International Journal of Psychology, 2015 Vol. 50, No. 2, 106–114, DOI: 10.1002/ijop.12070

Testing crossover effects in an actor–partner interdependence model among Chinese dual-earner couples Huimin Liu1 and Fanny M. Cheung2 1 Gender

Studies Programme, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China of Psychology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China

2 Department

T

he purpose of the present study is to examine the crossover effects from one partner’s work–family interface (work–family conflict [WFC] and work–family enrichment [WFE]) to the other partner’s four outcomes (psychological strain, life satisfaction, marital satisfaction and job satisfaction) in a sample of Chinese dual-earner couples. Married couples (N = 361) completed a battery of questionnaires, including the work–family interface scale, the psychological strain scale, the life, marital, as well as job satisfaction scale. Results from the actor–partner interdependence model (APIM) analyses showed that wives’ WFE was negatively associated with husbands’ psychological strain, and positively associated with husbands’ life, marital and job satisfaction. Furthermore, husbands’ WFC was negatively related to wives’ marital satisfaction, whereas husbands’ WFE was positively related to wives’ marital satisfaction. Theoretical and practical implications were discussed, and future research directions were provided. Keywords: Crossover; Actor–partner interdependence model; Chinese dual-earner couples.

With women’s greater participation in the labour force, the number of dual-earner couples is growing rapidly nowadays. However, a high proportion of dual-earner couples, particularly those with children, experience heightened conflict, stress and stain because the number of interface between work and family is increased (Parasuraman & Greenhaus, 2002). Each partner’s well-being is influenced by his or her own work and family variables, as well as those of the partner. In the literature, the term “crossover” has been used to describe the stress transmission between partners. Existing evidence showed that various kinds of strain may crossover from one person of a dyad to another, such as depression (Howe, Levy, & Caplan, 2004; Westman & Vinokur, 1998), burnout (Westman, Etzion, & Danon, 2001) and marital dissatisfaction (Westman, Vinokur, Hamilton, & Roziner, 2004). Earlier crossover research has largely focused on the transmission of stress or strain. To add vigour to this area, it is recommended that we broaden the scope of crossover to include not only the contagion of stress and strain, but also the transfer of a wide range of negative as well as positive work–family experiences (Westman, 2001; Westman et al., 2004). Indeed, there is a critical gap in contemporary work–family research that Parasuraman

and Greenhaus (2002, p. 300) refer to as “an overemphasis on the individual level of analysis, and the limited examination of couple- or family-level work–family relationships as well as crossover effects from one partner to the other”. Also, most existing work–family research has been conducted in Western working samples; there is a growing call for studying work–family issues among different populations (Kossek, Baltes, & Matthews, 2011). As a response to the call, the present study aims to use the actor–partner interdependence model (APIM) to systematically examine the crossover effects from one partner’s work–family interface (work–family conflict [WFC] and work–family enrichment [WFE]) to the other partner’s four outcomes (psychological strain, life satisfaction, marital satisfaction and job satisfaction) in a sample of Chinese dual-earner couples. WORK–FAMILY INTERFACE Work–family interface is considered to comprise two components: WFC and WFE. WFC has been defined as “a form of interrole conflict in which role pressures from the work and family domains are mutually incompatible in some respect. That is, participation in the

Correspondence should be addressed to Huimin Liu, Gender Studies Programme, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, NT, Hong Kong, China. (E-mail: [email protected]).

