Journal of Community Psychology
Volume 21, January 1993
Work-Family Strains and Gains Among Two-Earner Couples
Nancy L. Marshall and Rosalind C. Barnett
Center for Research on Women
Wellesley College
This paper investigates the sources of work-family strains and gains in a
sample of 300 two-earner couples. Although most men and women report
work-family gains, not all individuals experienced work-family strains.
Workload and the quality of experiences at work and at home were major
predictors of work-family strains. Experiences at work and at home, social
support, and sex-role attitudes were major predictors of work-family gains.
For more than 30 years, scientists and the general public have debated whether
multiple roles are harmful or beneficial to women and men. Two competing hypotheses
have been put forward. The "scarcity hypothesis" posits that individuals have limited
time and energy, and adding extra roles and responsibilities necessarily creates tensions
between competing demands and a sense of overload and interrole confiicts (cf. Coser,
1974; Goode, 1960; Slater, 1963). The "expansion hypothesis" argues that the rewards
that accrue with multiple roles (such as greater self-esteem and recognition) offset the
costs of multiple roles (cf. Marks, 1977; Sieber, 1974). Although much of the research
on multiple roles and emotional well-being supports the expansion hypothesis (cf. Barnett
& Marshall, 1991; Crosby, 1984; Gove& Tudor, 1973; Thoits, 1983; Verbrugge, 1983),
there is also evidence that women and men with multiple roles experience role overload
and role conflict (cf. Barnett & Baruch, 1985; Emmons, Biernat, Tiedje, Lang, & Wortman, 1990; Holahan & Gilbert, 1979). Several researchers have argued that multiple
roles can be a source of role gratification and, at the same time, a source of strain or
conflict as well (Crouter, 1984; Gerson, 1985; Tiedje et al., 1990).' Gerson, however,
argues that role strains are not inevitable (1985).
Researchers have sometimes found gender differences in work-family strains, with
women more often reporting greater role strains (Cleary & Mechanic, 1983; Holahan
& Gilbert, 1979; Wortman, Biernat, & Lang, 1991). It is generally argued that these
gender differences reflect gender differences in roles and responsibilities, rather than sex
differences per se (Crouter, 1984).
Various factors have been suggested as possible contributors to work-family strains
or to work-family gratifications or gains. The scarcity hypothesis suggests that the
workload involved in multiple roles would be an important predictor. Some, but not
all, researchers have found that greater workload, as measured by demands at home
or at work, hours spent at work or in child care or other domestic tasks, or by the presence
of young children, contributes to greater role strain (Crosby, 1991; Crouter, 1984;
'Various terms have been used, often interchangeably, to talk about the difficulties individuals experience
when combining employment and family roles. We have chosen to use the more general term "work-family
strains" to refer to these difficulties.
Data for this study were collected with funding from the National Institute of Mental Health (#MH 43222).
The authors want to thank our dedicated research team: Carol Anello, Joyce Buni, Lillian Coltin, Connie
Festo, Carla Fink, Lorraine McMuUin, Pam Miller, Martha Sherman, Jennifer Rochow, Rosalind Sandier,
and Kathryn Wheeler. Correspondence should be addressed to Nancy L. Marshall, Center for Research on
Women, Wellesley College, Wellesley, MA 02181.
64
WORK-FAMILY STRAINS AND GAINS
65
Emmons et al., 1990; Marshall & Barnett, 1991). Other have found that the quality of
one's experiences in work or parenting roles is also predictive of role overload and role
strain (Barnett & Baruch, 1985; Burke, 1988; Duxbury & Higgins, 1991; Loerch, Russell,
& Rush, 1989).
The expansion hypothesis would suggest that the resources related to work and
family roles would contribute to greater gains and fewer strains. Researchers have
examined the impact of such resources as income, social support, and the division of
labor within the family (Kessler & McRae, 1982; Marshall & Barnett, 1991; Tiedje et
al., 1990).
Other factors may also play a part in predicting work-family strains and gains.
Commitment to each role has been argued to be important. Marks (1977) posited that
individuals who were overcommitted to one role were more likely to experience role
strains than were individuals who were equally committed to multiple roles. In contrast,
Holahan and Gilbert (1979) suggest that the career women in their sample experienced
less role conflict because they were more committed to the work role than were employed
women who did not see themselves as in careers. However, Barnett and Baruch (1985)
found that employed women with more education, whom we might expect would be
more committed to their work roles, experience more work-family conflict. Greenhaus,
Bedeian, and Mossholder (1987) found that an extensive time commitment to work was
associated with greater work-family conflict.
