Journal of Applied Psychology © 2014 American Psychological Association

2014, Vol. 99, No. 6, 1173–1187 0021-9010/14/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0036674

A Work–Family Conflict/Subjective Well-Being Process Model:

A Test of Competing Theories of Longitudinal Effects

Russell A. Matthews Julie Holliday Wayne

Bowling Green State University Wake Forest University

Michael T. Ford
University at Albany, State University of New York
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

In the present study, we examine competing predictions of stress reaction models and adaptation theories
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

regarding the longitudinal relationship between work–family conflict and subjective well-being. Based
on data from 432 participants over 3 time points with 2 lags of varying lengths (i.e., 1 month, 6 months),
our findings suggest that in the short term, consistent with prior theory and research, work–family
conflict is associated with poorer subjective well-being. Counter to traditional work–family predictions
but consistent with adaptation theories, after accounting for concurrent levels of work–family conflict as
well as past levels of subjective well-being, past exposure to work–family conflict was associated with
higher levels of subjective well-being over time. Moreover, evidence was found for reverse causation in
that greater subjective well-being at 1 point in time was associated with reduced work–family conflict at
a subsequent point in time. Finally, the pattern of results did not vary as a function of using different
temporal lags. We discuss the theoretical, research, and practical implications of our findings.

Keywords: work–family conflict, subjective well-being, longitudinal, strain-stressor, adaptation theory

