Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
WORK-FAMILY CONFLICT
AND WORK-RELATED
WITHDRAWAL BEHAVIORS
Leslie B. Hammer
Talya N. Bauer
Portland State University
Alicia A. Grandey
Pennsylvania State University
ABSTRACT: This survey study explored the effects of work-to-family conflict and
family-to-work conflict on withdrawal behaviors at work (family interruptions at
work, lateness to work, and absenteeism) among both members of 359 dual-
earner couples. Using a systems theory framework, regression analyses revealed
significant individual-level and crossover effects for both types of work-family
conflict on withdrawal behaviors. Theoretical and practical implications of the
study of work-family conflict crossover effects on withdrawal behaviors at work
are discussed.
Although work-family research has been making its way into the
mainstream of organizational research over the past 10 years, only a
few studies have examined withdrawal behaviors as an outcome of such
multiple role demands (e.g., Goff, Mount, & Jamison, 1990; MacEwen &
Barling, 1994; Milkovich & Gomez, 1976). Furthermore, although work-
family issues affecting individuals are inherently dependent upon inter-
An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society
for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, April 1999, Atlanta, GA. We thank Russell
Cropanzano and Mina Westman for their valuable comments on an earlier version of this
paper.
Address correspondence to Leslie B. Hammer, Department of Psychology, Portland
State University, Portland, OR 97207; hammerl@pdx.edu.
419
actions with key people in the work sphere (e.g., supervisors and co-
workers) and the family sphere (e.g., spouses and dependents), much of
the work-family research to date fails to consider this larger social con-
text. Taking a systems view recognizes that individuals’ attitudes and
behaviors are influenced by other individuals in their work and family
environments, providing for a more comprehensive understanding of
work-family dynamics. This is the first study to examine spousal cross-
over effects on work withdrawal outcomes, taking into consideration the
effects of the broader family system of the dual-earner couple. Therefore,
the present study uses systems theory as a framework for examining
the effects of work-family conflict (work-to-family and family-to-work) on
spouses’ withdrawal behaviors at work (i.e., family interruptions, late-
ness, and absenteeism). This study proposes two general sets of hypothe-
ses: 1) one’s own work-family conflict will affect one’s own withdrawal
behaviors at work, and 2) one’s own work-family conflict will affect the
spouse’s withdrawal behaviors at work beyond their spouse’s own work-
family conflict.
WORK-FAMILY CONFLICT
A system can be defined as, “Any two or more parts that are related,
such that change in any one part changes all parts” (Hanson, 1995; p.
27). A guiding systems principle is the interrelatedness between the com-
ponents of systems. Bronfenbrenner (1977) uses systems theory to argue
for maximizing ecological validity in the study of human behavior and
describes a progressive accommodation between the growing human or-
ganism and its changing environment, which includes immediate set-
tings, as well as larger social contexts. Systems theory provides a foun-
dation for understanding the dynamics that occur between the two
dominant spheres of our lives, work and family. Furthermore, family
L. B. HAMMER, T. N. BAUER, AND A. A. GRANDEY 423
Crossover Effects
Crossover effects involve the transmission of stress and strain from
one member of a dyad to another (e.g., Bolger, DeLongis, Kessler, & Weth-
ington, 1989; Jones & Fletcher, 1993; Westman, 2001; Westman & Vino-
kur, 1998). Although the specific mechanisms by which crossover effects
occur are not clear, Westman and Vinokur (1998) offer several plausible
explanations. The first suggests that the experience of common stressors,
or life events, account for a significant amount of variance in crossover
effects of stress and strain between partners. The second mechanism,
social undermining, or a conflictual interaction style between partners,
may also explain crossover effects from one spouse to another. Specifi-
cally, Westman and Vinokur found that stress in one spouse contributed
to conflict between the spouses, which resulted in higher levels of strain
in the other spouse. A third mechanism suggests that direct transmis-
sion occurs between two partners who are closely related and have high
levels of empathy for one another.