© 2014 International Union of Psychological Science

CROSSOVER EFFECTS AMONG CHINESE COUPLES

work (family) role is made more difficult by virtue of participation in the family (work) role” (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985, p. 77). This concept is based on a scarcity hypothesis, which contends that individuals have a fixed amount of psychological and physiological resources, and juggling multiple roles will inevitably exhaust the total resources and cause interrole conflict. WFC is conceptualised as a bidirectional construct where work interferes with family (work-to-family conflict) and family interferes with work (family-to-work conflict; Frone, 2003). There are widespread and undesirable consequences associated with WFC. A review by Allen, Herst, Bruck, and Sutton (2000) showed that WFC was negatively associated with job and life satisfaction, as well as positively associated with burnout, stress and intention to turnover. With the rise of positive psychology, recent perspectives portrayed a more optimistic outlook of multiple role involvement and spurred research interest in the positive side of work–family interactions (Frone, 2003). The enrichment approach represents a vigorous response to the call for “positive” work–family research. WFE is defined as “the extent to which experiences in one role improve the quality of life in the other role” (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006, p. 73), and is often used interchangeably with positive spillover, enhancement and facilitation. Considered as the conceptual counterpart of WFC, WFE is also manifested in two dimensions: work-to-family enrichment and family-to-work enrichment. WFE has been linked to a number of beneficial outcomes for employees as well as the organisation. A substantial body of research has demonstrated that WFE is positively associated with job satisfaction, family satisfaction, affective commitment, as well as physical and mental health (McNall, Nicklin, & Masuda, 2010). SPILLOVER VERSUS CROSSOVER EFFECTS Drawing from both qualitative and quantitative evidence, Bolger, DeLongis, Kessler, and Wethington (1989) summarised two conditions in which stress is contagious: (a) spillover: stress generated from one domain (e.g. work) results in stress experienced in the other domain (e.g. family) for the same individual, (b) crossover: stress experienced by an individual (in the work place) is transferred to the individual’s spouse (at home). In other words, whereas spillover represents an intraindividual and interdomain transmission of stress, crossover is an interindividual and intradomain occurrence. By including interpersonal interactions in a dyad as an additional focus of research, the crossover model adds another level of analysis to traditional spillover model. Westman and Vinokur (1998) suggested three mechanisms of the crossover process, which may be due to (a) common stressors affecting the strain of both partners, (b) a direct transmission of stress or strain from © 2014 International Union of Psychological Science

107

one partner to the other through empathy, (c) an indirect transmission of stress or strain through the behavioural interactions/communication patterns between partners. To note, the majority of crossover studies have focused on the transmission of negative experiences. However, just as stress may exert a negative impact on the partner’s well-being, enjoyable and fulfilling experiences may also transmit to the partner and have a positive effect on the partner’s well-being. Indeed, several studies also confirmed the existence of positive crossover and enhanced our theoretical understanding of the literature by showing that the transfer of stress and strain is not the whole story about the crossover experiences (Bakker & Xanthopoulou, 2009). INTEGRATING WORK–FAMILY INTERFACE LITERATURE WITH CROSSOVER THEORIES In the work–family literature, the crossover phenomenon has relatively been underinvestigated compared with the spillover process. Yet an emerging body of research has attempted to integrate work–family interface literature with crossover theories and demonstrated the transmission of work and family experiences between members of marital dyads (Hammer, Allen, & Grigsby, 1997; Hammer, Bauer, & Grandey, 2003; Hammer, Cullen, Neal, Sinclair, & Shafiro, 2005). For example, utilising a lagged panel design, Hammer et al. (2005) assessed the cross-sectional and longitudinal effects of work–family interface (WFC and positive spillover) on individuals’ as well as their spouses’ depressive symptoms. Analyses on cross-sectional effects showed that husbands’ work-to-family conflict at Time 2 was positively related to wives’ depression at Time 2. Longitudinally, husbands’ work-to-family positive spillover at Time 1 was a significant predictor of wives’ depression at Time 2, and wives’ family-to-work positive spillover at Time 1 was a significant predictor of husbands’ depression at Time 2. Results also showed that partner’s positive spillover had a stronger impact on depression than one’s own positive spillover. The novelty and strength of their design lies in that it not only examined the longitudinal crossover effects for the first time, but also integrated both the negative and positive aspects of crossover experiences into the theoretical framework. THE PRESENT STUDY Existing studies have demonstrated a significant relationship between one spouse’s work–family interface and the other spouse’s withdrawal behaviours as well as depressive symptoms (Hammer et al., 2003, 2005). However, less is understood about the generalisation of these results because only limited types of spouse-related outcomes are explored. To our knowledge, few empirical studies have systematically investigated the effect of one spouse’s

108

LIU AND CHEUNG

work–family interface on the other spouse’s positive outcomes. In addition, as noted by several scholars (Hammer et al., 2003; Westman & Vinokur, 1998), some of the analytic strategies for examining the crossover effects are inherently questionable. There exists interdependence in two-person relationships where one person’s psychological state (e.g. emotion and cognition) can affect the other person. As a consequence of this interdependence, the observations of two individuals in a dyad are often correlated with each other. Yet many existing crossover studies have adopted a conceptual view of independence of observations between members in a dyad, leaving plenty room for alternative explanations of results. Also, though crossover research is gaining momentum in Western countries, empirical evidence has been rare with Chinese working samples. The extent to which Western crossover findings can be extended to a Chinese population remains to be explored. This study attempts to address these gaps by examining the effect of one’s work–family interface (WFC and WFE) on his or her partner’s negative as well as positive outcomes (psychological strain, life, marital and job satisfaction) in a matched sample of Chinese dual-earner couples. Furthermore, this study aims to provide a more stringent test of the crossover effects by using the APIM (Cook & Kenny, 2005). Researchers have found the APIM to be very useful in the study of dyadic relationships. The appeal of the APIM is that it assumes non-independence of observations between members in a dyad, allowing for simultaneous estimate of the influence of individuals’ independent variable on their own dependent variable (i.e. actor effect) and on their partners’ dependent variable (i.e. partner effect). Adopting the APIM approach may remedy the methodological limitation caused by the utilisation of inadequate analytic strategies in previous studies. Based on existing work–family theory and research, we hypothesise that: H1. One’s work–family conflict will be positively associated with his or her partner’s psychological strain. H2. One’s work–family conflict will be negatively associated with his or her partner’s life satisfaction, marital satisfaction and job satisfaction. H3. One’s work–family enrichment will be negatively associated with his or her partner’s psychological strain. H4. One’s work–family enrichment will be positively associated with his or her partner’s life satisfaction, marital satisfaction and job satisfaction.