According to role theorists, individuals juggle multiple roles,
such as work and family, and work–family conflict occurs when
the demands of functioning in the two domains are incompatible in
some respect (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985) wherein work can
interfere with family (work-to-family conflict) and vice versa
(family-to-work conflict). Recent estimates indicate that 52% of
employees experience work-to-family conflict and 43% of em-
ployees experience family-to-work conflict (American Psycholog-
ical Association, 2007). Scholars have conducted a tremendous
amount of research examining the conflict that can arise between
work and family (Eby, Casper, Lockwood, Bordeaux, & Brinley,
2005) and have found that work–family conflict is negatively
related to indicators of subjective well-being, including satisfac-
tion with important life domains such as work and family and life
in general, affective reactions, and self-assessments of psycholog-
ical health (Diener & Ryan, 2009).
Because work–family conflict is a primary driver of well-being,
understanding how its effects on subjective well-being develop
over time is important. Various theoretical paradigms have been
used to explain the relationship between work–family conflict and
subjective well-being; prominent among them are role theory
This article was published Online First April 28, 2014.
Russell A. Matthews, Department of Psychology, Bowling Green State
University; Julie Holliday Wayne, School of Business, Wake Forest Uni-
versity; Michael T. Ford, Department of Psychology, University at Albany,
State University of New York.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Russell
A. Matthews, Department of Psychology, Bowling Green State University,
Bowling Green, OH 43403-0001. E-mail: ramatth@bgsu.edu
1173
(Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, & Rosenthal, 1964), the job
demands-resources model (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007), and con-
servation of resources theory (Hobfoll, 1989). With these para-
digms framing the majority of work–family research, most studies
have examined the stressor-strain hypothesis with stress reaction
models (Frese & Zapf, 1988). These models assume that the effect
of the stressor (i.e., work–family conflict) accumulates over time
as a function of the sum of current and past exposure and creates
strain (i.e., reduced well-being). Thus, across studies that draw on
stress reaction models, the primary hypothesis is that work–family
conflict is negatively related to subjective well-being both concur-
rently (i.e., within a single time point) and longitudinally, such that
the more work–family conflict one is exposed to over time, the
lower one’s overall subjective well-being.
Of interest, though, work–family research has been divorced
from temporally sensitive theories and findings of the subjective
well-being literature. Prominent among these are theories on ad-
aptation (Bowling, Beehr, Wagner, & Libkuman, 2005; Brickman,
Coates, & Janoff-Bulman, 1978; Diener, Lucas, & Scollon, 2006),
which posit that individuals adapt to stressors after a period of
exposure and eventually experience more positive levels of sub-
jective well-being as diminishing, lasting negative effects of the
stressor. This adaptation has been used to explain why people
generally report relatively high levels of subjective well-being,
despite the prevalence of life stressors (Diener & Diener, 1996).
Thus, adaptation models (also called adjustment models; Zapf,
Dormann, & Frese, 1996) suggest that, in the short term, stressors
will relate to lower subjective well-being; however, over time,
most individuals adapt and return to more positive levels of sub-
jective well-being (even though the stressor is still present). This
occurs even for some of the most traumatic life-changing events
 1174 MATTHEWS, WAYNE, AND FORD
(Luhmann, Hofmann, Eid, & Lucas, 2012). Extending adaptation
theory to the work–family literature suggests that although indi-
viduals experience short-term decrements in well-being when they
experience work–family conflict, over time, they adapt and even-
tually experience more positive well-being. In other words, if
adaption does take place, a positive cross-lagged (i.e., longitudinal)
effect between work–family conflict and subjective well-being
should be observed, after accounting for concurrent levels of
work–family conflict and past levels of subjective well-being (see
Kelloway & Francis, 2013, for a discussion of testing longitudinal
models). This prediction runs counter to those of the stress reaction
perspective that larger cumulative exposure to stressors results in
poorer well-being over time. Collectively then, stress reaction and
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
adaptation theories produce conceptually conflicting views and
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
different predictions regarding the longitudinal work–family con-
flict/subjective well-being relationship.
Another important shift in the subjective well-being literature is
the recognition that assumed causal relationships are not unidirec-
tional. Although stressors influence evaluations of subjective well-
being, subjective well-being also influences the experiences and
interpretations of stressors (Diener & Biswas-Diener, 2008; Ly-
ubomirsky, King, & Diener, 2005), referred to as strain-stressor
hypotheses, or reverse causation (Zapf et al., 1996). Few work–
family studies have investigated the role that subjective well-being
plays in influencing experiences of work–family conflict (cf.
Innstrand, Langballe, Espnes, Falkum, & Aasland, 2008). To fully
and accurately understand the conflict/well-being relationship, we
need to consider the mutual influence they may have on one
another, particularly if intervention and prevention of work–family
conflict continue to be a goal for scholars and practitioners.
In light of these theoretical questions, in our study, we make
several important contributions to the work–family literature. Pri-
mary among these, we contrast propositions based on stress reac-
tion models (e.g., Hobfoll, 1989) with predictions grounded in
adaptation theory (e.g., Diener et al., 2006). Such theoretically
grounded comparisons are important to fully understand whether
work–family conflict has negative long-term consequences on
subjective well-being, as theorized in the work–family literature
(e.g., Hobfoll, 1989), or whether individuals are able to adapt
effectively to experiences of work–family conflict and maintain
positive subjective well-being in the long term, as posited in the
well-being literature (e.g., Diener et al., 2006). If our results
support the stress reaction model, the strength of our design (i.e.,
accounting for issues of reverse causation and examining these
effects over multiple lagged assessments) would give greater con-
fidence in these theoretical propositions. However, if our results
support predictions of adaptation theory, this would have impor-
tant implications for how work–family scholars conceptualize the
work–family stressor-strain process. Beyond theory, these results
would have significant practical implications for determining the
appropriate target of intervention studies (e.g., Hammer, Kossek,
Anger, Bodner, & Zimmerman, 2011) intended to improve em-
ployee well-being. If adaptation models hold true within a work–
family conflict framework, this would open the door for consid-
eration of factors that may help individuals to adapt more quickly
to various types of stressors.
Another contribution is that we examine the relationship be-
tween work–family conflict and subjective well-being as a process
that unfolds reciprocally over time. Thus, we test both the standard
stressor-strain hypothesis (i.e., work–family conflict negatively
influences well-being) and the less-often studied strain-stressor
hypothesis (i.e., subjective well-being negatively influences work–
family conflict). If support were found for the strain-stressor
hypothesis, this would suggest that improving subjective well-
being directly is another avenue to prevent or attenuate the expe-
rience of work–family conflict. As noted in the literature, there are
trade-offs between targeted interventions (i.e., reducing work–
family conflict; Hammer et al., 2011) and more holistic interven-
tions designed to increase general well-being (i.e., Richardson &
Rothstein, 2008). Our study provides greater insight into the mu-
tual relations between work–family conflict and subjective well-
being from which to weigh these trade-offs.
To examine these issues, we analyze three waves of data col-
lected from 432 respondents with varying lags (i.e., 1 month, 6
months) between waves. As we later discuss, there is considerable
inconsistency across studies regarding the longitudinal work–
family conflict/subjective well-being relationship, which may be
due, in part, to the time lag used between assessments. By pur-
posefully incorporating variable lags into our design, we examine
the role of time in this relationship. Thus, a final contribution is
that we make recommendations regarding the appropriateness of
different temporal lags (Tetrick & Buffardi, 2006).
A Work–Family Conflict/Subjective Well-Being
Process Model
Subjective well-being is generally conceptualized as a multidi-
mensional evaluation including both cognitive and affective com-
ponents (Eid & Diener, 2004), and there is a long-standing tradi-
tion of its being used in the examination of issues pertaining to
quality of life (e.g., Campbell, Converse, & Rogers, 1976). Sub-
jective well-being is often conceptualized in terms of one’s general
mental health, such as the degree of one’s somatic symptoms,
anxiety, depression, sleep disturbances, and social dysfunctions
(Diener et al., 2006). Thus, we define subjective well-being in
terms of one’s self-assessments of psychological health (Diener &
Ryan, 2009). As mentioned above and explained below, stress
reaction and adaptation models make similar predictions regarding
the negative relationship of work–family conflict and subjective
well-being in the short term. These types of short term (i.e.,
concurrent) effects are generally tested with cross-sectional de-
signs. Yet, as explained below, these theoretical models offer
competing predictions regarding the work–family conflict/subjec-
tive well-being relationship over time (i.e., longitudinal).
Concurrent Effects
In discussions of temporal stressor-strain effects, concurrent
effects are conceptualized as short-term relations between the
stressor (i.e., work–family conflict) and the strain outcome (i.e.,
subjective well-being). Conservation of resources (COR) theorists
propose that individuals seek to acquire and maintain resources,
and stress occurs when resources are lost or threatened (Hobfoll,
1989). Thus, when time and energy resources are lost in the
process of juggling work and family roles (i.e., work–family
conflict), this leads to poor subjective well-being. Conservation of
resources and other stress-reaction models, therefore, posit that
when individuals experience higher levels of work–family conflict,
 WORK–FAMILY CONFLICT
due to resource losses, they will experience immediate decreases in
subjective well-being (i.e., at the same time point; Hobfoll, 1989).
Consider an employee who has a demanding client who frequently
contacts her during nontraditional work hours and requires quick
turnaround. Managing such a client’s demands is likely to result in
a concurrent loss of resources (i.e., time and energy) and experi-
ence of work–family conflict, which is likely to have an immediate
negative impact on her subjective well-being. Similarly, adaptation
theory suggests that positively and negatively valenced events
temporarily influence subjective well-being (for reviews, see Die-
ner et al., 2006; Fredrick & Loewenstein, 1999). Thus, adaptation
theory suggests that managing a demanding client and doing so
during one’s non-work time is a negatively valenced event and,
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
given the hedonic component to well-being, that it will negatively
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
influence concurrent subjective well-being (Diener et al., 2006).
Concurrent effects of work–family conflict on subjective well-
being are well documented; meta-analytic results suggest that
work–family conflict is related to such subjective well-being in-
dicators as job, family, and life satisfaction; general psychological
strain; depression; and burnout (Allen, Herst, Bruck, & Sutton,
2000; Ford, Heinen, & Langkamer, 2007; Michel, Mitchelson,
Kotrba, LeBreton, & Baltes, 2009). Thus, COR and other stress
reaction models, as well as adaptation models, predict that work–
family conflict is negatively related to subjective well-being within
a given time point.
Hypothesis 1: (a) Work-to-family conflict and (b) family-to-
work conflict are negatively related to subjective well-being
within a specified time point (i.e., the concurrent effect is
negative).
Longitudinal Effects
Hobfoll (2001) proposed that those with limited resources are
more susceptible to resource loss, and, thus, when sustained de-
mands or resource loss occurs over time, “loss spirals” develop.
Consistent with the notion of loss spirals, stress reaction theories
generally posit that, over time, work–family conflict will result in
reduced subjective well-being. Thus, over time, the threat to or
consumption of resources results in reduced subjective well-being
(i.e., the cross-lagged relationship between work–family conflict
and subjective well-being is negative), and continuous exposure to
resource drain results in further reduction in subjective well-being.
This view is consistent with the public health dose-response effect,
which occurs when the total exposure to a risk factor, not just
whether one is currently exposed, predicts health risk (Chandola,
Brunner, & Marmot, 2006; Landsbergis, Schnall, Pickering, War-
ren, & Schwartz, 2003). For example, the risk for cancer is not just
dependent on whether one is currently smoking cigarettes but also
on how long this exposure to cigarettes has occurred and the
number of total cigarettes smoked.
Drawing from COR and other stressor-strain theories, several
studies have sought to examine how work–family conflict and
indicators of subjective well-being are related over time. Using
COR, Innstrand et al. (2008) tested three possible causal relation-
ships between work–family conflict and burnout across a 2-year
time period. They found significant positive reciprocal relations,
such that work–family conflict was followed by increases in ex-
haustion and disengagement. Knecht, Bauer, Gutzwiller, and Häm-
1175
mig (2011) used a 6-year time lag and found a negative relation-
ship between work–family conflict and subsequent changes in
health satisfaction. Of interest though, Demerouti, Bakker, and
Bulters (2004), drawing on COR, found no support for the argu-
ment that work-to-family conflict is followed by increases in
exhaustion. Rantanen, Kinnunen, Feldt, and Pulkkinen (2008)
found, in studies with 1- and 6-year lags, that work-to-family
conflict did not have the hypothesized reciprocal relation to job
exhaustion, marital adjustment, parental stress, or psychological
distress. Similarly, Kelloway, Gottlieb, and Barham (1999) found
no lagged effect of work-to-family conflict on stress symptomol-
ogy over a 6-month period. These mixed results suggest that the
longitudinal nature between work–family conflict and subjective
well-being should be reconsidered and tested more systematically
from multiple time points.
Adaptation theory offers another perspective from which to
consider these conflicting findings. The driving premise of adap-
tation theory is that, although different-valenced events temporally
influence subjective well-being (Diener et al., 2006; Fredrick &
Loewenstein, 1999), people eventually return to the preexisting
levels of subjective well-being (i.e., a set point). This can be
considered a form of regression to the mean wherein individuals