Researchers have also posited that sex-role attitudes influence the experience of
multiple roles, such that individuals with traditional attitudes are more likely to experience
strains whereas individuals with egalitarian attitudes are more likely to experience role
gratification (Barnett & Baruch, 1985; Gerson, 1985; Marshall & Barnett, 1991). In a
two-earner family, the man's attitude towards his partner's employment may also be
important, at least to his own well-being (Kessler & McRae, 1982).
In this paper, we examine the work-family strains and gains experienced by women
and men in a sample of two-earner couples. We address three primary research questions:
1. What work-family strains and gains do two-earner couples experience?
2. Are there gender differences in these work-family strains and gains?
3. Are the following factors associated with work-family strains and gains:
workload, experiences at work and at home, resources, role commitment, sexrole attitudes, and the man's attitude towards his partner's employment?
Methods
The data for these analyses come from the first wave of a three-wave longitudinal
study (over 2 years) of a random sample of 300 couples in which both the men and
the women were employed full-time. The couples were randomly selected from town
lists of all adults living in two towns in the greater Boston area. The sample was stratified
on parental status (60% of the sample were parents at the time of recruitment) and was
limited to couples in which the man was between the ages of 25 and 40. The sample
included married and unmarried, cohabiting couples; 3% of the couples were unmarried.
We use the term "partner" in this paper to include both married and cohabiting couples.
The response rate was 68% of those couples contacted for the study. (See Barnett,
Marshall, & Pleck, 1992, for more information about the sampling procedures.)
The respondents in this study were interviewed separately in their homes or offices
by a trained interviewer. The interviews lasted about 2 hours and covered each respondent's experiences in their major social roles (i.e., worker, parent, and partner), their
66
MARSHALL AND BARNETT
experiences with multiple roles, as well as indices of mental and physical health. Each
couple was paid a fee of $25 for participating.
Sample Description
Most of the respondents were in their thirties; the average age for men was 35
{SD = 4.3) and 34 for women (SD = 4.9). The sample reflected the racial composition
of the two towns from which the respondents were recruited; 98% of the men and 97%
of the women were White. About a quarter of the respondents (27% of the men, 25%
of the women) had a high school diploma or less; one third of the respondents (33%
of men, 38% of women) had a 4-year college degree, and more than a third had some
graduate training or a graduate degree (40% of men, 36% of women).
All respondents were employed full-time. Both men and women had been at their
current jobs an average of 5 years, ranging from less than a year to 25 years. Men had
been employed in the same occupation for an average of 8 years. Over half of the
respondents were employed as managers (21 % of men, 23% of women) or professionals
(38% of men, 39% of women). Twenty-one percent of the women and 7% of the men
were employed in administrative support occupations. Thirteen percent of the men and
1% of the women were employed in blue-collar occupations (for example, in production, crafts, or repair, or as operators or fabricators). The remaining respondents were
employed in sales (11% of men, 9% of women), technical occupations (6% of men,
5% of women), or service occupations (4% of men, 3% of women).
The sample was stratified on parental status; 180 couples had children. Of these
couples, 118 had one or more children under the age of 6, 69 had school-age children
(6-12 years old), and 47 had teenagers (12-18 years old). Parents had an average of
1.74 children.
Measures
Workload. Job workload was measured by the number of hours employed per week.
For parents, family workload was measured by the number of children, and the presence
of children under 12. In addition, all respondents were asked to describe the contribution they made to household chores, on a 5-point scale, ranging from 1 = "much too
little" to 5 = "much too much." This variable was dichotomized to 0 = "too little or
a satisfactory amount," 1 = "too much."
Role quality. The quality of experiences in work and family roles was assessed by
rewards and concerns scales constructed originally from data gathered during extensive
interviews with 72 women, ages 35 to 55, refined in a study of 400 employed women
and expanded for this study based on pilot interviews and focus groups with men and
women. (See Barnett & Marshall, 1991, and Baruch & Barnett, 1986, for a full
discussion.)
For each role, respondents are instructed to think about their situation as it is right
now and to indicate on a 4-point scale (1 = "not at all" to 4 = "extremely") to what
extent, if at all, each of the items is rewarding (or of concern). For example, for the
role of paid worker, each employed respondent was asked how rewarding he or she found
"being able to work on your own" and how much of a concern was "having too much
to do." For the role of parent, each parent was asked how rewarding he or she found
"seeing your children mature and change" and how much of a concern was "feeling tied
down because of the children." For each role, respondents received a score for overall
quality which we call the Balance score. The Balance score is the sum of the
WORK-FAMILY STRAINS AND GAINS
67
average-per-item score on all reward items, plus the inverse of the average-per-item score
on the concern items.
Job-role quality. The Job-Role Quality scales include 32 reward items and 28 concern items. In this sample, Cronbach's alpha for the Reward scale is .90, for the Concern scale, .87. The test-retest correlations (conducted on a 10% subsample reinterviewed
within 4 months) are .75 for the Reward scale and .72 for the Concern scale, and .69
for the Balance score.
