only child to work–family conflict and its outcomes.

Being the Only Child and Work–Family Conflict

The most direct influence of being the only child on work–family conflict might be the change of time allocation in work/family domains; the only child might need to spend more time on family responsibilities, such as spending more time on eldercare due to the fewer support resources (i.e. no sibling support) (Dautzenberg et al., 2000); the imbalance of time allocation between work and family domains thereby increases the risk of experiencing work–family conflict (time-related work–family conflict) (e.g. Frone et al., 1992).

Adult children providing eldercare are not only common in the East, such as in China, where we believe that families should help each other out when experiencing difficulties (Liu et al., 2008), but also becoming more prevalent in the Western world due to the imperfect social care and community health services (e.g. Fortinsky, 2011; Harper & Levin, 2003). This was evident in a report by the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) & The National Alliance for Caregiving (NAC) (2015), which highlighted that one in five American employees have to fulfil eldercare responsibility; moreover, the Centre for Policy on Ageing (2014) reported that at least 20% of the population aged 50 and above in the European countries received care from informal caregivers (e.g. adult child, spouse), whereas in England, roughly 1 million elderlies with disabilities were receiving informal care from their adult child. Additionally, Dautzenberg et al. (2000) argued that being the only child might exacerbate the eldercare burden due to the lack of sibling support, thereby having to spend more time on eldercare responsibilities.

Accordingly, based on the scarcity theory (Marks, 1977) and the resource depletion mechanism (Frone et al., 1992) in the work–family interface, which explains that time as a limited personal resource may run out when spending too much in one domain, thereby depleting the available time for the other domain (e.g. Frone et al., 1992; Marks, 1977); therefore, when the individual has to spend more time in the caregiver role, he/she has less time for work role. This was evident in Stanfors et al. (2019), Lilly et al. (2010), and Bauer and Sousa-Poza’s (2015) studies, which all found that informal caregiving reduces the caregivers’ work hours to some degree.

In addition to the eldercare burden, previous studies have outlined the benefits of having siblings, such as siblings providing helping behaviours on home maintenance and assistance in caring for children (e.g. Cicirelli, 1995; Lu, 2007); all of these may potentially ease the time-based work–family conflict to happen (the imbalance of time allocation between work and family domains, see Frone et al., 1992). Therefore, we expected that being the only child may indirectly influence the level of work–family conflict via the time allocation between work and family domains.

The Moderating Effect of Being the Only Child on the Relationship Between Work–Family Conflict and Performance

The second goal of this study is to explore the moderating effect of being the only child on the relationship between work–family conflict and performance in work/family domains. Previous studies have confirmed the positive predictive relation between work–family conflict and work/family-related performance; time and energy devoted to one domain might cause the individual to have less time and energy left for the other domain, thereby influencing his/her performance in the other domain (e.g. work-to-family conflict influence family performance) (e.g. Roth & David, 2009), such as lack of willingness to help with household chores and less parental activities (i.e. family performance) (e.g. Devreux, 2007; Gorman & Kmec, 2007), and/or counterproductivity work behaviours (i.e. work performance) (Morgan & King, 2012). However, because of the lack of only child studies on the experience of work–family conflict, little if anything is known about how being the only child may influence the strength of the relationship between work–family conflict and work/family-related performance. We believe that being the only child may strengthen this stressor-strain relationship. Specifically, being the only child might positively moderate the relationship between work–family conflict and performance due to the decrease in perceived family support.

Carlson and Perrewe (1999) argued that social support (in the form of family support) as an interpersonal transaction that involves both tangible aid and emotional concern might affect the stress process by manipulating the perception of the stressor, such as helping the individual to feel safe during a stressful situation and/or facilitate the employees to cope with the stressor, thereby decreasing the negative impact of the stressor on individuals’ overall wellbeing and performance (e.g. Bickford, 2005; Byrne & Hochwarter, 2008). Moreover, Hill (1958) suggested that it is common for families to experience difficulties; however, some families are more crisis-prone and more vulnerable to a stressful situation (a stressor) due to the lack of resistance resources (Brown-Baatjies et al., 2008); resistance resource in the family psychology is defined as the emotional and/or financial support from the family network, such as from siblings, grandparents, and relatives (the Resiliency Model of Family Stress, Adjustment, and Adaptation, see McCubbin & McCubbin, 1993), and that such resources can help to ease the family crisis and maintain the families’ function (Kelada et al., 2019).

