See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309626383

The relationship of social support with well-

being outcomes via work-family conflict:
Moderating effects of gender, dependants...

Article in Human Relations November 2016

DOI: 10.1177/0018726716662696

CITATIONS READS

2 180

9 authors, including:

Paula Brough Oi Ling Siu

Griffith University Lingnan University
154 PUBLICATIONS 2,352 CITATIONS 100 PUBLICATIONS 3,508 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Carolyn Timms Cindy Sit

James Cook University The Chinese University of Hong Kong
46 PUBLICATIONS 365 CITATIONS 80 PUBLICATIONS 1,009 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Effects of Physical Education Continuing Professional Development on Teachers Physical Literacy

and Self-Efficacy and Students' Learning Outcomes View project

The Work-Life Balance Project View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Carolyn Timms on 15 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

662696
research-article2016
HUM0010.1177/0018726716662696Human RelationsDrummond et al.

human relations

human relations
1 22
The relationship of social support The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:
with well-being outcomes via sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0018726716662696
workfamily conflict: Moderating hum.sagepub.com

effects of gender, dependants

and nationality

Suzie Drummond
Griffith University, Australia

Michael P ODriscoll
University of Waikato, New Zealand

Paula Brough
Griffith University, Australia

Thomas Kalliath
Australian National University, Australia

Oi-Ling Siu
Lingnan University, Hong Kong

Carolyn Timms
James Cook University, Australia

Derek Riley
University of Waikato, New Zealand

Corresponding author:
Paula Brough, School of Applied Psychology, Mt Gravatt campus, Griffith University, 176 Messines Ridge
Road, Mt Gravatt QLD 4122, Australia.
Email: p.brough@griffith.edu.au

Downloaded from hum.sagepub.com by Claire Castle on November 2, 2016

2 Human Relations

Cindy Sit
Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong

Danny Lo
Wenzhou-Kean University, China

Abstract
The impact of workfamily conflict on well-being outcomes is well established, as is the
role of social support in buffering perceptions of conflict. What is less well understood
is how these relationships vary for different groups of respondents. Using a two-wave
longitudinal design with a 12-month time lag and samples of employees (total N = 2183)
from Australia, New Zealand, China and Hong Kong, the present research investigated
whether the mediating relationships between social support, workfamily conflict and
well-being outcomes were moderated by gender, geographical region and the presence
of dependants in the household. Supervisor support and family support were associated
with lower workfamily conflict, and hence reduced psychological strain and increased
job and family satisfaction, for women and for employees in China and Hong Kong, but
not for employees in Australia and New Zealand. However, the presence of dependants
was not a significant moderator. Our findings illustrate the importance of exploring
gender and national differences in workfamily conflict research, particularly the
investigation of cross-domain effects.

Keywords
cross-national research, dependants, gender, moderated mediation, social support,
well-being, workfamily conflict

Numerous investigators (e.g. ODriscoll and Brough, 2010; Olson-Buchanan and

Boswell, 2006) have referred to an increased blurring of boundaries between work and
non-work (typically family) domains. Two overall patterns have been noted in this field
conflict between the domains and enrichment (or facilitation). By far the most promi-
nent of these outcomes has been conflict between work and family life. Researchers have
frequently adopted the definition of conflict proffered by Greenhaus and Beutell (1985)
that conflict arises when there are competing demands between work and family roles.
Several studies have examined the causes and consequences of workfamily conflict
(Allen etal., 2000; ODriscoll etal., 2004; Reichl etal., 2014), yet there is still consider-
able interest in the process by which workfamily conflict develops, along with its
potential consequences for well-being outcomes (Huffman etal., 2013; Lu etal., 2016).
The present research expands our knowledge of factors that can affect employee
experiences of workfamily conflict, in particular the role of social support from both
ones supervisor and family members. This research examined the cross-domain rela-
tionships of work-to-family interference and family-to-work interference with job

Downloaded from hum.sagepub.com by Claire Castle on November 2, 2016

Drummond et al. 3

satisfaction, family satisfaction and psychological strain. In addition, this study explored
the impact of gender and two other possible moderator variables (geographical region
and presence of dependants) in the experience of workfamily conflict. Finally, our
study sought to confirm the generalizability of these relationships across two culturally
very different samples. Our hypothesized model (Figure 1) suggests that bi-directional
workfamily conflict will mediate the associations over time between perceptions of
social support (from supervisors and family members) and psychological strain and sat-
isfaction, and that these relationships will be moderated by three demographic variables:
gender, geographical region and presence of dependants in the household.

Region
Gender T1 Work family interference
Dependants T1 Familywork interference

a b

c T2 Strain
T1 Supervisor support
T2 Job satisfaction
T1 Family support
T2 Family satisfaction

Figure 1. Hypothesized moderated mediated model with support at Time 1 (T1) predicting
strain and satisfaction at Time 2 (T2) via interference at Time 1, moderated by region, gender
and dependants.

High levels of work demands and work stressors, such as time constraints and interper-
sonal conflict at work, have a deleterious impact on (and are key predictors of) the experi-
ence of work-to-family conflict (often referred to as work-to-family interference; WFI)
and this direction of conflict has serious negative implications for peoples family lives
and their overall psychosocial well-being. In this research we focused on three important
well-being outcomes: job satisfaction, family satisfaction and psychological strain
(Karimi etal., 2011; Lapierre etal., 2008). Similarly, family-to-work conflict (also called
family-to-work interference; FWI) can be predicted by family pressures, spousal/partner
conflict and having insufficient time to effectively address family issues. FWI has also
been found to induce negative outcomes for people and their families, including reduced
satisfaction and well-being, and increased strain (ODriscoll etal., 2006). Previous
research has demonstrated the salience of these variables in relation to workfamily con-
flict, although cross-domain relationships have been investigated less frequently.
While it is clear that work and family pressures can influence perceptions of work
family conflict, which in turn can lead to negative consequences for well-being, resources
that can reduce workfamily conflict and minimize detrimental outcomes are important for
improving health and well-being. Social support is one such resource that has been shown
to have beneficial impacts for reducing psychological strain, increasing job and family

Downloaded from hum.sagepub.com by Claire Castle on November 2, 2016

4 Human Relations

satisfaction, and reducing workfamily conflict (e.g. Byron, 2005; ODriscoll etal., 2004).
Conversely, a lack of social support can exacerbate the experience of workfamily conflict
(Ayman and Antani, 2008), which in turn can lead to increased psychological strain and
reduced satisfaction with both the job and family. Lu etal. (2009) examined the antecedents
and outcomes of the conflict and facilitation components of workfamily balance within a
Chinese sample. They found that childcare responsibilities, working hours, monthly salary
and organizational family-friendly policy were positively related to the conflict component
of workfamily balance, whereas new parental experience, spouse support, family-friendly
supervisors and coworkers had significant positive effects on the facilitation component of
workfamily balance. Furthermore, research assessing workfamily conflict as a mediator
between social support and well-being outcomes has produced inconsistent results (e.g.
Blanch and Aluja, 2012), suggesting that further research on these relationships is necessary
to understand the indirect effects and cross-domain linkages.
Although there has been considerable research on the relationships relating to work
family conflict, less attention has been accorded to potential moderators (buffers) of
these relationships, and the empirical data on moderators have been inconsistent. Blanch
and Aluja (2012) recently examined the role of gender as a potential moderator of rela-
tionships between social support (at work and at home), workfamily conflict and psy-
chological burnout. They predicted that supervisor support would be more salient for
women in reducing their work and family demands than it would be for men, and con-
versely that family support would be more important in alleviating work and family
demands for men. In their study of workers in two Spanish organizations, Blanch and
Aluja partially confirmed these predictions. The mediating role of WFI between supervi-
sor support and burnout was stronger for women, while the mediating role of WFI
between family support and burnout was stronger for men. The authors suggested that
supervisors have the capacity to ease WFI levels, which is more directly related to burn-
out for women, whereas for men increased participation in family activities may be asso-
ciated with greater pressure to balance family and work roles, therefore having family
support may reduce perceptions of WFI and burnout.