Previous research on crossover effects has demonstrated the effects of
job stress on a spouse’s family stress and well-being (Bolger et al., 1989;
Jones & Fletcher, 1993; Morrison & Clements, 1997; Parasuraman, Green-
haus, & Granrose, 1992; Westman & Etzion, 1995). Likewise, the crossover
effects of one’s work and family involvement on a spouse’s level of work-
family conflict have also been demonstrated (Greenhaus, Parasuraman,
Granrose, Rabinowitz, & Beutell, 1989; Hammer et al., 1997). Further-
more, Hammer et al. showed that an individual’s work-family conflict ac-
counted for a significant amount of variance in his or her spouse’s work-
family conflict over and above other individual-level predictors (e.g., work
and family involvement). Thus, these studies support the idea that some
amount of stress “contagion” or crossover, is occurring between spouses’
work and family lives. Interestingly, no study to date has examined spou-
sal crossover effects on behavioral work-related outcomes.
Furthermore, some of the analytic strategies for examining cross-
over effects are questionable (e.g., examination of bivariate correlations
between spouses’ stress and strain levels) leaving room for alternative
explanations of findings (Westman & Vinokur, 1998). In addition, as
noted by Westman and Vinokur, most previous crossover studies have
failed to control for individual predictors of stress and strain when exam-
ining crossover effects. Controlling for such individual-level effects is
particularly crucial when assessing the effects of another’s stress on an
individual’s outcomes. Therefore, the present study responds to the lack
of research on work-family conflict crossover effects on spouse with-
drawal outcomes, while controlling for the individual-level effects, pro-
viding a stronger test of crossover effects than typically is conducted.
Finally, no known studies have assessed the spousal crossover ef-
L. B. HAMMER, T. N. BAUER, AND A. A. GRANDEY 425
METHOD
Participants
The participants in the present study were also used in an earlier
study of crossover effects (Hammer et al., 1997). Although both studies
Figure 1
Model of Crossover Effects Between Spouses’ Work-Family Conflict
and Outcomes
426 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY
Measures
Survey questionnaires were completed by employees and their
spouses to assess a number of work and family variables. Identical data
for employees and spouses were collected for all research variables used
in the study. All responses were given on a scale that ranged from 1 =
“strongly disagree” to 5 = “strongly agree.”
work, how many times have you been interrupted (e.g., telephone calls)
to deal with family/personal-related issues?” (i.e., Interruptions), “How
many times have you been late to work?” (i.e., Lateness), and “How many
days have you missed work due to family/personal-related issues?” (i.e.,
Absence). These items were modified from a measure of withdrawal be-
haviors developed by Neal, Chapman, Ingersoll-Dayton, and Emlen
(1993) and are very similar to the work withdrawal items used by Mac-
Ewen and Barling (1994).
Procedure
Participants were given two copies of the survey packets (delivered
through inter-office mail), one for themselves and one for their spouse/
partners, in separate envelopes with matching codes for each member of
the couple. Participants were asked to complete the survey indepen-
dently from their spouse and return in a sealed envelope to the re-
searchers.
RESULTS
Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations for Study Variables
Note. N = 359. Overall alphas are reported for each scale in the measures section of this paper rather than broken apart by gender here.
W → F = Work-to-Family Conflict, F → W = Family-to-Work Conflict.
JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY
Table 2
Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Wife Withdrawal Outcomes
β R2 ∆R2 F
Wife Interruptions
Step 1: Number of Children .10* .02 .02 7.95**
Step 2: Wife W → F Conflict .18** .12 .09 18.84***
Wife F → W Conflict .20***
Step 3: Husband W → F Conflict −.04 .12 .00 .26
Husband F → W Conflict .02
Wife Lateness
Step 1: Number of Children −.04 .00 .00 .00
Step 2: Wife W → F Conflict .14* .04 .04 6.42**
Wife F → W Conflict .04
Step 3: Husband W → F Conflict .01 .06 .03 4.94**
Husband F → W Conflict .17**
Wife Absence
Step 1: Number of Children .05 .01 .01 2.12
Step 2: Wife W → F Conflict −.03 .02 .01 2.00
Wife F → W Conflict .09
Step 3: Husband W → F Conflict .02 .02 .00 1.16
Husband F → W Conflict .08
Note. Dyad N = 359 couples. Standardized beta coefficients are from the final step.