METHOD Participants Participants were recruited on a voluntary basis through one kindergarten in mainland China where the parents

bring their children. Each student was given two copies of the questionnaire packets, one for his or her father, and the other for his or her mother, in separate envelopes with matching codes for each member of the parents. The questionnaires took about 15 minutes to complete and included a battery of psychological measures, as well as the demographic information of each participant. Written consent forms ensuring anonymity and confidentiality of responses were collected. Respondents were provided with a report as an incentive on completion of the present study. A total of 409 of 450 questionnaire packages were received, yielding a response rate of 91%. Repeated reminders as well as the incentive of a report for participating in the study may have contributed to the high response rate. Selection criterion for the present study was that of each couple, both partners should have paid jobs. Based on this criterion, 43 couples were excluded from further analysis. After deleting five incomplete responses, the final sample consisted of 361 dual-earner couples (N = 722). The male participants’ ages ranged from 26 to 57 years, with an average age of 33.13 years (SD = 4.24). The female participants’ ages ranged from 26 to 45 years, with an average age of 31.43 years (SD = 3.56). Men were almost 2 years older than women, t(357) = 5.82, p < .05). With respect to education, 2.2% of men had a graduate degree or above, 77.6% had a bachelor’s degree, 15.2% had a high school diploma and 3.6% had less than a high school diploma. For women, 0.8% had a graduate degree or above, 72.3% had a bachelor’s degree, 22.4% had a high school diploma and 2.8% had less than a high school diploma. Approximately 79.5% of couples had one child, 19.1% had two children and 0.3% had three children. The average age of the youngest child was 5 years (SD = .95). Measures Work–family conflict and work–family enrichment The Chinese version of Grzywacz and Marks (2000) 16-item scale was used to assess WFC and enrichment. WFC contains two dimensions: (a) work-to-family conflict (four items, e.g. “Your job reduces the effort you can give to activities at home”), (b) family-to-work conflict (four items, e.g. “Responsibilities at home reduce the effort you can devote to your job”). WFE also contains two dimensions: (a) work-to-family enrichment (four items, e.g. “The things you do at work help you deal with personal and practical issues at home”), (b) family-to-work enrichment (four items, e.g. “Talking with someone at home helps you deal with problems at work”). Respondents indicated the frequency with which they have experienced these items on Likert-type © 2014 International Union of Psychological Science

CROSSOVER EFFECTS AMONG CHINESE COUPLES

scales ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (all the time). The alpha coefficient for WFC and WFE was .81 and .77, respectively.

109

to 5 (strongly agree). The alpha coefficient was .74 in the present sample. Demographic variables

Psychological strain A short version of the General Health Questionnaire—GHQ-12 (Goldberg & Williams, 1988) was used to assess psychological distress. The GHQ-12 contains 12 items measuring minor psychological symptoms. According to the original scoring method, participants were asked to rate each item on a 4-point scale ranging from 0 (never) to 3 (always), with a higher score indicating a higher level of strain. The alpha coefficient was .83 in the present sample. Life satisfaction The 5-item Satisfaction with Life Scale (Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985) was used to measure life satisfaction. Participants were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed with statements such as “In most ways my life is close to ideal”, using a response format ranging from 1 (not at all true of me) to 7 (exactly true of me). The alpha coefficient was .85 in the present sample. Marital satisfaction Fowers and Olson’s (1993) ENRICH Marital Satisfaction Scale (EMS scale) was used to assess marital satisfaction. It contains 10 items each representing one of the areas of marital relationship (e.g. communication or conflict resolution). For example, “I am very happy with how we handle role responsibilities in our marriage”. Response options range from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The alpha coefficient was .87 in the present sample. Job satisfaction The 5-item Brayfield–Rothe Index (Brayfield & Rothe, 1951) was used to measure job satisfaction. For example, “I feel fairly well satisfied with my present job”. Response options range from 1 (strongly disagree) Husbands’ Work-Family Conflict