Gender moderation
Eby etal. (2005: 181) commented that both gender differences and gender role issues
are essential to consider to fully understand the workfamily interface. Gender role
theory (e.g. Rajadhyaksha, Korabik, and Aycan, 2015) suggests that the primary domain
for men is work and the primary domain for women is the home and family. It would
therefore be anticipated that males would report higher levels of FWI, whereas females
would report greater WFI. However, these differences have not been uniformly found.
For example, in a meta-analytic review, Byron (2005) noted that men reported higher
levels of WFI and women reported higher levels of FWI. Recent evidence also indicates
a change in both male and female priorities, with many women placing a high priority on
their work and careers and men having more active engagement in family matters
(Brough and ODriscoll, 2015; Lyness and Judiesch, 2008). The inconsistent results
and the changing workfamily context highlight the need to continue exploring gender
differences, both within and across the work and non-work (family/life) domains.

Downloaded from hum.sagepub.com by Claire Castle on November 2, 2016

Drummond et al. 5

Clarification of the effects of gender upon the experiences of work and family conflict is
required to ensure that the most appropriate family-friendly employment practices are
offered to male and female employees (e.g. Brough etal., 2005).
Gender role theory also suggests that gender may operate as a moderator of relation-
ships between social support and both WFI and FWI. For example, Rupert etal. (2012)
and Thompson and Cavallaro (2007) found that social support (from both work and fam-
ily sources) may be more important for women than for men, given that the family role
is typically more salient for women. It might be expected therefore that the relationship
between social support and bi-directional workfamily conflict would be stronger for
women than for men. In light of these findings and those reported by Blanch and Aluja
(2012), we examined whether gender moderated the relationships between social support
from ones supervisor as well as from family members, the extent of WFI and FWI, and
experiences of psychological strain, job satisfaction, and family satisfaction. Coupled
with the knowledge that women tend to respond to social support more strongly than do
men (Bellman etal., 2003; Tang etal., 2014), we hypothesize that:

Hypothesis 1: Gender will moderate the mediated relationships between social sup-
port (from supervisor and family) and workfamily interference (WFI and FWI) in
predicting (a) psychological strain, (b) job satisfaction and (c) family satisfaction,
such that these relationships will be stronger for women than for men.

Dependants
Following Blanch and Alujas (2012) recommendation, we also included the presence
of dependants as a moderator of the relationships between social support and WFI (see
Figure 1). Having dependants at home, especially children who require caring and sup-
port from their parents, can impinge upon workers and be a source of workfamily
conflict (Brough and Kelling, 2002; Stevens etal., 2007). It may be expected that the
presence of dependants could increase levels of both WFI and FWI, but surprisingly
few studies have explored this possibility. Wayne etal. (2013) suggested that perceiving
a supportive work environment may be more important for parents with children than
for employees with no children, and the same argument could be applied to other
dependants (such as elderly relatives). Hence, the relationships between social support
(from work and family members) and WFI should be stronger for people with depend-
ants than those who have no dependants. Information on the support required to best
assist employees to manage dependent demands remains relatively unclear. Clarity is
still required to ensure that employment practices recognize salient periods of depend-
ent demands and thus assist in reducing conflicting demands for employees (e.g. Brough
etal., 2009). Specifically, we predict that:

Hypothesis 2: Presence of dependants will moderate the mediated relationships

between social support (from supervisor and family) and workfamily interference
(WFI and FWI) in predicting (a) psychological strain, (b) job satisfaction and (c)
family satisfaction, such that these relationships will be stronger for workers with
dependants than for those without dependants.

Downloaded from hum.sagepub.com by Claire Castle on November 2, 2016

6 Human Relations

Geographic region
Finally, along with other researchers, Blanch and Aluja (2012) also advocated that work
family conflict research needs to extend beyond the borders of western countries and that
more comparative research is required, in particular to test the generalizability of (pre-
dominantly) western-based theoretical models (see also Brough etal., 2014). Although
the predictors and consequences of workfamily conflict have been well established in
numerous studies in western countries (primarily the USA, Britain and Europe), com-
parisons with non-western countries are sparse (Allen etal., 2014; Aziz etal., 2010;
Kossek etal., 2011). To strengthen theoretical models of the workfamily nexus, more
cross-national research is required to confirm the patterns of findings that are typically
observed in western countries.
To this end, our study focused on two groupings of countries that have quite distinct
cultural values and traditions: Australia/New Zealand (ANZ) and China/Hong Kong
(CHK). Australia and New Zealand have predominantly western values (Hofstede, 1980;
Spector etal., 2007) and generally score high on values such as individualism, which is
closely associated with the workfamily nexus. Furthermore, despite specific differences
in their traditions and cultural practices, overall they may be considered as being rela-
tively similar to each other. These countries are, however, quite different in values and
traditions from China and Hong Kong, which are predominantly collectivistic and, cen-
tral to this research, very family-oriented (Luo etal., 2006; Poelmans etal., 2003). It has
been argued, for example, that the workfamily nexus has very different implications in
collectivistic societies such as China and Hong Kong than in more individualistic coun-
tries such as Australia and New Zealand (Brough etal., 2014; Hassan etal., 2010; Spector
etal., 2007; Timms etal., 2015). Comparisons between these regions are therefore highly
relevant to test the transferability of our hypothesized model.
It has been suggested that in collectivistic societies, social support both from the
family and from work managers and supervisors to reduce workfamily conflict is
more likely to be expected and provided than in individualistic countries. Hassan etal.
(2010), for example, proposed that in collectivistic societies, providing support for fam-
ily members as well as for employees is viewed as a duty and even an obligation. Under
these conditions, it would be predicted that an absence of social support (from ones
supervisor and family) would have more influence on a persons experiences of work
family conflict (in both directions) than it would when such support is not necessarily
anticipated. Based on the reasoning that social support will therefore have greater sali-
ence for workers in collectivist countries than those in individualistic countries, we pro-
pose that the relationship between social support and WFI/FWI will vary between the
two regions included in this study. Specifically, we hypothesize that:

Hypothesis 3: Geographic region will moderate the mediated relationships between

social support (from supervisor and family) and workfamily interference (WFI and
FWI) in predicting (a) psychological strain, (b) job satisfaction and (c) family satis-
faction, such that these relationships will be stronger in China/Hong Kong than in
Australia/New Zealand.

