Work-family Balance and Marital Satisfaction: The Mediating Effects of Mental and Physical Health

Abstract

Applying the stress-divorce model to explain the impact of spillover stress, this study analyzes 1,961 married participants in the National Study of the Changing Workforce. Specifically, it tests the individual and combined effects of work-to-family conflict, family-to-work conflict, work-to-family enrichment, and family-to-work enrichment on marital satisfaction. Additionally, this study tests whether these effects are mediated by mental and physical health. The results suggest that mental health and physical health both fully mediate the effect of work-to-family conflict, while mental health and physical health both partially mediate the effect of work-to-family enrichment on marital satisfaction. On the other hand, neither of the health measures mediates the effects of family-to-work conflict and family-to-work enrichment on marital satisfaction. These results suggest the importance of examining both the positive and the negative aspects of work-family balance in understanding marital satisfaction and highlight the mediating effects of mental and physical health in shaping how work-family balance affects marital satisfaction.

Keywords

work-to-family conflict work-to-family enrichment family-to-work conflict family-to-work enrichment marital satisfaction

Work and family are considered two separate domains that influence each other in both positive and negative ways (Brockwood 2007). Moreover, as previous scholars have argued, the relationship between work and family is reciprocal: Work can negatively affect family (i.e., work-to-family conflict), and family can negatively affect work (i.e., family-to-work conflict) (Hill 2005; Minnotte, Minnotte, and Bonstrom 2015; Voydanoff 2007). Some prior research that has examined the impact of work-family conflict has focused on work outcomes, such as job satisfaction (Allen et al. 2000; Anderson, Coffey, and Byerly 2002; see review by Kossek and Ozeki 1998) and work engagement (Halbesleban, Harvey, and Bolino 2009; Montgomery et al. 2003), whereas some other research has focused on how work-family conflict might affect nonwork outcomes, such as marital satisfaction (Allen et al. 2000; Amstad etal. 2011; Voydanoff 2005) and well-being (Mauno, Kinnunen, and Ruokolainen 2006). This study focuses on marital satisfaction. In order to show how work can affect family outcomes, some research has used spillover stress theory, which argues that an individual’s experiences in one domain (e.g., work) are transferred and therefore interfere with the individual’s other domains (e.g., family) (Eby etal. 2005). Most studies have assumed that the work-family relationship is negative. However, work can positively affect family (i.e., work-to-family enrichment), and family can positively affect work (i.e., family-to-work enrichment). Similarly, several studies of the negative aspects of work-family relationships have suggested that work-to-family conflict and family-to-work conflict are both negatively associated with marital satisfaction (Amstad etal. 2011; Minnotte, Gravelle, and Minnotte 2013), but the literature on the effects of these positive relationships (i.e., work-to-family enrichment and/or family-to-work enrichment) on job satisfaction, family satisfaction, and overall well-being is less developed (Hill 2005; Jaga and Bagraim 2011; van Steenbergen, Ellemers, and Mooijaart 2007).

Ongoing scholarly interest in this relationship has a lot of significance for work-family literature and contemporary society, as many married people also have jobs. Given the difficulty of balancing work and family responsibilities in today’s 24/7 economy, it is very important to investigate the influence of work on family life. Prior research has found evidence for a positive relationship between high marital satisfaction and several positive outcomes, including better personal well-being and better family well-being (see the review by Proulx, Helms, and Buehler 2007; see also Kiecolt-Glaser and Newton 2001; Wilcox etal. 2005). On the other hand, marital dissatisfaction has been linked to lower life satisfaction, lower self-esteem, and higher marital instability (Brown, Manning, and Payne 2015; Croyle and Waltz 2002; Fergusson and Horwood 2001; Hawkins and Booth 2005). Therefore, it is important to understand the factors that contribute to long-term, satisfying marriages. With this in mind, this study examines the impact of work-family balance on marital satisfaction. Specifically, by examining both negative and positive influences of work on family life (i.e., work-to-family conflict and work-to-family enrichment, respectively) and family on work life (i.e., family-to-work conflict and family-to-work enrichment, respectively) on marital satisfaction, and by addressing mediators of these relationships, the model in the present study will be more complete than those models previous studies have presented.

In the empirical literature to date, only a few studies have examined the effects of both work-to-family conflict and work-to-family enrichment simultaneously, and even fewer have tested these effects in both directions (Gareis etal. 2009; Grzywacz and Bass 2003; Schenewark and Dixon 2012; van Steenbergen etal. 2007). Specifically, the present study will test a model that shows how experiences of work-to-family (and family-to-work) conflict and work-to-family (and family-to-work) enrichment will affect marital satisfaction. Applying the stress-divorce model proposed by Bodenmann (1995, 2000) to explain the impact of spillover stress, this study predicts that both work-to-family (and family-to-work) conflict and work-to-family (and family-to-work) enrichment will affect marital satisfaction directly and also affect it indirectly through their effects on mental and physical health. Specifically, this study asks the following questions: (1) Do work-to-family conflict and family-to-work conflict have an effect on marital satisfaction? (2) Do work-to-family enrichment and family-to-work enrichment have an effect on marital satisfaction? (3) Are these effects mediated by mental and physical health?

Theoretical Framework

Researchers have identified two models that suggest that demands or strains in one domain (e.g., work) are carried over to other domains (e.g., family) (Bolger etal. 1989). Specifically, spillover is defined as the transmission of strain in one domain of an individual’s life to another, such as strain from work transferring to family (Bakker, Demerouti, and Burke 2009; Geurts and Demerouti 2003). Crossover also involves transmission of strains from one domain to another, but in this case the strains cross over between closely related persons (Bakker etal. 2009; Westman 2001). This study conceptualizes one’s own work-to-family (and family-to-work) conflict as a form of spillover stress. Many studies have found support for spillover effects (Bakker etal. 2009; see also the meta-analyses by Allen etal. 2000; Amstad etal. 2011; and Ford, Heinen, and Langkamer 2007).

Extensive literature shows support for the negative relationship between minor stress and relationship satisfaction and stability (see the overview by Randall and Bodenmann 2009; see also Bodenmann 2000, 2005; Story and Bradbury 2004). This study uses the stress-divorce model proposed by Bodenmann (1995, 2000). As Randall and Bodenmann (2009:108) stated, “while other stress models mainly express external stress, Bodenmann’s model is primarily interested in the impact of external stress on internal stress (e.g., less time together, negative communication, poor health outcomes, etc.) that in turn is associated with poorer relationship quality.” According to the definitions in prior research, internal stress is stress that originates within the individual and/or the couple (Bodenmann etal. 2006), while external stress originates outside a close relationship. External stressors, such as workplace and financial stress, create tensions between individuals and their social environments, and this stress may eventually spill over to the couple. On the other hand, internal stressors more intimately involve individuals and their relationships with their partners. Some examples are stress related to health issues, worries about a partner as he or she goes through a difficult time, and relational conflicts and tensions that occur between partners (Randall and Bodenmann 2009). This model mainly focuses on the impact of minor external stress on relationship outcomes, rather than evaluating major critical life events.

According to this model, stress is hypothesized to affect marital satisfaction through several mechanisms, such as less time spent together, low quality of marital interaction (i.e., less positive interaction and more negative interaction such as withdrawal), higher risk for physical and psychological problems (such as sleep disorders, depression, and poor physical health), and increased likelihood of expressing problematic personality traits between spouses (e.g., rigidity, anxiety, and hostility) (Randall and Bodenmann 2009). Several studies have provided empirical evidence for the stress-divorce model by testing the effect of stress on marital satisfaction (Bodenmann 2000; Bodenmann and Cina 2006; Bodenmann, Ledermann, and Bradbury 2007; Falconier, Nussbeck, and Bodenmann 2013; Frye and Karney 2006; Ledermann etal. 2010; Neff and Karney 2004; Repetti, Wang, and Saxbe 2009).

This study applies the stress-divorce model to test the effect of work-family balance on marital satisfaction (i.e., spillover stress) while also testing the mediating effect of physical and mental health (see Figure 1). Specifically, this study conceptualizes work-family imbalance in terms of chronic daily external stress, while physical and mental health problems are conceptualized as internal stress. Using the stress-divorce model, the negative aspects of work-family balance (i.e., work-to-family conflict and family-to-work conflict) are expected to increase the risk of physical and mental health problems and thus reduce marital satisfaction. Similarly, the positive aspects of work-family balance (i.e., work-to-family enrichment and family-to-work enrichment) are expected to decrease the risk of physical and mental health problems, thereby improving marital satisfaction.

Figure 1.

Adapted from Bodenmann’s stress-divorce model (Randall and Bodenmann 2009:108).

Work-to-family Conflict, Family-to-work Conflict, and Marital Satisfaction

As mentioned above, much research has focused on the negative side of the work-family interface. By combining work and family responsibilities, individuals can experience work-to-family conflict. Prior research has defined work-to-family conflict as “inter-role conflict that occurs when the demands of work make it difficult to attend to family needs” (Minnotte etal. 2010:426). For example, working hard to meet a deadline at work may reduce the amount of time a parent spends with his or her spouse and children. This definition indicates that the conflict is bidirectional in nature: Work can conflict with family life and vice versa. Work-to-family conflict has also been negatively related to marital satisfaction (Hill 2005; Voydanoff 2005), which has been supported in some meta-analyses (Amstad etal. 2011).

