From work-family conflicts to psychological stress, job satisfaction and to life satisfaction: a proposed integrative model.

Parayitam, Satyanarayana ; Kalra, Narender Kumar

INTRODUCTION

Research on Work-Family Conflicts (WFC) is not new in OB literature. Interest in the work family interface has produced an impressive mass of research especially integrating work and family research. Work and family represent two important domains of any individual. The bi-directional nature of WFC i.e., work interfering with family versus family interfering with work, has been receiving increasing attention because: both add to stress, both are related to job satisfaction (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). Extant research suggests that both job stress and family stress are interdependent and interacting (Frone, Russell & Cooper, 1992).

Work interfering with family is WIF conflict and family interfering with work is known as FIW conflict. Despite this conceptual distinction, most of the research is skewed towards the former. It is now commonly acknowledged that work and family are not mutually exclusive domains which do influence each other. In his seminal paper Kanter (1977) pointed out that while work certainly affects family life, the opposite is also true. Kanter (1977) concluded that "family situations can define work orientations, motivations, abilities, emotional energy, and the demands people bring to the workplace (1977: 56-57). Available research evidence suggests that the experience of WIF conflict was reported almost three times more frequently than the experience of FIW conflict among both genders (Frone, Russell & Cooper, 1991; Gutek et al, 1991).

Though research on work family conflicts has been so far impressive, the focus of research has been progressing in two different directions. One stream of research concentrated exclusively on the identification of antecedents and outcomes of work-family conflict in terms of psychological distress (Frone et al, 1992). Another stream focused on the relationship between work family conflicts and job satisfaction and life satisfaction (Adams, King & King, 1996). For instance Frone et al (1992) have limited their study to the examination of impact on work-family conflicts on psychological distress. Similarly, the Adams et al (1996) attempted to establish partial link to job and life satisfaction, but psychological stress has been ignored in their model. There has been little effort to integrate the previous models which may contribute to a more clear understanding of the process of work-family conflicts and their relationships to job satisfaction and life satisfaction. Furthermore, very few studies have concentrated on the organizational support programs which are receiving increasing attention (Frone & Yardley, 1994). Though several studies highlighted the importance of social support in reducing the work-family conflicts, little effort has been made to see the impact of conflicts on the social support that can be provided by individuals (Jackson et al, 1985; Beehr & McGrath, 1992). For example, a person experiencing stress may display a tendency to withdraw from potentially supportive people and may eventually develop a discord within their family life and therefore would not provide social support to the rest of the members of the family. When members are unable to provide social support to the rest of the family, this may further aggravate the family-work conflict.

The purpose of the present study is to provide an integrating model of work-family conflict Adams et al (1996) studied the importance of social support in work-family conflict whereas the Frone et al (1992) model focused on the stress outcomes of work-family interface. Quite understandably, work-family conflict and family social support are likely to have relationship with psychological stress and also affect job satisfaction and life satisfaction. Family interfering with work was negatively related to job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and life satisfaction (Wiley, 1987; Adams et al, 1996).

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND DEVELOPMENT OF HYPOTHESES

Work-family conflicts, stress and social support

The link between social relationships, social support and long-term health consequences has been empirically established (Cohen, 1988; Cohen & Wills, 1985; Kiecolt-Glaser & Glaser, 1989). The relationship between social support and physiological processes and the underling mechanisms and implications for health have been examined by some researchers (Uchino, Cacioppo, Kiecolt Glaser, 1996). Extant literature suggests that social support comes in four forms--emotional, instrumental, informational, and appraisal (House, 1981). Though one's spouse may be the key source of emotional support, it is the supervisor who provides much informational and appraisal support at work. The seminal reviews by Cassell (1976) and Cobb (1976) have revealed the importance of social relationships for health. The association between social support and various physical health outcomes (such as coronary heart disease, cancer, and infectious illness) has been interesting (Cassell, 1976). Researchers point out that there are several multiple physiological pathways by which social support will influence disease states (Cassell, 1976). For instance, higher social support is associated with better cardiovascular regulation i.e. lower blood pressure (Dressler, 1980; Winbust, Marcelissen, & Kleber, 1982; Unden, Orth-Gomer & Elofssen, 1991). Social support is thought and conceptualized as multidimensional construct and specific dimensions of social support may be more effective when they meet the demands of related stressors (Cohen & McKay, 1984; Cutrona & Russell, 1990). Research demonstrated that examination of specific dimensions of social support may suggest more precise mechanisms through which social support influences health (Uchino, Cacioppo, Malarkey, Glaser & Kiecolt-Glaser, 1995).