regress to previous levels of subjective well-being. Implicitly then,
an individual’s emotion system adjusts or adapts to current life
conditions such that they become the “new normal.” Consider the
earlier example of an employee who, because of a demanding
client, currently experiences work–family conflict and a corre-
sponding reduction in well-being. Adaptation theory suggests that,
over time, this employee is likely to cognitively, emotionally, and
behaviorally adapt to these demands (e.g., engender family or
organizational support, reframe events, alter time use) and, in
doing so, experience a corresponding increase in well-being over
time.
Although adaptation theory suggests people adapt to a stressor
(e.g., work–family conflict) and return to “baseline” levels of
well-being, in a typical work–family study, as in the current study,
researchers may not capture a true baseline in terms of conducting
assessments before the onset of a stressor and corresponding
changes in well-being immediately and over time. Pragmatically,
individuals experience ongoing conflict between their work and
family roles, and, given the frequency and fluctuation of minor to
moderate demands (e.g., increased work or family responsibilities,
short-term personal or family or coworker illnesses) and the un-
predictability of certain major demands (e.g., promotion or job
loss, significant health changes, divorce), getting a true baseline
may be impractical. Instead, much as they do for typical tests of
concurrent effects where no particular stressor onset is presumed,
adaptation theorists assume that, whatever the current level of the
stressor (i.e., work–family conflict), higher levels will be associ-
ated with short-term decrements to well-being. Further, adaptation
theorists suggest that, because of adaptation, the stressor (i.e.,
work–family conflict) will be associated with greater well-being
over time. Thus, support for adaptation theory would be indicated
by a positive cross-lagged relationship between work–family con-
flict and well-being, even though a return to baseline is not
measured.
Several lines of evidence support and extend tenets of adapta-
tion theory. Large-scale opinion surveys have found that 80% to
84% of people experience positive levels of subjective well-being
 1176 MATTHEWS, WAYNE, AND FORD
(for a discussion, see Diener et al., 2006), suggesting that individ-
uals tend to adapt to stressors. Meta-analyses and individual stud-
ies of responses to stressful life events also show a general pattern
of adaptation and return toward more positive levels of well-being
(e.g., Lucas, 2005; Lucas, Clark, Georgellis, & Diener, 2003,
2004; Luhmann et al., 2012). Thus, the general premise that people
adapt to stressors and, over time, experience more positive sub-
jective well-being has considerable support (Diener et al., 2006).
In other words, results support adaptation theory; this suggests
that work–family conflict would concurrently decrease subjective-
well-being, but, as individuals adapt, this effect will wane. Thus,
we would expect that a positive cross-lagged relationship will be
observed between work–family conflict and subjective well-being.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This positive relationship should not be interpreted such that
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
work–family conflict is “causing” greater well-being, but rather
that after accounting for someone’s preexisting (e.g., Time 1)
levels of well-being, as well as accounting for new (e.g., Time 2)
experiences of work–family conflict, this positive relationship
reflects a person’s adaptation to pervious experiences of work–
family conflict. Stress reaction and adaptation theories then set up
competing hypotheses for the cross-lagged relationship between
work–family conflict and subjective well-being.
Hypothesis 2, Option A: Based on conservation of resources
theory, work–family conflict has a negative cross-lagged re-
lationship with subjective well-being.
Hypothesis 2, Option B: Based on adaptation theory, work–
family conflict has a positive cross-lagged relationship with
subjective well-being.
Reverse causation. Consistent with prior research and the
stressor-strain hypothesis, our hypotheses have focused on the
effect of work–family conflict on subjective well-being. Though
seldom considered in the literature (Zapf et al., 1996), reverse
causation is also plausible in that strain outcomes may predict
experiences of stressors (i.e., the strain-stressor hypothesis). For
example, the loss (or gain) spiral phenomenon outlined in the COR
model also suggests that, over time, resource loss (or gain) will
beget resource loss (or gain). In other words, poorer/greater sub-
jective well-being will relate to greater/lower work–family con-
flict.
A small number of work–family studies have examined issues
of reverse causation. Kelloway et al. (1999), using a 6-month lag,
demonstrated that after controlling for strain-based work-to-family
conflict at Time 1, stress (i.e., feelings of being overwhelmed by
things and unable to cope) predicted strain-based work-to-family
conflict at Time 2. Rantanen et al. (2008), using two separate
samples, one with a 1-year lag and the other with a 6-year lag,
found that neither job exhaustion nor marital adjustment had
cross-lagged effects on work–family conflict. However, Demer-
outi et al. (2004) examined the strain-stressor hypotheses within a
loss-spiral framework, which proposes that stressors lead to strains
that, in turn, lead to further increases in stressors, facilitating a
spiraling loss of resources. Demerouti et al. collected data at three
time points with 6 weeks between assessments. In support of the
loss spiral (and reverse causation) framework, after accounting for
temporal stability effects of work-to-family conflict, they found
that exhaustion demonstrated a cross-lagged effect on work-to-
family conflict. Although there is mixed support for the strain-
stressor hypothesis, most studies have focused on the relationship
between work–family conflict and exhaustion, which is a specific
form of strain. Further empirical examination is needed of the
relationship between work–family conflict and more general sub-
jective well-being, which covers a broader content domain.
We propose, consistent with Demerouti et al. (2004) and their
use of COR, that a reciprocal causal relationship exists between
work–family conflict and subjective well-being. Hobfoll (1989)
proposed that individuals with greater resources are less vulnerable
to resource loss and that initial resources beget further resource
gain (i.e., a gain spiral). We propose that individuals who experi-
ence higher levels of subjective well-being are more likely to feel
they have the necessary resources to deal with conflicts between
work and family and thus, over time, experience lower levels of
work–family conflict.
Hypothesis 3: Subjective well-being has a negative cross-
lagged effect on (a) work-to-family conflict and (b) family-
to-work conflict.
The Role of Temporal Lags
Constructs such as work–family conflict and subjective well-
being develop over time, not because of time (Pitariu & Ployhart,
2010). In terms of empirical examination of this process, there has
been a steady increase in the use of longitudinal designs in the
work–family literature (e.g., Demerouti, Taris, & Bakker, 2007;
Hammer, Cullen, Neal, Sinclair, & Shafiro, 2005; Innstrand et al.,
2008). Work–family researchers have typically used longitudinal
designs to examine the relationship between stressors (at Time 1)
with strain/outcome (at Time 2), with time lags ranging from a few
weeks or months (e.g., Demerouti et al., 2007; Leiter & Durup,
1996) to a few years (e.g., Frone, Russell, & Cooper, 1997).
Although the commonly used stressor time 1–strain time 2 design
(Zapf et al., 1996) is useful for examining predictions grounded in
stress-reaction models, it does not allow for a full examination of
adaptation theory; nor does it allow for reverse causation, because
it fails to capture more than two time points. Research designs
would ideally include three or more time points with varying time
lags (Kelloway & Francis, 2013) to examine the dynamic nature of
stressor-strain relationships and their replication.
To date though, there is no one “right” temporal lag that can be
universally recommended, because setting assessment intervals is
a function of a variety of factors (Menard, 2002). One factor is the
stability of the constructs of interest. With more stable outcomes
(e.g., turnover intentions), a longer lag may be necessary to allow
time for the relationship to manifest (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).
Factors relating to predictors (e.g., frequency, severity, exposure)
must also be considered. Within the work–family literature, re-
searchers have used a myriad of temporal lags including 1-month
(Demerouti et al., 2007), 3-month (Leiter & Durup, 1996),
6-month (Kelloway et al., 1999), 1-year (Hammer et al., 2005),
2-year (Innstrand et al., 2008), and 4-year lags (Frone et al., 1997).
Deeper consideration and empirical examination is needed for the
time lags used when studying work–family conflict and its corre-
lates over time.
Although studies employing longer lags (e.g., 1 or 2 years) are
informative, some have suggested that shorter intervals between
assessments must be considered (Tetrick & Buffardi, 2006), and
 WORK–FAMILY CONFLICT
varying time lags may help explain why null effects are often
found in longer lagged studies. Studies with longer lags may miss
the manifestation window and thus underestimate the true relation-
ship between constructs or, when effects are found, may simply
reflect that the relationships under study are very stable in nature.
Thus, we use two lag alternatives within our design (i.e., a 1-month
lag and a 6-month lag), which is consistent with the rationale
developed by Demerouti et al. (2007).
The use of different lengths of lags allows us a unique oppor-
tunity. In particular, it is possible that, in situations with shorter
lags between assessment, results may be more consistent with
predictions grounded in stress-reaction models. That is, using a
shorter lag (i.e., 1 month) may not allow enough time for someone
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
to begin the adaptation process; thus, there may be a negative
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
lagged effect between work–family conflict and subjective well-
being across shorter time lags. However, it may be that with a
longer lag (i.e., 6 months), individuals may have had sufficient
time to adapt to experiences of work–family conflict such that
there is a positive cross-lagged relationship with subjective well-
being.
Research Question: Does the pattern of results observed be-
tween work–family conflict and subjective well-being vary as
a function of the length of time (i.e., lag) between
assessments?
Method
Participants and Procedure
Data from this study were collected as part of a larger data
collection effort (see DeArmond, Matthews, & Bunk, 2013). Par-
ticipants were recruited via an online participant recruitment panel
managed as part of an institutional review board approved,
university-based research study intended to provide diverse sam-
ples for a wide range of research studies (www.studyresponse
.com). Participants were entered into drawings for monetary prizes
in return for their participation.
An initial prescreening survey was sent to approximately 8,000
panel members to assess willingness to participate in the larger
research study. These panel members were all U.S. residents and
had previously indicated that they were working at least 15 hours
a week in an organizational setting. A total of 1,513 panel mem-
bers participated in the prescreening survey (response rate ⫽
18.9%). Respondents were excluded if they failed to complete the
screening survey, were not working at least part time, or indicated
they were not interested in participating in the proposed research
project. Initially, 1,365 respondents were identified for inclusion
and sent an invitation for the Time 1 survey. Two reminder e-mails
were sent to nonrespondents 1 and 2 weeks after the initial invi-
tation. A total of 973 respondents participated in the Time 1 survey
(response rate ⫽ 71%), which contained sample demographics
(e.g., gender, age, tenure, work hours) and a five-item measure of
negative affectivity (Mroczek & Kolarz, 1998). One month and 2
months after the Time 1 survey, these 973 respondents were
invited to complete the Time 2 and Time 3 surveys, respectively.
Reminder e-mails were sent to nonrespondents. Six months after
the Time 3 survey, respondents were invited to participate in the
Time 4 survey. A total of 720 respondents participated in the Time
1177
2 survey (response rate ⫽ 74%); 703 participated in the Time 3
survey (response rate ⫽ 72%), and 488 participated in the Time 4
survey (response rate ⫽ 50%).
The surveys at Times 2, 3, and 4 contained the focal measures
of the current study (work–family conflict and subjective well-
being). For clarity, we refer to these as Assessments 1–3 (or A1,
A2, and A3, respectively) in the remainder of the article. Data were
included from respondents who provided complete responses to all
three assessment points (N ⫽ 432); 69.0% were female, 62.0%
were married or living with a partner, 36.6% reported having
children, and 14.8% reported elder-care responsibilities. The ma-
jority of the sample was Caucasian (88.2%). The average age of
the sample was 41.59 years (SD ⫽ 10.96), and the average orga-
nizational tenure was 7.86 years (SD ⫽ 8.21). On average, respon-
dents reported working 40.56 hr a week (SD ⫽ 10.85), and 64.8%
of the participants worked a day shift. Half the sample reported
working in an hourly position; the other half worked in a salary- or
commission-based system. Approximately 25.0% reported work-
ing in professional and related occupations, and 19.0% reported
working in office and administrative occupations. Another 16.4%
reported working in management, business, and financial opera-
tions; 9.0% reported working in sales; and 22.7% reported working
in service, production, construction, and other related occupations.
Measures
Work–family conflict was assessed with a measure by Fisher,
Bulger, and Smith (2009). Work-to-family conflict was assessed
with five items. A sample item is “I come home from work too
tired to do things I would like to do.” Family-to-work conflict was
assessed with six items. A sample item is “My work suffers
because of everything going on in my personal life.” Participants
were asked to consider the past month when responding and
responses were made on a 5-point frequency scale (1 ⫽ Not at all
to 5 ⫽ Almost all the time).
Subjective well-being was assessed with the 12-item General
Health Questionnaire (Banks et al., 1980). Items were rephrased to
allow for a single response scale to be applied. Participants were given
the following instructions, “Thinking about the past 30 days, please
indicate how often you have done each of the following . . .” Sample
items include “been able to concentrate on what you’re doing?” and
“felt constantly under strain?” Items were recoded, with higher scores
indicating positive subjective well-being. Responses were made on a
5-point response scale (1 ⫽ Never 5 ⫽ Always).
Results
Preliminary Results
Means, standard deviations, reliabilities, and correlations are
reported in Table 1.
Sample differences. With four waves of data collection, at-
trition is to be expected. Additionally, our sample was not intended
to be representative of a particular population (i.e., the national
population). However, potential systematic biases within our data
may place boundary conditions around our results (Kossek, Baltes,
& Matthews, 2011). To examine these issues, we conducted a
series of one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests on demo-
graphic variables and negative affectivity from Time 1. Mean
 1178 MATTHEWS, WAYNE, AND FORD