Following Minnotte etal. (2015:22) and other scholars, family-to-work conflict is defined here “as a form of role conflict that occurs when experiences in the family result in negative experiences in the work domain, including difficulty attending to work responsibilities (Bellavia and Frone 2005; Frone, [Russell, and Cooper 1992a, 1992b]; Schieman and Young 2011).” For example, marital arguments between spouses may create more difficulty in concentrating at work and therefore reduce one’s overall productivity. The source of the family-to-work conflict (conceptualized as a family stressor) starts within the family domain and is therefore more closely connected to the family domain, particularly compared to work stressors such as work-to-family conflict (Minnotte etal. 2013). Consistent with the family stress theory proposed by Hill (2005), family-to-work conflict is conceptualized as a family stressor that can negatively affect marital satisfaction. Despite the fact that the literature on family-to-work conflict is understudied compared to work-to-family conflict, there is empirical evidence from many prior studies that family-to-work conflict reduces marital satisfaction (Galovan etal. 2010; Hill 2005; Minnotte etal. 2013; Minnotte etal. 2015; Voydanoff 2005). This has been supported in some meta-analyses (Amstad etal. 2011; Shockley and Singla 2011), though some research suggests that gender ideology moderates the effect of family-to-work conflict on marital satisfaction (Minnotte etal. 2013).

Hypothesis 1: Higher work-to-family conflict will be associated with lower marital satisfaction.

Hypothesis 2: Higher family-to-work conflict will be associated with lower marital satisfaction.

Work-to-family Enrichment, Family-to-work Enrichment, and Marital Satisfaction

Most prior research focuses on the negative aspect of work-family balance (i.e., work-family conflict and family-work conflict), which undermines the possibility that work and family might also affect each other positively (Donald and Linington 2008; Hanson, Hammer, and Colton 2006). Compared to the negative aspect of work-family balance, the positive impact of work on family (and vice versa) has been understudied within the work-family literature (Carlson, Grzywacz, and Zivnuska 2009; Frone 2003; Greenhaus and Powell 2006). Work-to-family enrichment is defined as “how family roles benefit from work roles through developmental resources, positive affect, and psychosocial capital derived from involvement in work” (Siu etal. 2010:471). For example, a promotion at work might improve one’s mood at work, which is then carried over to family life and thus enhances the quality of one’s performance at home (Carlson etal. 2006). This definition of work-to-family enrichment indicates that enrichment is bidirectional in nature: work can enrich one’s family life and vice versa. Prior studies found that work-to-family enrichment significantly predicted home performance, home commitment, home satisfaction, and global life satisfaction (van Steenbergen etal. 2007) as well as marital satisfaction (van Steenbergen, Kluwer, and Karney 2014).

Similarly, family-to-work enrichment is defined as “how work roles benefit from family roles through developmental resources, positive affect, and gains in efficiency derived from involvement in family” (Siu etal. 2010:471). For example, skills learned in childrearing such as listening to or being patient with a child may lead to an improvement in supervisory or managerial skills. The source of family-to-work enrichment originates within the family domain, so it is more closely connected to the family domain than resources that originate at work, such as work-to-family enrichment. Consistent with family stress theory (Hill 2005), family-to-work enrichment is conceptualized as a family resource that can positively affect marital satisfaction. There is empirical evidence from prior research that family-to-work enrichment is positively related to marital satisfaction (Hill 2005) and family satisfaction (Boyar and Mosley 2007; Carlson etal. 2006; Jaga and Bagraim 2011).

Hypothesis 3: Higher work-to-family enrichment will be associated with higher marital satisfaction.

Hypothesis 4: Higher family-to-work enrichment will be associated with higher marital satisfaction.

A few studies have assessed both work-family enrichment and work-family conflict simultaneously (Hill 2005; van Steenbergen etal. 2007; van Steenbergen etal. 2014; Voydanoff 2005) or both family-work enrichment and family-work conflict simultaneously (Hill 2005; Schenewark and Dixon 2012; van Steenbergen etal. 2007). The results, however, are not consistent. Some studies found that only work-family conflict was related to decreased marital satisfaction in individuals (Hill 2005; Voydanoff 2005). Examining the effects of work-family enrichment and work-family conflict on various outcomes, van Steenbergen etal. (2007) found that work-family enrichment significantly and substantially improved the prediction of home performance, home commitment, home satisfaction, and global life satisfaction. These effects were found to be stronger than the effects of work-family conflict. This finding was supported in other research (van Steenbergen etal. 2014). Behavioral family-work enrichment predicted higher home performance among women, whereas psychological family-work enrichment predicted higher home performance, home commitment, home satisfaction, and global life satisfaction among men (van Steenbergen etal. 2007).¹ Family-work enrichment predicted higher marital satisfaction (Hill 2005) as well as life satisfaction (Schenewark and Dixon 2012).

To extend these findings, a handful of studies have explored the bidirectional effects of both work-family conflict and work-family enrichment (Gareis etal. 2009; Grzywacz and Bass 2003; Schenewark and Dixon 2012; van Steenbergen etal. 2007). These studies, however, have some limitations, including small sample sizes and failure to test the mediating mechanisms in these relationships. In order to better understand the relationships between work-family (and family-work) conflict, work-family (and family-work) enrichment, and marital satisfaction, this study tests the mediating effects of mental and physical health.

Mediating Effects of Mental and Physical Health

In order to understand how work-family balance affects marital satisfaction, it is important to map the factors that mediate the relationship between work-family balance and marital satisfaction. Guided by evidence from the stress-divorce model proposed by Bodenmann (1995, 2000), this study highlights mental and physical health as important potential mediators. According to this theory, chronic external stress (work-family conflict) is expected to affect marital satisfaction directly through an increase in internal stress (higher risk for psychological and physical problems).

Some prior research has tested the effects of work-family conflict or family-work conflict on mental health (Symoens and Bracke 2015; Wang etal. 2007). Wang etal. (2007) found that people with high work-family conflict had a significantly higher rate of mental disorders and/or substance use–related disorders than those who reported low work-family conflict. Only a few published articles have examined the effect of positive work-family relationships (i.e., work-to-family enrichment and family-to-work enrichment) on mental health, specifically depression (Grzywacz and Bass 2003; Hammer etal. 2005; Nitzsche etal. 2013; van Steenbergen etal. 2007). Specifically, some prior research found a negative relationship between work-to-family (and family-to-work) enrichment and depression (Hammer etal. 2005), whereas other studies found mixed results (Grzywacz and Bass 2003). Grzywacz and Bass (2003) reported that higher family-to-work enrichment predicted lower depression; they found no such relationship between work-to-family enrichment and depression.

Past research has also uncovered a negative relationship between work-family (or family-work) conflict and physical health. Prior research found that family-work conflict predicted depression, poor physical health, and incidence of hypertension (Frone, Russell, and Cooper 1997), while work-to-family conflict also predicted poor physical health and heavy alcohol use (Frone, Russell, and Barnes 1996). Only a few studies have examined the effects of work-family and family-work enrichment on physical health. Grzywacz (2000) found that higher work-family and family-work enrichment were positively associated with better mental and physical health and well-being and negatively associated with chronic health problems. Prior research found evidence that both poor mental and poor physical health are associated with lower marital satisfaction (Davila etal. 2003; Galinsky and Waite 2014; Whisman 2001).

All this research supports the connections among work-to-family (or family-to-work) conflict, work-to-family (or family-to-work) enrichment, mental and physical health, and marital satisfaction. Moreover, there is evidence from prior research that work stressors affect marital functioning such as marital satisfaction via their effect on individual well-being (see the overview by Mauno and Kinnunen 1999). Using data from 215 dual-earner married or cohabiting couples in Finland, Mauno and Kinnunen (1999) used the spillover hypothesis to test the mediating effects of mental and physical health in the relationship between job stressors and marital satisfaction. The authors predicted that job stressors would initially affect an individual’s well-being in the work domain, which then extends to overall well-being and finally family well-being. The results supported this hypothesis: The negative impact of job stressors (except for job autonomy) spilled over into marital satisfaction, and this relationship was mediated by job exhaustion and psychosomatic health for both men and women. In another study, using a sample of 190 employed married people, Barling and MacEwen (1992) found that three work stressors (ambiguity, conflict, and job insecurity) specifically affected marital satisfaction; all three stressors were mediated by concentration and depression.

The mediating effect of mental health was also supported in some longitudinal studies. Using longitudinal data from 337 couples living in the rural Midwest, Matthews, Conger, and Wickrama (1996) tested the effect of work-family conflict on marital quality and marital stability as well as the mediating effects of psychological distress and quality of marital interaction. The results showed that work-family conflict was positively related to the psychological distress of each spouse. Moreover, psychological distress was found to affect marital outcomes both directly and indirectly through greater marital hostility and less marital warmth and supportiveness. As the authors acknowledged, this study had some limitations. The sample was exclusively white and rural and was limited to intact families having a seventh-grade child. Moreover, all couples in the sample had been married for at least 14 years. These sample characteristics make it harder to generalize the authors’ findings to the larger population. Moreover, the study evaluated only the negative aspect of work-family balance (i.e., work-to-family conflict) without considering the bidirectional effect (i.e., family-to-work conflict) or the positive aspect of work-family balance (i.e., work-family enrichment). Finally, the study used only a general measure of work-to-family conflict, measured by asking the respondents and their spouses how much they agreed or disagreed that their jobs interfered with their family life.