Therefore, the family of the only child might be more prone to family crises (e.g. work-family conflict) due to the perception of the lack of sibling support (resistance resource) to help them cope with the stressor. As such, being the only child might exacerbate the negative impact of work–family conflict (a family crisis) and make the only child individuals harder to perform in both work and family domains when experiencing work–family conflict; in other words, we expect that being the only child would influence the strength of the relationships between work-to-family conflict (work interference with family) and family performance, and between family-to-work conflict (family interference with work) and work performance.

In summary, this study had two aims: first, to examine the indirect effect of being the only child on work–family conflict via the time allocation between work and family domains; second, to explore the moderating effect of being the only child on the relationship between work–family conflict and performance. Specifically, we test the following hypothesizes:

Hypothesis 1

Being the only child is positively related to time spent on family responsibilities (H1a), and time spent on family domains is positively related to family-to-work conflict (H1b), whereas being the only child is negatively related to work hours (H1c), and work hours are positively related to work-to-family conflict (H1d).

Hypothesis 2

Work-to-family conflict is negatively related to family performance (H2a), whereas family-to-work conflict is negatively related to work performance (H2b). Furthermore, being the only child should moderate these relationships due to the lack of resistance resources, and these relationships are stronger when the adult child is the only child (H2c).

Method

Participants

The participants were 622 Chinese employees who met the participant recruitment requirements (i.e. must be over 18 years old; grew up and are living in China; have a job; have a family). The mean age of the participants was 33.86 years (SD = 9.13). On average, the participants worked 40.18 hours per week (SD = 16.38), spent .61 hours on housework per day (SD = .65), and 1.15 hours per day on providing eldercare (SD = 5.82). In addition, among the 386 parent participants, they spend an average of 2.03 hours per day providing childcare (SD = 2.40). Furthermore, the average of siblings the participants had was 2.15 (SD = 1.14); two hundred and forty-two participants were only children, a hundred and sixty-five participants had a sibling, ninety-six participants had 2 siblings, and 119 participants had 3 or more than 3 siblings.

Procedure

After receiving the ethics approval from the host institution’s ethics committee, the researcher posted the participant recruitment letter on popular Chinese social media (i.e. WeChat, Weibo, and QQ); the participants who met the recruitment requirements and were interested in voluntarily participating could click the link of the online questionnaire showed on the recruitment letter; the link would first direct the participants to the participant information sheet; a link at the end of the participant information sheet would then direct the participants to the online questionnaire. Due to the anonymity of the online questionnaire, no consent form is required; participants consent to participate by submitting it after the completion of the online questionnaire; in addition, one question regarding the willingness to participate was asked at the beginning of the online questionnaire, participants must choose ‘yes’ to continue. After the submission, a debriefing form is provided. Participants could withdraw from the online questionnaire at any time they wanted before they submitted the online questionnaire.

Measures

The scales used in this study were translated into Chinese and back-translated. In addition, all scales (i.e. work–family conflict, work performance, and family performance) used in this study are 5-point Likert scales ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

Work–Family Conflict

We adopted the work–family conflict scale from Matthews et al. (2010). This scale has 6 items of which three items measured work-to-family conflict and the rest three items measured family-to-work conflict. A sample item for work-to-family conflict is ‘I have to miss family activities due to the amount of time I must spend on work responsibilities’. An example item for family-to-work conflict is ‘because I am often stressed from family responsibilities, I have a hard time concentrating on my work’. The Cronbach’s Alpha for work-to-family conflict was .75 and for family-to-work conflict was .68.

