Fathers’ work-family conflict: analysis of
European Social Survey data
Svetlana Speight & Sara Connolly
Margaret O ’ Brien, Eloise Poole, Matthew Aldrich
July 2014, ESRC Research Methods Festival, Oxford
Note: The findings in this presentation are preliminary – please do not quote without authors’ permission

• About the study
• Theoretical background
• Data, measures & hypotheses
• Findings
• Discussion
The findings in this presentation are preliminary – please do not quote without authors’ permission

• Part of a larger study Fathers, Work and
Families in Twenty-first Century Britain: Beyond the Breadwinner Model?
• Funded by the ESRC as part of SDAI Phase 1
• Collaboration between NatCen, UEA and TCRU

• Work-family policy development: main focus on women and mothers, but…
• Acceleration of father-targeted policies since mid-1990s
• ‘Fatherhood regimes’ emerging
– Fatherhood rights and obligations regulated by policy (e.g. paternity leave and pay)
– Promotion of a participative father

• Employment and working conditions
– Intensification, flexibilisation, increase in job insecurity, economic crisis
• Female/maternal employment rates
• Gender roles at home
– Housework and childcare
• ‘The incomplete revolution’ (Esping-
Andersen, 2009)

From Aumann K, Galinsky E & Matos K, 2011:

• Work-to-family conflict (WFC)
• Family-to-work conflict (FWC)
• Work-life balance (WLB)
– Problems of definition and measurement

• Role theory (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985)
• Ecological systems theory
• Demands and resources approach (Voydanoff,
2005)
• The stress of higher status hypothesis (Schieman et al. 2006, 2009)

Societal-level factors
• Type of production regime
– Coordinated v liberal market economy
– Labour rights standards
• Welfare regime: support for dual earner/dual carer model
– ‘time to care’ and ‘time to work’ policies (Lewis, 2012): leave policies, flexible working, formal childcare provision
– Support for father care
• Gender culture / gender system
– Gender division of labour (paid and unpaid), power relations, cultural definitions of gender roles, informal childcare practices
• Post-2008 economic crisis

• European Social Survey
– Round 2 (2004-2005)
– Round 5 (2010-2011)
• UK, Sweden, the Netherlands, Germany, France, Spain,
Greece, Poland
• Fathers only: less affected by the selection effect than mothers
• Fathers in paid work, aged 20-64, in couples, with children aged
0-18
• Sample size: about 1,500 per survey year in total

• 2004 & 2010
– Worrying about work problems when not working
– Feeling too tired after work to enjoy the things you would like to do at home
– Job prevents you from giving the time you want to your partner and family
– Partner or family gets fed up with the pressure of your job
Scale: from ‘ Never ’ to ‘ Always ’ (5-point scale)

• Factor score (principal component analysis)
• Mean value is 0, SD is 1
• Higher values = higher WFC
• Cronbach’s alpha = 0.73

• 2004 & 2010
– Difficult to concentrate on work because of family responsibilities
• 2010 only
– Family responsibilities prevent you from giving the time you should to your job
Scale: from ‘ Never ’ to ‘ Always ’ (5-point scale)

– Working hours
– Unsocial hours (weekends, evenings and unpredictable overtime)
– Occupational class (ISCO88 major groups)
– Employee v self-employed

– Number of children
– Age of the youngest child
– Partner’s employment status / working hours
– Partner working unsocial hours
– Housework
– Household income (subjective)

• Composite measure of egalitarianism in gender-role attitudes:
– A woman should be prepared to cut down on her paid work for the sake of her family
– When jobs are scarce, men should have more right to a job than women
(5-point agree/disagree scale)

• Age
• Education (years)

• Longer working hours -> higher WFC
• Unsocial hours -> higher WFC
• Occupational class: higher-status jobs (e.g. managers, professionals) -> higher WFC
• Self-employed -> lower WFC as more flexibility and autonomy

• More children -> higher FWC/WFC
• Younger children -> higher FWC/WFC
• Partner not working or working part-time -> lower FWC/WFC
• Partner working unsocial hours -> higher
FWC/WFC
• More housework -> higher WFC/FWC

• More egalitarian gender-role attitudes -> higher pressure to ‘ do it all ’ -> higher FWC
• Low household income -> higher WFC/FWC

• Work-related variables will be more strongly associated with WFC, and familyrelated variables will be more strongly associated with FWC

• Coordinated market economies / high labour rights standards
(Sweden, Germany, Netherlands, France) -> lower WFC, liberal market economies (UK, Poland) -> higher WFC
• Better provision of formal childcare, lower cost of childcare
(Sweden) -> lower FWC/WFC
• Informal childcare is common (Greece, NL) -> lower FWC/WFC
• Higher father-care sensitivity in policy regime (Sweden) -> lower WFC/FWC
• More traditional gender cultures (Greece, Poland) -> lower
FWC, more egalitarian (Sweden, UK) -> higher FWC