a p

The personal information of the participants was also collected, including gender, age, educational level, occupation, number of children and age of the youngest child. Statistical analysis The APIM was applied to assess the crossover effects between partners in a dyad. The two central components of the APIM are the actor effects and the partner effects. The actor effects (spillover/within-individual effects) measure how much a person’s outcome is predicted by his or her own attributes. The partner effects (crossover effects) assess how much a person’s outcome is influenced by his or her partner’s attributes. The examination of the relationship between WFC and psychological strain is taken as an example. Figure 1 presents the path diagram for the essential components of the APIM. For example, the actor effects are represented by the two paths labelled “a”. The actor effect is a measure of the influence of husbands’ WFC on their own psychological strain, as well as the influence of wives’ WFC on their own psychological strain. The partner effects are represented by two diagonal paths labelled “p”. The partner effect is a measure of interdependence, such that husbands’ WFC may affect wives’ psychological strain and wives’ WFC may affect husbands’ psychological strain. The correlation between independent variables is indicated by a curved, double-headed arrow labelled “b”, which ensures that the actor effects are estimated while controlling for the partner effects, and the partner effects are estimated while controlling for the actor effects. An additional feature of the model is the curved, double-headed arrow between the residual errors of the dependent variables labelled “c”, which controls for other sources of interdependence between partners. All the analyses were performed via structural equation modeling (SEM) using the AMOS 19.0 software package because SEM provides the most convenient and direct way to test APIM for distinguishable partners in a dyad. Traditional model-fit statistics are not presented because the APIMs are recursive (Cook & Kenny, 2005). Husbands’ Psychological Strain

e1 c

b Wives’ Work-Family Conflict

Figure 1. The path diagram for the APIM.

© 2014 International Union of Psychological Science

p a

Wives’ Psychological Strain

e2

110

LIU AND CHEUNG TABLE 1 Means and standard deviations of the study variables Mean (SD)

Measure Work–family conflict Work–family enrichment Psychological strain Life satisfaction Marital satisfaction Job satisfaction

Husbands

Wives

t

22.78(6.36) 32.84(4.29) 8.54(4.56) 17.08(4.41) 40.87(6.36) 18.39(3.70)

22.46(6.34) 31.99(4.97) 9.74(4.88) 17.43(4.31) 38.88(7.23) 18.05(3.84)

0.66 2.47* −3.44*** −1.06 3.93*** 1.19

Note: N = 722 (361 couples). *p < .05, ***p < .001.

RESULTS Descriptive statistics Prior to testing the hypotheses, we conducted confirmatory factor analyses using AMOS 19.0 on the four criterion scales (psychological strain, life, marital and job satisfaction) to ensure that they were independent and that the items produced the expected factor structures. We estimated a four-factor solution with the items comprising each of the scales loading on the respective factor. The fit of the model to the data was examined with the chi-square statistic, the goodness-of-fit index (GFI), the normed fit index (NFI), the comparative fit index (CFI), and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). Fit indices showed that the four-factor model produced adequate fit to the data (χ2 = 1017.73, df = 441, p < .001; GFI = .92, NFI = .90, CFI = .94, RMSEA = .043). To ensure that the four scales were distinct, we further compared the four-factor model to a one-factor model. The chi-square difference test suggested that the four-factor model fit the data significantly better than the one-factor model, Δχ2 (6) = 1444.14, p < .001. Hence, these four

scales can be considered as correlated but separate factors that fit well to the data. The means and standard deviations of the study variables are summarised in Table 1. Independent t tests were performed to assess whether there were significant gender differences in all the study variables. Results showed that husbands reported higher levels of WFE (t = 2.47, p < .05) and marital satisfaction (t = 3.93, p < .001) than their wives. Wives reported higher levels of psychological strain (t = −3.44, p < .001) than their husbands. Correlations were computed to investigate the relationship between one partner’s work–family interface and the other partner’s outcomes. As can be seen from Table 2, a number of significant associations were demonstrated. Husbands’ WFC was positively correlated with wives’ psychological strain, whereas negatively correlated with wives’ marital and job satisfaction. Husbands’ WFE was negatively correlated with wives’ psychological strain, whereas positively correlated with wives’ life, marital and job satisfaction. Wives’ WFC and WFE were also significantly associated with husbands’ outcome variables in the expected direction. APIM analysis The initial series of correlation analysis give a glimpse of how one partner’s work–family interface might affect the other partner’s outcomes. In the following step, the APIM was applied to assess the interdependency of work–family experiences between partners in a dyad. As recommended by Kenny, Kashy, and Cook (2006), while working with dyads, an omnibus test of distinguishability is needed as a first step to demonstrate empirically that the members are in fact distinguishable. We conducted the omnibus test on the six variables (WFC, WFE, psychological strain, life marital and job satisfaction) for both