Downloaded from hum.sagepub.com by Claire Castle on November 2, 2016

Drummond et al. 7

Method
Participants and procedure
As part of a larger research project on work-life balance, self-report questionnaire
data were obtained from full-time workers employed in four countries (Australia,
New Zealand, China and Hong Kong). Research participants were recruited from a
heterogeneous sample of industries in each country, including public service, health,
education, finance, manufacturing and non-government organizations who responded
to invitations to participate with this research. Research sample recruitment purpose-
fully included a wide selection of industries to enhance the ability of this research to
be based on nationally representative samples of Australia, New Zealand, China and
Hong Kong workers. Questionnaires were posted via each organizations internal mail
system and returned via reply-post directly to the researchers at their respective local
institutions. Respondents were surveyed twice with a 12-month time lag to be practi-
cable for the participating organizations and also allow time for the intended effects to
be observable. Questionnaires were matched by a self-generated code. All participants
who responded at both time points were analysed for this article (ANZ n = 1,166; CHK
n = 1,017; Total N = 2,183). The response rates for matched respondents compared
with all Time 1 respondents ranged from 16% to 48% per organization, with an
average response rate of 31%.
The semantic equivalence of the research variables was verified as per Brough etal.
(2013). The Chinese and Hong Kong versions of the questionnaire were translated into
Chinese and back translated into English prior to administration. The translated ques-
tionnaire was checked for reliability by test-retest procedures; each research measure
produced reliability coefficients in excess of .79. The Chinese (English-speaking)
researchers also verified the accuracy of these translations and ensured that the meaning
of each translated construct was maintained, a common method employed to confirm
translation accuracy (e.g. Brough etal., 2014).
The total sample ranged in age from 17 to 72 years (M = 36.33, SD = 12.82), com-
prised predominantly females (n = 1654; 76%), were married or partnered (n = 1059;
49%), had completed at least secondary school education (n = 971; 45%). Of the 76%
of respondents (n = 1664) who answered the question about dependants, just over half
had no dependants (n = 927; 56%). Demographic characteristics for the sub-samples
according to geographic region are presented in Table 1. Significant differences were
found for all demographic variables except gender (see Table 1). Consequently, relevant
demographic variables were controlled for in moderated mediation analyses with region
as the moderator.

Measures
Supervisor support and family support. A four-item supervisor support subscale and a four-
item family support subscale (ODriscoll etal., 2004) were included. Items were pref-
aced by the stem Over the past three months, how often did you get the following
support from your supervisor/family?. A sample item for both subscales was clear and

Downloaded from hum.sagepub.com by Claire Castle on November 2, 2016

8 Human Relations

Table 1. Demographic characteristics for sub-samples of geographic region.

Australia/New China/Hong Kong Group differences

Zealand (n = 1166) (n = 1017)
Age 20 to 72 years; M = 17 to 62 years; M = F(1, 2058) = 2009.63,
44.38, SD = 10.49 26.25, SD = 7.03 p < .001, 2 = .49
Gender Female n = 882; 76% Female n = 772; 76% F(1, 2156) = 1.00,
p <. 32, 2 = .00
Marital status Married or partnered Single or not married F(1, 2139) = 994.50,
n = 686; 59% n = 601; 59% p < .001, 2 = .32
Education University degree Secondary education F(1, 1830) = 526.65,
n = 579; 50% n = 497; 49% p < .001, 2 = .22
Dependants Yes dependants No dependants F(1, 1663) = 388.78,
n = 462; 71%a n = 742; 73% p < .001, 2 = .19
aFor ANZ respondents, n = 647 responded to the question. M = mean, SD = standard deviation.

helpful feedback. Responses to both subscales were scored on a six-point frequency

scale from 1 (never) to 6 (all the time). High scores therefore indicate high social
support. Cronbachs alpha coefficients were acceptable for supervisor support (.92) and
family support (.90).

Workfamily interference. WFI was measured using the 18-item instrument developed by
Carlson etal. (2000). This instrument assesses two directions of WFI and FWI, each
including nine items rated on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree)
to 5 (strongly agree), with higher scores representing more conflict. Sample items include
I am often so emotionally drained when I get home from work that it prevents me from
contributing to my family (WFI) and The time I spend with my family often causes
me not to spend time in activities at work that could be helpful to my career (FWI).
Cronbachs alpha coefficients were acceptable: WFI (.84) and FWI (.86).

Psychological strain.The 12-item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ12; Goldberg,

1972) was utilized to measure context-free psychological strain. Items were prefaced
with the stem: Have you experienced the following in the past few weeks . . . and an
example item was been feeling unhappy or depressed?. Responses were recorded on a
frequency scale from 0 (much less than usual) to 3 (more so than usual), and high scores
represent high levels of strain. Cronbachs alpha coefficients were acceptable, ranging
from .87 (T1) to .89 (T2).

Job satisfaction. Job satisfaction was measured using the three-item Michigan Organiza-
tional Assessment Questionnaire (Seashore etal., 1982). Respondents indicated their
agreement or disagreement on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disa-
gree) to 5 (strongly agree). An example item was All in all I am satisfied with my job.
Higher scores are indicative of greater job satisfaction. Cronbachs alpha coefficients
were acceptable, .79 (T1) and .80 (T2).

Downloaded from hum.sagepub.com by Claire Castle on November 2, 2016

Drummond et al. 9

Family satisfaction.This was measured using three items from Edwards and Rothbard
(1999), scored on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7
(strongly agree). An example item was In general I am satisfied with my family/home
life. Higher scores are indicative of greater family satisfaction. Cronbachs alpha coef-
ficients were acceptable .93 (T1) and .94 (T2).

Demographics. Questions were asked about gender (biological sex), age, marital status,
educational qualifications and number of dependants currently living with respondents.
Respondents were not asked to specify the type of dependent/s they cared for (e.g. chil-
dren, elderly parents) and it is recognized that different types of dependants may poten-
tially influence the variables in different ways.

Data analysis
Moderated mediation analyses were conducted using Model 7 of the PROCESS macro
for SPSS (Hayes, 2013), which is equivalent to Edwards and Lamberts (2007) first stage
moderation model. We followed the recommendations of Hayes (2013) and Zhao etal.
(2010), who stipulated that the statistical requirement to determine whether mediation is
evident in the data is the presence of a significant ab effect, that is, the confidence inter-
val for the mediation effect does not contain zero. There is no requirement for the sepa-
rate a and b paths to be statistically significant because it is the product of a and b that
determines the mediation effect. For our analyses, a significant moderated mediation
effect was deemed to have occurred when a significant interaction was found on the
predictor-mediator path, and the overall indirect effect was significant.
For each analysis, 5000 bootstrap samples and 95% bias corrected confidence inter-
vals were specified. Heteroscedasticity-consistent standard errors (HSEs) were utilized
to account for the slight deviations in normality in the residuals (Edwards and Lambert,
2007). For each analysis the Time 1 criterion variable was included as a covariate and
relevant demographics were controlled for in the region analyses. The three moderators
(region, gender, dependants) were dummy coded prior to analysis. As the bootstrapping
macro treats multiple mediators as covariates when testing each mediator, both media-
tors (WFI and FWI) were included simultaneously in each analysis to provide a more
stringent test of the models by partialling out shared variance, resulting in 18 analyses
(3 outcomes x 3 moderators x 2 predictors).