Organizational support programs: Flextime

The workplace is, more frequently than not, invading employees' private lives and therefore employers devise ways and means of offering workplace family-supportive programs such as flextime, child care assistance thereby mitigating the effect of work-family conflict on organizational responsibilities (Frone & Yardley, 1994).Some attempts are also in the direction of changing the corporate culture so that employees feel comfortable taking advantage of available resources (Friedman, 1990; Starrels, 1992). Both organizations and employees find it convenient to move away from rigid time schedules, if aimed at achieving efficiency rather than following the letter perfect rules, flextime is one of the techniques being followed. The flexible work schedule is considered as an organizational prevention method aiming at allowing employees to accommodate the total set of demands in their professional as well personal lives (Nelson & Hitt, 1992). The concept of flextime is not new as one can find it way back in Hawthorne studies during 1920s and 1930s, flextime and flexible working hours (Ronen, 1981) are extended to telecommuting these days (Caudron, 1990). Flexible work schedules afford employees the discretionary control to balance work and home demands according to the circumstances that dictate and the individuals will become attentive to both needs and demands. Flexible work schedules can improve the individual organization exchange, increase the individual's discretion in managing personal stress demands, and dissipate some of the cumulative effects of stress while improving performance at work, provided that individual is highly responsible and matured. Flextime attempts to reduce the work-family conflicts to a greater extent because the participants can maintain a positive family-and work-related self-image. People devote considerable time and energy to constructing and maintaining desired identities (identity theory) (Burke, 1991; Schlenker, 1987). People are threatened when their self-images are damaged by the impediments to self-identifying activities. Work-family conflicts act as an impediment to successfully meeting the work-family demands and responsibilities and thereby undermining a person's ability to construct and maintain a positive family-related self-image. At the same time, family-work conflict may pose a serious threat to meet work-related demands and responsibilities, thereby undermining a person's ability to construct and maintain a positive work-related self-image. Flextime enables the organizational participants to manage the time balancing the demands of both work and family depending on their convenience and schedule. Thus, the frequency of experiencing both types of work-family conflicts could be reduced significantly, thereby reducing the deleterious health-related outcomes.

Relationship of work-family conflicts with job and life satisfaction

Several researchers have examined the impact of work-family and family-work conflicts on psychological stress and more or less there are unanimity in the direction and as well as effect of these conflicts on stress. What is more important is the impact of these on job satisfaction and life satisfaction. Life satisfaction is a very broad and comprehensive construct and it is really impossible to compress all the ingredients of life satisfaction into a single study. However, the role of work-family conflicts on life satisfaction as well as job satisfaction can be examined. An attempt is made in this direction by Adams et al (1996). Some earlier research support comes from Wiley (1987) who examined the family interfering with work and its effect on job satisfaction, life satisfaction, and organizational commitment. It would also be interesting to see the effect of these conflicts in presence of social support mechanism.

DEVELOPMENT OF HYPOTHESES

In an attempt to explain the impact of work-family conflict interface on job and life satisfaction through its influence on psychological stress, a comprehensive integrative model of work-family conflict is developed. The proposed model is also considered as an extension of several previous models (Bedian, Burke & Moffett, 1988; Burke, 1988; Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985; Greenhaus & Parasuraman, 1986; Kopelman, Greenhaus & Connolly, 1983; Frone, Russell & Cooper 1992; Adams, King & King 1996). Fig 1 presents the overview of the proposed integrated model and related hypotheses.