W → F (Work-to-Family Conflict), F → W (Family-to-Work Conflict).
*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.
Table 3
Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Husband Withdrawal Outcomes
β R2 ∆R2 F
Husband Interruptions
Step 1: Number of Children −.06 .00 .00 .02
Step 2: Husband W → F Conflict .14* .06 .06 12.03***
Husband F → W Conflict .13*
Step 3: Wife W → F Conflict .07 .08 .02 3.93*
Wife F → W Conflict .11*
Husband Lateness
Step 1: Number of Children .02 .00 .00 .14
Step 2: Husband W → F Conflict .03 .00 .00 .15
Husband F → W Conflict .00
Step 3: Wife W → F Conflict .04 .00 .00 .22
Wife F → W Conflict .01
Husband Absence
Step 1: Number of Children .05 .01 .01 1.87
Step 2: Husband W → F Conflict .08 .06 .05 9.60***
Husband F → W Conflict .23***
Step 3: Wife W → F Conflict −.07 .08 .02 4.45*
Wife F → W Conflict −.13*
Note. Dyad N = 359 couples. Standardized beta coefficients are from the final step.
W → F (Work-to-Family Conflict), F → W (Family-to-Work Conflict).
*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.
DISCUSSION
Overall, these results provide partial support for our hypotheses and
are the first to demonstrate crossover effects of work-family conflict on
organizational withdrawal outcomes. Specifically, these results suggest
that both directional measures of work-family conflict for husbands and
wives were related to interruptions at work. Lateness to work was pre-
dicted by work-to-family conflict for wives, but not for husbands. Lastly,
husbands missing work (absence) was predicted by their own family-to-
work conflict. Several crossover effects were found such that (a) husband
interruptions were predicted by wife family-to-work conflict, (b) wife
lateness was predicted by husband family-to-work conflict, and (c) hus-
band absence was predicted by wife family-to-work conflict, however, in
the opposite direction to that expected. More specifically, wives’ family-
to-work conflict was negatively related to their husbands’ absences. Al-
though contrary to our hypotheses, one plausible explanation is that in-
stead of wives’ family-to-work conflict predicting husbands’ absences,
what may actually be happening is that higher levels of family-to-work
L. B. HAMMER, T. N. BAUER, AND A. A. GRANDEY 431
conflict for wives are the result of husbands refusing to, or not being able
to, miss work to help with family demands.
Limitations
First, since this is correlational data, we cannot assume the direc-
tions of our relationships. It is possible that being late to work creates a
greater perception of work-family conflict. Second, crossover effects may
be more readily assessed with longitudinal data than crossectional de-
signs. For example, Barnett, Raudenbush, Brennan, Pleck, and Marshall
(1995) analyzed longitudinal data from dual-earner couples, demonstrat-
ing that changes in distress over time for one partner were related to
changes in distress over time for the other partner. Although longitudi-
nal studies in work-family research are rare, such research designs are
necessary to enhance understanding of the direction of relationships and
crossover effects that occur. Furthermore, longitudinal designs would
allow for better assessment of work-family conflict effects on the progres-
sion of withdrawal behaviors (Koslowsky et al., 1997). Finally, self-reports
of withdrawal measures may be biased due to memory limitations or
social desirability effects, however, Johns (1994) argued that they are
not necessarily as problematic as once was thought. There has been some
debate in the literature, however, about what actually constitutes with-
drawal behaviors and whether such measures should be used individu-
ally or aggregated into withdrawal scales (e.g., Blau, 1998; Hanisch,
Hulin, & Roznowski, 1998). These issues surrounding withdrawal mea-
sures should be considered in more detail in future research on work-
family conflict and work-related withdrawal.