Results
Descriptive statistics
Table 2 presents the means, standard deviations and reliability coefficients for the
entire sample, as well as the means and standard deviations by gender, region and
number of dependants. For parsimony, only the Time 2 outcome variables are shown
in the table. All variables demonstrated high levels of internal consistency, ranging
from = .79 (T1 job satisfaction) to = .94 (T2 supervisor support and T2 family

Downloaded from hum.sagepub.com by Claire Castle on November 2, 2016

 10

Table 2. Means (standard deviations) and reliability coefficients for the time 1 and time 2 research variables.

Total Gender Region Dependants Reliability

Sample coefficient
Males Females ANZ CHK No Yes
(n = 503) (n = 1654) (n = 1166) (n = 1017) (n = 927) (n = 737)
T1 Supervisor support 3.30 3.22 3.32 3.69a 2.84 2.99 3.93a .92
(1.22) (1.18) (1.24) (1.32) (0.91) (1.05) (1.25)
T1 Family support 4.08 3.96 4.11a 4.13a 4.01 4.05 4.05 .90
(1.17) (1.17) (1.17) (1.27) (1.03) (1.09) (1.18)
T1 Workfamily interference 2.82 2.82 2.83 2.76 2.90a 2.80 2.92a .84
(0.71) (0.72) (0.71) (0.75) (0.66) (0.66) (0.73)
T1 Familywork interference 2.49 2.60a 2.46 2.36 2.66a 2.58a 2.46 .86
(0.65) (0.67) (0.65) (0.68) (0.57) (0.59) (0.65)
T1 Strain 0.99 0.98 0.99 1.01a 0.95 0.98 0.98 .87
(0.45) (0.44) (0.45) (0.48) (0.40) (0.44) (0.43)
T1 Job satisfaction 3.70 3.65 3.71 4.01a 3.31 3.41 3.81a .79
(0.83) (0.84) (0.82) (0.83) (0.64) (0.74) (0.82)
T1 Family satisfaction 5.60 5.37 5.66a 5.82a 5.32 5.41 5.70a .93
(1.39) (1.46) (1.37) (1.41) (1.31) (1.33) (1.39)
T2 Strain 0.99 0.94 1.01a 1.04a 0.92 0.94 1.00a .89

Downloaded from hum.sagepub.com by Claire Castle on November 2, 2016

(0.48) (0.47) (0.48) (0.49) (0.46) (0.47) (0.47)
T2 Job satisfaction 3.60 3.57 3.60 3.94a 3.19 3.28 3.75a .80
(0.86) (0.86) (0.86) (0.87) (0.64) (0.77) (0.86)
T2 Family satisfaction 5.50 5.27 5.58a 5.81a 5.14 5.21 5.62a .94
(1.39) (1.48) (1.36) (1.37) (1.33) (1.34) (1.40)

T1 = Time 1; T2 = Time 2. ANZ = Australia/New Zealand; CHK = China/Hong Kong.

a= Significantly higher than the alternative group at p < .05.
Human Relations
Drummond et al. 11

satisfaction). Internal consistency at each level of the moderator was also acceptable,
except for job satisfaction at T1 and T2 for CHK respondents ( = .63). A number of
significant differences were observed in the moderator variables (see Table 3): (1)
female respondents reported more family support, less FWI, more family and job sat-
isfaction, and more strain than males; (2) ANZ respondents reported more supervisor
and family support, less WFI and FWI, more family and job satisfaction, and more
strain than CHK respondents; (3) respondents with dependants reported more supervi-
sor support, more WFI, less FWI, more family and job satisfaction, and more strain
than respondents with no dependants.
Table 4 displays the correlations for the research variables. In line with expectations,
supervisor support and family support were significantly associated with decreased WFI
and FWI, and WFI and FWI were significantly negatively related to job and family sat-
isfaction, and positively related to psychological strain. The variables were checked for
multi-collinearity using the variance inflation factor (VIF), with all VIF results below
2.0, indicating an absence of multi-collinearity.

Moderated mediation effects

Owing to the complexity of results, only the significant moderated mediation effects are
reported below (for a copy of the full results, please contact the corresponding author).
In keeping with recommendations by Hayes (2013), unstandardized coefficients are
reported for the moderated mediation effects.

Moderating influence of gender.Table 5 presents the significant moderated mediation

effects for the relationships between sources of support (supervisor and family) and Time
2 strain via WFI and FWI for the moderating variable of gender. Hypothesis 1a, 1b and
1c predicted that interference would mediate the relationship between support and the
three outcomes more strongly for females than for males. The results support these
hypotheses: family support reduced WFI for females and this reduced psychological
strain over time (H1a), supervisor support reduced FWI for females (H1b) and this
increased job satisfaction over time, and supervisor support also reduced FWI for females
(H1c) and this increased family satisfaction over time. Contrary to our expectations,
significant moderation effects of gender were not observed for family support reducing
FWI or for supervisor support reducing WFI.

Moderating influence of dependants. Presence of dependants did not significantly interact

with social support in any of the tested relationships. Therefore, Hypothesis 2 was not
supported.

Moderating influence of region. After controlling for demographic variables and T1 out-
come variables, only one significant relationship was found for the moderating role of
geographic region in the mediated relationships: supervisor support reduced psycho-
logical strain via a reduction in FWI, but only for workers in China/Hong Kong (see
Table 6).

Downloaded from hum.sagepub.com by Claire Castle on November 2, 2016

 12

Table 3. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) results for group differences between moderator variables and support, interference and outcome
variables.

Gender Region Dependants

F 2
T1 Supervisor support F[1, 2128] = 2.51 .001
T1 Family support F[1, 2121] = 7.34** .003
T1 Workfamily interference F[1, 2115] = 0.00 .00
T1 Familywork interference F[1, 2110] = 16.59*** .01
T1 Strain F[1, 2088] = 0.02 .00
T1 Job satisfaction F[1, 2140] = 1.65 .001
T1 Family satisfaction F[1, 2135] = 16.20*** .01
T2 Strain F[1, 2073] = 7.37** .004
T2 Job satisfaction F[1, 2149] = 0.46 .00
T2 Family satisfaction F[1, 2150] = 18.76*** .01
F 2
F[1, 2153] = 289.97*** .12
F[1, 2146] = 5.03* .002
F[1, 2141] = 23.06*** .01
F[1, 2135] = 115.65*** .05
F[1, 2111] = 10.56*** .01
F[1, 2165] = 472.12*** .18
F[1, 2160] = 70.74*** .03
F[1, 2087] = 29.23*** .01
F[1, 2165] = 498.15*** .19
F[1, 2167] = 239.42*** .06
F 2
F[1, 1634] = 50.12*** .03
F[1, 1627] = 0.02 .00
F[1, 1622] = 13.13*** .01
F[1, 1616] = 13.68*** .01
F[1, 1592] = 0.02 .00
F[1, 1646] = 111.01*** .06
F[1, 1641] = 19.82*** .01
F[1, 1568] = 9.56** .01
F[1, 1646] = 139.12*** .08
F[1, 1649] = 36.82*** .02

Downloaded from hum.sagepub.com by Claire Castle on November 2, 2016

T1 = Time 1; T2 = Time 2. Significant differences are bolded.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
Human Relations
 Drummond et al.