Work Performance

We adopted Andrade et al.’s (2020) Self-Assessment Scale of Job Performance. This scale has 10 items. Sample items are ‘I perform hard tasks properly’ and ‘I seek new solutions for problems that may come up in my job’. The Cronbach’s Alpha of this scale was .88.

Family Performance

We adopted Chen et al.’s (2014) Family Role Performance Scale. This scale contains a total of 8 items. Sample items are ‘do household chores’ and ‘provide emotional support to your family members’. The Cronbach’s Alpha of this scale was .86.

Work Hours

We asked the participants to write down how many hours they worked per week.

Time Used on Family Responsibilities

We asked the participants to write down how many hours they spent on eldercare and childcare per day, respectively, and asked the participants to write down how many minutes they spent on domestic chores per day. We changed the minutes per day for domestic chores to hours per day by dividing by 60. We added all three types of time spent on family responsibilities together and used the sum to represent the total time spent on family responsibilities.

Only Child Status

One question regarding how many siblings the participants have was asked. The participants could choose one of the following answers: (1) I am the only child; (2) Have a sibling; (3) Have 2 siblings; (4) Have 3 or more than 3 siblings. The answers were recorded into a different variable – only child status: I am the only child was coded 0, whereas having a sibling, having 2 siblings, and having 3 or more than 3 siblings were coded 1.

Analytic Strategy

We used Lavaan, an R package for Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) in R language, to develop the model of linking being the only child to work–family conflict and its outcomes (Figure 1) and test the hypotheses. We first conducted the CFA to evaluate the measurement construct. It is argued that both measurement and structural equation models need to be identified and that at least two fit indices should be used for model evaluation (Byrne, 2016). Hence, we used the Comparative Fit Index (CFI > .90, well-fitting model), chi-square divided by the degrees of freedom ratio (1< ${Δ x}^{2} / Δ d f$ <5, well-fitting model), and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA < .05, good-fitting model; .05 < RMSEA < .08, reasonable fit model) for model evaluations (Byrne, 2016).

Results

Descriptive Results

Table 1 summarizes the descriptive statistics and correlations of the variables in this study.

Table 1.

The Descriptive Statistics and Correlations (N = 622).

	M	SD	WIF	FIW	WP	FP	WH	TR	OC
WIF	9.36	2.67	—
FIW	7.80	2.42	.49**	—
WP	39.22	5.29	−.03	−.14***	—
FP	29.20	5.97	−.18***	−.07	.30***	—
WH	40.18	16.38	.18***	.03	.07	−.01	—
TR	.61	.65	−.05	.08*	.00	.15***	−.03	—
OC	.61	.49	−.03	.07	−.04	.07	−01	.12**	—

Note. WIF = work-to-family conflict; FIW = family-to-work conflict; WP = work performance; FP = family performance; WH = work hours; TR = time spent on family responsibilities; OC = only child.

*p < .05, **p < .01, and ***p < .001.

Model Fit

The results of Lavaan indicated that both measurement and structural equation models are identified. Moreover, the results revealed that the measurement model was a well-fitting model (CFI = .93;

{Δ x}^{2} / Δ d f

= 2.60; RMSEA = .05) and that all factor loadings were significant at p < .001; thus, no item needed to be deleted (Brown & Moore, 2012). Furthermore, the results indicated the proposed model was a reasonable-fit model (CFI = .90;

Δ x^{2} / Δ d f

= 2.87; RMSEA = .06). The results of both measurements and proposed models are summarized in Table 2.

Table 2.

Goodness-of-Fit (N = 621).

	AIC	BIC	Baseline model			User model			CFI	RMSEA	$x^{2} / d f$
	AIC	BIC	$x^{2}$	$d f$	$p$	$Δ x^{2}$	$Δ d f$	$p$	CFI	RMSEA	$x^{2} / d f$
Structural model	30933.572	31146.353	4480.809	210	.000	476.135	183	.000	.931	.051	2.601
Proposed model	44289.561	44546.671	4788.211	325	.000	837.764	292	.000	.878	.055	2.869

Path Relationships of the Final Model

Figure 2 illustrates the final model of this study with the parameter estimates and significance level. Moreover, all parameter estimates in the final model are reported in Table 3.