Marriage-role quality. The Marriage-Role Quality scales include 26 reward items
and 26 concern items. In this sample, Cronbach's alpha for the Reward scale is .93,
for the Concern scale, .89. The test-restest correlations are .87 for the Reward scale
and .88 for the Concern scale, and .92 for the Balance score.
Parent-role quality. The Parent-Role Quality scales include 21 reward items and
23 concern items. Cronbach's alpha for the Reward scale is .92, for the Concern scale,
.87. The test-retest correlations are .82 for the Reward scale, .74 for the Concern scale,
and .79 for the Balance score.
Resources. Family income was measured as per capita family income, to adjust
for differences in family size. We used the log of per capita income because of the
skewed distribution. Social support from family and friends was measured by an 11-item
scale, developed by the first author. The items were based on Weiss's (1974) conceptualization of the functions of social relationships: sharing of concerns, intimacy, opportunity for nurturance, reassurance of worth, and assistance/guidance. Sample items
include: "The people important to me accept me as I am" and "When I need someone
to help me out, I can usually find someone." (See Appendix A for the scale items.)
Respondents were asked, on a 6-point scale, ranging from 1 = "none of the time" to
6 = "all of the time," how often their important relationships were like these items in
the past month. The Cronbach's alpha for this scale is .91. The test-retest correlation
over 4 months is .68.
Work-related support from the respondent's partner was measured by a 4-item scale
adapted from House and Wells (1978) and Caplan and colleagues (1975). The four items
ask: (1) How much does your partner go out of his/her way to make your work life
easier; (2) How easy is it to talk about your job with your partner; (3) When you have
a difficult situation at your job, how easy is it to talk about it with your partner; and
(4) How much can your partner be relied on when things get tough at your job.
Respondents answered on a 4-point scale from 1 = "very much or very easy" to 4 = "not
at all." The Cronbach's alpha for this scale is .86.
Division of labor was also conceptualized as a resource. Respondents were asked
how the amount of time their partner spent on household tasks compared to the amount
of time they spent on household tasks. When both members of a couple agreed that
the woman spent more time on household tasks than the man, the division of labor on
household tasks was scored 0 = traditional. When one or both members of the couple
reported that they each spent about the same amount of time, or that the man spent
more time, the division of labor on household tasks was scored 1 = nontraditional.
Parents were asked who was responsible for planning, remembering, and scheduling
day-to-day care of their children, in general. When both members of a couple agreed
that the woman had total or primary responsibility and her partner helped out, the
division of labor for child care was scored 0 = traditional. When one or both members
of the couple reported that they shared responsibility or that the man had primary or
total responsibility, the division of labor for child care was scored 1 = nontraditional.
68
MARSHALL AND BARNETT
Work-rote commitment. Pleck (1985) notes that, at least for men, a stronger
commitment to the work role is associated with higher levels of education and
occupational prestige. In this paper, the Bose occupational prestige score (1985) was
used as a proxy for a respondent's commitment to employment.
Sex-role attitudes. Sex-role attitudes were measured by using a 12-item scale based
on Mason and Bumpass (1975). Respondents were asked to respond on a 4-point scale,
from 1 = "strongly agree" to 4 = "strongly disagree," to such items as: "A preschool
child is likely to suffer if his/her mother works" and "Men make better supervisors on
the job than women do." Each person received an average per-item score. Scores were
reversed on four items so that low scores indicate nontraditional attitudes. Therefore,
a high score on the sex-role attitudes scale indicates traditional attitudes.
Man's attitude towards his partner's employment. The man's attitude towards his
partner's employment was measured separately for women and men. Men were asked
how true it was that they would rather their partner didn't work right now. Women
were asked how true it was that their partner is supportive of their being employed right
now. Both men and women answered on a 4-point scale, from 1 = "not at all true"
to 4 = "very true." Men's responses were reversed, so that for both men and women
a high score equals high support for the woman's employment.
Combining work and family roles. We created four scales, two to measure
work-family strains and gains (for parents and nonparents) and two to measure
work-parenting strains and gains. The items, Cronbach's alphas, and item-total
correlations for these measures are shown in Appendix B.
Work-Family Gains—The Work-Family Gains scale consists of seven items about
positive gains from combining work and family roles. The items were drawn from openended interviews with 403 employed women (Marshall & Barnett, 1991). Respondents
answered the items on a 4-point scale from 1 = "not at all true" to 4 = "very true."
Cronbach's alpha for this scale is .85 for men, .86 for women.