TABLE 2 Correlations among the study variables Variables Men (N = 361) 1. Work–family conflict 2. Work–family enrichment 3. Psychological strain 4. Life satisfaction 5. Marital satisfaction 6. Job satisfaction Women (N = 361) 7. Work–family conflict 8. Work–family enrichment 9. Psychological strain 10. Life satisfaction 11. Marital satisfaction 12. Job satisfaction

1

2

3

4

5

−.06 .49** −.18** −.39** −.35**

−.28** .42** .45** .43**

−.37** −.55** −.47**

.48** .52**

.46**

−.30** −.14* .15** −.10 −.25** −.10*

−.07 .34** −.17** .22** .32** .19**

.21** −.22** .35** −.22** −.39** −.17**

−.14** .25** −.18** .45** .31** .18**

−.17** .24** −.30** .25** .50** .19**

6

7

−.12 ∗ .24** −.24** .29** .33** .28**

−.17** .41** −.27** −.38** −.45**

8

9

10

11

−.39** .41** .45** .42**

−.51** −.58** −.54**

.52** .53**

.46**

*p < .05, **p < .01.

© 2014 International Union of Psychological Science

CROSSOVER EFFECTS AMONG CHINESE COUPLES

111

TABLE 3 The actor–partner interdependence model (APIM) of work–family interface Psychological strain

Husbands Actor’s effects WFC WFE Partner’s effects WFC WFE Wives Actor’s effects WFC WFE Partner’s effects WFC WFE

Life satisfaction

Marital satisfaction

Job satisfaction

Estimate

t

Estimate

t

Estimate

t

Estimate

t

.33*** −.24***

9.69 −4.26

−.11** .39***

−2.85 7.46

−.37*** .61***

−7.28 8.28

−.20*** .34***

−6.75 7.82

.05 −.13**

1.42 −2.70

−.07 .11*

−1.75 2.43

−.06 .14*

−1.21 2.12

−.01 .08*

.31*** −.37***

7.93 −7.36

−.18*** .33***

−4.96 7.56

−.38*** .57***

−6.67 7.93

−.28*** .31***

−.37 1.76

−.17** .32***

−3.02 3.82

.03 −.05

.65 −.79

−.01 .09

.02 .05

−.29 2.19

−9.31 7.85 .66 1.12

Note: N = 722 (361 couples). The estimates are unstandardised regression coefficients. WFC = work–family conflict; WFE = work–family enrichment. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

husbands and wives in the current study. Results showed that the omnibus χ2 test is significant, χ2 (42) = 130.05, p < .001, indicating that gender does make a meaningful difference and can be used as a distinguishing variable. Altogether, eight sets of APIM analysis were performed (between WFC/WFE and psychological strain, life, marital, as well as job satisfaction). For brevity of presentation, a summary of results instead of the details of APIM analysis was provided in Table 3. We can see that all the actor effects were significant in the expected direction and importantly, six sets of partner effects were significant. Wives’ WFE emerged as a significant predictor of husbands’ four outcome variables in the expected direction. Specifically, wives’ WFE was negatively associated with husbands’ psychological strain (b = −.13, p < .01), and positively associated with husbands’ life satisfaction (b = .11, p < .05), marital satisfaction (b = .14, p < .05) and job satisfaction (b = .08, p < .05). Furthermore, husbands’ WFC was negatively associated with wives’ marital satisfaction (b = −.17, p < .01), and husbands’ WFE was positively associated with wives’ marital satisfaction (b = .32, p < .001). Thus, H1 was not supported. H2 was partially supported for husbands. H3 was fully supported for wives. H4 was fully supported for wives and partially supported for husbands. As both husbands’ and wives’ WFE were positively related to their partners’ marital satisfaction, an interesting question would be whether the relationship between husbands’ WFE and wives’ marital satisfaction is statistically stronger than the relationship between wives’ WFE and husband’s marital satisfaction. We conducted the chi-square difference test to compare the relative strength of these two relationships in the APIM model. Results showed that the difference between the unconstrained model and the model in which the path from © 2014 International Union of Psychological Science