The direct predictors of WIF and FIW conflicts (job stressors, family stressors, job involvement, and family involvement), emotional support from family, instrumental support from family, the direct predictors of job distress and family distress can be found in the figure. Further the model links the work interfering with family and family interfering with work to job satisfaction and then to life satisfaction. The hypothesized relationships with suggested direction of influence of variables are presented in the figure.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

Work-family conflicts are bi-directional in nature

Greenhaus and Beutell (1985) made an explicit distinction between work interfering with family (WIF) and family interfering with work (FIW). It is important to recognize the bi-directional nature of work-family conflicts and failing to examine both types of work family conflicts may limit the understanding of the work-family interface because each of these is associated with different antecedents and consequences (Frone, et al, 1992). A positive reciprocal relationship was therefore hypothesized and empirically supported as the path coefficients were significant in Frone et al's study (1992). The logic of having reciprocal relationship stems from the fact that if the work-related problems affect the person's family accomplishments then it is also expected that the unfulfilled family responsibilities may also affect the person at work. At the same time, if a person is not able to fulfil the responsibilities at work because of family-related problems, then these unfulfilled work obligations are expected to affect his day-to-day functioning at home. Consistent with the prior research work (Schaubroeck, 1990), we propose the following hypotheses:

H1a: Work interfering with family conflicts will positively affect the family interfering work conflicts.

H1b: Family interfering with work conflicts will positively affect the work interfering with family conflicts.

Job Stressors and Family Stressors

The antecedents of WIF and FIW have been examined in literature (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985; Frone, Russell & Cooper 1992) and these include job stressors, family stressors, job involvement and family involvement. While job stressors and job involvement are the antecedents of WIF the family involvement and family stressors are the antecedents of FIW conflicts. Thus the identification of domain-specific antecedents clearly compartmentalizes the issue conveniently stating the exposure of an individual to stressor in a given domain (say, family) would result in limiting his ability and attention to address the demands of the other domain (i.e. work). For example, job stressors would act as constraint to the ability of an individual to address the family related responsibilities and hence would affect the work-family conflicts. At the same time, the family stressors would not permit the individual to address the responsibilities at work and hence would influence the family influencing work conflicts. Based on Frone et al (1992), Greenhaus & Beutell (1985) we propose the following hypotheses:

H2a: Job stressors are positively related to WIF conflicts.

H2b: Family stressors are positively related to FIW conflicts.

Job involvement and Family Involvement

The importance attached to work and family roles by an individual is another antecedent of these work family conflicts. Higher job involvement is predicted to affect the work influencing family conflicts and by the same token a more psychological involvement of an individual in his family is predicted to affect his family influencing the work conflicts. Higher involvement in job requires more time and effort of an individual and this explains why he would have less time at his disposal to address the problems arising from home. Because of his preoccupation with the job involvement, an individual may not have adequate resources to focus on the family. Previous research also suggests (and supports) the positive relationship between job involvement of an individual and work interfering with family conflicts (Beutell & O'Hare, 1987: Frone & Rice 1987; Greenhaus & Kopelman, 1981; Greenhaus, Parasuraman, Granrose, Rabinowitz & Beutell, 1989; Wley, 1987; Frone, Russell & Cooper 1992). There was initially some indirect support for the psychological involvement of an individual with the family and its affect on family interfering with work conflict from Gutek, Searle & Kelpa (1991) and direct support from Frone, Russell & Cooper (1992). In a study by Adams et al (1996) it was found that the path coefficients between job involvement and WIF, family involvement and FIW were 0.27 and 0.15 respectively, both significant, thus supporting the rationale. Intuitively, when organizations provide programs such as flextime, employees find comfortable because the employees feel relaxed to attend to both work responsibilities in organizations and also to fulfil the duties at home. Whenever they find work interfering with family, they schedule the working hours in such a way that it would not conflict with family duties. For instance, if employee has to drop off his or her son at school at 1.00 pm and has to bring his or her son back from school at 3.00 pm, then on those certain specific days he or she can reschedule the duties of work so that it would not interfere with the family responsibilities. Organizations create an option of flextime, whether the employees use them or not, and keeping this option open would make employees comfortable because they can utilize this option to reduce the work family conflicts. Further, research on organizational support programs (such as flextime) suggests that these programs have a tendency to reduce the work interfering with family conflicts (Scandura & Lankau, 1997: Christensen & Staines, 1990; Osterman, 1995).Therefore, based on above arguments, we propose the following hypotheses:

H3a: Job involvement is positively related to WIF conflict.

H3b: Family involvement is positively related to FIW conflict.