Although the variance accounted for in the withdrawal outcomes
was small to moderate, not exceeding 12 percent, these findings are con-
434 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY
CONCLUSIONS
REFERENCES
Adams, G. A., King, L. A., & King, D. W. (1996). Relationships of job and family involve-
ment, family social support, and work-family conflict with job and life satisfaction.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 411–420.
Barling, J., MacEwen, K. E., Kelloway, E. K., & Higginbottom, S. F. (1994). Predictors and
outcomes of elder-care-based interrole conflict. Psychology and Aging, 9, 391–397.
Barnett, R. C., Raudenbush S. W., Brennan, R. T., Pleck, J. H., & Marshall, N. L. (1995).
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 839–850.
Blau, G. (1995). Influence of group lateness on individual lateness: A cross-level examina-
tion. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1483–1496.
Blau, G. (1998). On the aggregation of individual withdrawal behaviors into larger multi-
item constructs. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 437–451.
L. B. HAMMER, T. N. BAUER, AND A. A. GRANDEY 435
Bolger, N., Delongis, A., Kessler, R. C., & Wethington, E. (1989). The contagion of stress
across multiple roles. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 51, 175–183.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. Amer-
ican Psychologist, 32(7), 513–531.
Dalton, D. R., & Mesch, D. J. (1990). The impact of flexible scheduling on employee atten-
dance and turnover. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 370–387.
Day, R. D. (1995). Family-systems theory. In R. D. Day, K. R. Gilbert, B. H. Settles, and
W. R. Burr (Eds.) Research and theory in family science (pp. 91–101). Pacific Grove,
CA: Brooks/Cole.
Edwards, J. R., & Rothbard, N. P. (2000). Mechanisms linking work and family: Clarifying
the relationships between work and family constructs. Academy of Management Re-
view, 25, 178–199.
Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M. L. (1992). Antecedents and outcomes of work-
family conflict: Testing a model of the work-family interface. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 77, 65–78.
Frone, M. R., Yardley, J. K., & Markel, K. S. (1997). Developing and testing an integrative
model of the work-family interface. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50, 145–167.
Gignac, M. A. M., Kelloway, E. K., & Gottlieb, B. H. (1996). The impact of caregiving on
employment: A mediational model of work-family conflict. Canadian Journal on Aging,
15, 525–542.
Goff, S. J., Mount, M. K., & Jamison, R. L. (1990). Employer supported child care, work/
family conflict, and absenteeism: A field study. Personnel Psychology, 43, 793–809.
Grandey, A. (2001). Family-friendly policies: Organizational justice perceptions of need-
based allocations. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the Workplace: Applications, Vol.
2. Earlbaum-Mahwah.
Grandey, A., & Cropanzano, R. (1999). The conservation of resources model and work-
family conflict and strain. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 350–370.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family
roles. Academy of Management Review, 10, 76–88.
Greenhaus, J. H., Parasuraman, S., Granrose, C. S., Rabinowitz, S., & Beutell, N. J. (1989).
Sources of work-family conflict among two-career couples. Journal of Vocational Be-
havior, 34, 133–153.
Hammer, L. B., Allen, E., & Grigsby, T. D. (1997). Work-family conflict in dual-earner
couples: Within-individual and crossover effects of work and family. Journal of Voca-
tional Behavior, 50, 185–203.
Hanisch, K. A., Hulin, C. L., & Roznowski, M. (1998). The importance of individuals’ reper-
toires of behaviors: the scientific appropriateness of studying multiple behaviors and
general attitudes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 463–480.
Hanson, B. G. (1995). General systems theory beginning with wholes. Washington, D.C.:
Taylor and Francis.
Hayden, L. C., Schiller, M., Dickstein, S., Seifer, R., Sameroff, A. J., Miller, I., Keitner,
G., & Rasmussen, S. (1998). Levels of family assessment: I. Family, Marital, and Par-
ent-Child Interaction. Journal of Family Psychology, 12, 7–22.
Hepburn, C. G., & Barling, J. (1996). Eldercare responsibilities, interrole conflict, and em-
ployee absence: A daily study. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 1, 311–318.