Figure 2.

The final model of linking being the only child to work–family conflict and its outcomes. Note. Broken lines represent non-significant paths. *p < .05, **p < .01, and ***p < .001.

Table 3.

Summary of the Parameter Estimates.

Path relations	Estimates
Only Child → WH	.289
Only Child → FH	.614**
WH → WIF	.011**
TR → FIW	.191**
WIF → FP	−.278***
FIW → WP	.102***
Only Child on WIF → WIFG	−.188**
Only child on FIW → FIWG	−.029

Note. WIF = work-to-family conflict; FIW = family-to-work conflict; WIFG = work-to-family guilt; FIWG = family-to-work guilt; WH = work hours; TR = time spent on family responsibilities.

*p < .05, **p < .01, and ***p < .001.

With regard to the influence of being the only child on the experience of work–family conflict, the results indicated that only child status was positively related to time spent on family responsibilities (β = .61, p = .015), and time spent on family responsibilities was positively related to family-to-work conflict (β = .19, p = .011); showing that having siblings increase the time spent on family responsibilities and consequently increased the family-to-work conflict; hence, failed to support H1a but supported H1c. Moreover, we found that only child status was not related to work hours; however, work hours were positively related to the work-to-family conflict (β = .01, p < .001); thus, H1b is not supported, but H1d is supported.

We also found that work-to-family conflict was negatively related to family performance (β = −.29, p < .001), whereas family-to-work conflict was negatively related to work performance (β = −.10, p < .001); hence, both H2a and H2b are supported. However, the only child status only moderated the relationship between work-to-family conflict and family performance, but not the relationship between family-to-work conflict and work performance. The positive parameter estimates (.188) of the only child status on the relationship between work-to-family conflict and family performance indicated that the strength of this stressor-strain relationship was stronger for the participants who had siblings when compared with the participants who were the only child. Thus, H2c is not supported.

Discussion

This study aimed to investigate only children’s work–family conflict experience. Specifically, we tested the indirect influence of being the only child on work–family conflict via the time allocation in work/family domains from the scarcity theory and the resource depletion perspective; moreover, based on the suggestion from Hill, (1958) (e.g. the family of the only child might more prone to family crisis due to the lack of resistance resources), we explored the moderating effect of being the only child on the stressor-strain relationships in the work–family interface (i.e. the moderating effect of being the only child on the relationship between work-family conflict and performance).

The findings of this study are unexpected; both hypotheses are only partially supported. Firstly, as suggested by previous studies (e.g. Frone et al., 1992; Stanfors et al., 2019), we argued that being the only child might have to be more focused on family responsibilities due to the lack of support for family crises, such as no sibling to share with the eldercare burden, thereby having less available time for work, and that the amount of time spent in one domain would increase its corresponding conflict experience (e.g. work hours positively related to work-to-family conflict). Nevertheless, the results demonstrated positive time-conflict relations (e.g. work hours positively related to work-to-family conflict), a positive relationship between the only child status and time spent on family responsibilities, and a non-significant relationship between only child status and work hours. These findings suggested that because work demands cannot be omitted (Lu et al., 2015), whether the participant was the only child or had siblings; therefore, spending more time on family responsibilities would not deplete the needed time for work, and it only influenced the level of different types of work–family conflict (e.g. participants who work fewer hours had a lower level of work-to-family conflict) (Lu et al., 2015).

The positive relationship between the only child status and time spent on family responsibilities indicated that being the only child would ironically have fewer family responsibilities, thereby spending less time on the family domain. One possible reason might be that previous studies overrated the benefit of having a sibling (e.g. sibling’s helping behaviours, see Lu, 2007), especially in the context of work–family conflict; while the individuals benefit from the helping behaviours provided by their siblings (e.g. assistance with childcare responsibility), the individuals might also have to fulfil the sibling role and give the similar amount of helping behaviours to their siblings.