Work-Family Strains—The Work-Family Strains scale includes seven items from Wortman et al. (1991), which measure the extent to which the respondents experienced contagion or spillover of stress from one arena to the other. Respondents were asked to
answer these seven items on a 4-point scale from 1 = "not at all true" to 4 = "extremely
true."^ The Work-Family Strains scale also includes two items that measure multiplerole overload and multiple-role conflict (Barnett & Baruch, 1985). The respondents
answered these two items on a 4-point scale from 1 = "never" to 4 = "very often."
The Cronbach's alpha for the Work-Family Strains scale is .78 for men and .81 for
women.
Work-Parenting Gains—The Work-Parenting Gains scale was adapted from Marshall
and Barnett (1991) and consists of four items. Respondents were asked to answer on
a 4-point scale from 1 = "not at all true" to 4 = "very true." Cronbach's alpha for
Work-Parenting Gains is .69 for men and .73 for women.
Work-Parenting Strains—The Work-Parenting Strains scale was adapted from Marshall
and Barnett (1991) and consists of four items. Respondents were asked to answer
^One item was dropped from the Wortman scale because it had limited distribution, and deleting it improved the overall scale alpha.
WORK-FAMILY STRAINS AND GAINS
69
on a 4-point scale from 1 = "not at all true" to 4 = "very true." Cronbach's alpha for
Work-Parenting Strains is .74 for men and .82 for women.
Results
Table 1 presents the correlations between the gains and strains measures. Although
all correlations are significant, the correlations between the gains measures and the strains
measures are of low magnitude, supporting the thesis that work-family gains and strains
are at least partially independent of each other. In fact, of those who report work-family
strains, 81% of men and 84% of women also report that it is fairly or very true that
they experience work-family gains (not shown in table). In addition, 5% of men and
9% of women report both high gains and high strains.
Table 1
Intercorrelations Among Work-Family Measures
Work-family
Gains
Work-family gains
Work-family strains
Work-parenting gains
Work-parenting strains
N completing measure
Work-parenting
Strains
Gains
Strains
1.0
-.17***
.62***
- .24***
-.14***
.68***
-.24***
600
600
360
1.0
1.0
1.0
360
***p < .001.
What Work-Family Strains and Gains Do Two-Earner Couples Experience?
Table 2 presents the mean values, for men and women, on each of the four measures,
as well as distributions on the scales. The majority of both men and women report that
it is fairly true or very true that combining work and family is a positive experience,
contributing to feeling more well-rounded and competent at managing responsibilities
at work and outside work. Both men and women find that it is only somewhat true,
or not at all true, that they experience work-family strains.
For parents, 20% of men and 27% of women report that it is fairly or very true
that combining work and parenting creates strains. However, the majority of parents
report that their working has a positive impact on their children.
Are There Gender Differences in These Work-Family Strains and Gains?
Table 3 reports the results of analyses of variance in the four measures among four
groups of respondents: fathers, mothers, men without children, and women without
children. If the overall F test was significant, we tested the differences between each pair
of group means. We found that mothers reported greater work-family strains, and greater
work-family gains, than did fathers and nonparents. (The tendency for women without
children to report greater gains than men is marginally significant dXp < .10.) However,
there are no gender differences in work-parenting gains or strains.
70
MARSHALL AND BARNETT
Table 2
Scores for Work-Family Measures
Men
Measure
AT (SD)
Work-family gains
not at all true
somewhat true
fairly true
very true
3.0 (.59)
Work-family strains
not at all true
somewhat true
fairly true
very true
1.8 (.46)
Work-parenting strains
not at all true
somewhat true
fairly true
very true
1.9 (.57)
Work-parenting gains
not at all true
somewhat true
fairly true
very true
2.9 (.62)
Women
Percent""
M (SD)
Percent
3.2 (.62)
2%
13%
48%
38%
0%
18%
58%
25%
1.9 (.51)
29%
62%
9%
0%
26%
62%
12%
1%
2.0 (.65)
19%
62%
19%
1%
20%
54%
25%
2%
3.0 (.61)
1%
27%
53%
19%
1%
20%
52%
27%
"Mean per-item score (total score divided by number of items).
""Distribution on per-item score, rounded to nearest whole number.
Table 3
Group Differences on Work-Family Strains and Gains
Group means
Men
Women
Measure
Work-family gains
Work-family strains
Work-parenting gains
Work-parenting strains
F
3.85**
3.84**
2.45 n.s.
1.73 n.s.
Mothers
3.22"
1.93"
3.01
2.02
Without
children
3.18
1.77
Fathers
3.04
1.82
2.91
1.93
Without
children
3.04
1.76
"Mothers' work-family gains are significantly greater than fathers' (p < .05) and those of men without
children (p < .01). The work-family gains of women without children are significantly greater than those
of fathers (p < .05), and marginally greater (p < .10) than those of men without children. Parental-status
differences within gender are not significant.