The present study improves on the study by Matthews etal. (1996) in several ways. First, it uses a more representative sample. Second, this study considers family-to-work conflict as well as work-family enrichment in both directions. Moreover, this study uses a more specific and detailed measure to capture different dimensions of work-to-family conflict, such as strain-based and energy-based work-to-family conflict (created by a scale of five items) (Kalliath, Kalliath, and Chan 2015; van Steenbergen etal. 2014). Finally, by conceptualizing physical health as an internal stressor as part of the stress-divorce model (Randall and Bodenmann 2009), and consistent with the support from prior research on the relationship between work-family conflict and physical health (Mauno etal. 2006), this study also considers physical health as a mediator in the relationship between work-family conflict and marital satisfaction.

Altogether, the stress-divorce model and findings from prior research lead to the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 5a: Mental health will mediate the relationship between work-to-family conflict and marital satisfaction as well as the relationship between work-to-family enrichment and marital satisfaction.

Hypothesis 5b: Mental health will mediate the relationship between family-to-work conflict and marital satisfaction as well as the relationship between family-to-work enrichment and marital satisfaction.

Hypothesis 6a: Physical health will mediate the relationship between work-to-family conflict and marital satisfaction as well as the relationship between work-to-family enrichment and marital satisfaction.

Hypothesis 6b: Physical health will mediate the relationship between family-to-work conflict and marital satisfaction as well as the relationship between family-to-work enrichment and marital satisfaction.

Data and Methods

Sample

The latest wave (year 2008) from the National Study of the Changing Workforce (NSCW) is used to address the research questions. The questionnaire utilized was developed by the Families and Work Institute, whereas the actual data for the 2008 NSCW were collected by Harris Interactive, Inc. Interviews (N = 3,502), which lasted about 50 minutes on average, were conducted over the telephone between November 2007 and April 2008 (Families and Work Institute 2008). A random-digit-dialing method was used to obtain a nationally representative sample of employed adults. Study eligibility was limited to

people who 1) worked at a paid job or operated an income-producing business, 2) were 18 years or older, 3) were employed in the civilian labor force, 4) resided in the contiguous 48 states, and 5) lived in a non-institutional residence—i.e., household—with a telephone. In households with more than one eligible person, one was randomly selected to be interviewed. (Families and Work Institute 2008:3)

Of the total sample of 3,502 interviewed individuals, 2,769 were “wage or salaried workers who work for someone else, while 733 respondents worked for themselves: 255 business owners who employ others, and 478 independent self-employed workers who do not employ anyone else” (Families and Work Institute 2008:5). For the present study, only respondents who reported being legally married and those who were between 18 and 64 years old were included in the analysis. A total of 1,971 were identified as being married and in this age group: 1,020 men and 951 women.

Measures

Dependent Variable: Marital Satisfaction

To measure marital satisfaction, respondents are asked the following question: “All in all, how satisfied would you say you are with your marriage?” This measure has been used in prior research (Minnotte etal. 2015). The answer categories range from extremely satisfied (1) to not too satisfied (4). This question is reverse coded so that higher scores indicate greater satisfaction with marriage.

Main Independent Variables: Work-to-family Conflict, Work-to-family Enrichment, Family-to-work Conflict, and Family-to-work Enrichment

One of the independent variables is work-to-family conflict. This study used the same index of five items that has been used in some prior research (Hill 2005; Minnotte etal. 2015; Voydanoff 2005). Respondents were asked to respond to the following questions:

(a) In the past 3 months, how often have you not had enough time for your family or other important people in your life because of your job? (b) In the past 3 months, how often has work kept you from doing as good a job at home as you could? (c) In the past 3 months, how often have you not had the energy to do things with your family or other important people in your life because of your job? (d) In the past 3 months, how often has your job kept you from concentrating on important things in your family or personal life? and (e) In the past 3 months, how often have you not been in as good a mood as you would like to be at home because of your job?

Respondents were presented with response categories ranging from 1 = very often 5 = never. The responses were first reverse-coded and then summed and averaged to create an index, with higher scores indicating higher levels of work-to-family conflict. The Cronbach’s alpha was .86, showing high internal reliability.

The second independent variable is work-to-family enrichment. Work-to-family enrichment was measured with an index of two items. Respondents were asked to respond to the following two questions:

(a) In the past three months, how often have you had more energy to do things with your family or other important people in your life because of your job? (b) In the past three months, how often have you been in a better mood at home because of your job?

Responses to these questions ranged from 1 = very often to 5 = never. The responses were first reverse-coded and then summed and averaged to create an index, with higher scores indicating higher levels of work-to-family enrichment.

In addition, this study evaluates family-to-work conflict, using the same index of five items that has been used in prior research (e.g., Minnotte etal. 2015; Zhao, Qu, and Ghiselli 2011). Respondents were asked to respond to the following questions:

(a) How often have you NOT been in as good a mood as you would like to be at work because of your personal or family life? (b) How often has your family or personal life kept you from doing as good a job at work as you could? (c) In the past three months, how often has your family or personal life drained you of the energy you needed to do your job? (d) How often has your family or personal life kept you from concentrating on your job? And (e) How often have you not had enough time for your job because of your family or personal life?

Respondents were presented with response categories ranging from 1 = very often to 5 = never. The responses were first reverse-coded and then summed and averaged to create an index, with higher scores indicating higher levels of family-to-work conflict. The Cronbach’s alpha was .82, showing high internal reliability.

Finally, this study assesses family-to-work enrichment. Family-to-work enrichment was measured with an index of two items. Respondents were asked to respond to the following questions: “(a) In the past three months, how often have you been in a better mood at work because of your personal or family life? (b) In the past three months, how often have you had more energy to do your job because of your family or personal life?” Responses to these questions ranged from 1 = very often to 5 = never. Responses to these questions were first reverse-coded and then summed and then averaged to create an index, with higher scores indicating higher levels of family-to-work enrichment.

Mediating Variables: Mental and Physical Health

Mental health is defined as “a state of emotional, psychological and social well-being in which every individual realizes his or her own potential, can cope with the normal stresses of life, can work productively and fruitfully, and is able to make a contribution to her or his community” (World Health Organization 2014). NSCW created an index of mental health that is based on seven measures that have been used in prior psychiatric and medical research and that captures different dimensions of stress, coping, and depression (Beutell 2013; Bond and Galinsky 2006; Bond etal. 2005). Respondents were asked to respond to the following questions:

In the last month, how often have you (a) been bothered by minor health problems such as headaches, insomnia, or stomach upsets? (b) had trouble sleeping to the point that it affected your performance on and off the job? (c) have you felt nervous and stressed? (d) have you felt that you were unable to control the important things in your life? (e) have you felt that difficulties were piling up so high that you could not overcome them?

Two additional questions were asked: (f) “During the past month, have you been bothered by feeling down, depressed, or hopeless?” and (g) “During the past month, have you been bothered by little interest or pleasure in doing things?”² Responses to the first five questions ranged from 1 = never to 5 = very often. The last two questions were coded as dummy variables (1 = yes, 0 = no). Due to these seven items’ having different numbers of response categories, all seven items were standardized, summed, and then averaged to create an index, with higher scores indicating worse mental health. The Cronbach’s alpha was .80, showing high internal reliability.³

The validity of the mental health scale was tested using a similar approach as in Yucel and Downey (2010). First, the study employs exploratory factor analysis, using a principal-factor method followed by a varimax rotation. Based on the varimax rotation, this study retained items with factor loadings that were 0.50 and higher. The decision to retain the number of indicators and factors was based not only on the factor loadings but also on whether the indicators retained could be interpreted meaningfully under each factor. As a result of the exploratory factor analysis, all seven items for mental health were retained and loaded well with the latent construct for mental health. These seven items and the latent construct were then tested by confirmatory factor analysis, where the measurement model is further tested by the goodness of fit indices. The results suggest that all seven indicators load significantly by the latent construct (p < .001), and a high percentage of the variance in these indicators is explained by the latent construct (R² = 43–92 percent). The other fit indices also suggest that this measurement model fits the data well (RMSEA = 0.03, CFI = 0.96).

Physical health was measured with one question. This single-item measure of physical health has been used in prior research (Beutell 2013). Respondents were asked to respond to the following question: “How would you rate your current state of health—excellent, good, fair, or poor?” Responses to this question ranged from 1 = excellent to 4 = poor. The item is reverse-coded, with higher scores indicating better physical health.

Control Variables

Associations between marital satisfaction and work-to-family conflict, work-to-family enrichment, family-to-work conflict, and family-to-work enrichment may not represent causal relationships. Therefore, it is crucial to account for background and relationship-specific factors that are potentially related to marital satisfaction (Roehling, Jarvis, and Swope 2005; Schieman, Milkie, and Glavin 2009; Twenge, Campbell, and Foster 2003; Voydanoff 2005, 2007; Zvonkovic, Notter, and Peters 2006). Consistent with this argument and with prior studies, this study controls for the following variables: presence of preschool children living in the household, gender, log of gross annual family income (due to skewness), hours worked per week, working shift schedule, employed spouse, education, race, age, and been married before.

Analytical Strategy

This study addressed the research questions by using path analysis through Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) in Amos 22. Due to high multicollinearity between work-to-family conflict and family-to-work conflict, as well as between work-to-family enrichment and family-to-work enrichment, work-to-family conflict and work-to-family enrichment are added together in separate models from family-to-work conflict and family-to-work enrichment. In the first step, the model tests the zero-order effects of work-to-family conflict and work-to-family enrichment (and in a separate model, the zero-order effects of family-to-work conflict and family-to-work enrichment) on marital satisfaction. Next, model 2 adds the control variables. Model 3 tests whether mental health mediates the effects of work-to-family conflict and work-to-family enrichment (and family-to-work conflict and family-to-work enrichment) on marital satisfaction. Model 4 tests whether physical health mediates the effects of work-to-family conflict and work-to-family enrichment (and family-to-work conflict and family-to-work enrichment) on marital satisfaction. At each step, the total variance in marital satisfaction is reported by R². This shows us how much of the variance in marital satisfaction is explained by each group of predictors.