H3c: Organizational support programs (flextime) are negatively related to WIF Conflict.

H3d: Organizational support programs (flextime) are negatively related to FIW Conflict.

Job distress and family distress

The influence of work-family conflicts on distress cannot be ignored in studying the relationship between job satisfaction and work-family conflicts. This is because work-family conflicts result in distress which in turn influences job satisfaction. It is self-explanatory that job stressors influence job distress whereas family stressors affect family distress, following the logic domain specific stressors. Previous research lends support for this argument (Frone et al, 1992) and therefore the following hypotheses are advanced:

H4a: Job stressors are positively related to job distress.

H4b: Family stressors are positively related to family distress.

The job involvement of an individual is another important antecedent of work interfering with family conflict. But as long as individual is engaged in task seriously this is also going to have its effect on job stress. An individual feels less distressed at job following involvement on job. At the same time, family involvement of an individual would go in favor of that individual in reducing the family distress. The negative relationship between job involvement and job distress, and family involvement and family distress is heavily based on both conceptual and empirical findings from a several researches (Weiner, Muczyk & Gable, 1987; Winter & Vardi, 1980; Sekaran, 1989) and therefore the following hypotheses are advanced:

H5a: Job involvement is negatively related to job distress

H5b: Family involvement is negatively related to family distress.

With regard to WIF and FIW and their relationship with family distress and job distress, it can be observed that when an individual is experiencing work interfering with family conflict, this is expected to have a direct relation with family distress. This is particularly because the individual will have time just to concentrate on work and the interference of family in that process would not allow him to concentrate on family related responsibilities. As a result the family distress is expected to mount up. By the same token, an individual caught up in the family interfering with work conflict, the family demands are so alarming that he would find little time to accomplish his job demands and requirements thereby adding to distress on the job. Individual struggling himself on that particular role (i.e. family) would prohibit him to comply with job demands resulting in job distress. Previous research also supports this rationale (Frone et al, 1992) and hence the following can be hypothesized:

H6a: FIW conflicts are positively related to job distress.

H6b: WIF conflicts are positively related to family distress

Depression (overall psychological distress)

Depression in the present model represents overall psychological distress an individual experiences in life. Both WIF and FIW, in addition to job distress and family distress, would have profound effect on depression. Though research by Frone et al has provided strong support for association between FIW and Depression and a weak (and non-significant) association between WIF and depression, it is expected, following the additive models, that WIF and FIW directly and indirectly through job distress and family distress, might effect depression (Bedeian et al, 1988; Coverman,1989; Kandel et al, 1985; Frone et al, 1992). Further, Burke (1988) found that a higher level of work interfering with family was related to more psychological burnout in his sample of nurses and engineers. Work interfering with family also was positively related to depression in yet another study by Thomas and Ganster (1995). Based on the above empirical support the following can be hypothesized:

H7a: WIF conflicts are positively related to depression.

H7b: FIW conflicts are positively related to depression.

H7c: Job distress is positively related to depression.

H7d: Family distress is positively related to depression.

Social support

Though various forms of social support identified by House (1981) were emotional, appraisal, informational, and instrumental, there is a growing consensus that emotional and instrumental support plays a vital role in regard to work-family conflicts (Beehr & McGrath, 1992; Caplan, Cobb, French, Harrison, & Pinnaue, 1975; McIntosh, 1991, Kaufmann & Beehr, 1986). Beehr (1995) noted that social support from work-related sources is more important in occupational stress than the non-work related sources, some researchers (Kahn & Byosiere ,1991; LaRocco, House & French, 1980) contend that non-work sources of social support i.e. support from family members is also very important. More precisely, the family members have the first opportunity for providing both emotional and instrumental support to individuals outside the work-environment. When an individual is caught up in work-interfering with family conflict, then it is not possible for him to provide both emotional and instrumental support and this may have a direct impact on family interfering with work conflict. As suggested by Jackson et al (1985) "when negative effects of the employees' jobs reach family, families may find it difficult to be supportive" (p.584). Research also amply demonstrated that an individual experiencing stress may exhibit a tendency of withdrawing from potentially supportive people and also would not be willing to provide support (Beehr and McGrath ,1992). Following Beehr (1995) and Adams, King and King (1996) that higher job involvement may lead to WIF thereby restricting the level of emotional and instrumental support to be provided to family members, the following can be hypothesized:

H8a: WIF conflict is negatively related to emotional social support.