Table 1
Correlations, Means, Standard Deviations, and Internal Reliability Coefficient Estimates (N ⫽ 432)

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Assessment 1
1. Work-to-family conflict 2.42 0.98 (.90)
2. Family-to-work conflict 1.90 0.82 .45ⴱⴱ (.89)
3. Subjective well-being 3.84 0.77 ⫺.50ⴱⴱ ⫺.50ⴱⴱ (.92)
Assessment 2
ⴱⴱ ⴱⴱ
4. Work-to-family conflict 2.37 0.97 .83 .36 ⫺.47ⴱⴱ (.91)
5. Family-to-work conflict 1.92 0.84 .40ⴱⴱ .79ⴱⴱ ⫺.54ⴱⴱ .45ⴱⴱ (.90)
6. Subjective well-being 3.85 0.78 ⫺.47ⴱⴱ ⫺.44ⴱⴱ .86ⴱⴱ ⫺.51ⴱⴱ ⫺.54ⴱⴱ (.92)
Assessment 3
ⴱⴱ ⴱⴱ ⴱⴱ ⴱⴱ ⴱⴱ
7. Work-to-family conflict 2.38 0.97 .73 .36 ⫺.41 .74 .38 ⫺.44ⴱⴱ (.91)
8. Family-to-work conflict 1.97 0.83 .35ⴱⴱ .66ⴱⴱ ⫺.44ⴱⴱ .37ⴱⴱ .72ⴱⴱ ⫺.46ⴱⴱ .48ⴱⴱ (.89)
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

9. Subjective well-being 3.78 0.80 ⫺.44ⴱⴱ ⫺.44ⴱⴱ .77ⴱⴱ ⫺.42ⴱⴱ ⫺.49ⴱⴱ .79ⴱⴱ ⫺.47ⴱⴱ ⫺.56ⴱⴱ (.92)
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Note. Internal reliability coefficient estimates are reported along the diagonal.
ⴱⴱ
p ⬍ .01.