The incomplete data were analyzed using maximum likelihood estimation as part of SEM. This method uses available data to compute maximum likelihood estimates and does not involve any data imputation. Instead, it estimates values of the parameters in the model that define the distribution in a way that most likely would have resulted in the observed data (Allison 2003). This approach allows the analysis of all the data from 1,971 workers.

Results

Descriptive Results

Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics for the dependent variable along with all the independent and control variables. Based on Table 1, respondents in this sample reported an average score of 2.85 for marital satisfaction on a scale ranging from 1 to 4. The work-to-family conflict and family-to-work conflict measures had an average score of 2.52 and 2.10, respectively, on a scale ranging from 1 to 5 for both. Finally, on the five-point scales for work-to-family and family-to-work enrichment, the average scores were 2.75 and 3.16, respectively. The sample is 88 percent white and 5 percent black, and 7 percent of respondents belong to another race. On average, respondents in the sample are 47 years of age. Around 59 percent of the sample has at least a bachelor’s degree, while 24 percent of the sample has preschool children living in the household. On average, the respondents report good health. Around 52 percent of the sample is male, and 48 percent is female. On average, respondents work 42 hours per week, and around 24 percent of the sample has a shift work schedule.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics of All Variables from National Study of the Changing Workforce 2008 Data.

Variable	Mean/percentage^a	Standard deviation^b	Metric
Dependent variable
Marital satisfaction	2.85	0.76	1–4
Independent variable
Work-family conflict	2.52	0.83	1–5
Work-family enrichment	2.75	0.92	1–5
Family-work conflict	2.10	0.66	1–5
Family-work enrichment	3.16	0.87	1–5
Control variable
Preschool child living in the household	0.24	—	0–1
Socioeconomic status (log of family income)	11.38	0.76	2.20–15.69
Hours of employment	41.90	12.87	2–90
Shift work schedule	0.24	—	0–1
Spouse is employed	0.75	—	0–1
Less than high school degree	0.21	—	0–1
Some college	0.20	—	0–1
Bachelor’s degree	0.33	—	0–1
Higher than bachelor’s degree	0.26	—	0–1
White (reference)	0.88	—	0–1
Black	0.05	—	0–1
Other race	0.07	—	0–1
Male	0.52	—	0–1
Age	46.70	10.29	18–64
Have been married before	0.25	—	0–1
Mental health	−0.18	0.89	–1.57–3.04
Physical health	2.16	0.68	1–3

Means are reported for continuous variables and percentages are reported for binary variables.

Standard deviations are only reported for continuous variables.

Table 2 presents the bivariate correlations for the variables. As shown, there is high correlation between work-family conflict and family-work conflict as well as between work-family enrichment and family-work enrichment. In order to test for potential issues of multicollinearity, variance inflation factors were determined for the independent variables. The results showed some symptoms of multicollinearity, with the variance inflation factors of work-family conflict and family-work enrichment being more than 2. Therefore, the analyses that track the effects of work-family conflict and work-family enrichment are run separately from the analyses that track the effects of family-work conflict and family-work enrichment (see Tables 3 and 4, respectively). The bivariate correlations suggest that work-to-family and family-to-work conflict are negatively correlated with marital satisfaction (b = –.17, p < .001; b = –.24, p < .001, respectively), whereas work-to-family and family-to-work enrichment are positively correlated with marital satisfaction (b = .12, p < .001; b = .22, p < .001, respectively).

Table 2.

Paired Bivariate Correlations between All Variables Used in the Analysis.

Variable	X1	X2	X3	X4	X5	X6
X1. Marital satisfaction	—
X2. Work to family conflict	−.17***	—
X3. Work to family enrichment	.12***	−.23***	—
X4. Family to work conflict	−.24***	.53***	−.03	—
X5. Family to work enrichment	.22***	−.05*	.51***	−.09***	—
X6. Presence of preschool children living in the household	.04	.10***	−.02	.08***	.01	—
X7. Male	.08***	.05*	−.05*	−.05*	.01	.12***
X8. Log of annual family income	.03	−.01	.01	.01	−.00	−.05*
X9. Hours worked per week	.04	.24***	−.05*	.02	.02	.04
X10. Working shift schedule	−.02	.01	.09***	.03	.06**	.03
X11. Spouse is employed	−.02	.01	−.00	.02	.05*	−.08**
X12. Less than high school degree	−.00	−.04	.03	−.05*	−.01	−.08***
X13. Some college	−.03	.00	−.02	−.02	−.04	−.01
X14. Bachelor’s degree	.01	−.02	−.02	.01	.02	.06**
X15. Having more than bachelor’s degree	.02	.05*	.00	.05*	.02	.02
X16. Being white	.03	.02	−.03	.02	−.05*	−.01
X17. Black	−.02	−.03	.03	−.02	.00	−.03
X18. Other	−.03	−.00	.01	−.01	.06**	.04
X19. Age of the respondent	−.02	−.13***	.04	−.09***	−.04	−.50***
X20. Being married before	−.04	.02	.02	.03	−.01	−.10***
X21. Mental health	−.29***	.40***	−.20***	.42***	−.16***	.02
X22. Physical health	.12***	−.19***	.10***	−.15***	.10***	.03
Variable	X7	X8	X9	X10	X11	X12	X13
X7. Male	—
X8. Log of annual family income	.02	—
X9. Hours worked per week	.27***	.13***	—
X10. Working shift schedule	.04	−.03	−.03	—
X11. Spouse is employed	−.17***	.20***	−.07**	.00	—
X12. Less than high school degree	−.02	−.21***	−.02	.03	−.08***	—
X13. Some college	−.02	−.13***	−.01	.06**	−.01	−.26***	—
X14. Bachelor’s degree	−.03	.02	−.04	−.02	.05*	−.36***	−.35***
X15. Having more than bachelor’s degree	.06**	.29***	.07**	−.06**	.03	−.30***	−.30***
X16. Being white	.01	.06**	−.01	−.04	.01	−.05*	−.01
X17. Black	−.02	−.10***	.03	.02	−.03	.05*	.00
X18. Other	−.00	.01	−.01	.03	.01	.01	.01
X19. Age of the respondent	−.03	.12***	−.05*	−.00	−.06**	.03	−.03
X20. Being married before	−.02	−.01	.01	.05*	.03	.09***	.02
X21. Mental health	−.12***	−.09***	−.03	.03	.02	.05*	.01
X22. Physical health	−.03	−.15***	.01	−.01	.04	−.12***	−.07**
Variable	X14	X15	X16	X17	X18	X19	X20
X14. Bachelor’s degree	—
X15. Having more than bachelor’s degree	−.41***	—
X16. Being white	−.01	.07**	—
X17. Black	−.01	−.04	−.63***	—
X18. Other	.03	−.05*	−.73***	−.06**	—
X19. Age of the respondent	−.08***	.08***	.07**	−.02	−.07**	—
X20. Being married before	−.06**	−.03	.03	.01	−.04	.23***	—
X21. Mental health	−.01	−.05*	−.01	.01	.00	−.09***	.02
X22. Physical health	.08***	.09***	.04	−.04	−.02	−.05*	−.06**
Variable	X21	X22
X21. Mental health	—
X22. Physical health	−.34***	—

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001 (two-tailed tests).

Table 3.

Path Analysis Predicting Marital Satisfaction and the Mediating Effects of Mental and Physical Health.

	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4	Model 5	Model 6
	b (SE)	b (SE)	b (SE)	b (SE)	b (SE)	b (SE)
Main independent variable
Work-to-family conflict	−.138*** (.021)	−.158*** (.021)	−.038 (.023)	−.038 (.023)	−.038 (.020)	−.038 (.023)
Work-to-family enrichment	.070*** (.019)	.076*** (.019)	.054** (.019)	.054** (.018)	.054** (.019)	.054** (.018)
Control variable
Preschool child living in the household		.039 (.050)	.036 (.049)	.036 (.049)	.035 (.049)	.036 (.049)
Male		.106** (.036)	.065 (.035)	.065 (.035)	.065 (.035)	.065 (.035)
Log of annual family income		.012 (.025)	−.001 (.024)	−.001 (.024)	−.001 (.024)	−.001 (.024)
Hours worked		.003** (.001)	.002 (.001)	.002 (.001)	.002 (.001)	.002 (.001)
Shift schedule		−.050 (.040)	−.034 (.039)	−.034 (.039)	−.034 (.039)	−.034 (.039)
Spouse is employed		−.003 (.041)	−.005 (.040)	−.005 (.040)	−.006 (.040)	−.005 (.040)
Having some college degree		−.035 (.053)	−.056 (.051)	−.056 (.051)	−.057 (.051)	−.056 (.051)
Having bachelor’s degree		.005 (.048)	−.022 (.047)	−.022 (.047)	−.022 (.047)	−.022 (.047)
Having more than bachelor’s degree		.021 (.053)	−.019 (.051)	−.019 (.051)	−.019 (.051)	−.019 (.051)
Black		−.092 (.077)	−.074 (.075)	−.074 (.075)	−.074 (.075)	−.074 (.075)
Other race		−.090 (.067)	−.089 (.066)	−.089 (.066)	−.088 (.066)	−.089 (.066)
Age		−.002 (.002)	−.002 (.002)	−.002 (.002)	−.002 (.002)	−.002 (.002)
Having been married before		−.050 (.040)	−.044 (.039)	−.044 (.039)	−.044 (.039)	−.044 (.039)
Mediating variable
Mental health			−.214*** (.022)	−.214*** (.022)
Physical health					.150*** (.038)	.150*** (.038)
Work-to-family conflict → mental health			.463*** (.021)
Work-to-family enrichment → mental health				−.300** (.103)
Work-to-family conflict → physical health					−.200*** (.050)
Work-to-family enrichment → physical health						.250** (.089)
Chi-square	19.703***	193.396***	474.344***	419.385***	500.342***	434.179***
df	1	26	53	53	53	53
CFI	.94	.95	.95	.95	.95	.95
RMSEA	.03	.03	.03	.04	.04	.04
R ²	.06	.12	.20	.20	.16	.16

p < .01. ***p < .001 (two-tailed test).