Moreover, one thing worth noting is that such mutually supportive relationships between siblings might be strengthened by the Chinese culture, such as the family collectivism orientation, which emphasizes the needs of the group should be prioritized over self; under such influence, the relationships with the in-group members, such as the relationship with siblings become less discretional and have more obligations (Adams, 2005); in other words, when receiving domestic help from the siblings, the individual must give it back (e.g. Adams, 2005; Kim et al., 2008), thereby increasing the time needed for family responsibilities and the level of family-to-work conflict. On the contrary, being the only child has no obligations toward siblings, thereby having fewer family obligations, less time required for family responsibilities, and lowering the level of family-to-work conflict.

Our second goal was to explore the moderating effect of being the only child on the stressor-strain relationship in the work–family interface; the present study found that both work-to-family and family-to-work conflict are positively related to family and work performances, respectively; but only child status only moderated the relationship between work-to-family conflict and family performance and that such conflict-performance relation became stronger when the participants were not the only child.

This finding remains a mystery. Perhaps collectivism emphasizes that individuals are subordinate to society, and groups should have priority over self; hence, the family, as the first group that appeared in an individual’s life and as the fundamental institution in Chinese society, has attached great importance to the Chinese people (e.g. Lu & Cooper, 2015; Lao et al., 1977). Therefore, the experience of work-to-family conflict generally had a stronger negative impact on the individuals’ outcomes than family-to-work conflict (e.g. Korabik et al., 2017; Liu et al., 2008; Lu & Cooper, 2015). In addition, the big family structure in China, such as living with siblings and other relatives, the concept of family (i.e. not limited to the members of a nuclear family), and the belief that families should take care of each other might have increased the level of family responsibilities, the sense of fulfilling family obligations, and required Chinese people to perform more tasks at home, such as taking care of sick siblings (e.g. Liu et al., 2008; Shaffer et al., 2011); therefore, work-to-family conflict had a stronger negative impact on family performance for the participants who were not the only child. To put it differently, the only child’s work-to-family experience and family tasks may be less complicated due to the influence of smaller family size, fewer family obligations, and family tasks when compared with the people who have siblings, such as the only child would not have the issues about needing to take a day off from work to provide care for sick siblings; Thus, being the only child simplified and weakened the conflict-performance relationship.

As with all studies, this study has limitations. First, our study was interested in the only child’s experience of work–family conflict; thus, we only asked if the participants had siblings or not. However, participants who had siblings might not mean that these participants would have had more resistance resources than the only child participants if their siblings did not provide any helping behaviours. Hence, it is recommended that future studies can investigate only child’s work–family conflict experience with the consideration of sibling support, such as exploring the interaction effect of the child’s identity (only child identity and sibling identity) and sibling support on the relationship between work–family conflict and its relevant outcomes (moderated-moderation), which may provide a deeper understanding of the only child’s experience of work–family conflict. Second, as discussed above, the Chinese culture might have affected the findings of this study. Thus, the findings of this study might be only applicable in China and other Confucian heritage countries in Asia (e.g. Singapore) because of their similar cultural backgrounds (Phuong-Mai et al., 2005). Hence, a cross-cultural study between eastern and western countries is recommended to further verify the findings of this study and may shed light on the potential cultural differences in the only child’s work–family conflict experience.

Apart from the above limitations, the findings of this study provide valuable information for future work–family scholars and enrich the only child, work–family conflict, and performance studies. To our knowledge, despite few studies have found that having siblings might lessen the caregiver burden (sibling and caregiving role) (e.g. Dautzenberg et al., 2000; Ngangana et al., 2016), no studies have directly investigated the only child’s work–family conflict experience and the moderating effect of being the only child on the conflict-performance relationship in the work–family interface. Our findings provide evidence to suggest that the experience of family-to-work conflict is fundamentally different between people who are the only child and people who have siblings due to the difference in the amount of time needed for family responsibilities (i.e. time-based antecedents of family-to-work conflict). In addition, our findings suggest that within the changing family structure due to the decrease in mortality and fertility rates worldwide (e.g. people prefer to only have one child or no child) (Harper & Levin, 2003), the level of family-to-work conflict and the negative impact of work-to-family conflict on family performance may be weakened.