Table 4. Correlations for the time 1 and time 2 research variables.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1. Gendera
2. Regionb .02
3. Dependantsc .04 .44***
4. T1 Supervisor support .03 .35*** .17***
5. T1 Family support .06** .05* .01 .17***
6. T1 Workfamily interference .00 .10*** .09*** .19*** .08***
7. T1 Familywork interference .09*** .23*** .09*** .19*** .20*** .49***
8 T1 Strain .01 .07*** .01 .12*** .12*** .30*** .30***
9 T1 Job satisfaction .03 .42*** .25*** .44*** .08*** .27*** .29*** .25***
10 T1 Family satisfaction .09*** .18*** .11*** .14*** .39*** .17*** .32*** .31*** .20***
11. T2 Strain .06** .12*** .08** .04 .05* .20*** .17*** .37*** .10*** .13***
12 T2 Job satisfaction .02 .43*** .28*** .34*** .04 .20*** .25*** .17*** .60*** .16*** .18***
13. T2 Family satisfaction .09*** .24*** .15** .10*** .29*** .13*** .26*** .18*** .19*** .48*** .15*** .21***

Downloaded from hum.sagepub.com by Claire Castle on November 2, 2016

aGender was dummy coded 0 = Male, 1 = Female. bRegion was dummy coded 1 = ANZ, 2 = CHK. cDependants was dummy coded 0 = No dependants, 1 = Yes

dependants. T1 = Time 1; T2 = Time 2.

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
13
14 Human Relations

Table 5. Unstandardized bootstrapped effects for Hypothesis 1.

b SE b CI LL, CI UL
H1(a): Family support GenderWFI T2Strain
Family supportWFI .027* .013 [.053, .001]
Family support GenderWFI .088** .032 [.151, .026]
WFIT2 Strain .064*** .017 [.030, .098]
Moderated mediation effect for WFI
Male .003 .002 [.001, .007]
Female .003 .001 [.006, .001]
H1(b): Supervisor support GenderFWIT2 Job Satisfaction
Supervisor supportFWI .038** .014 [.066, .011]
Supervisor support GenderFWI .062* .030 [.121, .003]
FWIT2 Job satisfaction .096** .030 [.154, .038]
Moderated mediation effect for FWI
Male .001 .003 [.008, .004]
Female .005 .002 [.002, .011]
H1(c): Supervisor support GenderFWIT2 Family Satisfaction
Supervisor supportFWI .077*** .012 [.101, .053]
Supervisor support GenderFWI .089** .030 [.148, .030]
FWIT2 Family satisfaction .271*** .050 [.369, .172]
Moderated mediation effect for FWI
Male .002 .007 [.012, .017]
Female .026 .006 [.017, .039]

Only paths for significant moderated mediation effects are shown. The significant indirect effect for each
group is bolded. Time 1 DVs were controlled. CI LL = 95% bias corrected confidence interval lower limit;
CI UL = 95% bias corrected confidence interval upper limit; WFI = WorkFamily Interference;
FWI = FamilyWork Interference.
*p < .05; **p < .01; *** p < .001.

Table 6. Unstandardized bootstrapped effects for Hypothesis 3.

H3(a): Supervisor support Region FWI T2 Strain

b SE b CI LL, CI UL
Supervisor supportFWI .052** .017 [.085, .019]
Supervisor support RegionFWI .069* .032 [.133, .005]
FWIT2 Strain .050* .023 [.006, .094]
Moderated mediation effect for FWI
ANZ .001 .001 [.004, .001]
CHK .004 .002 [.010, .001]

Only paths for significant moderated mediation effects are shown. The significant indirect effect for each
group is bolded. Time 1 DVs were controlled as were demographic variables. CI LL = 95% bias corrected
confidence interval lower limit; CI UL = 95% bias corrected confidence interval upper limit; WFI = Work
Family Interference; FWI = FamilyWork Interference.
*p < .05; **p < .01; *** p < .001.

Downloaded from hum.sagepub.com by Claire Castle on November 2, 2016

Drummond et al. 15

Discussion
The present research tested a moderated mediation model of relationships between social
support (from ones supervisor and family), workfamily conflict, and three potential
outcomes (psychological strain, job satisfaction and family satisfaction), moderated by
gender, geographical region and dependants. Overall, our findings partially support the
moderated mediation model (Figure 1) tested in this research. Social support from super-
visors and family members was related to bi-directional workfamily conflict, which in
turn was associated with reduced psychological strain and higher levels of both job sat-
isfaction and family satisfaction for specific groups of respondents. These findings are
consistent with those from other studies that have explored mediation effects of work
family conflict (Huang etal., 2004; Lourel etal., 2009), although none of these previous
studies examined the relationship between social support and the criterion variables.

Direct effects
As anticipated, supervisor and family support were negatively correlated with both WFI
and FWI, consistent with Blanch and Alujas (2012) findings and those of other investi-
gators (see a review by Ayman and Antani, 2008). These results confirm that social sup-
port has an important role in reducing WFI and FWI, although our findings indicate a
relatively modest impact of supervisor and family support. There may be circumstances
under which this type of support is more critical, such as when the individual is experi-
encing intense family demands or confronts a crisis situation. Future research could
fruitfully explore the conditions under which social support has a greater versus lesser
impact on levels of workfamily conflict.
Interestingly, we found some evidence of gender differences in reported levels of
social support, conflict and the criterion variables (strain and satisfaction), corroborating
similar work examining workfamily enrichment (e.g. Tang etal., 2014). By and large,
men and women reported comparable degrees of supervisor support and WFI, but dif-
fered in their ratings of family support and FWI. Previous research comparing men and
women has generated inconsistent findings. Although Blanch and Aluja (2012) reported
that women in their study experienced higher levels of both WFI and FWI, other studies
(such as Powell and Greenhaus, 2010) have obtained no significant gender difference,
and debate continues on this issue. We suggest that, as male and female work and family
roles change over time and there is greater involvement of men and women in both work
and family domains, some of the gender differences found in earlier studies (e.g. Cinamon
and Rich, 2002) may cease to be found, or at least become less pronounced.
Differences between respondents from Australia/New Zealand (ANZ) and China/
Hong Kong (CHK) were observed in relation to all of the variables in our study. Moderate
levels of WFI and FWI were reported by respondents from both regions, but CHK work-
ers displayed higher levels of both WFI and FWI than their counterparts from ANZ. This
finding is interesting in respect of suggestions from some commentators (e.g. Aryee
etal., 1999; Timms etal., 2015), that the workfamily nexus has a different meaning to
people in Asian societies than in more individualistic societies such as Australia and New
Zealand. Our findings are similar to those of Spector etal. (2007), who observed that