Table 4.

Path Analysis Predicting Marital Satisfaction and the Mediating Effects of Mental and Physical Health.

	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4	Model 5	Model 6
	b (SE)	b (SE)	b (SE)	b (SE)	b (SE)	b (SE)
Main independent variable
Family-to-work conflict	−.262*** (.025)	−.264*** (.025)	−.156*** (.028)	−.156*** (.028)	−.158*** (.024)	−.158*** (.024)
Family-to-work enrichment	.176*** (.019)	.177*** (.019)	.157*** (.019)	.157*** (.019)	.157*** (.019)	.157*** (.019)
Control variable
Preschool child living in the household		.055 (.049)	.049 (.048)	.049 (.048)	.049 (.048)	.049 (.048)
Male		.080* (.035)	.056 (.034)	.056 (.034)	.057 (.034)	.056 (.034)
Log of annual family income		.027 (.024)	.011 (.024)	.010 (.024)	.011 (.024)	.011 (.024)
Hours worked		.001 (.001)	.001 (.001)	.001 (.001)	.001 (.001)	.001 (.001)
Shift schedule		−.045 (.038)	−.037 (.038)	−.037 (.038)	−.038 (.038)	−.037 (.038)
Spouse is employed		−.026 (.040)	−.023 (.039)	−.023 (.039)	−.023 (.039)	−.023 (.039)
Having some college degree		−.034 (.051)	−.047 (.050)	−.047 (.050)	−.048 (.050)	−.047 (.050)
Having bachelor’s degree		−.001 (.047)	−.022 (.046)	−.022 (.046)	−.022 (.046)	−.022 (.046)
Having more than bachelor’s degree		.017 (.051)	−.011 (.050)	−.011 (.050)	−.011 (.050)	−.011 (.050)
Black		−.081 (.074)	−.075 (.073)	−.075 (.073)	−.075 (.073)	−.075 (.073)
Other race		−.125 (.065)	−.120 (.064)	−.120 (.064)	−.119 (.064)	−.120 (.064)
Age		−.001 (.002)	−.002 (.002)	−.002 (.002)	−.002 (.002)	−.002 (.002)
Having been married before		−.040 (.039)	−.037 (.039)	−.037 (.039)	−.037 (.039)	−.037 (.039)
Mediating variable
Mental health			−.163*** (.022)	−.163*** (.022)
Physical health					.019** (.006)	.019** (.006)
Family-to-work conflict → mental health			.599 (.587)
Family-to-work enrichment → mental health				−.224 (.400)
Family-to-work conflict → physical health					.022 (.022)
Family-to-work enrichment → physical health						.034 (.068)
Chi-square	17.211***	76.572***	273.430***	247.643***	299.100***	268.511***
df	1	26	26	26	26	26
CFI	.95	.98	.96	.95	.95	.96
RMSEA	.03	.03	.03	.04	.04	.04
R ²	.12	.18	.26	.26	.27	.27

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001 (two-tailed test).

Path Analysis Results

Table 3 shows the results of path analysis models predicting marital satisfaction. Model 1 presents only the zero-order associations of work-to-family conflict and work-to-family enrichment. The results of model 1 suggest that those who experience more work-to-family conflict have lower marital satisfaction (b = –.138, p < .001), whereas those with more work-to-family enrichment have higher marital satisfaction (b = .070, p < .001). The R² of this model is 6 percent.

After adding the control variables in model 2, the effects of work-to-family conflict and work-to-family enrichment are still significant (b = –.158, p < .001; and b = .076, p < .001, respectively). Therefore, hypotheses 1 and 3 are supported. Males report higher marital satisfaction than do females (b = .106, p < .01). The R² increases to 12 percent. Models 3 and 4 test the mediating effect of mental health in explaining the relationship between marital satisfaction and work-to-family conflict and work-to-family enrichment, respectively. After the mental health variable is added to the model, the effect of work-to-family conflict is no longer significant, whereas the coefficient size and significance of work-to-family enrichment are both reduced (b = .054, p < .01). Models 3 and 4 explain 20 percent of the variance in marital satisfaction, respectively. These results indicate that mental health fully mediates the effects of work-to-family conflict and partially mediates the effect of work-to-family enrichment on marital satisfaction.

The results of the SEM bootstrap test (a bootstrap sample of 2,000 was specified) revealed that the indirect effects of work-to-family conflict and work-to-family enrichment on marital satisfaction through mental health were both significant (p < .001 and p < .01 for work-to-family conflict and work-to-family enrichment, respectively). Thus, hypothesis 5a is partially supported.

Models 5 and 6 test the mediating effect of physical health in explaining the relationship between marital satisfaction and work-to-family conflict and work-to-family enrichment, respectively. After the physical health variable is added to the model, the effect of work-to-family conflict is no longer significant, whereas the coefficient size and significance of work-to-family enrichment are both reduced (b = .054, p < .01). Models 5 and 6 explain 16 percent of the variance in marital satisfaction, respectively. This indicates thatphysical health fully mediates the effect of work-to-family conflict and partially mediates the effect of work-to-family enrichment on marital satisfaction. The results of the SEM bootstrap test (a bootstrap sample of 2,000 was specified) revealed that the indirect effects of work-to-family conflict and work-to-family enrichment on marital satisfaction through physical health were both significant (p < .001 and p < .01 for work-to-family conflict and work-to-family enrichment, respectively). Thus, hypothesis 6a is partially supported.

Table 4 shows the results of path analysis models predicting marital satisfaction. The results of model 1 suggest that those who experience more family-to-work conflict have lower marital satisfaction (b = –.262, p < .001), whereas those with more family-to-work enrichment have higher marital satisfaction (b = .176, p < .001). The R² of this model is 12 percent. After adding the control variables in model 2, the effects of family-work conflict and family-work enrichment are still significant (b = –.264, p < .001 and b = .177, p < .001, respectively). Therefore, hypotheses 2 and 4 are supported. Males report higher marital satisfaction (b = .080, p < .05). R² increases to 18 percent.

Models 3 and 4 test the mediating effect of mental w?>health in explaining the relationship between marital satisfaction and family-to-work conflict and family-to-work enrichment, respectively. After the mental health variable is added to the model, both the effects of family-work conflict and family-work enrichment are still highly significant (b = –.156, p < .001 and b = .157, p< .001, respectively). These results show that mental health does not mediate the effects of family-to-work conflict and family-to-work enrichment on marital satisfaction. Models 3 and 4 explain 26 percent of the variance in marital satisfaction, respectively. The results of the SEM bootstrap test (a bootstrap sample of 2,000 was specified) revealed that the indirect effects of family-to-work conflict and family-to-work enrichment on marital satisfaction through mental health were both not significant. Thus, hypothesis 5b is not supported.

Models 5 and 6 test the mediating effect of physical health in explaining the relationship between marital satisfaction and family-to-work conflict and family-to-work enrichment, respectively. After the physical health variable is added to the model, both the effects of family-to-work conflict and family-to-work enrichment on marital satisfaction are still highly significant (b = –.158, p< .001 and b = .157, p < .001, respectively). Models 5 and 6 explain 27 percent of the variance in marital satisfaction, respectively. This demonstrates that physical health has a direct effect on marital satisfaction but does not mediate the effects of family-to-work conflict and family-to-work enrichment on marital satisfaction. The results of the SEM bootstrap test (a bootstrap sample of 2,000 was specified) revealed that the indirect effects of family-to-work conflict and family-to-work enrichment on marital satisfaction through physical health were both not significant. Thus, hypothesis 6b is not supported.

Discussion

Using data from 1,961 married individuals, this study tested the effects of work-to-family conflict, work-to-family enrichment, family-to-work conflict, and family-to-work enrichment on marital satisfaction. In addition, this study tested the mediating effects of mental and physical health. The results suggest that both negative and positive aspects of the work-family interface (i.e., conflict and enrichment in both directions) have direct and significant effects on marital satisfaction. Work-to-family and family-to-work conflict were negatively associated with marital satisfaction. On the other hand, family-to-work and work-to-family enrichment were positively associated with marital satisfaction. In regard to the mediating effects, mental health and physical health both fully mediated the effect of work-to-family conflict, and mental health and physical health both partially mediated the effect of work-to-family enrichment on marital satisfaction. On the other hand, none ofthe health measures mediated the effects offamily-to-work conflict and family-to-work enrichment on marital satisfaction.