Footnotes

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

ORCID iD

Shujie Chen

References

AARP & The National Alliance for Caregiving . (2015). Caregiving in the U.S. https://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/ppi/2015/caregiving-in-the-united-states-2015-report-revised.pdf

Adams

(2005). The cultural grounding of personal relationship: Enemyship in North American and West African worlds. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(6), 948–968. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.6.948

Allen

T. D.

Finkelstein

L. M.

(2014). Work-family conflict among members of full-time dual-earner couples: An examination of family life stage, gender, and age. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 19(3), 376–384. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036941

Andrade

E. G. S. D. A.

Queiroga

Valentini

(2020). Short version of self-assessment scale of job performance. Anales de Psicología, 36(3), 543–552. https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.402661

Bauer

J. M.

Sousa-Poza

(2015). Impacts of informal caregiving on caregiver employment, health, and family. Journal of Population Ageing, 8(3), 113–145. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12062-015-9116-0

Bickford

(2005). Stress in the workplace: A general overview of the causes, the effects, and the solutions, Canadian Mental Health Association Newfoundland and Labrador Division. https://myfreedom2017.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Work-Place-Stress.pdf

Brown

T. A.

Moore

M. T.

(2012) Confirmatory factor analysis. In Hoyle

R. H.

(Ed.), Handbook of structural equation modeling (pp. 361–379). The Guilford Press.

Brown-Baatjies

Fouche

Greeff

(2008). The development and relevance of the resiliency model of family stress, adjustment and adaptation. Acta Academica, 40(1), 78–126.

Byrne

B. M.

(2016). Structural equation modelling with Amos: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (3rd ed.), Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315757421

10.

Byrne

Z. S.

Hochwarter

W. A.

(2008). Perceived organizational support and performance: Relationships across levels of organizational cynicism. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23(1), 54–72. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940810849666

11.

Byron

(2005). A meta-analytic review of work-family conflict and its antecedents. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67(2), 169–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2004.08.009

12.

Carlson

D. S.

Perrewe

P. L.

(1999). The role of social support in the stressor–strain relationship: An examination of work–family conflict. Journal of Management, 25(4), 513–540. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639902500403

13.

Centre for Policy on Ageing . (2014). Changing family structure and their impact on the care of elder people. https://www.cpa.org.uk/information/reviews/CPA-Rapid-Review-Changing-family-structures.pdf

14.

Cerrato

Cifre

(2018). Gender inequality in household chores and work-family conflict. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1330. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01330.

15.

Chen

Y. P.

Shaffer

Westman

Chen

Lazarova

Reiche

(2014). Family role performance: Scale development and validation. Applied Psychology, 63(1), 190–218. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12005

16.

Cicirelli

V. G.

(1995). Sibling relationships across the life span, Plenum Press.

17.

Dautzenberg

M. G. H.

Diederiks

J. P. M.

Philipsen

Stevens

F. C. J.

Tan

F. E. S.

Vernooij-Dassen

M. J. F. J.

(2000). The competing demands of paid work and parent care. Research on Aging, 22(2), 165–187. https://doi.org/10.1177/0164027500222004

18.

Devreux

A. M.

(2007). “New fatherhood” in practice: Domestic and parental work performed by men in France and in The Netherlands. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 38(1), 87–104. https://doi.org/10.3138/jcfs.38.1.87

19.

El-Kassem

R. C.

(2019). Antecedents and consequences of work-family conflict in Qatar. The Journal of Social Sciences Research, 5(55), 1010–1019. https://doi.org/10.32861/jssr.56.1010.1019

20.

Fortinsky

(2011). Juggling work and eldercare responsibilities (Vol. 20, pp. 1–2), The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, CPH News Views.

21.