husband’s WFE to wife’s marital satisfaction and the path from wife’s WFE to husband’s marital satisfaction were constrained to be equal was not significant, Δχ2 (1) = 2.64, p > .05. Thus, we accept the null hypothesis that the two paths are equally strong. DISCUSSION Overall, the results provide partial support for our hypotheses and are among the first to investigate crossover effects from one partner’s work–family interface (WFC and WFE) to the other partner’s outcome variables (psychological strain, life, marital and job satisfaction) in a sample of Chinese dual-earner couples. The present study extends the literature by using the APIM approach, an analytic strategy that accommodates non-independence in dyadic data and allows for simultaneous estimation of both actor and partner effects. Summary of results First, results demonstrated significant associations between one partner’s WFE and the other partner’s outcomes. Specifically, wives’ WFE was linked to husbands’ decreased psychological strain, as well as increased life, marital and job satisfaction. In addition, husbands’ WFE was positively associated with wives’ marital satisfaction. These results are encouraging because they indicated that WFE as a positive construct would not only contribute to individual well-being, but also enhance the partner’s well-being. WFE can generate resources and build a solid “resource reservoir”, which is essential for coping with stress and stimulating performance (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006). Individuals with high levels of WFE are less likely

112

LIU AND CHEUNG

to encounter stressful circumstances while juggling multiple roles, and when they do encounter stress, they are better equipped to handle stress and solve the problems effectively. The “broaden and build theory” proposed by Fredrickson (2001) might be useful to further explain the functioning mechanisms through which one partner’s WFE affects the other partner’s well-being. According to the theory, positive emotions arising from an individual’s WFE would promote outwardly oriented thoughts and actions, which further stimulate him or her to respond readily and favourably to the needs of his or her partner through performing more generative activities, such as showing sympathy or concern about family issues, or providing help and support. Accordingly, the individual’s partner would perceive improved relationship quality, which translates into his or her enhanced subjective well-being. Second, results showed that husbands’ WFC was negatively associated with wives’ marital satisfaction. Husbands’ WFC may intrude into marital life and negatively affect wives’ marital satisfaction. When husbands experience high levels of WFC, they may feel exhausted to meet daily obligations and therefore lack enough energy to nurture the relationship with their wives. Furthermore, WFC and its accompanying stress may lead husbands to initiate a negative or conflictual interaction pattern with their wives, which further decreases wives’ marital satisfaction. Indeed, earlier research has linked WFC with heightened psychological distress, frequent hostile marital interactions, as well as lowered marital warmth and supportiveness (Matthews, Conger, & Wickrama, 1996). Third, the present study further revealed some gender differences in the crossover phenomenon, as the pattern of associations between one partner’s work–family interface and the other partner’s outcome variables varied across husbands and wives. One important finding was that wives’ negative work–family experiences (WFC) were not significantly associated with husbands’ outcomes. There is some indication that women may be better able to compartmentalise their family roles in ways that allow them to maintain emotional boundaries and thus limit transmission of stress and strain to their partners (Belsky, Youngblade, Rovine, & Volling, 1991). There is also some evidence that men tend to be less sensitive to their partners’ stressful events (Kessler, 1979). Taken together, it is perhaps not surprising that wives’ WFC was not significantly related to any of husbands’ four outcome variables in the present study. However, in terms of positive experiences, results demonstrated that wives’ WFE was a significant contributor to husbands’ four outcome variables. We speculated that women tend to be more expressive about positive events and husbands generally have more opportunities to recognise and value their wives’ skills or knowledge in details, therefore learning and benefiting from their wives’ enriching experiences. Accordingly, wives’ WFE was significantly associated with husbands’