• WFC increasing
• FWC staying the same

Base: Fathers aged 20-64, in couples, in paid work and with children aged 0-18
1.0
0.5
0.4
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
-0.3
-0.2
-0.3
Netherlands Greece
-0.2
0.0
Spain
-0.2
0.0
Sweden
2004
0.0
0.2
0.0
-0.1
France Germany
0.1
0.1
Poland
2010
0.1
0.2
UK

Difficult to concentrate on work because of family, by country and year (%)
40
30
20
10
0
Base: Fathers aged 20-64, in couples, in paid work and with children aged 0-18
60
50
17
15
19 19
21
28
24
16
26
22
France Sweden Greece Netherlands Germany
2004
26
10
Spain
2010
32
26
42
32
Poland UK

Family responsibilities prevent you from giving the time you should to your job, by country (%)
Base: Fathers aged 20- 64, in couples, in paid work and with children aged 0- 18 (2010)
50
40
30
20
10
0
20
22
24
Spain Netherlands France
31
32 32
34
Sweden Germany Greece Poland
38
UK

WFC: linear regression (work and socio-demographics)
Age
Age squared
Years of education
Log working hours
Ref.: Managers
Professionals
Pooled 2004 2010
Coef. P>t Coef. P>t Coef. P>t
0.05 0.02 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.91
-0.001 0.01 -0.001 0.00 -0.000 0.65
0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.12
0.56 0.00 0.71 0.00 0.43 0.00
-0.08 0.23 -0.21 0.02 0.04 0.62
Technicians and assoc professionals -0.13 0.04 -0.21 0.02 -0.07 0.45
Clerical support workers -0.23 0.01 -0.38 0.00 -0.11 0.36
Services and sales workers
Skilled agric. workers
-0.19 0.02 -0.25 0.03 -0.15 0.18
-0.40 0.00 -0.33 0.01 -0.50 0.00
Craft and related trades workers
Plant and machine operators
Elementary occupations
Ref.: employee
Self-employed
Unsocial hours (index)
-0.14 0.04 -0.29 0.00 -0.01 0.95
-0.31 0.00 -0.46 0.00 -0.19 0.07
-0.35 0.00 -0.57 0.00 -0.17 0.21
0.11 0.03
0.26 0.00
0.07
0.26
0.36
0.00
0.12
0.24
0.09
0.00

WFC: linear regression
(family factors and gender-role attitudes)
Ref.: 1 child
2 kids
3+ kids
Ref.: youngest child 0-3
Youngest 4-5
Youngest 6-11
Youngest 12-14
Youngest 15-18
Ref.: partner works FT
Partner works PT
Partner works unknown hrs
Partner not in paid work
Pooled 2004 2010
Coef. P>t Coef. P>t Coef. P>t
0.06 0.14 0.04 0.46 0.07 0.23
0.05 0.34 0.01 0.87 0.08 0.28
0.05 0.43 -0.02 0.84 0.09 0.28
0.02 0.70 -0.06 0.40 0.09 0.20
-0.01 0.84 -0.08 0.46 0.02 0.85
0.03 0.68 -0.13 0.24 0.18 0.10
0.03 0.59 0.03 0.71 0.01 0.90
0.10 0.55 0.04 0.87 0.20 0.36
0.00 0.96 -0.04 0.58 0.01 0.83
Ref.: not difficult to live on income
Difficult to live on income 0.38 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.45 0.00
Ref.: Low share of housework with partner
Medium share of housework 0.02 0.72 0.06 0.36 -0.05 0.48
High share of housework
Gender-role egalitarianism (index)
-0.11 0.02 -0.13 0.05 -0.12 0.08
-0.04 0.08 -0.05 0.09 -0.04 0.23

WFC: linear regression
(cross-national comparisons)
Ref.: UK
Germany
Spain
France
Netherlands
Greece
Poland
Sweden
2004
Coef. P>t Coef.
2010
P>t
-0.10 0.34 -0.01 0.95
-0.13 0.27 -0.13 0.17
-0.05 0.71 0.00 0.98
-0.37 0.00 -0.22 0.04
-0.50 0.00 0.01 0.92
-0.13 0.22 -0.11 0.28
-0.11 0.29 -0.03 0.79

