Examining the Relationships Between Personality, Coping Strategies, and Work–Family Conflict
- 1.1k Downloads
The purpose of this study was to examine the processes through which personality characteristics may influence work–family conflict (WFC). Specifically, the mediating effects of selection, optimization, and compensation (SOC) behavioral stress-coping strategies on the relationship between personality characteristics and WFC were tested.
A snowball sampling technique was used to recruit 289 working adults, who completed online questionnaires. The proposed model was tested using path analysis.
Conscientiousness and agreeableness were related to greater usage of work and family behavioral coping strategies, and these behavioral strategies influenced levels of experienced WFC. Negative affect was found to have direct effects on work interference with family (WIF) and family interference with work (FIW), and emotional stability was found to have a direct effect on WIF conflict.
Findings suggest that different processes underlie the influence of specific personality characteristics on WFC. These findings can have implications for the effectiveness of training programs and interventions aimed at reducing work–family conflict levels of employees, in that trainers and managers should take into account the strong influence of individual factors on a person’s choice of coping strategies.
The examination of the processes through which personality characteristics may influence work–family conflict (WFC) has not received adequate attention. This article advances work–family conflict research by examining the mediating role of behavioral strategies aimed to cope with competing demands of work and family roles in the relationship between individual difference variables and WFC.
KeywordsWork–family conflict Work–family interference Coping strategies Personality Stress
- Baltes, P. B., & Baltes, M. M. (Eds.). (1990). Successful aging: Perspectives from the behavioral sciences. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Baltes, P. B., Baltes, M. M., Freund, A. M., & Lang, F. R. (1999). The measurement of selection, optimization, and compensation (SOC) by self-report: Technical report 1999. Berlin: Max Planck Institute for Human Development.Google Scholar
- Clark, M. A., Bal, A., Zhdanova, L., & Baltes, B. B. (2009, April). A qualitative analysis of strategies for coping with work–family stressors. Interactive poster presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
- Fletcher, T. D., Selgrade, K. A., & Germano, L. M. (2006, May). On the use of partial covariances in structural equation modeling. Paper presented at the 21st Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Dallas, TX.Google Scholar
- Friede, A., & Ryan, A. M. (2005). The importance of the individual: How self-evaluations influence the work–family interface. In E. E. Kossek & S. Lambert (Eds.), Work and life integration: Organizational, cultural, and individual perspectives. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public-domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models. In I. Mervielde, I. Deary, F. De Fruyt, & F. Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality psychology in Europe (Vol. 7, pp. 7–28). Tilburg, The Netherlands: Tilburg University Press.Google Scholar
- Greenhaus, J. H., Allen, T. D., & Spector, P. E. (2006). Health consequences of work–family conflict: The dark side of the work–family interface. In P. L. Perrewe & D. C. Ganster (Eds.), Research in occupational stress and well-being (Vol. 5, pp. 61–98). Amsterdam: JAI Press/Elsevier.Google Scholar
- Grzywacz, J. G., & Marks, N. F. (2000). Reconceptualizing the work–family interface: An ecological perspective on the correlates of positive and negative spillover between work and family. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 111–126. doi: 10.1037/1076-8922.214.171.124.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Hoyle, R. H. (1995). Structural equation modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
- James, L. R., & Mazerolle, M. D. (2002). Personality in work organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
- Jöreskog, K., & Sörbom, D. (2004). LISREL 8.8: User’s reference guide. Chicago: Scientific Software International.Google Scholar
- Kossek, E. E., Lautsch, B. A., & Eaton, S. C. (2005). Flexibility enactment theory: Implications of flexibility types, control and boundary management for work–family effectiveness. In E. E. Kossek & S. J. Lambert (Eds.), Work and life integration: Organizational, cultural, and individual perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- Lefcourt, H. M. (1991). Locus of control. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (Vol. 1, pp. 413–499). San Diego, CA: Academic Press, Inc.Google Scholar
- Loehlin, J. C. (1998). Latent variable models: An introduction to factor, path, and structural analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Pratt, A. K. (2006). Role of cognitive ability and personality factors in coping with work-family conflict. Doctoral dissertation, Wayne State University, 2006. Dissertation Abstracts International, AAT 3211006.Google Scholar
- Pfeffer, J. (1998). Understanding organizations: Concepts and controversies. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 733–777). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
- Stewart, G. L., & Barrick, M. R. (2004). Four lessons learned from the person-situation debate: A review and research agenda. In D. B. Smith & B. Schneider (Eds.), Personality and organizations. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Strentz, T., & Auerbach, S. M. (1988). Adjustment to the stress of simulated captivity: Effects of emotion-focused vs. problem-focused preparation on hostages differing in locus of control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 652–660. doi: 10.1037/0022-35126.96.36.1992.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1994). The PANAS-X: Manual for the positive and negative affect schedule-expanded form. Cedar Rapids: University of Iowa.Google Scholar