four outcomes in the expected direction. Results also indicated that husbands’ work–family interface affected only one of wives’ four outcomes—marital satisfaction. The reason may be that wives are generally considered to be the “social emotional specialists” who attach greater importance to relationship satisfaction and are more dedicated in the process of monitoring marital relationships (Frazier & Esterly, 1990). In this sense, husbands’ WFC, a potential conflict trigger, may exert negative influence on wives’ subjective assessment of their relationship quality, whereas husbands’ WFE, a “resource reservoir” essential for generating positive affect, may enhance wives’ marital satisfaction. Indeed, one of the unresolved debates in crossover literature is whether the crossover process is unidirectional or bidirectional. Early crossover studies mainly focused on the effects of husbands’ job stress on the well-being of their wives, seeing wives as the absorbers of stress and strain from their husbands. Yet there are several studies that have collected data from both husbands and wives and examined the bidirectional transmission of work–family experiences. Among them, some studies reported asymmetric crossover effects between partners (Westman et al., 2001, 2004). Other studies demonstrated symmetric crossover patterns, using either cross-sectional designs (Hammer et al., 1997) or longitudinal designs (Westman & Vinokur, 1998). A conclusion about the symmetric or asymmetric nature of the crossover process should be dealt with caution. The heterogeneity of study samples, the differences in research methodologies and the variety of outcome variables concerned may contribute to these mixed findings. Yet overall, the present results suggest that the crossover process is a two-way phenomenon: from husbands to wives and vice versa. However, taking the nature of work–family interface (negative vs. positive) and types of outcome variables into consideration, husbands may differ from wives in terms of the significance or strengths of the hypothesised crossover relationships. Future research is required to probe into the tentative explanations proposed in the current study as well as consider other potential variables to unravel the mechanisms underlying the gendered crossover patterns. Limitations and implications Several limitations of the present study should be noted. First, a generalisation of research findings to other life cycle stages might not be feasible, because the current study focused on parents of preschool children (aged 3–6 years). Studying parents at this particular life cycle stage has high potential to further our understanding of how dual-earner couples balance the conflicting demands of work and family as an integrated system, because the preschool years require a great commitment of parental time and energy and families raising preschoolers are © 2014 International Union of Psychological Science

CROSSOVER EFFECTS AMONG CHINESE COUPLES

more likely to experience conflict and stress than families with school-aged or older children. However, more cross-validation would be helpful for the generalisation of results to other cohorts. Second, the cross-sectional design of the present study may inflate correlations and preclude any causal inferences. To note, the associations between partners’ variables may be explained by some unmeasured third variables. For example, shared stressors (e.g. illness) may independently but simultaneously increase the strain in both partners as a third variable. Future studies are encouraged to take into account potential third variables while examining the crossover effects. Following the lead of Hammer et al. (2005), further longitudinal designs are required to examine whether one partner’s work–family interface predicts the other partner’s outcomes over time. Third, self-report data employed in this study is susceptible to perception bias and common method variance. Though several studies argued that common method variance might not be as high as expected (Edwards, 2008), the present results need to be replicated with objective measures in future studies. Fourth, the specific cultural context may influence the present findings, which may not automatically apply to other contexts. Under a traditional patriarchal family structure, Chinese women were subordinate to men and restricted to the family domain. Yet with the modernisation of Chinese societies, the socioeconomic status of women has been greatly improved over the past decades, minimising the gaps of gender role attitudes between China and other developed countries. Thus, the current findings may share more similarities than differences with findings from the Western world. Nevertheless, future cross-cultural comparisons of work–family dynamics would be helpful to examine whether crossover patterns identified in the current study are transportable between different countries. Despite the limitations listed above, the current study contributes to the empirical investigation of the crossover phenomenon in several ways. The vast majority of crossover studies have been conducted in Western countries. Consequently, one major limitation in the literature has been its decidedly Western focus. The present study attempts to address the gap by examining the crossover effects among a sample of Chinese dual-earner couples. The results not only replicated the basic findings from past research, but also extended the literature through incorporating a wide range of negative as well as positive outcome variables into analysis. Importantly, the APIM approach was employed to analyse data at the dyadic level and conducting simultaneous analysis of both spouses provides a depth of understanding about how gender might play a role in the crossover process. The current findings have important implications for organisations aiming at flourishing workforces. The results highlight the reciprocal influences of work–family © 2014 International Union of Psychological Science

113

experiences between dual-earner couples, such that an individual’s work–family interface not only influences his or her own well-being, but also translates into his or her partner’s well-being. Thus, organisational attempts to reduce WFC and promote WFE may be a viable strategy for the benefit of the employees as well as their intimate partners. For example, providing family-friendly policies and employer-supported childcare would help alleviate stress related to WFC and in doing so improving employees’ as well as their partners’ health and satisfaction. As domain resources are generally considered to be the primary enablers of enrichment, infusing jobs with greater autonomy, decision-making, supervisory coaching and developmental opportunities can be used to promote WFE, which in turn would bring benefits to employees as well as their partners. Manuscript received August 2013 Revised manuscript accepted March 2014 First published online April 2014