This study contributes to work-family literature and work-family theory by being one of the few studies to test the bidirectional effects of both work-family conflict and work-family enrichment simultaneously on marital satisfaction. The results highlight the importance of testing both the negative and positive aspects of the work-family interface. They also suggest that family-to-work conflict and family-to-work enrichment experiences accounted for more variance in individuals’ marital satisfaction than work-to-family conflict and work-to-family enrichment experiences did. This is consistent with some other research that suggests that the source of family-work conflict starts within the family and that the associated stress is reflected in difficulty completing work responsibilities. This argument was presented to explain why family-to-work conflict might be a stronger predictor of marital satisfaction than work-to-family conflict (Minnotte etal. 2013). Using the same approach for the positive aspect of work-family balance (i.e., enrichment), this could explain why family-to-work enrichment is a stronger predictor of marital satisfaction compared to work-to-family enrichment.

This study makes a theoretical contribution by highlighting the role of stress in the functioning of marital relationships. Overall, the results are consistent with some prior studies that show a positive relationship between work-family enrichment and marital satisfaction (Hill 2005; van Steenbergen etal. 2014) and a negative relationship between work-family conflict and marital satisfaction (Amstad etal. 2011; Minnotte etal. 2013; Minnotte etal. 2015; Voydanoff 2005). Moreover, prior research provides evidence for possible mediators for the relationship between work-family balance and marital satisfaction, such as positive and negative marital behaviors⁴ (van Steenbergen etal. 2014), job exhaustion (Mauno and Kinnunen 1999), emotions of guilt and hostility (Judge, Ilies, and Scott 2006), and couple communication (Carroll etal. 2013). This study expands prior research by testing the mediating effects of mental and physical health.

Specifically, by applying the stress-divorce model to explain the impact of spillover stress, this study further helps us understand the relationship between work-family balance and marital satisfaction while testing the mediating effects of physical and mental health. Prior studies testing similar mediating effects have mostly focused on work-family conflict, except for one study (van Steenbergen etal. 2014). This current study, however, advances prior work by enriching our understanding of the underlying processes through which work-family conflict and work-family enrichment (in both directions) affect marital satisfaction by specifically testing the mediating effects of mental and physical health. Where different stress theories have been used to predict the negative effect of stress on marital outcomes, by the same token, the positive aspect of less stress on marital satisfaction should be further investigated. Moreover, if certain stressors are expected to affect marital well-being, then, as some prior studies pointed out, it is important to understand the interdependence of marital dyads by focusing on couples instead of individuals (Bodenmann 2000; Bodenmann etal. 2007). This approach would allow researchers to test crossover effects (Demerouti, Bakker, and Schaufeli 2005; Westman 2001; Young, Schieman, and Milkie 2014) and to better understand how and whether these effects vary by gender (Rohrbaugh etal. 2002; Saxbe, Repetti, and Nishina 2008).

There are also some limitations of this research. It is important to highlight them so directions for future research can be suggested. First, causality cannot be established due to the cross-sectional nature of the data; therefore, the causal order of the main associations cannot be disentangled. Some of these effects are likely bidirectional. For instance, it could be that work-family conflict influences marital satisfaction, which is then associated with health outcomes (Matthews etal. 2006; Young etal. 2014).⁵ With more longitudinal data, not only could causal direction be tested, but scholars would be able to explore the effects of changes in both positive and negative aspects of work-family balance on marital satisfaction, by using repeated measures of the independent variables. This study, by testing the effect of work-family balance on respondents’ actual marital satisfaction, focused on the negative and positive spillover effects. Due to data’s being collected from the married individuals but not their partners or spouses, they failed to account for any crossover effects that work-family balance might have on marital satisfaction. Therefore, it is important for future research to collect data from couples so that couple-level measures can be used to test the impact of crossover effects and to understand the interdependence of marital dyads. With couple-level data, how information from one person affects his or her own and his or her spouse’s reports of marital satisfaction (i.e., actor and partner effects) can be assessed. By doing this, future studies can test the crossover effects of work-family balance on marital outcomes. Moreover, the current results suggest that using work-related measures and health measures from individuals explains between 16 and 27 percent of the variance in marital satisfaction. Using couple-level measures would therefore be likely to increase the total variance explained.

In addition to using information from both spouses, life experiences other than experiences at work can be related to marital satisfaction. Prior research has supported the use of some other important variables in predicting marital satisfaction, some of which are individual personality characteristics, marital interaction, quality of spousal support, marital communication, marital aggression, gender ideology, and mental and physical health (see Bradbury, Fincham, and Beach 2000; Yucel and Koydemir 2015). Unfortunately, the survey data in this study are based on married individuals (not couples) and do not include these measures or spousal characteristics. The sample in this study might have a selectivity bias since it consists of married couples who stayed together; couples with the least marital satisfaction may have already dissolved their unions and thereby be eliminated from the sampling frame. Therefore, on average, the sample in the current study might have higher marital satisfaction than the general population. In addition, the sample in this study is more advantaged in terms of education and income compared to those in the general population. This is not surprising, since the sample was limited to married respondents who are employed. However, it limits scholars’ ability to generalize these findings to those populations of workers who are outside the sampling frame. For example, the results cannot be generalized to less-educated and low-income couples who are more likely to cohabit than get married (U.S. Census Bureau 2015). Nonetheless, the sample has enough variability in these measures to help alleviate some of these concerns for generalizability. Finally, some prior research suggests that the relationship between the main independent variables and marital satisfaction may be contingent upon other factors, such as gender (Figueroa, Aburto, and Acevedo 2012; Hill 2005; van Steenbergen etal. 2007; Wharton and Blair-Loy 2006) and couple type among married workers (sole breadwinner or dual earner) (Allard, Haas, and Hwang 2011; Ladge etal. 2014). Therefore, future work would also benefit from a closer analysis of how these relationships may vary across these factors.

Nevertheless, this study has provided some new insights into the topic of work-family balance. Prior findings were supported, but this study, by applying the stress-divorce model to explain the impact of spillover stress, provided evidence for a more nuanced model of the relationships between the negative and positive aspects of work-family balance and marital satisfaction. With the increase in the 24/7 economy, it is becoming harder to balance work and family responsibilities. Given the significant impact of work-to-family (family-to-work) conflict and work-to-family (family-to-work) enrichment on marital satisfaction, there are important implications of this study for policy makers and employers. The findings of this study suggest that family-friendly workplaces and family-friendly societies are important goals to promote healthy communities, more satisfying marriages, and healthy individuals.

Footnotes

Notes

References

Allard

Karin

Haas

Linda

Hwang

C. Philip

. 2011. “Family-supportive Organizational Culture and Fathers’ Experiences of Work-family Conflict in Sweden.” Gender, Work and Organization 18(2):141–57.

Allen

Tammy

Herst

David

Bruck

Carly

Sutton

Martha

. 2000. “Consequences Associated with Work-to-family Conflict: A Review and Agenda for Future Research.” Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 5:278–308.

Allison

Paul

. 2003. “Missing Data Techniques for Structural Equation Modeling.” Journal of Abnormal Psychology 112(4):545–57.

Amstad

Fabienne

Meier

Laurenz

Fasel

Ursula

Elfering

Achim

Semmer

Norbert

. 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):151–69.

Anderson

Stella

Coffey

Betty

Byerly

Robin

. 2002. “Formal Organizational Initiatives and Informal Workplace Practices: Links to Work-family Conflict and Job-related Outcomes.” Journal of Management 28(6):787–810.

Bakker

Arnold

Demerouti

Evangelia

Burke

Ronald

. 2009. “Workaholism and Relationship Quality: A Spillover-crossover Perspective.” Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 14:23–33.

Barling

Julian

MacEwen

Karyl

. 1992. “Linking Work Experiences to Facets of Marital Functioning.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 13:573–83.

Bellavia

Gina

Frone

Michael

. 2005. “Work-family Conflict.” Pp. 113–47 in Handbook of Work Stress, edited by Barling

Kelloway

E. K.

Frone

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Beutell

Nicholas

. 2013. “Generational Differences in Work-family Conflict and Synergy.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 10:2544–559.

10.

Bodenmann

Guy

. 1995. “A Systemic-transactional Conceptualization of Stress and Coping in Couples.” Swiss Journal of Psychology 54:34–49.

11.

Bodenmann

Guy

. 2000. Stress und coping bei paaren [Stress and coping in couples]. Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.

12.

Bodenmann

Guy

. 2005. “Dyadic Coping and Its Significance for Marital Functioning.” Pp. 33–50 in Couples Coping with Stress: Emerging Perspectives on Dyadic Coping, edited by Revenson

Kayser

Bodenmann

Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

13.

Bodenmann

Guy

Cina

Annette

. 2006. “Stress and Coping among Stable-satisfied, Stable Distressed, and Separated/Divorced Swiss Couples: A 5-year Prospective Longitudinal Study.” Journal of Divorce and Remarriage 44:71–89.

14.

Bodenmann

Guy

Ledermann

Thomas

Blattner-Bolliger

Denice

Galluzzo

Claudia

. 2006. “The Association between Everyday Stress, Critical Life Events, and Sexual Dysfunction.” Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 194:494–501.

15.

Bodenmann

Guy

Ledermann

Thomas

Bradbury

Thomas

. 2007. “Stress, Sex, and Satisfaction in Marriage.” Personal Relationships 14:407–25.

16.

Bolger

Niall

DeLongis

Anita

Kessler

Ronald

Wethington

Elaine

. 1989. “The Contagion of Stress across Multiple Roles.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 51:175–83.

17.

Bond

James

Galinsky

Ellen

Pitt-Catsouphes

Marcie

Smyer

Michael

. 2005. The Diverse Employment Experiences of Older Men and Women in the Workforce (Research Highlights No. 02). Chestnut Hill, MA: Center on Aging & Work/Workplace Flexibility.

18.

Bond

James T.

Galinsky

Ellen

. 2006. What Workplace Flexibility Is Available to Entry-level, Hourly Employees? New York: Families and Work Institute.