differences in three groups were tested: (a) our sample (n ⫽ 434);
(b) participants who participated only at Time 1 (n ⫽ 169); and (c)
respondents who participated in two or three waves of data col-
lection but not all four (n ⫽ 370). No group differences were found
in terms of elder care, work hours, or negative affectivity; how-
ever, some differences were found in terms of age, gender, and
child-care responsibilities (see Table 2). The analysis sample was
slightly older, with a larger proportion of men, and without child-
care responsibilities, as compared to the respondents who partici-
pated only in the Time 1 data collection. However, the effect sizes
for all three of these analyses were small (see Table 5, Cohen,
1988). Further, these demographic variables and negative affec-
tivity were included in our initial analyses as control variables
(with negative affectivity set to have lagged effects on work–
family conflict and subjective well-being); however, their inclu-
sion did not meaningfully influence the pattern of results observed.
Because of these results and arguments against the use of negative
affectivity as a control variable in well-being research (Carlson &
Wu, 2012; Spector, Zapf, Chen, & Frese, 2000), we excluded these
variables from further analyses. Collectively, these results suggest
that, although the two groups differ in some respects, there do not
appear to be any systematic biasing effects due to attrition and
nonresponse.
Longitudinal Construct Validity
Given the relatively high over-time correlations for each of the
respective constructs, work-to-family conflict, family-to-work
conflict, and subjective well-being were tested for discriminant
validity. More specifically, discriminant validity confirmatory fac-
tor analyses (CFA) were conducted to help ensure that each
construct was distinct across assessment points (e.g., work-to-
family conflict at A1 is distinct from work-to-family conflict at A2
and at A3) rather than tapping into a stable, trait-like, construct. To
do so, we conducted a baseline CFA for each construct in which all
scale indicators for the given construct (e.g., work-to-family con-
flict) were loaded on three wave-specific latent factors (A1, A2,
and A3), which were loaded on an overarching latent construct.
Then, we conducted another CFA for each construct in which we
loaded all items measuring that construct (e.g., work-to-family
conflict) on a single latent factor, regardless of assessment period.
For each construct, the baseline model consistently fit the data
better than did the single-factor model (see Table 3), supporting
the argument that, although highly related, each of the constructs
demonstrated discriminant validity across time.
As an additional test of discriminant validity, the confidence
intervals around the observed correlations between the con-
struct measures were examined at each of the three time points.
The correlations between the three latent constructs were based
on the baseline CFA model reported in Table 3 (these models
were revised such that the second order factor was removed and
the latent constructs were set free to correlate). Ninety-nine
percent confidence intervals were calculated for each correla-
tion. The correlations between the three latent constructs for
work-to-family conflict were A1-A2, r ⫽ .87, 99% CI [.84,

Table 2
Sample Differences

Analysis sample Time 1 only participants Multiple timepoint participantsa

Variable (n ⫽ 434) (n ⫽ 169) (n ⫽ 370) F df Partial ␩2

Age 41.65 37.31 39.82 8.86ⴱⴱ (2, 943) .02

Genderb 1.69 1.79 1.76 4.46ⴱⴱ (2, 931) .01
Child-care responsibilitiesc 1.36 1.52 1.41 6.28ⴱⴱ (2, 945) .01
Elder-care responsibilitiesc 1.15 1.11 1.14 .73 (2, 939) .00
Work hours 40.49 39.85 40.6 .19 (2, 942) .00
Note. Bold estimates were significantly different based on Scheffe post hoc analysis at p ⬍ .05. df ⫽ degrees of freedom.
ⴱⴱ
a
Respondents who participated in two or three waves of data collection but not all four. b 1 ⫽ male, 2 ⫽ female. c 1 ⫽ no, 2 ⫽ yes. p ⬍ .01.
 WORK–FAMILY CONFLICT 1179

Table 3
Longitudinal Construct Validity: Discriminant Validity, Configural and Metric
Invariance Testing

Construct and test ␹2 df CFI RMSEA ⌬␹2 ⌬df

Work-to-family conflict
Baseline CFA 118.55ⴱⴱ 72 .99 .04
Discriminant validity CFA 852.76ⴱⴱ 75 .86 .16 734.21ⴱⴱ 3
Configural invariance CFA 122.83ⴱⴱ 74 .99 .04 4.28 2
Metric invariance CFA 132.75ⴱⴱ 82 .99 .04 9.92 8
Family-to-work conflict
Baseline CFA 273.20ⴱⴱ 114 .97 .06
Discriminant validity CFA 1,135.27ⴱⴱ 117 .82 .14 862.07ⴱⴱ 3
Configural invariance CFA 283.66ⴱⴱ 116 .97 .06 10.46ⴱⴱ 2
Metric invariance CFA 300.15ⴱⴱ 125 .97 .06 16.49 9
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Subjective well-being
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Baseline CFA 27.86ⴱ 15 .99 .05

Discriminant validity CFA 607.56ⴱⴱ 18 .86 .28 579.70ⴱⴱ 3
Configural invariance CFA 28.98ⴱ 17 .99 .04 1.12 2
Metric invariance CFA 37.03ⴱ 21 .99 .04 8.05 4
Note. The chi-square difference tests for both the discriminant validity and configural invariance are compared
against the baseline confirmatory factor analyses (CFA). The chi-square difference tests for the metric invariance
CFA is compared against the configural invariance CFA. df ⫽ degrees of freedom; CFI ⫽ comparative fit index;
RMSEA ⫽ root-mean-square error of approximation.
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01.

.90]; A2-A3, r ⫽ .78, 99% CI [.73, .82]; and A1-A3, r ⫽ .77,
99% CI [.72, .82]. The correlations between the three latent
constructs for family-to-work conflict were A1-A2, r ⫽ .84,
99% CI [.80, .87]; A2-A3, r ⫽ .76, 99% CI [.70, .81]; and
A1-A3, r ⫽ .69, 99% CI [.62, .75]. The correlations between the
three latent constructs for subjective well-being were A1-A2,
r ⫽ .90, 99% CI [.87, .92]; A2-A3, r ⫽ .82, 99% CI [.78, .86];
and A1-A3, r ⫽ .80, 99% CI [.75, 84].
These results are consistent with current conceptualizations of
subjective well-being as a construct with a trait and state compo-
nent. Subjective well-being scales such as the one used in this
study are intended to capture well-being across an entire month;
thus, they minimize moment-to-moment and day-to-day fluctua-
tion while capturing month-to-month variability. Test–retest cor-
relations for such scales have been found in other research using
similar time frames to be similar to those observed here (Eid, &
Diener, 2004; Lucas, Diener, & Suh, 1996; Pavot & Diener, 1993).
Researchers have also found that occasion-specific variance of this
magnitude does indeed reflect meaningful change in subjective
well-being. For example, alongside the stable component of sub-
jective well-being, within-person changes have been found to
correlate with other indicators of emotional well-being, such as
affect (Eid & Diener, 2004), providing construct validity evidence
for occasion-specific variance. This suggests that the within-
person variance observed here also reflects true meaningful change
in psychological states to go alongside a relatively strong trait
component.
Similarly, work–family conflict also has a state and trait
component. The relative stability of work–family conflict over
time observed here is consistent with earlier findings (Kelloway
et al., 1999; Kinnunen, Feldt, Mauro, & Rantanen, 2010). Cho,
Tay, Allen, and Stark (2013) found a trait-like disposition to
experience spillover that accounted for some stability over a
10-year interval. Yet, the literature also suggests that conflict is
explained by nontrait, or situational, factors (Byron, 2005) and
is observed to be a state that demonstrates meaningful change
over time (Kinnunen et al., 2010). Taken together, the findings
in this and prior studies indicate adequate discriminant validity
of our measures across time and are consistent with theoretical
treatment of these constructs as having both state and trait
components.
Next, we examined issues of configural and metric invariance
(Ployhart & Vandenberg, 2010). Configural invariance examines
whether measures taken at different points in time represent the
same underlying construct, and metric invariance is the degree to
which indicator items for the same construct function similarly
across measurements (Vandenberg & Lance, 2000). In the config-
ural invariance CFA, the loadings for the three latent factors were
constrained to be equal to examine if they relate to the same
overarching construct. In the metric invariance CFA, the same
items across the three latent factors were constrained to be equal to
test that they function similarly across time periods. Given model
complexity, separate CFAs were run for the three constructs.
These models were then compared to the baseline CFA models;
results are reported in Table 3.
In general, the three constructs were found to be configural and
metric invariant. However, based on chi-square difference tests,
family-to-work conflict demonstrated some configural variance.
The baseline configural CFA loadings for A1 (␤⫽ .96) were
significantly stronger than the A2 (␤⫽ .87) and A3 (␤⫽ .80)
loadings (p ⬍ .01), giving rise to the configural variance results.
Nevertheless, because all three constructs had strong loadings and
the fact that ␹2 tests are sensitive to sample sizes, results suggest
that the effects of the configural variance for family-to-work
conflict are likely minimal.
Finally, as reported in Table 3, results for the three baseline
CFA models provide psychometric evidence for the three con-
structs; all three demonstrated good initial CFA models, with
good item loadings across the three waves of data collection.
 1180 MATTHEWS, WAYNE, AND FORD
Conceptual Model Testing
Consistent with past research (Demerouti et al., 2004), a series
of models was used to examine the study hypotheses. Given model
complexity, a path analytic approach within Amos 21 (Arbuckle,
2012) was used to test the four nested models described below.
Model 1 included the temporal stability effects between con-
structs. For example, subjective well-being in Assessment 1 was
set to predict subjective well-being in Assessments 2 and 3, and
Assessment 2 was set to predict Assessment 3. The same was done
for work-to-family and family-to-work conflict. Within each time
point, work-to-family and family-to-work conflict were also set
free to correlate.
Model 2 extends Model 1 with the addition of concurrent
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
(within time point) effects. Specifically, within each assessment
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
point, work-to-family and family-to-work conflict were set to
predict subjective well-being.
Model 3 extends Model 2 with the addition of cross-lagged
effects from work-to-family and family-to-work conflict to sub-
jective well-being assessed in the next time point. For example,
work-to-family and family-to-work conflict at Assessment 1 were
set to predict subjective well-being at Assessment 2.
Model 4 extends Model 3 with the addition of the cross-lagged
effects of subjective well-being on work-to-family and family-to-
work conflict. For example, subjective well-being at Assessment 1
was set to predict work-to-family and family-to-work conflict at
Assessment 2.
It was expected that model fit would improve, in a statistically
significant manner, as model complexity increased and that Model
4 would demonstrate the best statistically significant overall fit
because it best represents theoretical arguments drawn from both
stress reaction and adaptation theories (as depicted in Figure 1).
Improvement in model fit was assessed based on a chi-square
difference test for the successive nested models. Additional mea-
sures of model fit (i.e., comparative fit index [CFI], root-mean-
square error of approximation [RMSEA], standardized root-mean-
square residual [SRMR]) were also examined. A CFI value of .95
or higher, a RMSEA value of .06 or lower, and a SRMR value of
.08 or lower are indicative of good model fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999).
Results of the nested model testing are reported in Table 4. Model
4 demonstrated significant incremental fit over the preceding mod-
el(s) and the best overall fit and serves as the bases for our
hypotheses testing. Given that Model 4 is nested and least con-
strained, it will necessarily demonstrate better fit than previous
models, although it is not given that this improvement in fit will be
statistically significant. Given the results provided in Table 4 and
in particular that RMSEA, which has a parsimony correction,
noticeably improved in Model 4, it serves as the basis for our
hypotheses testing. Standardized path coefficients are reported in
Assessment 1 Assessment 2
Work-Family Subjective Work-Family
Conflict Well-being Conflict
Figure 1. The work–family conflict/subjective well-being process model.
Figure 2. Although not depicted, the correlated errors between
work-to-family and family-to-work conflict were .45 for Assess-
ment 1, .38 for Assessment 2, and .36 for Assessment 3 (p ⬍ .01,
respectively).
All the temporal stability effects (i.e., autoregressive effects)
were significant in the expected direction. For example, subjective
well-being at Assessment 1 significantly predicted subjective well-
being at Assessment 2 (␤ ⫽ .76. p ⬍ .01; 1-month lag) and
Assessment 3 (␤ ⫽ .33. p ⬍ .01; 7-month lag), and subjective
well-being at Assessment 2 predicted subjective well-being at
Assessment 3 (␤ ⫽ .43, p ⬍ .01; 6-month lag).
The work-to-family and family-to-work conflict concurrent ef-
fects on subjective well-being were all significant (Hypothesis 1
supported). Work-to-family conflict had a negative concurrent
effect on subjective well-being at all three time points (A1,
␤ ⫽ ⫺.35, p ⬍ .01; A2, ␤ ⫽ ⫺.19, p ⬍ .01; A3, ␤ ⫽ ⫺.12, p ⬍
.05); family-to-work conflict had a negative concurrent effect on
subjective well-being at all three time points (A1, ␤ ⫽ ⫺.34; A2,
␤ ⫽ ⫺.14; A3, ␤ ⫽ ⫺.29; p ⬍ .01 respectively).
The next set of hypotheses revolved around testing predictions
of lagged effects of work–family conflict on well-being, based in
conservation of resources theory versus adaptation theory (Hy-
pothesis 2). Results support arguments grounded in adaptation
theory (Hypothesis, Option B). After accounting for prior experi-
ences of subjective well-being and concurrent experiences of
work–family conflict, there was a positive cross-lagged effect of
work–family conflict on subjective well-being (i.e., individuals
who previously experienced greater work–family conflict reported
higher levels of subjective well-being over time than those who
previously experienced lower work–family conflict). Specifically,
work-to-family conflict at Assessment 1 had a positive effect on
subjective well-being at Assessment 2 (␤ ⫽ .09, p ⬍ .05; 1-month
lag) as did family-to-work conflict (␤ ⫽ .08, p ⬍ .05; 1-month
lag). Furthermore, work-to-family conflict at Assessment 2 had a
positive effect on subjective well-being at Assessment 3 (␤ ⫽ .05,
p ⬍ .05; 6-month lag) as did family-to-work conflict (␤ ⫽ .15, p ⬍
.01; 6-month lag).
Finally, subjective well-being demonstrated a protective effect
on future experiences of work–family conflict (Hypothesis 3 sup-
ported). Subjective well-being at Assessment 1 had a negative
cross-lagged effect on work-to-family conflict at Assessment 2
(␤ ⫽ ⫺.07, p ⬍ .05; 1-month lag) and family-to-work conflict
(␤ ⫽ ⫺.18, p ⬍ .01; 1-month lag). And subjective well-being at
Assessment 2 had a negative cross-lagged effect on family-to-
work conflict at Assessment 3 (␤ ⫽ ⫺.10, p ⬍ .01; 6-month lag),
as well as work-to-family conflict at trend level (␤ ⫽ ⫺.06, p ⬍
.10; 6-month lag).
Assessment 3
Subjective Work-Family Subjective
Well-being Conflict Well-being
 WORK–FAMILY CONFLICT 1181