""Mothers' work-family strains are significantly greater than fathers' (p < .05) and nonparents' (p < .01).
Other groups are not significantly different from each other.
WORK-FAMILY STRAINS AND GAINS
71
What Factors Are Associated with Work-Family Strains and Gains?
We next developed models of those factors that are associated with work-family
strains and gains. We began with a model of those factors that we hypothesized might
influence work-family strains and gains: workload, experiences at work and at home,
resources, role commitment, sex-role attitudes, and the man's attitude towards his
partner's employment.
We regressed each of these variables on the work-family strains and gains measures
separately for women without children, men without children, mothers, and fathers.
We conducted analyses separately for parents and nonparents because parents have an
additional family role, and additional variables in the model. We conducted separate
analyses for women and men at this stage, as a first step in identifying any possible gender
differences in the models.
We then tested whether or not there were gender differences in the models for parents
and nonparents by combining all significant predictors into one model for parents and
one model for nonparents, and adding interaction terms of the form: sex x independent
variable. To reduce Type 1 error, we tested these interaction terms as a block. If the
block contributed to a significant increment in 7^^ we then examined the individual
parameters for the interaction terms. The final model for each work-family strain/gain
measure contains only significant main efl'ects, significant interaction terms, and their
component main effects, as well as the main effect of sex.' We tested all models for
multiple coUinearity and found no variables that were coUinear.
Work-family gains. Table 4 shows the final models for work-family gains. Workload
was not a factor for either parents or nonparents. However, experiences on the job were
an important predictor for both groups. For nonparents, higher marriage-role quality
was associated with greater work-family gains, whereas for parents, it is experiences
in the parent role that matter more. The only resource that was significantly associated
with greater gains was social support from family and friends; for mothers and fathers,
and for women without children, greater social support was related to greater workfamily gains. Work-role commitment was not a factor for either parents or nonparents,
but sex-role attitudes were. Less traditional sex-role attitudes were associated with greater
work-family gains for nonparents and for mothers.
After considering all of these variables, gender is no longer associated with work-family
gains (Table 4), suggesting that it is gender difl'erences in these other factors that explain
the gender differences in levels of work-family gains. For example, in this sample, women
have significantly fewer traditional sex-role attitudes than do men, and significantly
greater social support.
Work-family strains. Table 5 shows the final models for work-family strains.
Workload was an important factor for both parents and nonparents. However, the locus
of the stressful workload varied. For nonparents, workload on the job contributed to
work-family strains, although housework did not. However, for parents, both workload
on the job and at home were important, although having a child under 12 was significantly
associated with strains for mothers only. As for work-family gains, experiences on the
job were an important predictor for all groups. For nonparents, lower marriage-role
'To allow us to interpret the direction of the gender difference when an interaction term was significant,
we conducted separate regressions for men and women with the final model, and examined the independent
variable that was a component of the significant interaction term.
72
MARSHALL AND BARNETT
Table 4
Work-Family Gains
Couples without children
Workload
Hours employed
Contribution to housework
Number of children
Children under 12
Parents
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
Role experiences
Job-role quality
Marriage-role quality
Parent-role quality
.21***'
.21**
.17***
n.s.
.15**
Resources
Family income
Social support
Sex by social support
Work-related support from spouse
Division of labor: Housework
Division of labor: Child care
n.s.
.21**
.15**
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
.22***
n.s.
n.s.
-.14**
-.18***
- .16**
Work-role commitment
Occupational prestige
Sex-role attitudes
Sex by sex-role attitudes
Husband's attitude toward wife's employment
Gender
R^
n.s.
.02
.34***
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
.02
.24***
N = 359.
"Standardized betas.
**p < .01; ***p < .001.
quality is associated with greater work-family strains, whereas for parents, again, the
parenting role matters more. The only resource that was significantly associated with
greater strains was the division of labor for child care, and the association was contrary
to our hypothesized relationship. For mothers only, sharing responsibility for day-today child care was associated with greater work-family strains. Thisfindingmay reflect
a direction-of-effect problem: Mothers who are experiencing greater work-family strains
may elicit greater sharing of child care responsibilities from their partners.
Work-role commitment was not a factor for nonparents, but parents in higherprestige jobs were more likely to report work-family strains. This is consistent with Marks
(1977), and the research of Barnett and Baruch (1985) and Greenhaus et al. (1987).
Although sex-role attitudes were not associated with work-family strains, the man's
attitude towards his partner's employment was important to both women and men
without children. When the man would rather his partner was not working, he was more
likely to experience work-family strain. Similarly, when women believed that their
WORK-FAMILY STRAINS AND GAINS
73
partners did not want them to be employed, they were more likely to experience
work-family strain."*
Potentially, gender differences in these factors could explain the observed gender
differences in work-family strains (mothers report greater strains than any other group).