Johns, G. (1994). How often were you absent? A review of the use of self-reported absence
data. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 574–591.
Johns, G. (1998). Aggregation or aggravation? The relative merits of a broad withdrawal
construct. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 453–462.
Jones, F., & Fletcher, B. C. (1993). An empirical study of occupational stress transmission
in working couples. Human Relations, 46, 881–903.
Judge, T. A., Boudreau, J. W., & Bretz, R. D., Jr. (1994). Job and life attitudes of male
executives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 767–782.
Kopelman, R., Greenhaus, J. H., & Connolly, T. F. (1983). A model of work, family, and
interrole conflict: A construct validation study. Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, 32, 198–215.
Koslowsky, M., Sagie, A., Krausz, M., & Singer, D. A. (1997). Correlates of employee late-
ness: Some theoretical considerations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 79–88.
436 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY
Kossek, E. E. (1990). Diversity in child care assistance needs: Employee problems, prefer-
ences, and work-related outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 43, 769–791.
Kossek, E. E., & Nichol, V. (1992). The effects of on-site child care on employee attitudes
and performance. Personnel Psychology, 45, 485–509.
Kossek, E. E., & Ozeki, C. (1998). Work-family conflict, policies, and the job-life satisfaction
relationship: A review and directions for organizational behavior-human resources re-
search. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 139–149.
MacEwan, K. E., & Barling, J. (1994). Daily consequences of work interference with family
and family interference with work. Work and Stress, 8, 244–254.
Marshall, N. L., & Barnett, R. C. (1994). Family-friendly workplaces, work-family interfer-
ence, and worker health. In G. P. Keita & J. J. Hurrell (Eds.), Job stress in a changing
workforce: 253–264. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
Milkovich, G. T., & Gomez, L. R. (1976). Day care and selected employee work behaviors.
Academy of Management Journal, 19, 111–115.
Morrison, D. L., & Clements, R. (1997). The effect of one partner’s job characteristics on
the other partner’s distress: A serendipitous, but naturalistic, experiment. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 70, 307–324.
Neal, M. B., Chapman, N. J., Ingersoll-Dayton, B., & Emlen, A. C. (1993). Balancing work
and caregiving for children, adults, and elders. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Netemeyer, R. G., Boles, J. S., & McMurrian, R. (1996). Development and validation of
work-family conflict and family-work conflict scales. Journal of Applied Psychology,
81, 400–410.
Parasuraman, S., Greenhaus, J. H., & Granrose, C. S. (1992). Role stressors, social support,
and well-being among two-career couples. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13,
339–356.
Pierce, J. L., & Newstrom, J. W. (1983). The design of flexible work schedules and employee
responses: Relationships and process. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 4, 247–262.
Rosse, G. J. (1988). Relations among lateness, absence, and turnover: Is there a progression
of withdrawal? Human Relations, 41, 517–531.
Thomas, L. T., & Ganster, D. C. (1995). Impact of family supportive-work variables on
work-family conflict and strain: A control perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology,
80, 6–15.
Westman, M. (2001). Stress and strain crossover. Human Relations, 54, 557–591.
Westman, M., & Etzion, D. (1995). Crossover of stress, strain and resources from one
spouse to another. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 169–181.
Westman, M., & Etzion, D. (1999). The crossover of strain from school principals to teach-
ers and vice versa. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 4, 269–278.
Westman, M., & Piotrkowski, C. S. (1999). Introduction to the special issue: Work-family
research in occupational health psychology. Journal of Occupational Health Psychol-
ogy, 4, 301–306.
Westman, M., & Vinokur, A. D. (1998). Unraveling the relationship of distress levels within
couples: Common stressors, empathic reactions, or crossover via social interaction?
Human Relations, 51, 137–156.
Zedeck, S. (1992). Introduction: Exploring the domain of work and family concerns. In
Zedeck (Ed.) Work, families, and organizations. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco.
Zedeck, S., & Mosier, K. L. (1990). Work and family and employing organization. American
Psychologist, 45, 240–251.