French

K. A.

Dumani

Allen

T. D.

Shockley

K. M.

(2018). A meta-analysis of work–family conflict and social support. Psychological Bulletin, 144(3), 284–314. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000120

22.

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(1), 65–78. https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.77.1.65

23.

Gorman

E. H.

Kmec

J. A.

(2007). We (have to) try harder: Gender and required work effort in Britain and the United States. Gender & Society, 21(6), 828–856. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243207309900

24.

Greenhaus

J. H.

Beutell

N. J.

(1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Academy of Management Review, 10(1), 76–88. https://doi.org/10.2307/258214

25.

Harper

Levin

(2003). Changing families as societies age: Care, independence and ethnicity. In Working Paper Number WP503 Oxford Institute of Ageing, University of Oxford August 2003 Oxford Institute of Ageing Working Papers. https://www.ageing.ox.ac.uk/download/103

26.

Hill

(1958). Generic features of families under stress. Social Casework, 39(2–3), 139–150. https://doi.org/10.1177/1044389458039002-318

27.

M. Y.

Chen

X. F.

Cheung

F. M.

Liu

H. M.

Worthington

E. L. J.

(2013). A dyadic model of the work-family interface: A study of dual-earner couples in China. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 18(1), 53–63. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030885

28.

Huffman

S Culbertson

S. S.

B Henning

Goh

(2013). Work-family conflict across the lifespan. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 28(7/8), 761–780. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-07-2013-0220

29.

Kelada

Wakefield

C. E.

Carlson

Hetherington

McGill

B. C.

McCarthy

M. C.

Miles

Cohn

R. J.

Sansom-Daly

U. M.

(2019). How parents of childhood cancer survivors perceive support from their extended families. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 28(6), 1537–1547. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-019-01394-9

30.

Kim

Sherman

Taylor

(2008). Culture and social support. American Psychologist, 63(6), 518–526. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X

31.

Korabik

Aycan

Ayman

(Eds.), (2017). The work-family interface in global context. Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.

32.

Korabik

Lero

D. S.

Whitehead

D. L.

(2008). Handbook of work-family integration: Research, theory, and best practices. Elsevier Inc.

33.

Lao

R. C.

Chuang

C. J.

Yang

K. S.

(1977). Locus of control and Chinese college students. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 8(3), 299–313. https://doi.org/10.1177/002202217783004

34.

Lilly

M. B.

Laporte

Coyte

P, C.

(2010). Do they care too much to work? The influence of caregiving intensity on the labour force participation of unpaid caregivers in Canada. Journal of Health Economics, 29(6), 895–903. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhealeco.2010.08.007

35.

Liu

B. H.

Zhang

Y. Y.

Y. N.

(2008). Reconciling work and family: Issues and policies in China. In Conditions of Work and Employment Series, 22. https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---asia/---ro-bangkok/---ilo-beijing/documents/publication/wcms_141729.pdf

36.

Liu

Cheung

F. M.

(2015). Crossover effects in work-family interface between Chinese dual-earner couples. In Lu

Cooper

C. L.

(Eds.), Handbook of research on work-life balance in Asia (pp. 77–98), Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781783475094.00010

37.

C. Q.

Wang

Siu

O. l.

D. Y.

(2015). Work-home interference and work values in Greater China. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 30(7), 801–814. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-05-2012-0161

38.

Cooper

C. L.

(2015). Handbook of research on work-life balance in Asia, Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781783475094

39.

Gilmour

Kao

S. F.

Huang

M. T.

(2006). A cross-cultural study of work/family demands, work/family conflict and wellbeing: The Taiwanese vs British. Career Development International, 11(1), 9–27. https://doi.org/10.1108/13620430610642354

40.

P.-C.

(2007). Sibling relationships in adulthood and old age: A case study of Taiwan. Current Sociology, 55(4), 621–637. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392107077646

41.

Marks

S. R.

(1977). Multiple roles and role strain: Some notes on human energy, time and commitment. American Sociological Review, 42(6), 921–936. https://doi.org/10.2307/2094577

42.