19.

Boyar

Scott

Mosley

Donald

. 2007. “The Relationship between Core Self-evaluations and Work and Family Satisfaction: The Mediating Role of Work-family Conflict and Facilitation.” Journal of Vocational Behavior 71(2):265–81.

20.

Bradbury

Thomas

Fincham

Frank

Beach

Steven

. 2000. “Research on the Nature and Determinants of Marital Satisfaction: A Decade in Review.” Journal of Marriage and Family 62(4):964–80.

21.

Brockwood

Krista

. 2007. “Marital Satisfaction and the Work-family Interface: An Overview.” Retrieved April 16, 2017 (https://workfamily.sas.upenn.edu/wfrn-repo/object/8e1qi1ou2bu5vf0u).

22.

Brown

Susan

Manning

Wendy

Payne

Krista

. 2015. “Relationship Quality among Cohabiting versus Married Couples.” Journal of Family Issues. doi:10.1177/0192513X15622236.

23.

Carlson

Dawn

Grzywacz

Joseph

Zivnuska

Suzanne

. 2009. “Is Work-family Balance More than Conflict and Enrichment?” Human Relations 62:1459–86.

24.

Carlson

Dawn

Kacmar

Michele

Wayne

Julie

Grzywacz

Joseph

. 2006. “Measuring the Positive Side of the Work-family Interface: Development and Validation of a Work-family Enrichment Scale.” Journal of Vocational Behavior 68(1):131–64.

25.

Carroll

Sarah

Hill

E. Jeffrey

Yorgason

Jeremy

Larson

Jeffry

Sandberg

Jonathan

. 2013. “Couple Communication as a Mediator between Work-family Conflict and Marital Satisfaction.” Contemporary Family Therapy: An International Journal 35(3):530–45.

26.

Croyle

Kristen

Waltz

Jennifer

. 2002. “Emotional Awareness and Couples’ Relationship Satisfaction.” Journal of Marital and Family Therapy 28:435–44.

27.

Davila

Joanne

Karney

Benjamin

Hall

Todd

Bradbury

Thomas

. 2003. “Depressive Symptoms and Marital Satisfaction: Within-subject Associations and the Moderating Effects of Gender and Neuroticism.” Journal of Family Psychology 17:537–70.

28.

Demerouti

Evangelia

Bakker

Arnold

Schaufeli

Wilmar

. 2005. “Spillover and Crossover of Exhaustion and Life Satisfaction among Dual-earner Parents.” Journal of Vocational Behavior 67(2):266–89.

29.

Donald

Fiona

Linington

James

. 2008. “Work/Family Border Theory and Gender Role Orientation in Male Managers.” South African Journal of Psychology 38(4):659–71.

30.

Eby

Lillian

Casper

Wendy

Lockwood

Angie

Bordeaux

Chris

Brinley

Andi

. 2005. “Work and Family Research in IO/OB: Content Analysis and Review of the Literature (1980–2002).” Journal of Vocational Behavior 66:124–97.

31.

Falconier

Mariana

Nussbeck

Fridtjof

Bodenmann

Guy

. 2013. “Immigration Stress and Relationship Satisfaction in Latino Couples: The Role of Dyadic Coping.” Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 32(8):813–43.

32.

Families and Work Institute. 2008. National Study of the Changing Workforce: Guide to Public Use Files. New York: Families and Work Institute.

33.

Fergusson

David

Horwood

John

. 2001. “The Christchurch Health and Development Study: Review of Findings on Child and Adolescent Mental Health.” Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 35:287–96.

34.

Figueroa

Andres

Aburto

Maria

Acevedo

Rocio

. 2012. “Work-family Conflict, Parental Efficacy and Perceived Parenting Styles in Father and Mothers from the City of Talca, Chile.” Acta Colombiana de Psicologia 15:57–65.

35.

Ford

Michael

Heinen

Beth

Langkamer

Krista

. 2007. “Work and Family Satisfaction and Conflict: A Meta-analysis of Cross-domain Relations.” Journal of Applied Psychology 92:57–80.

36.

Frone

Michael

. 2003. “Work-family Balance.” Pp. 143–62 in Handbook of Occupational Health Psychology, edited by Quick

Tetrick

Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

37.

Frone

Michael

Russell

Marcia

Barnes

Grace

. 1996. “Work-family Conflict, Gender, and Health-related Outcomes: A Study of Employed Parents in Two Community Samples.” Journal of Occupational Psychology 1:57–69.

38.

Frone

Michael

Russell

Marcia

Cooper

Lynne

. 1992a. “Antecedents and Outcomes of Work-family Conflict: Testing a Model of the Work-family Interface.” Journal of Applied Psychology 77:65–78.

39.

Frone

Michael

Russell

Marcia

Cooper

Lynne

. 1992b. “Prevalence of Work-family Conflict: Are Work and Family Boundaries Asymmetrically Permeable?” Journal of Organizational Behavior 13:723–29.

40.

Frone

Michael

Russell

Marcia

Cooper

Lynne

. 1997. “Relation of Work-family Conflict to Health Outcomes: A Four-year Longitudinal Study of Employed Parents.” Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 70:325–35.

41.

Frye

Nancy

Karney

Benjamin

. 2006. “The Context of Aggressive Behavior in Marriage: A Longitudinal Study of Newlyweds.” Journal of Family Psychology 20:12–20.

42.

Galinsky

Adena

Waite

Linda

. 2014. “Sexual Activity and Psychological Health as Mediators of the Relationship between Physical Health and Marital Quality.” Journals of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences 69(3):482–92.

43.

Galovan

Adam

Fackrell

Tamara

Buswell

Lydia

Jones

Blake

Hill

E. Jeffrey

Carroll

Sarah

. 2010. “The Work-family Interface in the United States and Singapore: Conflict across Cultures.” Journal of Family Psychology 24:646–56.

44.

Gareis

Karen

Barnett

Rosalind

Ertel

Karen

Berkman

Lisa

. 2009. “Work-family Enrichment and Conflict: Additive Effects, Buffering, or Balance?” Journal of Marriage and Family 71(3):696–707.

45.

Geurts

Sabine

Demerouti

Evangelia

. 2003. “Work/Non-work Interface: A Review of Theories and Findings.” Pp. 279–312 in Handbook of Work and Health Psychology, edited by Schabracq

Winnubst

Cooper

Chinester, England: John Wiley & Sons.

46.

Greenhaus

Jeffrey

Powell

Gary

. 2006. “When Work and Family Are Allies: A Theory of Work-family Enrichment.” Academy of Management Review 31(1):72–92.

47.

Grzywacz

Joseph

. 2000. “Work-family Spillover and Health During Midlife: Is Managing Conflict Everything?” American Journal of Health Promotion 14(4):236–43.

48.

Grzywacz

Joseph

Bass

Brenda

. 2003. “Work, Family, and Mental Health: Testing Different Models of Work-family Fit.” Journal of Marriage and Family 65(1):248–62.

49.

Halbesleban

Jonathon

Harvey

Jaron

Bolino

Mark

. 2009. “Too Engaged? A Conservation of Resources View of the Relationship between Work Engagement and Work Interference with Family.” Journal of Applied Psychology 94(6):1452–65.

50.

Hammer

Leslie

Cullen

Jennifer

Neal

Margaret

Sinclair

Robert

Shafiro

Margarita

. 2005. “The Longitudinal Effects of Work-family Conflict and Positive Spillover on Depressive Symptoms among Dual-earner Couples.” Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 10:138–54.

51.

Hanson

Ginger

Hammer

Leslie

Colton

Cari

. 2006. “Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Work-family Positive Spillover.” Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 11(3):249–65.

52.

Hawkins

Daniel

Booth

Alan

. 2005. “Unhappily Ever After: Effects of Long-term, Low-quality Marriages on Well-being.” Social Forces 84(1):451–71.

53.

Hill

E. Jeffrey

. 2005. “Work-family Facilitation and Conflict, Working Fathers and Mothers, Work-family Stressors and Support.” Journal of Family Issues 26(6):793–819.

54.

Jaga

Ameeta

Bagraim

Jeffrey

. 2011. “The Relationship between Work-family Enrichment and Work-family Satisfaction Outcomes.” South African Journal of Psychology 41(1):52–62.

55.

Judge

Timothy

Ilies

Remus

Scott

Brent

. 2006. “Work-family Conflict and Emotions: Effects at Work and at Home.” Personnel Psychology 59:779–814.

56.

Kalliath

Parveen

Kalliath

Thomas

Chan

Christopher

. 2015. “Work-family Conflict and Family-work Conflict as Predictors of Psychological Strain: Does Social Support Matter?” British Journal of Social Work 45(8):2387–405.

57.

Kiecolt-Glaser

Janice

Newton

Tamara

. 2001. “Marriage and Health: His and Hers.” Psychological Bulletin 127:472–503.

58.

Kossek

Ellen

Ozeki

Cynthia

. 1998. “Work-family Conflict, Policies, and the Job-life Satisfaction Relationship: A Review and Directions for Organizational Behavior/Human Resources Research.” Journal of Applied Psychology 83:139–49.

59.

Ladge

Jamie

Humberd

Beth

Harrington

Brad

Watkins

Marla

. 2014. “Updating the Organization Man: An Examination of Involved Fathering in the Workplace.” Academy of Management Perspectives 28(4):1–54.

60.

Ledermann

Thomas

Bodenmann

Guy

Rudaz

Myriam

Bradbury

Thomas

. 2010. “Stress, Communication, and Marital Quality in Couples.” Family Relations 59:195–206.