Table 4
Fit Statistic Information for Nested Model, Identifying Best Model for Hypothesis Testing

Model ␹2 df CFI RMSEA SRMR ⌬␹2 ⌬df

ⴱⴱ
Null model 3,254.15 36
Model 1: Stability effects 352.82ⴱⴱ 24 0.90 .18 .30 2,901.33ⴱⴱ 12
Model 2: Concurrent direct effects 78.68ⴱⴱ 18 0.98 .09 .05 274.14ⴱⴱ 6
Model 3: Lagged effects 44.85ⴱⴱ 14 0.99 .07 .05 33.83ⴱⴱ 4
Model 4: Reverse causation effects 6.34 10 1.00 .00 .01 38.51ⴱⴱ 4
Note. df ⫽ degrees of freedom; CFI ⫽ comparative fit index; RMSEA ⫽ root-mean-square error of approximation; SRMR ⫽ standardized root-mean-
square residual.
ⴱⴱ
p ⬍ .01.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Research Question: Examination of Temporal Lags immediate impact of work–family conflict on subjective well-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

being. And, it is valuable to continue research using concurrent

We proposed that the pattern of the work–family conflict/well-
being results may vary as a function of lag length between assess-
ments. To examine this issue, we conducted a series of chi-square
difference tests to see if the cross-lagged beta weights varied signif-
icantly in strength between Assessment 1 ¡ Assessment 2 and
Assessment 2 ¡ Assessment 3. The results of these analyses are
reported in Table 5. The data suggest that although the temporal
stability coefficients do trend down as a function of time lag length
(they are weaker for the longer lag), neither the direct effects nor the
reverse causation effects vary statistically in strength.
Discussion
Our results complement and extend previous research on the
relationship between work–family conflict and subjective well-
being. Our key findings suggest that in the short term, consistent
with prior research and theory (e.g., the COR model; Hobfoll,
1989), work–family conflict has an immediate, negative effect on
subjective well-being. Thus, the present study underscores the
importance of previous research identifying factors that reduce the
designs to examine means to reduce the short-term consequences
of work–family conflict on well-being. Yet, few studies have
systematically examined the work–family conflict/well-being re-
lationship over time using appropriate controls and multiple time
lags, as done in the present study. We extend prior research by
demonstrating that, over time, after accounting for the initial
reduction in well-being and concurrent levels of work–family
conflict, prior experience of work–family conflict was associated
with higher levels of subsequent subjective well-being. Of impor-
tance, this effect was replicated over two different time lags,
giving us greater confidence that the positive relationship between
work–family conflict and subsequent subjective well-being is a
reliable phenomenon. Moreover, evidence was found for reverse
causation in that greater subjective well-being at one point in time
was associated with reduced work–family conflict at a subsequent
point in time. Of interest, the pattern of results did not vary as a
function of using different time lags (1 vs. 6 months). Next, we
discuss implications of these findings for theory, research, and
practice.

Assessment 1 Assessment 2 Assessment 3

(One month lag) (Six month lag)

Work-to-Family .38** Work-to-Family

Conflict Conflict
.79** Work-to-Family .39**
Conflict
-.35** -.19** -.06†
.09*
-.12*

.08*
-.07*
Psychological
.76** .43**
Well-being
Psychological Subjective
Well-being .33** Well-being

-.14**
.15**
-.29**
-.18**
.08* -.10**
-.34**
Family-to-Work
.71** Conflict .49**
Family-to-Work Family-to-Work
Conflict .22** Conflict