Downloaded from hum.sagepub.com by Claire Castle on November 2, 2016

16 Human Relations

workers in Anglo-American countries reported less workfamily pressure than did those
from China. While we are unable to definitively determine whether these differences are
owing to people in Asian countries having greater work demands and longer working
hours or to differential reporting of workfamily conflict, post-hoc analyses of our
demographic data revealed that Chinese/Hong Kong respondents worked significantly
more hours per week (44 hours on average) than Australia/New Zealand respondents (38
hours on average).
Finally, under the rubric of demographic differences, we also examined whether peo-
ple who have responsibility for dependants (either children, parents or other relatives)
would experience higher levels of workfamily conflict (WFI and FWI). Prior research
(e.g. Brough and Kelling, 2002; Stevens etal., 2007) suggested that workers with chil-
dren (or other dependants) are more likely to experience both directions of workfamily
conflict, and family-friendly policies developed in many organizations are founded on
this premise (e.g. Brough etal., 2005). In this study, we found significant differences in
both WFI and FWI between workers who had dependants and those who did not.
However, as we note later, the presence of dependants did not function as a moderator
variable.

Moderator effects in the mediation model

Following suggestions proffered by Blanch and Aluja (2012), our research incorporated
three key demographics variables as potential moderator variables gender, geographic
region (ANZ versus CHK) and dependants. Gender and region both showed evidence of
moderation effects in the mediation model, but (surprisingly) dependants yielded no
moderation effects at all. The moderation effects of gender generally confirmed our pre-
dictions (see Table 5). Confirming Hypothesis 1, gender was a significant moderator of
the relationship between supervisor support with FWI and also of the relationship
between family support and WFI. In all cases, the mediation effects of WFI and FWI
were stronger for women than for men, highlighting that social support can be a more
salient issue for women. Our findings are partly, but not fully, consistent with those of
Blanch and Aluja, who found that family support was a stronger factor for men compared
with women.
Another important aspect of our findings was that significant moderated mediation
effects were found for the relationship of family support with WFI, and significant mod-
erated mediation effects were observed for the relationship of supervisor support with
FWI. Based on the assumption that family support would reduce demands and pressures
that arise in the family domain, whereas supervisor support would be more pertinent to
work-related demands and pressures, the opposite pattern of relationships was antici-
pated. The present results suggest that, for women in particular, family members may be
able to influence perceptions of the extent to which their work interferes with their fam-
ily life. A supportive family can lighten the load for people, especially women who have
both work commitments and major responsibility for family issues. Conversely, supervi-
sors who understand the pressures and responsibilities of family commitments can
reduce the extent to which these pressures and responsibilities interfere with a persons
work (e.g. Brough etal., 2005; Timms etal., 2015).

Downloaded from hum.sagepub.com by Claire Castle on November 2, 2016

Drummond et al. 17

Moderator effects of region (ANZ and CHK) were also found, however only for psy-
chological strain (Hypothesis 3a). Supervisor support reduced psychological strain
through a reduction in FWI for workers in CHK, even though (as noted above) CHK
respondents reported less supervisor support and more FWI than their ANZ counterparts.
This finding suggests that even minimal levels of supervisor support can have beneficial
impacts on the perceptions of FWI for workers in collectivistic cultures, which in turn
reduce psychological strain over time. It is also consistent with these cultures having
strong family-oriented values (e.g. Luo etal., 2006), suggesting that supervisors may be
more understanding and receptive of family issues interfering with work, thus reducing
perceptions of FWI. This is contrary to Spector etal. (2007), who discussed social sup-
port (from supervisors and family members) as being more important for predicting
workfamily conflict and its outcomes in more individualistic countries compared with
collectivistic countries, where support from these sources is likely to be assumed (Aryee
etal., 1999).
Perhaps the most surprising finding in our study was that the presence of dependants
did not function as a moderator of social support workfamily conflict outcomes.
Consistent with arguments raised by Blanch and Aluja (2012) and others (e.g. Stevens
etal., 2007), we anticipated that individuals who cared for dependants would be more
likely to benefit from supervisor and family support, but none of the moderator effects in
our analyses were significant. As this is one of the first studies to examine moderated
mediation in respect of these relationships, several reasons may be posited for the lack of
significant moderation. One explanation is that this research did not include the range of
resources available to assist working parents with their dependant responsibilities. These
resources include practical help (e.g. a child-minder or housekeeper), emotional support
and assistance from family members, and the development of effective personal strategies
for coping with multiple demands (e.g. time management, prioritizing, delegation of
tasks). It was not possible to focus on these resources in the present study, but it would be
valuable for future research to examine the interplay between resource availability and the
number of dependants in assessing moderated mediation relationships. An additional con-
sideration was that children and adult dependants were investigated together. Asking
respondents to indicate which type of dependant(s) they cared for may have enabled us to
find more nuanced results in this area. This could be explored in future research.

Practical implications
The results of this study highlight the importance of considering cross-domain effects
when seeking ways to reduce interference from work and/or family. For female workers
especially, and particularly those in more collectivistic societies where social support is
highly salient, supervisors may play an important role in reducing the perceived impact of
family interfering at work, which has beneficial outcomes for both job and family satis-
faction. Supervisors should be encouraged to offer practical support such as flexible work
options, and also emotional support that conveys empathy and understanding. Building
these components into leadership training in the workplace would be an effective means
to enhance well-being among employees. Supervisors who provide support in this way
are likely to contribute to better psychological health outcomes for their workers.

Downloaded from hum.sagepub.com by Claire Castle on November 2, 2016

18 Human Relations

Limitations and future research directions

Two main limitations may have influenced the results found in this study. First, the
majority of the sample (76%) comprised female workers. This over-representation of
women in the sample may be a reflection of the organizations that participated in the
research, and a broader sampling of men and women is desirable. Nevertheless, the con-
sistency between our findings and those from other recent studies comparing males and
females suggests that there was no systematic bias in our findings.
A second limitation is that, although we examined moderated mediation, the theoreti-
cal framework for our analyses focused on the potential moderating effects of gender,
region and dependants in respect of path a in the mediation model (Figure 1). We did not
examine possible moderators of the relationships between WFI/FWI and the criterion
variables. Casper etal. (2011) did assess those relationships, testing whether gender
moderated the relationship between WFI/FWI and outcomes; however they found no
gender moderating effect in these relationships. Although technically it would be possi-
ble to examine moderators of the b path in our model, the three demographic variables
(region, gender and number of dependants) are more likely to moderate relationships
between the support variables (supervisor support, family support) and WFI. It is much
less likely that these demographic variables would moderate relationships between WFI
and the three criterion variables (strain, job satisfaction, family satisfaction). That is,
WFI (in either direction) consistently associated with negative outcomes, irrespective of
demographic differences (e.g. males versus females).
Finally, a strength of the present study is that it utilized a two-wave research design,
with a 12-month lag between measurement periods. This time lag was implemented to
be practicable for the participating organizations, and to allow sufficient time for the
effects of WFI and FWI to be observable. However, we cannot know whether this is
the optimal gap between assessments, and it is possible that either shorter or longer
time periods may have generated different patterns of results. Additionally, it would be
ideal to include more assessment points in order to track changes over time and to
more confidently infer causality in relationships between variables (Ployhart and
Vandenberg, 2010).