61.

Matthews

Lisa

Conger

Rand

Wickrama

Kandauda

. 1996. “Work-family Conflict and Marital Quality: Mediating Processes.” Social Psychology Quarterly 59:62–79.

62.

Matthews

Russell

Priore

Regan Del

Acitelli

Linda

Barnes-Farrell

Janet

. 2006. “Work-to-relationship Conflict: Crossover Effects in Dual-earner Couples.” Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 11:228–40.

63.

Mauno

Saija

Kinnunen

Ulla

. 1999. “The Effects of Job Stressors on Marital Satisfaction in Finnish Dual-earner Couples.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 20:879–95.

64.

Mauno

Saija

Kinnunen

Ulla

Ruokolainen

Mervi

. 2006. “Exploring Work- and Organization-based Resources as Moderators between Work-family Conflict, Well-being, and Job Attitudes.” Work & Stress 20(3):210–33.

65.

Minnotte

Krista

Gravelle

Marissa

Minnotte

Michael

. 2013. “Workplace Characteristics, Work-to-life Conflict, and Psychological Distress among Medical Workers.” Social Science Journal 50:408–17.

66.

Minnotte

Krista

Minnotte

Michael

Bonstrom

Jordan

. 2015. “Work-family Conflicts and Marital Satisfaction among US Workers: Does Stress Amplification Matter?” Journal of Family and Economic Issues 36(1):21–33.

67.

Minnotte

Krista

Minnotte

Michael

Pedersen

Daphne

Mannon

Susan

Kiger

Gary

. 2010. “His and Her Perspectives: Gender Ideology, Work-to-family Conflict, and Marital Satisfaction.” Sex Roles 63:425–38.

68.

Montgomery

Anthony

Peeters

Maria

Schaufeli

Wilmar

Den Ouden

Marieke

. 2003. “Work-home Interference among Newspaper Managers: Its Relationship with Burnout and Engagement.” Anxiety, Stress & Coping 16:195–211.

69.

Neff

Lisa

Karney

Benjamin

. 2004. “How Does Context Affect Intimate Relationships? Linking External Stress and Cognitive Processes within Marriage.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 30:134–48.

70.

Nitzsche

Anika

Pfaff

Holger

Jung

Julia

Driller

Elke

. 2013. “Work-life Balance Culture, Work-home Interaction, and Emotional Exhaustion: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach.” Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 55(1):67–73.

71.

Proulx

Christine

Helms

Heather

Buehler

Cheryl

. 2007. “Marital Quality and Personal Well-being: A Meta-analysis.” Journal of Marriage and Family 69(3):576–93.

72.

Randall

Ashley

Bodenmann

Guy

. 2009. “The Role of Stress on Close Relationships and Marital Satisfaction.” Clinical Psychology Review 29:105–15.

73.

Repetti

Rena

Wang

Shu-wen

Saxbe

Darby

. 2009. “Bringing It All Back Home: How Outside Stressors Shape Families’ Everyday Lives.” Current Directions in Psychological Science 18(2):106–11.

74.

Roehling

Patricia

Jarvis

Lorna

Swope

Heather

. 2005. “Variations in Negative Work-family Spillover among White, Black, and Hispanic American Men and Women: Does Ethnicity Matter?” Journal of Family Issues 26:840–66.

75.

Rohrbaugh

Michael

Shoham

Varda

Cranford

James

Nicklas

John

Sonnega

John

Coyne

James

. 2002. “Couples Coping with Congestive Heart Failure: Role and Gender Differences in Psychological Distress.” Journal of Family Psychology 16:3–13.

76.

Saxbe

Darby

Repetti

Rena

Nishina

Adrienne

. 2008. “Marital Satisfaction, Recovery from Work, and Diurnal Cortisol among Men and Women.” Health Psychology 27:15–25.

77.

Schenewark

Jarrod

Dixon

Marlene

. 2012. “A Dual Model of Work-family Conflict and Enrichment in Collegiate Coaches.” Journal of Issues in Intercollegiate Athletics 5:15–39.

78.

Schieman

Scott

Milkie

Melissa

Glavin

Paul

. 2009. “When Work Interferes with Life: Work-nonwork Interference and the Influence of Work-related Demands and Resources.” American Sociological Review 74(6):966–88.

79.

Schieman

Scott

Young

Marisa

. 2011. “Economic Hardship and Family-to-work Conflict: The Importance of Gender and Work Conditions.” Journal of Family and Economic Issues 32:46–61.

80.

Shockley

Kristen

Singla

Neha

. 2011. “Reconsidering Work-family Interactions and Satisfaction: A Meta-analysis.” Journal of Management 37:861–86.

81.

Siu

Oi-ling

Jia-fang

Brough

Paula

Chang-qin

Bakker

Arnold

Kalliath

Thomas

O’Driscoll

Michael

Phillips

David

Chen

Wei-qing

Danny

Sit

Cindy

Shi

Kan

. 2010. “Role Resources and Work-family Enrichment: The Role of Work Engagement.” Journal of Vocational Behavior 77:470–80.

82.

Story

Lisa

Bradbury

Thomas

. 2004. “Understanding Marriage and Stress: Essential Questions and Challenges.” Clinical Psychology Review 23:1139–62.

83.

Symoens

Sara

Bracke

Piet

. 2015. “Work-family Conflict and Mental Health in Newlywed and Recently Cohabiting Couples: A Couple Perspective.” Health Sociology Review 24:48–63.

84.

Twenge

Jean

Campbell

W. Keith

Foster

Craig

. 2003. “Parenthood and Marital Satisfaction: A Meta-analytic Review.” Journal of Marriage and Family 65:574–83.

85.

U.S. Census Bureau, 2015. Cohabiting data: Child Trends calculations of U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement. “America’s Families and Living Arrangements.” Table UC3. Available at: https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2015/demo/families/cps-2015.html. Married data: Child Trends calculations of U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement. “America’s Families and Living Arrangements.” Tables FG1 and FG3. Available at: https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2015/demo/families/cps-2015.html

86.

van Steenbergen

Elianne

Ellemers

Naomi

Mooijaart

. 2007. “How Work and Family Can Facilitate Each Other: Distinct Types of Work-family Facilitation and Outcomes for Women and Men.” Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 12(3):279–300.

87.

van Steenbergen

Elianne

Kluwer

Esther

Karney

Benjamin

. 2014. “Work-family Enrichment, Work-family Conflict, and Marital Satisfaction: A Dyadic Analysis.” Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 19(2):182–94.

88.

Voydanoff

Patricia

. 2005. “Social Integration, Work-family Conflict and Facilitation, and Job and Marital Quality.” Journal of Marriage and Family 67:666–79.

89.

Voydanoff

Patricia

. 2007. “Work, Family, and Community: Exploring Interconnections.” Journal of Marriage and Family 69:894–96.

90.

Wang

Jianli

Afifi

Tracie

Cox

Brian

Sareen

Jitender

. 2007. “Work-family Conflict and Mental Disorders in the United States: Cross-sectional Findings from the National Comorbidity Study.” American Journal of Industrial Medicine 50:143–49.

91.

Westman

Mina

. 2001. “Stress and Strain Crossover.” Human Relations 54:557–91.

92.

Wharton

Amy

Blair-Loy

Mary

. 2006. “Long Work Hours and Family Life: A Cross-national Study of Employees’ Concerns.” Journal of Family Issues 27(3):415–36.

93.

Whisman

Mark

. 2001. “The Association between Depression and Marital Dissatisfaction.” Pp. 3–24 in Marital and Family Processes in Depression: A Scientific Foundation for Clinical Practice, edited by Beach

Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

94.

Wilcox

W. Bradford

Doherty

William J.

Fisher

Helen

Galston

William A.

Glenn

Norval D.

Gottman

John

Lerman

Robert

Mahoney

Annette

Markey

Barbara

Markman

Howard J.

Nock

Steven

Popenoe

David

Rodriguez

Gloria G.

Stanley

Scott M.

Waite

Linda J.

Wallerstein

Judith

. 2005. Why Marriage Matters: Twenty-six Conclusions from the Social Sciences. New York: Institute for American Values.

95.

World Health Organization. 2014. “Mental Health: A State of Well-being.” Retrieved April 16, 2017 (http://www.who.int/features/factfiles/mental_health/en/).

96.

Young

Marisa

Schieman

Scott

Milkie

Melissa

. 2014. “Spouse’s Work-to-family Conflict, Family Stressors, and Mental Health among Dual-earner Mothers and Fathers.” Society and Mental Health 4:1–20.

97.

Yucel

Deniz

Downey

Douglas

. 2010. “Assessing the Advantages of a Multi-method Approach: Measuring Mothering with Data from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study—Birth Cohort.” Social Science Research 39:894–911.

98.

Yucel

Deniz

Koydemir

Selda

. 2015. “Predictors of Marital Satisfaction in North Cyprus: Exploring the Gender Effects.” Journal of Family Studies 21(2):120–43.

99.

Zhao

Xinyuan

Hailin

Ghiselli

Richard

. 2011. “Examining the Relationship of Work-family Conflict to Job and Life Satisfaction: A Case of Hotel Sales Managers.” International Journal of Hospitality Management 30:46–54.

100.

Zvonkovic

Anisa

Notter

Megan

Peters

Cheryl

. 2006. “Family Studies: Situating Everyday Family Life at Work, in Time, and across Contexts.” Pp. 141–64 in The Work and Family Handbook: Multi-disciplinary Perspectives and Approaches, edited by Pitt-Catsouphes

Kossek

Sweet

Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.