Difficult to concentrate on work: binary logistic regression (pooled 2004+2010)
Age
Age squared
Works unsocial hours (index)
Ref.: partner works FT
Partner works PT
Partner works unknown hrs
Partner not in paid work
Ref.: partner doesn’t work unsocial hrs
Partner works unsocial hours
Ref.: not difficult to live on income
Difficult to live on income
Gender-role egalitarianism (index)
Pooled 2004 2010
OR P>t OR. P>t OR P>t
1.1 0.09 1.2 0.02 1.0 0.93
0.999 0.07 0.998 0.02 1.0 0.89
1.3 0.00 1.3 0.00 1.2 0.01
0.7 0.01 0.8 0.20 0.6 0.05
2.1 0.07 1.2 0.78 4.1 0.02
1.3 0.11 1.4 0.15 1.3 0.38
1.5 0.01 1.5 0.06 1.4 0.10
1.6 0.00 1.5 0.03 1.6 0.02
0.9 0.03 0.8 0.01 1.0 0.61

Difficult to concentrate on work: crossnational comparisons
Ref.: UK
Germany
Spain
France
Netherlands
Greece
Poland
Sweden
2004 2010
Odds ratios P>t Odds ratios P>t
0.4 0.00 0.7 0.10
0.5
0.3
0.5
0.2
0.6
0.3
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.08
0.00
0.2
0.4
0.5
0.8
0.6
0.5
0.00
0.01
0.04
0.45
0.06
0.02

Family responsibilities prevent from giving time to job: ordered logistic regression (2010)
Ref.: Managers
Professionals
Technicians and assoc professionals
Clerical support workers
Services and sales workers
Skilled agricultural workers
Craft and related trades workers
Plant and machine operators
Elementary occupations
Unsocial hours (index)
Ref.: Low share of housework
Medium share of housework
High share of housework
Ref.: Not difficult to live on income
Difficult to live on income
Gender-role egalitarianism
Odds ratios P>t
0.9
0.7
0.74
0.14
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.10
0.01
0.01
0.6
0.5
0.4
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.6
0.9
0.01
0.04
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.00

Family responsibilities prevent from giving time to job: cross-national comparisons
Ref.: UK
Germany
Spain
France
Netherlands
Greece
Poland
Sweden
Odds ratios P>t
0.7
0.4
0.16
0.00
0.4
0.7
0.6
0.8
0.9
0.00
0.08
0.08
0.44
0.50

• Hypotheses supported by data:
– working hours (WFC), unsocial hours (fathers and partners, WFC/FWC), occupational class (WFC/FWC), financial insecurity (WFC/FWC), housework (FWC)
• Hypotheses not supported by data – no association:
– number of children, age of the youngest child, (partner’s employment status)
• Hypotheses not supported by data – association in an opposite direction:
– self-employment (WFC), gender-role attitudes (WFC/FWC), housework
(WFC)
• Work-related v family-related variables, WFC v FWC
• Trends over time

• UK - the highest WFC and FWC
• Netherlands – the lowest WFC but not FWC
• France and Spain – the lowest FWC
• Greece – the most dramatic change between
2004 and 2010, both WFC & FWC going up

Dr Svetlana Speight (NatCen Social Research) –
Svetlana.Speight@natcen.ac.uk
Prof. Margaret O’Brien (TCRU, IoE) – M.OBrien@ioe.ac.uk
Dr Sara Connolly (UEA) – Sara.Connolly@uea.ac.uk
Eloise Poole (NatCen) – Eloise.Poole@natcen.ac.uk
Dr Matt Aldrich (UEA) – Matthew.Aldrich@uea.ac.uk

Worrying about work problems when not working
Base: Fathers aged 20- 64, in couples, in paid work and with children aged 0- 18 (2004+2010)
34
24
20
15
7
Never Hardly ever Sometimes Often Always

Feeling too tired after work to enjoy the things you would like to do at home
Base: Fathers aged 20- 64, in couples, in paid work and with children aged 0- 18 (2004+2010)
43
25
19
9
Never Hardly ever Sometimes Often
4
Always

Job prevents you from giving the time you want to your partner or family
Base: Fathers aged 20- 64, in couples, in paid work and with children aged 0- 18 (2004+2010)
37
26
19
12
5
Never Hardly ever Sometimes Often Always

Partner or family gets feds up with the pressure of your job
Base: Fathers aged 20- 64, in couples, in paid work and with children aged 0- 18 (2004+2010)
33
29
26
10
Never Hardly ever Sometimes Often
1
Always

Difficult to concentrate on work because of family responsibilities
Base: Fathers aged 20- 64, in couples, in paid work and with children aged 0- 18
(2004+2010)
38
39
20
Never Hardly ever Sometimes
3
Often
0
Always

Family responsibilities prevent you from giving the time you should to your job
Base: Fathers aged 20- 64, in couples, in paid work and with children aged 0- 18 (2010)
36
35
23
Never Hardly ever Sometimes
6
Often
1
Always