Figure 2. Empirical results of the work–family conflict/subjective well-being process model. The correlated
errors between work-to-family and family-to-work conflict within each time point are not reported for reasons
of parsimony. † p ⬍ .10. ⴱ p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01.
 1182 MATTHEWS, WAYNE, AND FORD
Table 5
Chi-Square Difference Test of Cross-Lagged Effects by Lagged Condition
Effect
Temporal stability effects
Work-to-family conflict ¡ Work-to-family conflict
Family-to-work conflict ¡ Family-to-work conflict
Subjective well-being ¡ Subjective well-being
Direct effects
Work-to-family conflict ¡ Subjective well-being
Family-to-work conflict ¡ Subjective well-being
Reverse causation
Subjective well-being ¡ Work-to-family conflict
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Subjective well-being ¡ Family-to-work conflict
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Note. df ⫽ degrees of freedom.
†
p ⬍ .10. ⴱ p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01.
Theoretical and Research Implications
One of the primary contributions of the present study is that it
tests theoretically grounded predictions of the longitudinal rela-
tionship between work–family conflict and subjective well-being.
Our findings run counter to traditional predictions of work–family
research and stress reaction theories (e.g., COR; Hobfoll, 1989),
which suggest that, with increased exposure time, work–family
conflict depletes resources and harms subjective well-being.
Rather, our findings are consistent with adaptation theories (Brick-
man et al., 1978). Although people experience work–family con-
flict as a stressor that negatively affects well-being in the short
term, they tend to be adaptive in that, over time, people returned to
more positive levels of subjective well-being.
Other research and hypotheses regarding general life stressors
has found results compatible with these. For example, Dienstbier’s
(1989) “toughening” hypothesis points to the physiological and
psychological resilience resulting from moderate stressor expo-
sure. Seery, Holman, and Silver’s (2010) recent analysis of expo-
sure to adverse life events found a U-shaped relationship between
adverse events and several indices of psychological adjustment,
indicating that individuals do become more resilient after moderate
or intermittent exposure to stressful circumstances. These theoret-
ical perspectives and empirical findings are consistent with those
presented in this study, suggesting that individuals tend to be
adaptive after exposure to demanding life circumstances, such as
work–family conflict.
Our findings are theoretically important because they suggest
that although current models of the work–family interface, which
are based in stress reaction theories (e.g., COR, Hobfoll, 1989),
may adequately account for short-term (e.g., concurrent) work–
family conflict/well-being relationships, they may not accurately
reflect the long-term processes by which work–family conflict
affects subjective well-being (and vice versa). Our results provide
an empirical basis for why, despite the experience of conflict
between work and family roles, many workers’ subjective well-
being remains resilient in the long run. In the short term, work–
family conflict was associated with poorer well-being, but, through
some form of adaptation, increases in subjective well-being ensued
in our sample. This suggests many workers maintain long-term
stability in their well-being via temporary changes, explaining a
Assessment 1 ¡ Assessment 2 ¡
Assessment 2 Assessment 3
(One month lag) (Six month lag) ⌬␹2 (1 df)
.79ⴱⴱ .39ⴱⴱ 43.83ⴱⴱ
.71ⴱⴱ .49ⴱⴱ 17.82ⴱⴱ
.79ⴱⴱ .43ⴱⴱ 30.76ⴱⴱ
.09ⴱ .08ⴱ 0.01
.08ⴱ .15ⴱⴱ 1.27
⫺.07ⴱ ⫺.06† 0.00
⫺.18ⴱⴱ ⫺.10ⴱⴱ 2.85
long-term trait component to subjective well-being through state
fluctuation and recovery.
Consistent with the positive psychology movement (Seligman &
Csikszentmihalyi, 2000), future theoretical explanation of the
conflict/well-being longitudinal relationship needs to consider
workers’ adaptivity. Humans have the remarkable ability to with-
stand serious setbacks and ultimately achieve a quality of life at or
exceeding their previous level (Taylor, 1983). Drawing on re-
search with individuals who have experienced a personally threat-
ening event (e.g., patients with cancer), Taylor identified three
themes of the cognitive readjustment process: a search for meaning
in the experience, effort to regain mastery over the event or life
more generally, and effort to enhance one’s positive self-
evaluations. Adaptation theory points to cognitive and emotional
adaptation as well as to behavioral adaption to stressors over time,
all of which facilitate a return to subjective well-being set points
(Brickman et al., 1978).
Extending this line of thinking to the work–family interface, theory
should incorporate and researchers should measure cognitive (e.g.,
reframing, search for meaning), emotional (e.g., positive and negative
affect), and behavioral (e.g., coping skills, use of social networks)
adaptive processes that may explain or mediate the lagged work–
family conflict-well-being effects observed in this study. Researchers
could also target employees prior to experiencing a new, major
stressor (e.g., return to work following the birth of a child, marriage,
major promotion, experienced layoffs with the company) and assess
their experience of work–family conflict, their adaptive processes, and
well-being, using multiple waves of data collection. Such significant
events take on particular interest in that, given past research (Lucas,
2005; Lucas et al., 2003, 2004), they may actually represent subjective
well-being “reset” points. That is, given the magnitude of significant
life events, the adaptive process may be significantly extended or may
actually reach a point wherein an individual’s baseline level of sub-
jective well-being changes. From a conservation of resources theory
perspective, these major life events may result in such a significant
and prolonged consumption of resources that it becomes nearly im-
possible for the individual to replace them. The result is a change in
“baseline” subjective well-being. Following a significant event such
as divorce, for example, it may be that the individual never quite
returns to his or her original level of well-being; yet, this new set point
 WORK–FAMILY CONFLICT
becomes his or her normal level of well-being from which the indi-
vidual evaluates future stressful experiences.
From a research design standpoint, our findings suggest that
cross-sectional “snapshots” of relationships may tell a different
story than the fuller narrative obtained in longitudinal designs
(Ployhart & Vandenberg, 2010). Moreover, a daily diary study or
time series design is consistent with the episodic approach recom-
mended for studying work–family conflict (Maertz & Boyar,
2011). Latent class analysis of adaptation profiles could be used to
examine how the adaptation process might differ for men and
women or for those in different types of employments (e.g.,
part-time vs. full-time) or family situations (e.g., children present
vs. not). Building on the foundation provided here, future theory
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
and research can delve into the processes by which people adapt to
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
work–family conflict experiences over time.
Although our findings are consistent with the notion that, on
average, people readjust and return to more positive levels of well-
being, prior research tells us that not all do (Taylor, 1983). An
individual difference approach might provide a rich theoretical per-
spective to explore who is more likely to adjust to work–family
conflict and recover to more positive well-being as well as who is
more vulnerable to lasting decrements in well-being. For example,
trait resilience, or the ability to bounce back from stressful events, is
a personal resource that enhances individual adaptation and may
moderate recovery effects (Windle, Bennett, & Noyes, 2011). An-
other factor that might influence adaptation is the severity of the
work–family conflict. The more severe an event, the longer it takes for
people to recover (e.g., Lucas, 2005; Lucas et al., 2003, 2004). Thus,
in cases of chronic and/or severe work–family conflict, adaptation
back to more positive levels of subjective well-being may be hin-
dered, resulting in more of the U-shaped relationship between stres-
sors and adjustment observed in Seery et al.’s (2010) analysis.
Alternatively, one’s tendency to experience positive or negative
emotional states (i.e., trait negative or positive affectivity) may be
an important substantive variable to consider. As discussed by
Allen et al. (2012), individuals high in trait negative affectivity
may be more predisposed to experience work–family conflict and
also more likely to be negatively influenced by its occurrence. As
such, beyond being an antecedent of work–family conflict, nega-
tive affectivity may moderate the effect of work–family conflict on
subjective well-being, both concurrently and in terms of lagged
effects. In terms of the adaptation process, trait negative affectivity
may impede an individual’s ability to recover from experiences of
work–family conflict. That is, compared to people high in trait
negative affectivity, those who are low in it may adapt to and
recover from experiences of work–family conflict more quickly.
Our findings also provide evidence of a reverse causal relation-
ship, with subjective well-being predicting the experience of
work–family conflict (i.e., strain-stressor hypothesis). In other
words, subjective well-being not only is an outcome of work–
family conflict but subjective well-being also serves as a resource
that can reduce conflict’s future occurrence. In terms of theory and
consistent with the notion of a loss spiral (Hobfoll, 2001), these
findings support the idea that work–family conflict negatively
influences assessments of subjective well-being, which in turn
affects individuals’ subsequent interpretations or experiences of
work–family conflict. Future research might extend this study by
testing for reciprocal relations and/or testing the processes by
which reverse causation might occur (e.g., cognitive, emotional, or
1183
behavioral adaptive processes). Methodologically, these findings
again highlight a limitation of cross-sectional designs and the
importance of testing reverse causation in longitudinal designs.
Time Lag Between Assessments
A final noteworthy contribution is that our study extends prior
work by considering the temporal nature of the work–family
conflict/subjective well-being process. As others have noted re-
garding health (e.g., Frese & Zapf, 1988; Zapf et al., 1996), very
little is known regarding the time frame in which work–family
conflict affects subjective well-being or when adaptation might
occur. It is interesting to note just how stable experiences of
work–family conflict, as well as subjective well-being, were over
the course of the study. The relative stability of these constructs is
not surprising in that it replicates existing research. For example
Rantanen et al. (2008) reported lagged effects of .69 and .73 for
work-to-family conflict based on 1- and 6-year lags, respectively.
Kelloway et al. (1999), on the basis of a 6-month lag, reported lags
ranging from .65 to .73 for both work-to-family and family-to-
work conflict. And Demerouti et al. (2004) reported lagged effects
ranging .51 to .54 for work-to-family conflict using a 6-week lag.
Cho et al. (2013) also found support for a dispositional work–
family spillover factor that was distinct from other personality
traits and may reflect an individual tendency to allow or facilitate
spillover across domains, thus explaining some of this stability.
Yet, in each of these studies, there was still some meaningful
change in work–family conflict over time. In our study, the auto-
correlation across 1-month lags was .79 for work-to-family con-
flict and .71 for family-to-work conflict. Over the longer, 6-month
lag, the autocorrelation was .39 for work-to-family conflict and .49
for family-to-work conflict (accounting for Assessment 1 effects).
Although these results suggest that there is a good deal of stability
in the perceived experiences of work–family conflict from month
to month and that the nature of the work–family interface may be
more stable than dynamic, there does appear to be ample room for
people to have time-varying experiences as well.
With these results in mind, it was interesting to note that our
empirical investigation of multiple time lags revealed there was no
statistical difference in the cross-lagged effects between constructs
for the 1-month lag versus the 6-month lag. These results tenta-
tively suggest that in the study of the work–family conflict/well-
being relationship, processes are fairly consistent whether the time
lag is quite brief (1 month) or a bit longer (6 months). Other recent
research on the role of time lags in stress reactions has been
similarly inconclusive about differences across time lag length.
Meier and Spector (2013) found no significant difference in the
effects of stressors on counterproductive behavior across time lags
covering five different measurement points ranging from 2 to 8
months apart. A recent quantitative review of longitudinal studies
on occupational stressor-strain relationships found a weak positive
relationship between time lag length and lagged effect size up to a
lag of around 2 to 3 years (Ford et al., 2014). However, there was
considerable variability across studies and types of stressors, and
the magnitude of this trend was not large, making it difficult to say
when the effects of work–family conflict should peak. However, if
future research confirms these findings, it would suggest that
shorter, 1-month lags, which may be more feasible to obtain, are
reasonable and likely to find effect sizes that are similar to those
 1184 MATTHEWS, WAYNE, AND FORD
found in studies with longer lags. Given this trend, we would
recommend that shorter time lags may be practical in detecting the
causal relationship between work–family conflict and well-being
(at least for indices of well-being that are not extremely stable over
time).
Theories used in the work–family literature do not typically
consider time lags, and time lags do not seem to naturally or
deductively emerge from logic or theory. Thus, to advance theory,
more inductive research on the use of varying time lags (e.g., daily,
weekly, monthly, 3– 6 months, 1–2 years) and fluctuations in
work–family constructs such as conflict, enrichment, and balance
is warranted. In the end, theory should guide the testing of differ-
ent temporal lags to ensure that the underlying causal mechanism
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
is correctly assessed (Mitchell & James, 2001). Our findings may
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
be a function of our index of well-being, and the appropriate time
lag might differ for other outcomes such as health, depression,
performance, or burnout. As noted in the subjective well-being
literature, some indices of subjective well-being are more resistant
to change, and different outcomes may have different temporal
trajectories (Tucker, Smith, MacDonald, & Folkard, 1998). For
example, work–family conflict may have a relatively proximal
effect on employee attitudes but may take longer to affect physical
health or behaviors such as role performance. As such, longer lags
might be needed for different criteria. Similarly, future research
might examine whether temporal effects differ based on the type of
work–family conflict; time-based conflict could potentially show
more immediate effects on outcomes such as well-being, whereas
behavior-based conflict might take longer to manifest. Examining
these sorts of issues provides concrete avenues in which to build
“time” into theories of work–family conflict.
Practical Implications
Practically, our findings offer potential good news for the ma-
jority of employees who experience work–family conflict (Amer-
ican Psychological Association, 2007). Although work–family
conflict has an immediate, negative impact on their well-being,
over time, many will adapt and continue to experience positive
subjective well-being. Considering the many negative outcomes
associated with work–family conflict in the short term, it is reas-
suring that people can successfully adapt to work–family conflict
over time. It is also good news that when people experience
subjective well-being, they may be better equipped to respond to
and manage future work–family experiences. Accordingly, in ad-
dition to interventions designed to reduce work–family conflict
(e.g., training in family-supportive supervisor behaviors; Hammer
et al., 2009), other interventions may also be designed to improve
subjective well-being more directly.
Our findings also suggest, however, that interventions to reduce
work–family conflict and/or improve well-being may have limited
long-term effects. That is, when a stressor is removed or a well-
being intervention implemented, after an initial reduction in work–
family conflict or improvement in well-being, consistent with
adaptation theory, workers may regress back to their earlier levels
of subjective well-being. As such, interventions may need to focus
on resources that help people adapt more quickly when stressors
are experienced. Our findings also inform practice-based research
designed to evaluate the efficacy of these interventions. For ex-
ample, researchers examining improvements to well-being as a
result of a work–family conflict-based intervention would need to
include comparison groups or take other efforts to account for
natural adaptations to work–family conflict that would occur over
time.
Positive psychology interventions (i.e., those aimed at raising
positive feelings, positive cognitions, or positive behavior, as
opposed to interventions aiming to reduce symptoms, problems or
disorders) are associated with moderate improvements in subjec-
tive well-being (Bolier et al., 2013). These findings are consistent
with the processes outlined by adaptation theory as to how people
might adjust cognitively, emotionally, and behaviorally to stres-
sors (Brickman et al., 1978). Empirical work examining these
theorized processes and individual difference variables would in-
form development of these interventions by identifying relevant
content (e.g., specific cognitions, emotions, and/or behavior) and
the most appropriate participants (e.g., those with less resiliency).
Results of the present study should not be interpreted to imply
that organizations need not concern themselves with or seek to
address employee experiences of work–family conflict. Organiza-
tions should strive to address the causes of work–family conflict at
its source, given the immediate negative impact on well-being. Just
as organizations should endeavor to reduce physical risk factors
that may cause physical harm, organizations should also seek to
address psychosocial risk factors that may contribute to experi-
ences of work–family conflict (e.g., abusive supervision, role
conflict, socially isolating work, and schedule inflexibility). How-