Matthews

R. A.

Kath

L. M.

Barnes-Farrell

(2010). A short, valid, predictive measure of work–family conflict: Item selection and scale validation. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 15(1), 75–90. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017443

43.

McCubbin

(1993). Family coping with health crises: The resiliency model of family stress, adjustment and adaptation. In Danielson

Hamel‐Bissell

Winstead‐Fry

(Eds.), Families, health, and illness (pp. 3–63): Mosby.

44.

Michel

J. S.

Kotrba

L. M.

Mitchelson

J. K.

Clark

M. A.

Baltes

B. B.

(2011). Antecedents of work-family conflict: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(5), 689–725. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.695

45.

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(1), 95–107. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10834-011-9261-4

46.

Morgan

W. B.

King

E. B.

(2012). The association between work-family guilt and pro- and anti-social work behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 68(4), 684–703. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2012.01771.x

47.

Nasurdin

O'Driscoll

(2012). Work overload, parental demand, perceived organizational support, family support, and work-family conflict among New Zealand and Malaysian academics. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 41(1), 38–48.

48.

Ngangana

P. C.

Davis

B. L.

Burns

D. P.

McGee

Z. T.

Montgomery

A. J.

(2016). Intra-family stressors among adult siblings sharing caregiving for parents. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 72(12), 3169–3181. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.13065

49.

Ohu

E. A.

Spitzmueller

Zhang

Thomas

C. L.

Osezua

(2019). When work-family conflict hits home: Parental work-family conflict and child health. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 24(5), 590–601. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000145

50.

Peng

Jex

Zhang

Matthews

R. A.

(2020). Eldercare demands and time theft: Integrating family-to-work conflict and spillover–crossover perspectives. Journal of Business and Psychology, 35(1), 45–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-019-09620-3

51.

Phuong-Mai

Terlouw

Pilot

(2005). Cooperative learning vs confucian heritage culture’s collectivism: Confrontation to reveal some cultural conflicts and mismatch. Asia Europe Journal, 3(3), 403–419. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10308-005-0008-4

52.

Pyke

K. D.

(1999). The micropolitics of care in relationships between aging parents and adult children: Individualism, collectivism, and power. Journal of Marriage and Family, 61(3), 661–672. https://doi.org/10.2307/353568

53.

Pyke

K. D.

Bengtson

V. L.

(1996). Caring more or less: Individualistic and collectivist systems of family eldercare. Journal of Marriage and Family, 58(2), 379–392. https://doi.org/10.2307/353503

54.

Roth

David

E. M.

(2009). Work-family conflicts and work performance. Psychological Reports, 105(1), 80–86. https://doi.org/10.2466/PR0.105.1.80-86

55.

Shaffer

M. A.

Joplin

J. R. W.

Hsu

Y.-S.

(2011). Expanding the boundaries of work–family research: A review and agenda for future research. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 11(2), 221–268. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470595811398800

56.

Stanfors

Jacobs

Neilson

(2019). Caregiving time costs and trade-offs: Gender differences in Sweden, the UK, and Canada. SSM - Population Health, 9, 100501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmph.2019.100501.

57.

van Daalen

Willemsen

T. M.

Sanders

(2006). Reducing work-family conflict through different sources of social support. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69(3), 462–476. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2006.07.005

58.

Wallace

(2005). Job stress, depression and work-to-family conflict: A test of the strain and buffer hypotheses. Articles, 60(3), 510–539. https://doi.org/10.7202/012157ar

59.

World Health Organization . (2015). World report on ageing and health, World Health Organization.

60.

Zhang

Zhao

Korabik

(2019). Does work-to-family guilt mediate the relationship between work-to-family conflict and job satisfaction? Testing the moderating roles of segmentation preference and family collectivism orientation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 115, 103321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2019.103321.

61.

Zhang

Y. T.

Goza

F. W.

(2006). Who will care for elderly in China? A review of the problems caused by China’s one-child policy and their potential solutions. Journal of Aging Studies, 20(2), 151–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaging.2005.07.002