Conclusion
This study demonstrated that social support from supervisors and family members was
associated with reduced psychological strain and increased job and family satisfaction
over time via reductions in WFI and FWI, and that there were differences in these rela-
tionships among males and females workers and between respondents from Australia-
New Zealand and China-Hong Kong. The inclusion of cross-domain effects examining
the influence of supervisor support on FWI and family support on WFI contributes
important findings to the literature. The use of a large sample spanning different societal
and cultural norms sheds light on the effects of support and workfamily conflict over
time, contributing to the sparse literature on longitudinal effects. In addition, the findings
confirm the generalizability of our theoretical model across different cultural contexts.
Overall, the results demonstrate that different types of support are important for different

Downloaded from hum.sagepub.com by Claire Castle on November 2, 2016

Drummond et al. 19

groups of people in reducing FWI and WFI, and subsequently improving their health,
work attitudes and psychological well-being.

Funding
This research was supported by the Australian Research Council Discovery Project Grant Scheme
(grant number: DP0770109).

References
Allen TD, Herst DEL, Bruck CS and Sutton M (2000) Consequences associated with work-to-
family conflict: A review and agenda for future research. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology 5(2): 278308.
Allen TD, Lapierre LM, Spector PE, etal. (2014) The link between national paid leave policy and
workfamily conflict among married working parents. Applied Psychology: An International
Review 63(1): 528.
Aryee S, Fields D and Luk V (1999) A cross-cultural test of a model of the work/family interface.
Journal of Management 25(4): 491512.
Ayman R and Antani A (2008) Social support and workfamily conflict. In: Korabik K, Lero DS
and Whitehead DL (eds) Handbook of Work-Family Integration: Research, Theory and Best
Practices. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 287304.
Aziz S, Adkins CT, Walker AG and Wuensch KL (2010) Workaholism and work-life imbalance:
Does cultural origin influence the relationship? International Journal of Psychology 45(1):
7279.
Bellman S, Forster N, Still L and Cooper CL (2003) Gender differences in the use of social support
as a moderator of occupational stress. Stress and Health 19(1): 4558.
Blanch A and Aluja A (2012) Social support (family and supervisor), workfamily conflict, and
burnout: Sex differences. Human Relations 65(7): 811833.
Brough P and Kelling A (2002) Women, work and well-being: The influence of workfamily and
family-work conflict. New Zealand Journal of Psychology 31(1): 2938.
Brough P and ODriscoll MP (2015) Integrating work and personal life. In: Burke RJ, Page KM
and Cooper CL (eds) Flourishing in Life, Work, and Careers: Individual Wellbeing and
Career Experiences. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 377394.
Brough P, ODriscoll MP and Biggs A (2009) Parental leave and workfamily balance among
employed parents following childbirth: An exploratory investigation in Australia and New
Zealand. Kotuitui: New Zealand Journal of Social Sciences Online 4(1): 7187.
Brough P, ODriscoll M and Kalliath T (2005) The ability of family friendly organisational
resources to predict workfamily conflict and job and family satisfaction. Stress and Health
21(4): 223234.
Brough P, Timms C, ODriscoll M, et al. (2014) Work-life balance: A longitudinal evaluation of
a new measure across Australia and New Zealand workers. International Journal of Human
Resource Management 25(19): 27242744.
Brough P, Timms C, Siu OL, etal. (2013) Validation of the job demands-resources model in cross-
national samples: Cross-sectional and longitudinal predictions of psychological strain and
work engagement. Human Relations 66(10): 13111335.
Byron K (2005) A meta-analytic review of workfamily conflict and its antecedents. Journal of
Vocational Behavior 67(2): 169198.
Carlson DS, Kacmar KM and Williams L (2000) Construction and initial validation of a multi-
demensional measure of work/family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior 56(2):
249276.

Downloaded from hum.sagepub.com by Claire Castle on November 2, 2016

20 Human Relations

Casper WJ, Harris C, Taylor-Bianco A and Wayne JH (2011) Workfamily conflict, perceived
supervisor support and organizational commitment among Brazilian professionals. Journal
of Vocational Behavior 79(3): 640652.
Cinamon RG and Rich Y (2002) Gender differences in the importance of work and family roles:
Implications for workfamily conflict. Sex Roles 47(11): 531541.
Eby LT, Casper WJ, Lockwood A, et al. (2005) Work and family research in IO/OB: Content
analysis and review of the literature (19802002). Journal of Vocational Behavior 66(1):
124197.
Edwards JR and Lambert LS (2007) Methods for integrating moderation and mediation:
A general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods
12(1): 122.
Edwards JR and Rothbard N (1999) Work and family stress and well-being: And examination
of person-environment fit in the work and family domains. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes 77(2): 85129.
Goldberg DP (1972) The Detection of Psychiatric Illness by Questionnaire. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Greenhaus JH and Beutell N (1985) Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Academy
of Management Review 10(1): 7688.
Hassan Z, Dollard MF and Winefield AH (2010) Workfamily conflict in Eastern vs Western
countries. Cross-Cultural Management 17(1): 3049.
Hayes AF (2013) Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A
Regression-Based Approach. New York: The Guildford Press.
Hofstede G (1980) Cultures Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values.
Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
Huang YH, Hammer LB, Neal MB and Perrin NA (2004) The relationship between work-to-
family conflict and family-to-work conflict: A longitudinal study. Journal of Family and
Economic Issues 25(1): 79100.
Huffman A, Culbertson SS, Henning JB and Goh A (2013) Workfamily conflict across the lifes-
pan. Journal of Managerial Psychology 28(78): 761780.
Karimi L, Karimi H and Nouri A (2011) Predicting employees well-being using workfamily
conflict and job strain models. Stress and Health 27(2): 111122.
Kossek EE, Baltes BB and Matthews RA (2011) How workfamily research can finally have an
impact in organizations. Industrial and Organizational Psychology 4(3): 352369.
Lapierre LM, Spector PE, Allen TD, etal. (2008) Family-supportive organization perceptions,
multiple dimensions of workfamily conflict, and employee satisfaction: A test of model
across five samples. Journal of Vocational Behavior 73(1): 92106.
Lourel M, Ford MT, Gamassou CE, et al. (2009) Negative and positive spillover between work and
home. Journal of Managerial Psychology 24(5): 438449.
Lu CQ, Lu JJ, Du DY and Brough P (2016) Crossover effects of workfamily conflict among
Chinese couples. Journal of Managerial Psychology 31(1): 235250.
Lu JF, Siu OL, Spector PE and Shi K (2009) Antecedents and outcomes of a fourfold taxon-
omy of workfamily balance in Chinese employed parents. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology 14(2): 182192.
Luo LL, Gilmour R, Kao SF and Huang MT (2006) A cross-cultural study of work/family
demands, work/family conflict and wellbeing: the Taiwanese vs British. Career Development
International 11(1): 927.
Lyness KS and Judiesch MK (2008) Can a manager have a life and a career? International and
multisource perspectives on work-life balance and career advancement potential. Journal of
Applied Psychology 93(4): 789805.