ever, we recognize that not all stressors linked to work–family
conflict (e.g., long work hours, rotating shifts, required travel) can
be addressed in a preventive way. In such instances, and consistent
with these results, organizations should work to better equip em-
ployees with the resources needed to facilitate the adaptation
process when these stressors arise.
Limitations and Conclusion
Though our multiwave study is an improvement over cross-
sectional or even stressor time 1 ¡ strain time 2 designs, the
contributions of the present study should be considered in the
context of the study’s limitations. First, though we use multiple
time lags of 1 and 6 months, our design did not allow us to
compare these to shorter (i.e., daily, weekly) or longer (i.e., 1 year)
assessments, which we recommend for future research. Because
our analysis sample differed from those who completed assess-
ments only at Time 1 (albeit with a small effect size), these
sociodemographic variables (e.g., age, gender, children) may put
boundary conditions on and limit the generalizability of our find-
ings. Although the size of our effects is small, this is typical due to
the multicausal nature of stressor-strain relationships (Zapf et al.,
1996). Additionally, our measure of family-to-work conflict did
not demonstrate configural invariance. However, we would argue
that this finding is more a result of our relatively large sample;
based on the observed factor loadings, the same construct (family-
to-work conflict) underlies the three measures (Ployhart & Van-
denberg, 2010).
In conclusion, our central theoretical contribution is that we
bring together stress reaction models, typically used in the work–
family literature (e.g., Hobfoll, 1989), and adaptation models,
typically used in the well-being literature (Brickman et al., 1978),
to test competing predictions about the longitudinal relationship
 WORK–FAMILY CONFLICT
between work–family conflict and subjective well-being. Our rig-
orous design, including multiple waves of data collection with
varying time lags, enables effective tests of these competing pre-
dictions as well as reverse causation. A key theoretical insight is
that people tend to adapt to work–family conflict; as such, it is
positively associated with future subjective well-being, which in
turn reduces later experiences of work–family conflict. We also
find that the use of varying temporal lags provides preliminary
evidence for the utility of using shorter lags in the context of
work–family research. Thus, this study offers a theoretically and
methodologically nuanced examination of the temporal relation-
ship between work–family conflict and psychological well-being.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
References
Allen, T. D., Herst, D. E., Bruck, C. S., & Sutton, M. (2000). Consequences
associated with work-to-family conflict: A review and agenda for future
research. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 278 –308.
doi:10.1037/1076-8998.5.2.278
Allen, T. D., Johnson, R. C., Saboe, K. N., Cho, E., Dumani, S., & Evans,
S. (2012). Dispositional variables and work–family conflict: A meta-
analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80, 17–26. doi:10.1016/j.jvb
.2011.04.004
American Psychological Association. (2007). Stress in America. Retrieved
from www.apa.org/pubs/info/reports/2007-stress.doc
Arbuckle, J. L. (2012). AMOS (version 21.0) [Computer software]. Chi-
cago, IL: SPSS.
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-resources model:
State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22, 309 –328.
doi:10.1108/02683940710733115
Banks, M. H., Clegg, C. W., Jackson, P. R., Kemp, N. J., Stafford, E. M., &
Wall, T. D. (1980). The use of the General Health Questionnaire as an
indicator of mental health in occupational studies. Journal of Occupational
Psychology, 53, 187–194. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8325.1980.tb00024.x
Bolier, L., Haverman, M., Westerhof, G. J., Riper, H., Smit, F., &
Bohlmeijer, E. (2013). Positive psychology interventions: A meta-
analysis of randomized controlled studies. BMC Public Health, 13,
Article 19. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-13-119
Bowling, N. A., Beehr, T. A., Wagner, S. H., & Libkuman, T. M. (2005).
Adaptation-level theory, opponent process theory, and dispositions: An
integrated approach to the stability of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 90, 1044 –1053. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1044
Brickman, P., Coates, D., & Janoff-Bulman, R. (1978). Lottery winners
and accident victims: Is happiness relative? Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 36, 917–927. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.36.8.917
Byron, K. (2005). A meta-analytic review of work-family conflict and its
antecedents. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67, 169 –198. doi:10.1016/
j.jvb.2004.08.009
Campbell, A., Converse, P., & Rogers, W. (1976). The quality of American
life. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Carlson, K. D., & Wu, J. (2012). The illusion of statistical control: Control
variable practice in management research. Organizational Research
Methods, 15, 413– 435. doi:10.1177/1094428111428817
Chandola, T., Brunner, E., & Marmot, M. (2006). Chronic stress at work
and the metabolic syndrome: Prospective study. BMJ: British Medical
Journal, 332, 521–525. doi:10.1136/bmj.38693.435301.80
Cho, E., Tay, L., Allen, T. D., & Stark, S. (2013). Identification of a
dispositional tendency to experience work–family spillover. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 82, 188 –198. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2013.01.006
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences
(2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
DeArmond, S., Matthews, R. A., & Bunk, J. (2013). Workload and pro-
crastination: The roles of psychological detachment and fatigue. Inter-
1185
national Journal of Stress Management. Advance online publication.
doi:10.1037/a0034803
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., & Bulters, A. J. (2004). The loss spiral of
work pressure, work– home interference and exhaustion: Reciprocal
relations in a three-wave study. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64,
131–149. doi:10.1016/S0001-8791(03)00030-7
Demerouti, E., Taris, T. W., & Bakker, A. B. (2007). Need for recovery,
home–work interference and performance: Is lack of concentration the
link? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 71, 204 –220. doi:10.1016/j.jvb
.2007.06.002
Diener, E., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2008). Happiness: Unlocking the mys-
teries of psychological wealth. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Diener, E., & Diener, C. (1996). Most people are happy. Psychological
Science, 7, 181–185. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1996.tb00354.x
Diener, E., Lucas, R. E., & Scollon, C. N. (2006). Beyond the hedonic
treadmill: Revising the adaptation theory of well-being. American Psy-
chologist, 61, 305–314. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.61.4.305
Diener, E., & Ryan, K. (2009). Subjective well-being: A general overview.
South African Journal of Psychology, 39, 391– 406. doi:10.1177/
008124630903900402
Dienstbier, R. A. (1989). Arousal and physiological toughness: Implica-
tions for mental and physical health. Psychological Review, 96, 84 –100.
doi:10.1037/0033-295X.96.1.84
Eby, L. T., Casper, W. J., Lockwood, A., Bordeaux, C., & Brinley, A.
(2005). Work and family research in IO/OB: Content analysis and
review of the literature (1980 –2002). Journal of Vocational Behavior,
66, 124 –197. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2003.11.003
Eid, M., & Diener, E. (2004). Global judgments of subjective well-being:
Situational variability and long-term stability. Social Indicators Re-
search, 65, 245–277. doi:10.1023/B:SOCI.0000003801.89195.bc
Fisher, G. G., Bulger, C. A., & Smith, C. S. (2009). Beyond work and
family: A measure of work/non-work interference and enhancement.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 14, 441– 456. doi:10.1037/
a0016737
Ford, M. T., Heinen, B. A., & Langkamer, K. L. (2007). Work and family
satisfaction and conflict: A meta-analysis of cross-domain relations. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 92, 57– 80. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.57
Ford, M. T., Matthews, R. A., Wooldridge, J. D., Mishra, V., Kakar, U. M.,
& Strahan, S. R. (2014). How do occupational stressor-strain effects
vary with time? A review and meta-analysis of the relevance of time lags
in longitudinal studies. Work & Stress, 28, 9 –30. doi:10.1080/02678373
.2013.877096
Fredrick, S., & Loewenstein, G. (1999). Hedonic adaptation. In D. Kah-
neman, E. Diener, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Well-being: The foundations of
a hedonic psychology (pp. 302–329). New York, NY: Russell Sage
Foundation.
Frese, M., & Zapf, D. (1988). Methodological issues in the study of work
stress: Objective vs. subjective measurement and the question of longi-
tudinal studies. In C. L. Cooper & R. Payne (Eds.), Causes, coping, and
consequences of stress at work (pp. 375– 411). New York, NY: Wiley.
Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M. L. (1997). Relation of work–
family conflict to health outcomes: A four-year longitudinal study of
employed parents. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psy-
chology, 70, 325–335. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8325.1997.tb00652.x
Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work
and family roles. Academy of Management Review, 10, 76 – 88.
Hammer, L. B., Cullen, J. C., Neal, M. B., Sinclair, R. R., & Shafiro, M. V.
(2005). The longitudinal effects of work–family conflict and positive
spillover on depressive symptoms among dual-earner couples. Journal
of Occupational Health Psychology, 10, 138 –154. doi:10.1037/1076-
8998.10.2.138
Hammer, L. B., Kossek, E. E., Anger, W. K., Bodner, T., & Zimmerman,
K. L. (2011). Clarifying work–family intervention processes: The roles
 1186 MATTHEWS, WAYNE, AND FORD
of work–family conflict and family-supportive supervisor behaviors.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 134 –150. doi:10.1037/a0020927
Hammer, L. B., Kossek, E. E., Yragui, N. L., Bodner, T. E., & Hanson,
G. C. (2009). Development and validation of a multidimensional mea-
sure of family supportive supervisor behaviors (FSSB). Journal of
Management, 35, 837– 856.
Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at con-
ceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44, 513–524. doi:10.1037/
0003-066X.44.3.513
Hobfoll, S. E. (2001). The influence of culture, community, and the nested-
self in the stress process: Advancing conservation of resources theory.
Applied Psychology, 50, 337– 421. doi:10.1111/1464-0597.00062
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance
structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struc-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
tural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Innstrand, S. T., Langballe, E., Espnes, G., Falkum, E., & Aasland, O.
(2008). Positive and negative work–family interaction and burnout: A
longitudinal study of reciprocal relations. Work & Stress, 22, 1–15.
doi:10.1080/02678370801975842
Kahn, R., Wolfe, D., Quinn, R., Snoek, J. D., & Rosenthal, R. (1964).
Organizational stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. New York,
NY: Wiley.
Kelloway, E. K., & Francis, L. (2013). Longitudinal research and data
analysis. In R. R. Sinclair, M. Wang, & L. E. Tetrick (Eds.), Research
methods in occupational health psychology: Measurement, design, and
data analysis (pp. 374 –394). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
Kelloway, E. K., Gottlieb, B. H., & Barham, L. (1999). The source, nature,
and direction of work and family conflict: A longitudinal investigation.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 4, 337–346. doi:10.1037/
1076-8998.4.4.337
Kinnunen, U., Feldt, T., Mauno, S., & Rantanen, J. (2010). Interface
between work and family: A longitudinal individual and crossover
perspective. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,
83, 119 –137. doi:10.1348/096317908X399420
Knecht, M. K., Bauer, G. F., Gutzwiller, F., & Hämmig, O. (2011).
Persistent work–life conflict and health satisfaction: A representative
longitudinal study in Switzerland. BMC Public Health, 11, Article 271.
doi:10.1186/1471-2458-11-271
Kossek, E. E., Baltes, B. B., & Matthews, R. A. (2011). How work–family
research can finally have an impact in the workplace. Industrial and Orga-
nizational Psychology, 4, 352–369. doi:10.1111/j.1754-9434.2011.01353.x
Landsbergis, P. A., Schnall, P. L., Pickering, T. G., Warren, K., &
Schwartz, J. E. (2003). Life-course exposure to job strain and ambula-
tory blood pressure in men. American Journal of Epidemiology, 157,
998 –1006. doi:10.1093/aje/kwg095
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New
York, NY: Springer.
Leiter, M. P., & Durup, M. J. (1996). Work, home, and in-between: A
longitudinal study of spillover. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,
32, 29 – 47. doi:10.1177/0021886396321002
Lucas, R. E. (2005). Time does not heal all wounds: A longitudinal study
of reaction and adaptation to divorce. Psychological Science, 16, 945–
950. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01642.x
Lucas, R. E., Clark, A. E., Georgellis, Y., & Diener, E. (2003). Reexam-
ining adaptation and the set point model of happiness: Reactions to
changes in marital status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
84, 527–539. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.84.3.527
Lucas, R. E., Clark, A. E., Georgellis, Y., & Diener, E. (2004). Unem-
ployment alters the set-point for life satisfaction. Psychological Science,
15, 8 –13. doi:10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.01501002.x
Lucas, R. E., Diener, E., & Suh, E. (1996). Discriminant validity of
well-being measures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71,
616 – 628. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.71.3.616
Luhmann, M., Hofmann, W., Eid, M., & Lucas, R. E. (2012). Subjective
well-being and adaptation to life events: A meta-analysis. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 102, 592– 615. doi:10.1037/a0025948
Lyubomirsky, S., King, L., & Diener, E. (2005). The benefits of frequent
positive affect: Does happiness lead to success? Psychological Bulletin,
131, 803– 855. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.131.6.803
Maertz, C. R., & Boyar, S. L. (2011). Work–family conflict, enrichment,
and balance under “levels” and “episodes” approaches. Journal of Man-
agement, 37, 68 –98. doi:10.1177/0149206310382455
Meier, L. L., & Spector, P. E. (2013). Reciprocal effects of work stressors
and counterproductive work behavior: A five-wave longitudinal study.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 529 –539. doi:10.1037/a0031732
Menard, S. (2002). Longitudinal research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Michel, J. S., Mitchelson, J. K., Kotrba, L. M., LeBreton, J. M., & Baltes,
B. B. (2009). A comparative test of work–family conflict models and
critical examination of work–family linkages. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 74, 199 –218. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2008.12.005
Mitchell, T. R., & James, L. R. (2001). Building better theory: Time and
the specification of when things happen. Academy of Management
Review, 26, 530 –547.
Mroczek, D. K., & Kolarz, C. M. (1998). The effect of age on positive and
negative affect: A developmental perspective on happiness. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1333–1349. doi:10.1037/0022-
3514.75.5.1333
Pavot, W., & Diener, E. (1993). Review of the Satisfaction With Life
Scale. Psychological Assessment, 5, 164 –172. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.5
.2.164
Pitariu, A. H., & Ployhart, R. E. (2010). Explaining change: Theorizing and
testing dynamic mediated longitudinal relationships. Journal of Man-
agement, 36, 405– 429. doi:10.1177/0149206308331096
Ployhart, R. E., & Vandenberg, R. J. (2010). Longitudinal research: The
theory, design, and analysis of change. Journal of Management, 36,
94 –120. doi:10.1177/0149206309352110
Rantanen, J., Kinnunen, U., Feldt, T., & Pulkkinen, L. (2008). Work–
family conflict and psychological well-being: Stability and cross-lagged
relations within one- and six-year follow-ups. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 73, 37–51. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2008.01.001
Richardson, K. M., & Rothstein, H. R. (2008). The effects of worksite stress
management intervention programs: A systematic review. Journal of Oc-
cupational Health Psychology, 13, 69 –93. doi:10.1037/1076-8998.13.1.69
Seery, M. D., Holman, E. A., & Silver, R. C. (2010). Whatever does not
kill us: Cumulative lifetime adversity, vulnerability, and resilience.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 1025–1041. doi:
10.1037/a0021344
Seligman, M. E., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An
introduction. American Psychologist, 55, 5–14. doi:10.1037/0003-066X
.55.1.5
Spector, P. E., Zapf, D., Chen, P. Y., & Frese, M. (2000). Why negative
affectivity should not be controlled in job stress research: Don’t throw
out the baby with the bath water. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
21, 79 –95. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(200002)21:1⬍79::AID-
JOB964⬎3.0.CO;2-G
Taylor, S. E. (1983). Adjustment to threatening events: A theory of
cognitive adaptation. American Psychologist, 38, 1161–1173. doi:
10.1037/0003-066X.38.11.1161
Tetrick, L. E., & Buffardi, L. C. (2006). Measurement issues in research on
the work-home interface. In F. Jones, R. J. Burke, & M. Westman (Eds.),
Work-life balance: A psychological perspective (pp. 90 –114). New
York, NY: Psychological Press.
Tucker, P., Smith, L., MacDonald, I., & Folkard, S. (1998). The impact of
early and late shift changeovers on sleep, health, and well-being in 8-
and 12-hour shift systems. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,
3, 265–275. doi:10.1037/1076-8998.3.3.265
 WORK–FAMILY CONFLICT 1187

Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the to methodological issues. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,
measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices and recom- 1, 145–169. doi:10.1037/1076-8998.1.2.145
mendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Meth-
ods, 3, 4 –70. doi:10.1177/109442810031002
Windle, G., Bennett, K. M., & Noyes, J. (2011). A methodological review
of resilience measurement scales. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes,
9, Article 8. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-9-8 Received June 7, 2013
Zapf, D., Dormann, C., & Frese, M. (1996). Longitudinal studies in Revision received January 21, 2014
organizational stress research: A review of the literature with reference Accepted March 18, 2014 䡲
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.