For example, in this sample, although men are more likely to work more-than-full-time
(working an average of 46 hours per week, compared to 40 hours per week for women,
t = 8.l5,p < .01), women are more likely to report that they have too much housework
to do (t = -7.34, p < .01). However, even after considering all the variables in the
model, mothers are still more likely than fathers to report greater work-family strains
(Table 5). And, although the men and women in this sample are equally likely to have
Table 5
Work-Family Strains
Couples without children
Parents
.25***
n.s.
.20***
.16**
n.s.
.17***
.12**
.30***
-.21**
.28***
n.s.
- .20***
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
.10*
.12*
n.s.
.17***
Sex-role attitudes
n.s.
n.s.
Husband's attitude toward wife's employment
.13*
n.s.
Gender
j^2
.11
24***
.20***
29***
Workload
Hours employed
Contribution to housework
Number of children
Children under 12
Sex by have child under 12
Role experiences
Job-role quality
Marriage-role quality
Parent-role quality
Resources
Family income
Social support
Work-related support from spouse
Division of labor: Housework
Division of labor: Child care
Sex by division of labor
Work-role commitment
Occupational prestige
N = 348.
"Standardized betas.
*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.
^We conducted similar analyses for the separate components of the Work-Family Strains scale (Wortman's
Spillover from Work to Home, Wortman's Spillover from Home to Work, Multiple-role Overload, and Multiplerole Confiict), and found basically the same pattern of results. The notable differences were: "hours employed"
was associated with work to home spillover, but not with home to work spillover; marriage- and parent-role
quality were associated with home to work spillover, but not work to home spillover. These findings are consistent
with those obtained by Frone, Russell, and Cooper (1992).
74
MARSHALL AND BARNETT
children under 12 (because they are married to each other), women reported greater
work-family strain when they have children under 12. Although this could reflect women's
greater responsibilities for the care of young children, in fact women with greater
work-family strain are more likely to report that they and their partners share responsibility of child care. The gender differences in work-family strains for parents appear
also to be a function of additional factors not included in our model.
Work-parenting gains and strains. Table 6 shows the final models for the gains
and strains of combining work and parenting. As for work-family gains and strains,
workload was not associated with greater gains, but was associated with greater strains.
Similarly, experiences as parents were associated with both strains and gains, whereas
negative experiences on the job were associated with work-parenting strains. Again,
the only resource associated with gains was social support, although only for fathers.
And, as for work-family gains, less traditional sex-role attitudes were associated with
greater work-parenting gains for women.
Interestingly, although we found no significant differences between mothers and
fathers on work-parenting strains in Table 3, after controlling for workload and role
Table 6
Work-Parenting Gains and Strains
Gains
Strains
Workload
Hours employed
Contribution to housework
Number of children
Children under 12
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
.16**
n.s.
n.s.
.19***
Role experiences
Job-role quality
Marriage-role quality
Parent-role quality
n.s.
n.s.
.18***
.17**
n.s.
Resources
Family income
Social support
Sex by social support
Work-related support from spouse
Division of labor: Housework
Division of labor: Child care
Work-role commitment
Occupational prestige
Sex-role attitudes
Sex by sex-role attitudes
Husband's attitude toward wife's employment
Gender
R^
N = 358.
"Standardized betas.
*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.
.31***
n.s.
.14*
- .15**
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
-.19***
- .13*
n.s.
n.s.
.02
.15***
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
.17**
.18***
WORK-FAMILY STRAINS AND GAINS
75
experiences, women are more likely to report greater work-parenting strains. Apparently,
some factor not included in the model accounts for this gender difference.
Discussion and Conclusions
There are several important findings from this study. First, we have clear evidence
that work-family strains are not inevitable among full-time employed. White, dual-earner
couples in their late twenties and thirties. More than a quarter of the men and women
report no work-family strains. In addition, 20% of parents report that combining
employment and parenting does not cause such strains as not having enough time or
energy for their children, or worrying about the impact of their working on their children.
Second, two-earner couples report work-family gains as well as strains. The majority
of men and women report that it is fairly or very true that combining work and family
roles allows them to use all their talents as well as providing other gains. In addition,
over two thirds of the men and women report that combining work and parenting has
definite gains, including making them better parents.
Finally, we have a clearer picture of those factors that are predictive of work-family
strains and gains in White two-earner couples in their late twenties and thirties. Men
and women report higher work-family gains and work-parenting gains when their experiences on the job and at home are more positive than negative, when they report
greater social support from family and friends, and, for women and men without children, and for mothers, when they hold less traditional sex-role attitudes. These full-time
employed two-earner couples report greater work-family strains and work-parenting
strains when their workload is greater at work and at home, and when their experiences
on the job and at home are more negative. In addition, for couples without children,
if the man does not approve of his partner's being employed, both men and women
report greater work-family strains. And, for parents, higher prestige jobs, representing
a greater commitment to the work role, are associated with greater work-family strains.