H8b: WIF conflict is negatively related to instrumental social support.

H8c: Emotional social support is negatively related to FIW conflicts.

H8d: Instrumental social support is negatively related to FIW conflicts.

Job satisfaction and Life Satisfaction

One of the outcomes of work-family conflicts is job satisfaction, which would eventually affect life satisfaction. Wiley (1987) demonstrated that family interfering with work was negatively related to job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and life satisfaction in a sample of employed graduate students. Burke (1988) noted that a higher level of work interfering with family was related to more psychological burnout and alienation and less job satisfaction in his sample of police officers. Thus both WIF conflicts and FIW conflicts are negatively related to job satisfaction. Corroborating the same view, Bacharach et al (1991) found that work interfering with family was significantly related to burnout, which then was related to lower job satisfaction for both a sample of engineers and sample of nurses. A study by Thomas and Ganster (1995) also suggests that work interfering with family was negatively related to job satisfaction and positively related to depression and health complaints. Based on the above, it can be hypothesized thus:

H9a: Job distress is negatively related to job satisfaction.

H9b: WIF conflicts are negatively related to job satisfaction.

H9c: FIW conflicts are negatively related to job satisfaction.

H9d: Depression is negatively related to job satisfaction.

H9e: Job involvement is positively related to job satisfaction.

Along the similar lines of job involvement leading to job satisfaction, family involvement greatly affects the family satisfaction and hence life satisfaction. Higgins et al (1992) reported that work interfering with family was related to lower quality of family life which, in turn, is related to lower levels of life satisfaction among workers. Adams et al (1996) also found that work interfering with family is negatively related to life satisfaction and the path coefficient was 0.15 and significant. Further Adams et al (1996) found that social support (emotional) was positively related to life satisfaction (path coefficient was 0.27 and significant) whereas the instrumental support was not significant though positively related to life satisfaction. The link between job satisfaction and life satisfaction has been established by some researchers (Tait, Padgett, and Baldwin: 1989) and some report a highly positive relationship between these two constructs (Judge and Watanabe, 1993). Based on the above arguments, we propose the following hypotheses:

H10a: Job satisfaction is positively related to life satisfaction.

H10b: Family social support (emotional) is positively related to life satisfaction.

H10c: Family social support (instrumental) is positively related to life satisfaction.

H10d: Family involvement is positively related to life satisfaction.

DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

Work family conflict literature is rich as of today. However, there are several gray areas where research can be directed. First, apart from psychological stress, job satisfaction, and life satisfaction, other outcome variables can be studied which might be directly or indirectly impacted by work-family conflicts. These are commitment, organizational citizenship behaviors, turnover and absenteeism, organizational satisfaction. Instead of developing relatively incomplete models, it is suggested to incorporate as many variables (both antecedents and consequences) as possible in any study of work-family interface to enrich the understanding the dynamics of work-family conflicts.

REFERENCES

Adams, G.A., King, L.A., & King, D.W (1996). Relationships of Job and Family Involvement, Family Social Support, and Work-Family conflict with job and life satisfaction, Journal of Applied Psychology, 81 (4),pp.411-420.

Bacharach, S.B., Bamberger, P., & Conley.S (1991). Work-home conflict among nurses and engineers: Mediating the impact of role stress on burnout and satisfaction at work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 12, 39-53.

Bedian, A.G., Burke, B.G., & Moffett, R.G (1988) Outcomes of work-family conflict among married male and female professionals. Journal of Management, 14, pp. 475-491.

Beehr, T.A & McGrath, J.E (1992). Social support, occupational stress. In T.A. Beehr & R.A. Bhagat (Eds) Human stress and cognition in organizations. An integrated perspective (pp. 375-390). New York: Wiley.

Beutell, N.J., & O'Hare, M.M. (1987) Work-nonwork conflict among MBAs. Sex differences in role stressors and life satisfaction. Work and Stress, I,pp. 35-41.

Blau, G.J (1985) A multiple study investigation of the dimensionality of job involvement. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 27, pp 19-36.

Bollen, K.A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.