REFERENCES Allen, T. D., Herst, D. E. L., Bruck, C. S., & Sutton, M. (2000). Consequences associated with work-to-family conflict: A review and agenda for further research. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 278–308. doi:10.1037//1076-8998.5.2.278. Bakker, A. B., & Xanthopoulou, D. (2009). The crossover of daily work engagement: Test of an actor-partner interdependence model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1562–1571. doi:10.1037/a0017525. Belsky, J., Youngblade, L., Rovine, M., & Volling, B. (1991). Patterns of marital change and parent–child interactions. Journal of Marriage and Family, 53, 487–498. doi:10.2307/352914. Bolger, N., DeLongis, A., Kessler, R., & Wethington, E. (1989). The contagion of stress across multiple roles. Journal of Marriage and Family, 51, 175–183. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.57.5.808. Brayfield, A. H., & Rothe, H. F. (1951). An index of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 35, 307–311. doi:10.1037/h0055617. Cook, W. L., & Kenny, D. A. (2005). The actor-partner interdependence model: A model of bidirectional effects in developmental studies. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 29, 101–109. doi:10.1080/01650250444000405. Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13. Edwards, J. R. (2008). To prosper, organizational psychology should . . . overcome methodological barriers to progress. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 469–491. doi:10.1002/job.529. Fowers, B. J., & Olson, D. H. (1993). Enrich marital satisfaction scale: A brief research and clinical tool. Journal of Family Psychology, 7, 176–185. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.7.2.176. Frazier, P. A., & Esterly, E. (1990). Correlates of relationship beliefs: Gender, relationship experience, and relationship

114

LIU AND CHEUNG

satisfaction. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7, 331–352. doi:10.1177/0265407590073003. Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56, 218–226. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.218. Frone, M. R. (2003). Work-family balance. In J. C. Quick & L. E. Tetrick (Eds.), Handbook of occupational health psychology (pp. 143–162). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Goldberg, D. P., & Williams, P. (1988). A user’s guide to the general health questionnaire. Windsor, U.K.: NFER-Nelson. Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Academy of Management Review, 10, 76–88. doi:10.2307/258214. Greenhaus, J. H., & Powell, G. N. (2006). When work and family are allies: A theory of work-family enrichment. Academy of Management Review, 31, 72–92. doi:10.5465/AMR.2006.19379625. Grzywacz, J. G., & Marks, N. F. (2000). Reconceptualizing the work-family interface: An ecological perspective on the correlates of positive and negative spillover between work and family. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 111–126. doi:10.1037111076-8998.5.1.111. Hammer, L. B., Allen, E., & Grigsby, T. (1997). Work-family conflict in dual-earner couples: Within-individual and crossover effects of work and family. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50, 185–203. doi:10.1006/jvbe.1996.1557. Hammer, L. B., Bauer, T. N., & Grandey, A. (2003). Work-family conflict and work-related withdrawal behaviors. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17, 419–436. doi:10.1023/A:1022820609967. 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. Howe, G. W., Levy, M. L., & Caplan, R. D. (2004). Job loss and depressive symptoms in couples: Common stressors,

stress transmission, or relationship disruption? Journal of Family Psychology, 18, 639–650. doi:10.1037/08933200.18.4.639. Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Cook, W. L. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Kessler, R. C. (1979). A strategy for studying differential vulnerability to the psychological consequences of stress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 20, 100–108. doi:10.2307/2136432. Kossek, E. E., Baltes, B. B., & Matthews, R. A. (2011). How work-family research can finally have an impact in organizations. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 4, 352–369. doi:10.1111/j.1754-9434.2011.01353.x. Matthews, L. S., Conger, R. D., & Wickrama, K. A. S. (1996). Work-family conflict and marital quality: Mediating processes. Social Psychology Quarterly, 59, 62–79. doi:10.2307/2787119. McNall, L. A., Nicklin, J. M., & Masuda, A. D. (2010). A meta-analytic review of the consequences associated with work-family enrichment. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25, 381–396. doi:10.1007/s10869-009-9141-1. Parasuraman, S., & Greenhaus, J. H. (2002). Toward reducing some critical gaps in work-family research. Human Resource Management Review, 12, 299–312. doi:10.1016/S1053-4822(02)00062-1. Westman, M. (2001). Stress and strain crossover. Human Relations, 54, 557–591. doi:10.1177/0018726701546002. Westman, M., & Vinokur, A. (1998). Unraveling the relationship of distress levels within couples: Common stressors, emphatic reactions, or crossover via social interactions? Human Relations, 51, 137–156. doi:10.1177/001872679805100202. Westman, M., Etzion, D., & Danon, E. (2001). Job insecurity and crossover of burnout in married couples. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 467–481. doi:10.1002/job.91. Westman, M., Vinokur, A., Hamilton, L., & Roziner, I. (2004). Crossover of marital dissatisfaction during downsizing: A study of Russian Army officers and their spouses. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 759–779. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.769.

© 2014 International Union of Psychological Science

Copyright of International Journal of Psychology is the property of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.