Although we found gender differences in the levels of work-family strains and gains,
we found few gender differences in the relationship between various predictors and strains
and gains. The models of the factors that are associated with work-family strains and
gains seem to be equally valid for both women and men, in most cases. However, sexrole attitude was a consistently significant predictor of mothers', and not fathers', reports
of work-family and work-parenting gains.
There are several implications of these findings. First, any attempts to reduce
work-family strains would benefit from a focus on job quality, supports for improved
quality of experiences in marriage and parenting, and a reduction in workload, both
at work and at home. Work-family gains would also be increased with support from
family and friends. In addition, two-earner couples in which the man encourages and
supports his partner's employment, and both individuals hold less traditional attitudes
about the roles of women and men, stand to reduce their experience of work-family
strains and improve their sense of enhancement from combining work and family roles.
References
Barnett, R. C , & Baruch, G. K. (1985). Women's involvement in multiple roles and psychological distress.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 135-145.
Barnett, R. C , & Marshall, N. L. (1991). The relationship between women's work and family roles and
their subjective well-being and psychological distress. In M. Frankenhaeuser, U. Lundberg, & M. Chesney
(Eds.), Women, work and health: Stress and opportunities (pp. 111-136). New York: Plenum.
76
MARSHALL AND BARNETT
Barnett, R. C , Marshall, N. L., & Pleck, J. H. (1992). Men's multiple roles and their relationship to men's
psychological distress. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54{T), 358-367.
Baruch, G. K., & Barnett, R. C. (1986). Role quality, multiple role involvement, and psychological wellbeing in midlife women. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 578-585.
Bose, C. E. (1985). Jobs and gender: A study of occupational prestige. New York: Praeger.
Burke, R. J. (1988). Some antecedents and consequences of work-family conflict. Journal of Social Behavior
and Personality, 5(4), 287-302.
Caplan, R. D., Cobb, S., French, J. R. P., Van Harrison, R., & Pinneau, S. R. (April, 1975). Job demands
and worker health: Main effects and occupational differences (HEW publication NIOSH #75-160).
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Cleary, P. D., & Mechanic, D. (1983). Sex differences in psychological distress among married people. Journal
of Health and Social Behavior,
24, 111-121.
Coser, L. (with R. Coser). (1974). Greedy institutions. New York: Free Press.
Crosby, F. (1984). Job satisfaction and domestic life. In M. D. Lee & R. N. Kanungo (Eds.), Management
of work and personal life. New York: Praeger.
Crosby, F. (1991). Juggling: The unexpected advantages of balancing career and home for women and their
families. New York: Free Press.
Crouter, A. C. (1984). Spillover from family to work: The neglected side of the work-family interface. Human
Relations, 37(6), 425-442.
Duxbury, L. E., & Higgins, C. A. (1991). Gender differences in work-family conflict. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 76(1), 60-74.
Emmons, C. A., Biernat, M., Tiedje, L. B., Lang, E. L., & Wortman, C. B. (1990). Stress, support, and
coping among women professionals with preschool children. In J. Eckenrode & S. Gore (Eds.), Stress
between work and family (pp. 61-93). New York: Plenum.
Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M. L. (1992). Antecedents and outcomes of work-family conflict:
Testing a model of the work-f'amily interface. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(\), 65-78.
Gerson, J. M. (1985). Women returning to school: The consequences of multiple roles. Sex Roles, 13, 77-91.
Goode, W. (1960). A theory of strain. American Sociological Review. 25, 483-496.
Gove, W. R., & Tudor, J. F. (1973). Adult sex roles and mental illness. American Journal of Sociology,
78, 812-835.
Greenhaus, J., Bedeian, A., & Mossholder, K. (1987). Work experiences, job performance, and feelings
of personal and family well-being. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31. 200-215.
Holahan, C. K., & Gilbert, L. A. (1979). Interrole conflict for working women: Careers versus jobs. Journal
of Applied Psychology. 64{\), 86-90.
House, J. S., & Wells, J. A. (1978). Occupational stress, social support, and health. In A. McLean, G.
Black, & M. Colligan (Eds.), Reducing occupational stress: Proceedings of a conference (pp. 8-29). Department of Health, Education and Welfare (National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health) Publication
No. 78-140.
Kessler, R. C , & McRae, J. A. (1982). The eflect of wives' employment on the mental health of married
men and women. American Sociological Review, 47, 216-227.
Loerch, K. J., Russell, J. E., & Rush, M. C. (1989). The relationships among family domain variables and
work-family conflict for men and women. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 35(3), 288-308.