Burke, R.J (1988). Some antecedents and consequences of work-family conflict, Journal of Social Behavior and personality, 3, pp 287-302.

Caplan, R.D., Cobb, S., French, J.R.P., Harrison, R.V & Pinneau, S.R., Jr (1975) Job demands and worker health. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.

Cassell, J. (1976). The contribution of the social environment to host resistance. American Journal of Epidimiology, 104, pp.107-123.

Christensen, K.E & Staines, G.L (1990). Flextime: A viable solution to work/family conflict?" Journal of Family Issues, 4, pp.455-477.

Cobb, S. (1976). Social support as a moderator of life stress. Psychosomatic Medicine, 38, pp.300-314.

Cohen, S. (1988). Psychosocial models of the role of social support in the etiology of physical disease. Health Psychology. 7, pp.269-297.

Cohen, S & Wills, T.A (1985) Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 98, pp 310-357.

Cohen, S., & McKay, G. (1984). Social support, stress, and the buffering hypothesis: A theoretical analysis. In A. Baum, S.E. Taylor, & J.E. Singer (Eds), Handbook of psychology and health (pp.253-267). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Coverman, S (1989) Roleoverload, role conflict, and stress: Addressing consequences of multiple role demands, Social Forces, 67, pp 965-982.

Cutrona, C.,& Russell, D.W (1990). Type of social support and specific stress: Toward a theory of optimal matching.

In B.R. Sarason, I.G. Sarason, & G.R. Pierce (Eds)., Social Support: An international view (pp. 319-366). New York. Wiley.

Dressler, W.W (1980). Coping dispositions, social supports, and health status. Ethos, 8, pp.146-171.

Friedman, D.E (1990). Work and family: The new strategic plan. Human Resource Planning, 13, pp.78-79.

Frone, M.R., Russell M., & Cooper, M.L (1992) Antecedents and Outcomes of Work-family conflict: Testing a Model of the Work-family interface, Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(1) pp. 65-78.

Frone, M.R., & Yardley, J.K. (1994) Workplace family supportive programs: Predictors of employed parents' importance ratings [as quoted in Frone, Russell and Barnes (1996). Work-family conflict, gender, and health-related outcomes: A study of employed parents in two community samples. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 1, pp.57-69.

Frone, M.R & Rice, R.W (1987) Work family conflict: The effect of job and family involvement. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 8, pp 45-53.

Greenhaus, J.H.& Beutell, ,N.W (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family role. Academy of Management Review, 10, pp 76-88.

Greenhaus, J.H & Parasuraman, S. (1986) A work-nonwork interactive perspective of stress and its consequences. Journal of Organizational Behavior and Management, 8, pp 37-60.

Greenhaus J.H.& Kopelman, R.E (1981) Conflict between work and nonwork roles: Implications for the career planning process. Human Resource Planning, 4, pp 1-10.

Greenhaus,J.H., Parasuraman, S., Granrose, C.S., Rabinowitz, S., & Beutell, N.J. (1989) Sources of work-family conflict among two-career couples. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 34, pp. 133-153.

Gutek, B.A., Searle, S., & Kelpa, L (1991). Rational versus gender role explanations for work-family conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, pp. 560-568.

Hackman, J.R., & Oldham, G.R (1975). Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, pp 159-170.

Higgins, C.A., Duxbury, L.E., & Irving, R.H. (1992). Work-family conflict in the dual-career family. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 51, pp 51-75.

House, J.S. (1981). Work, Stress, and social support. Addison-Wesley, Reading. Mass.

Jackson, J.E., Zedeck, S., & Summers, E (1985). Family life disruptions: Effects of job-induced structural and emotional interference. Academy of Management Journal, 28, pp. 574-586.

Judge., T.A., Boudreau, J.W., & Bretz, R.D (1994). Job and life attitudes of male executives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, pp.767-782.

Kahn, R.L. & Byosiere, P.(1991). Stress in organizations. In M.D. Dunnette & L.M. Hough (Eds.)Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 571-650). Palo Alto. CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Kandel, D.B., Davis,M., & Raveis, V.H.(1985). The stressfulness of daily social roles for women: Marital, occupational and household roles, Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 26, pp.64-78.