Downloaded from hum.sagepub.com by Claire Castle on November 2, 2016

Drummond et al. 21

ODriscoll M and Brough P (2010) Work organisation and health. In: Leka S and Houdmont J
(eds) Occupational Health Psychology. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 5787.
ODriscoll MP, Brough P and Kalliath T (2004) Workfamily conflict, psychological well-being,
satisfaction and social support: A longitudinal study in New Zealand. Equal Employment
Opportunities International 23(12): 3656.
ODriscoll MP, Brough P and Kalliath T (2006) Workfamily conflict and facilitation. In: Jones
F, Burke R and Westman W (eds) Work-Life Balance: A Psychological Perspective. Hove:
Psychology Press, 117142.
Olson-Buchanan JB and Boswell WR (2006) Blurring boundaries: Correlates of integration
and segmentation between work and nonwork. Journal of Vocational Behavior 68(3):
432445.
Ployhart RE and Vandenberg RJ (2010) Longitudinal research: The theory, design, and analysis of
change. Journal of Management 36(1): 94120.
Poelmans SA, Spector PE, Cooper CL, et al. (2003) A cross-national comparative study of work/
family demands and resources. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 3(3):
275288.
Powell GN and Greenhaus JH (2010) Sex, gender and the work-to-family interface: Exploring
negative and positive interdependencies. Academy of Management Journal 53(3): 513
534.
Rajadhyaksha U, Korabik K and Aycan Z (2015) Gender, gender-role ideology, and the work
family interface: A cross-cultural analysis. In: Mills MJ (ed.) Gender and the Work-Family
Experience: An Intersection of Two Domains. London: Springer International Publishing,
99117.
Reichl C, Leiter MP and Spinath FM (2014) Worknonwork conflict and burnout: A meta-analy-
sis. Human Relations 67(8): 9791005.
Rupert PA, Stevanovic P, Hartman ERT, et al. (2012) Predicting workfamily conflict and life sat-
isfaction among professional psychologists. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice
43(4): 341348.
Seashore S, Lawler E, Mirvis P and Cammann C (1982) Observing and Measuring Organizational
Change: A Guide to Field Practice. New York: Wiley.
Spector PE, Allen TD, Poelmans SA, etal. (2007) Cross-national differences in relationships of
work demands, job satisfaction, and turnover intentions with workfamily conflict. Personnel
Psychology 60(4): 805835.
Stevens DP, Minnotte KL, Mannon SE and Kiger G (2007) Examining the neglected side of
the workfamily interface: Antecedents of positive and negative family-to-work spillover.
Journal of Family Issues 28(2): 242262.
Tang SW, Siu OL and Cheung F (2014) A study of workfamily enrichment among Chinese
employees: The mediating role between work support and job satisfaction. Applied
Psychology: An International Review 63(1): 130150.
Thompson BM and Cavallaro L (2007) Gender, work-based support and family outcomes. Stress
and Health 23(2): 7385.
Timms C, Brough P, Siu OL, et al. (2015) Cross-cultural impact of work-life balance on health and
work outcomes. In: Lu L and Coooper CL (eds) Handbook of Research on Work-Life Balance
in Asia. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 295314.
Wayne JH, Casper WJ, Matthews RA and Allen TD (2013) Family-supportive organization per-
ceptions and organizational commitment: The mediating role of workfamily conflict and
enrichment and partner attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology 98(4): 606622.
Zhao X, Lynch JG Jr and Chen Q (2010) Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about
mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research 37(2): 197206.

Downloaded from hum.sagepub.com by Claire Castle on November 2, 2016

22 Human Relations

Suzie Drummond completed her PhD in Organisational Psychology at Griffith University,

Australia, focusing on employee wellbeing, work engagement, and proactive coping. She has
worked on a variety of research projects investigating worklife balance, wellbeing and engage-
ment of high-stress employees, cognitive abilities of older and younger workers, student experi-
ences of work-integrated learning programs, and the use of telepresence robots to aid elderly peo-
ple with dementia. Suzie has presented at national and international conferences and published in
peer-reviewed journals and books. She now works at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial
Research Organisation (CSIRO). [Email: suzie.drummond@griffithuni.edu.au]
Michael P ODriscoll is Professor of Psychology at the University of Waikato in New Zealand,
where he convenes the post-graduate program in organizational psychology. His primary research
interests focus on job-related stress (including the effects of bullying at work), coping and psycho-
logical well-being, worklife balance, and well-being of older workers. He is co-author of several
books, book chapters and journal articles. He is associate editor of Stress & Health and New
Zealand Journal of Psychology, serves on the editorial boards of several international academic
journals, and has provided consulting services to organizations on work stress and well-being.
[Email: m.odriscoll@waikato.ac.nz]
Paula Brough is Professor of Organizational Psychology in the School of Applied Psychology,
Griffith University, Australia. Paulas research focuses on the psychological health and well-being
of high-risk workers (e.g. emergency service workers), worklife balance, and employees work-
place attitudes (e.g. work engagement, satisfaction). Paula has published over 90 academic books,
journal articles and book chapters and is the Chief Investigator on numerous national and interna-
tional research grants. [Email: p.brough@griffith.edu.au]
Thomas Kalliath is Associate Professor of Organisational Behaviour in the Research School of
Management at Australian National University. His research interests include workfamily bal-
ance, job stress and employee well-being. [Email: thomas.kalliath@anu.edu.au]
Oi-Ling Siu is Professor and Chair of the Department of Applied Psychology at Lingnan University in
Hong Kong. Her research interests are in Occupational Health Psychology, specifically occupational
stress, psychology of safety and worklife balance. Professor Siu is the Editor of International Journal
of Stress Management and Associate Editor of Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. Professor
Siu has published over 70 refereed journal articles and many book chapters. [Email: siuol@ln.edu.hk]
Carolyn Timms is a researcher and lecturer at James Cook University, Australia. Her research
interests include the investigation of healthy work environments and antecedents to work engage-
ment and burnout. She has published papers on these and other topics in several international
journals. [Email: carolyn.timms@jcu.edu.au]
Derek Riley completed his PhD in 2012 on the role of resilience and worklife balance in relation
to psychological well-being. He is self-employed. [Email: dr11@waikato.ac.nz]
Cindy Sit is Associate Professor of Sports Science and Physical Education at the Chinese University
of Hong Kong. Her research interests include physical activity participation and sedentary behav-
iour among children and youth, correlates of physical activity, and physical and psychological
health. [Email: sithp@cuhk.edu.hk]
Danny Lo is Associate Professor of Accounting at the Xian Jiaotong-Liverpool University, China.
His research interests include regulatory reforms, corporate sustainability in Asia, forensic
accounting research and organization culture development. His papers have been published in
Journal of Forensic and Investigative Accounting, Human Relations, Sasin Journal of Management
and others. [Email: danny.lo@xjtlu.edu.cn]

Downloaded from hum.sagepub.com by Claire Castle on November 2, 2016

View publication stats