Marks, S. R. (1977). Multiple roles and role strain: Some notes on human energy, time and commitment.
American Sociological Review. 41, 921-936.
Marshall, N. L., & Barnett, R. C. (1991). Race, class and multiple role strains and gains among women
employed in the service sector. Women & Health. 17(4), 1-19.
Mason, K. C , & Bumpass, L. L. (1975). U.S. women's sex-role ideology, 1970. American Journal of
Sociology. 80(5), 1212-1219.
Pleck, J. H. (1985). Working wives/working husbands. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Sieber, S. D. (1974). Toward a theory of role accumulation. American Sociological Review. 39, 567-578.
Slater, P. (1963). On social regression. American Sociological Review. 28. 339-364.
Thoits, P. A. (1963). Multiple identities and psychological well-being: A reformation and test of the social
isolation hypothesis. American Sociological Review. 48. 174-187.
Tiedje, L. B., Wortman, C. B., Downey, G., Emmons, C , Biernat, M., & Lang, E. (1990). Women with
multiple roles: Role-compatibility perceptions, satisfaction, and mental health. Journal of Marriage and
the Family. 52, 63-72.
Verbrugge, L. M. (1983). Multiple roles and physical health of women and men. Journal of Health and
Social Behavior, 24. 16-29.
77
WORK-FAMILY STRAINS AND GAINS
Weiss, R. S. (1974). The provisions of social relationships. In Z. Rubin (Ed.), Doing unto others: Joining.
molding, conforming, helping, loving (pp. 17-26). Englewood Clifl's, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Wortman, C. B., Biernat, M. R., & Lang, E. L. (1991). Coping with role overload. In M. Frankenhaeuser,
M. Chesney, & U. Lundberg (Eds.), Women, work and health: Stress and opportunities (pp. 85-110).
New York: Plenum.
Appendix A
Social Support Scale
1. The people I care about make me feel that they care about me.
2. The people important to me accept me as I am.
3. I enjoy the time I spend with the people who are important to me.
4. The people I care about seem interested in how I'm doing.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
The people I care about come through for me when I need them.
When something's on my mind, just talking with the people I know can make me feel better.
The people who are important to me encourage me when I feel discouraged or down.
I enjoy talking about everyday kinds of things with the people I care about.
The people I know are good sources of useful information when I need it.
The people 1 care about help me out.
When I need someone to help me out, I can usually find someone.
Appendix B
Work-Family Strains and Gains Scales
Item-total
correlation
Alpha
Measure
Male
Female
Work-family gains
Having both work and family responsibilities:
a. Makes you a more well-rounded person.
b. Gives your life more variety.
c. Allows you to use all your talents.
d. Challenges you to be the best you can be.
e. Means you manage your time better.
f. Clarifies your priorities.
Managing work and family responsibilities as well as you do
makes you feel competent.
.85
.86
Work-family strains
When you spend time with your family, you're bothered by all
the things at work that you should be doing.
Because of your family responsibilities, you have to turn down work
activities or opportunities that you would prefer to take on.
Because of your family responsibilities, the time you spend
working is less enjoyable and more pressured.
When you spend time working, you're bothered by all the things
at home or concerning your family that you should be doing.
Because of the requirements of your job, you have to miss out
on home or family activities that you would prefer to
participate in.
.78
Male
Female
60
58
67
68
57
51
.63
.66
.68
.66
.63
.57
.64
.60
31
.42
28
.41
47
.58
50
.48
44
.47
(continued)
.81
78
MARSHALL AND BARNETT
Appendix B
(Continued)
Item-total
correlation
Alpha
Measure
Because of the requirements of your job, your family time is
less enjoyable and more pressured.
During the time set aside for work, you feel resentful because
you'd really rather be spending time with your family.
In general, how often do you feel pulled apart from having to
juggle conflicting obligations?
How often do the things you do add up to being just too
much?
Work-parenting gains
Your working has a positive effect on your children.
Working helps you to better appreciate the time you spend with
your children.
Working makes you feel good about yourself, which is good
for your children.
The fact that you're working makes you a better parent.
Work-parenting strains
Your working creates strains for your children.
You worry about what goes on with your children while you're
at work.
Working leaves you with too little time to be the kind of parent
you want to be.
Thinking about the children interferes with your performance at
work.
Working causes you to miss out on some of the rewarding
aspects of being a parent.
Working leaves you with too little energy to be the kind of
parent you want to be.
Male
.69
.74
Female
Male
Female
.58
.56
.44
.51
.59
.61
.52
.54
.42
.50
.34
.38
.56
.56
.62
.59
.50
.59
.42
.49
.72
.70
.19
.55
.62
.59
.43
.64
.73
.82