Kanter, R.M.(1977). Work and family life in the United States: A critical review of agenda for research and policy: New York: Russell Sage Foundation. p. 56-57

Kanungo, R.N. (1982). Measurement of job and work involvement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, pp.341-349.

Kaufmann, G.M & Beehr, T.A (1986). Interactions between job stressors and social support: Some counterintuitive results. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, pp.522-526.

Kessler, R.C (1985). Unpublished questionnaire. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research [quoted in Frone et al (1992) op cit; I could not verify this one because I could not get it but I took the research support for this one at face value].

Kiecolt-Glaser, J.K., & Glaser, R.(1989). Interpersonal relationships and immune function. In Carstensen & J. Neale (Eds), Mechanisms of psychological influence on physical health (pp.43-50). New York; Premium Press.

King, L.A., Mattimore, L.K., King, D.W. & Adams, G.A.(1995). Family support inventory for workers: A new measure of perceived social support from family members. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, pp.235-258.

Kopelman, R.E., Greenhaus, J.H.& Connolly, T.F (1983).A model of work, family, and interrole conflict: A construct validation study. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 32, pp. 198-215.

LaRocco, J.M., House J.S., & French, J.R.P (1980) Social support, occupational stress, and health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 21, pp.202-218.

McIntosh, N.J. (1991).Identification and investigation of properties of social support. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 12, pp.201-217.

Nelson & Hitt, 1992 [The discussion is based on Quick, J.C., Quick, J.D., Nelson, DL., & Hurrell, J.J Jr (1997).

Preventive stress management in organizations. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association].

Netemeyer, R.G., Boles, J.S., & McMurrian, R. (1996). Development and validation of work-family conflict and family work conflict scales, Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, pp. 400-410.

Osterman, P. (1995). Work/family programs and employment relationship. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40 (4), pp. 681-700.

Quinn, R.P., & Shepard, L.J. (1974). The 1972-73 Quality of employment survey: Descriptive statistics, with comparison data from the 1969-70 survey of work conditions. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.

Scandura T.A., & Lankau, M (1997). Relationship of gender, family responsibility and flexible work hours to organizational commitment and job satisfaction. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, pp.377-391.

Schaubroeck, J (1990). Investigating reciprocal causation in organizational research, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11, pp.27-28.

Schlenker, B.R (1987). Threats to identity: Self-identification and social stress. In C.R. Snyder & C.E. Ford (Eds). Coping with negative life events: Clinical and social psychological perspectives (pp. 273-321). New York: Plenum Press.

Sekaran, U (1989). Paths to the job satisfaction of bank employees. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 10, pp.347-359.

Starrels, M.E (1992). The evolution of workplace family policy research. Journal of Family Issues. 13, pp.259-278.

Thomas, L.T & Ganster, D.C (1995).Impact of family-supportive work variables on work-family conflict and strain: A control perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, pp. 6-15.

Uchino,B.N., Cacioppo, J.T., Kiecolt- Glaser, J.K (1996). The relationship between social support and physiological processes: A review with emphasis on underlying mechanisms and implications for health. Psychological Bulletin. 119, pp. 488-531.

Unden, A.L., Orth-Gomer, K. & Elofssen, S.(1991). Cardiovascular effects of social support in the work place: Twenty-four ECG monitoring of men and women. Psychosomatic Medicine. 53, pp.50-60.

Uchino, B.N., Cacioppo, J.T., Malarkey, W.M., Glaser, R., & Kiecolt-Glaser, J.K. (1995).Appraisal support predicts age-related differences in cardiovascular function in women. Health psychology, 14, pp.556-562.

Wiley, D.L. (1987). The relationship between work-nonwork role conflict and job-related outcomes: Some unanticipated findings. Journal of Management, 13, pp.467-472.

Weiner, Y., Muczyk, J.P., & Gable, M. (1987). Relationships between work commitments and experience of personal well-being. Psychological Reports, 60, pp. 459-466.

Weiner, Y., & Vardi, Y.(1980). Relationships between job, organization and career commitments and work outcomes--An integrative approach. Organizational Behavior and Human performance. 26, pp.81-96.

Satyanarayana Parayitam, University of Massachusetts Dartmouth

Narender Kumar Kalra, University of Delhi