Social support from work and family domains as an antecedent or moderator of work–family conflicts?

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2009.03.001Get rights and content

Abstract

On the basis of Conservation of Resources theory, we investigated how social support from supervisor, co-workers, life partner, and family members is associated with work–family conflicts in N = 107 working mothers. We used data from a cross-sectional questionnaire and a standardized diary to examine two possible forms of interplay: (a) Social support as an antecedent of work–family conflicts, and (b) moderating effects of social support on the relationship between domain-specific strain and work–family conflicts. Overall, results favored social support as an antecedent of work–family conflicts.

Introduction

Women at work and dual-earner families are increasingly becoming the rule. This is due in part to the increasing number of working mothers: In the United States, three out of four mothers work (U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2008). The situation is similar in Switzerland (Romans, 2008). Interference between work and family life, here termed “work–family conflicts,” is common, particularly for women, who often report more stress, overload, and work–family conflicts than men (e.g., van Daalen, Willemsen, & Sanders, 2006). Social support from different sources has been shown to be associated with work–family conflicts (e.g., Carlson and Perrewé, 1999, Cohen and Wills, 1985). Most studies of support from supervisors and spouses have been cross-sectional. This study used both a cross-sectional questionnaire and a standardized diary format to study the interplay of the social support provided by supervisors, co-workers, spouses, and family with work–family conflicts and domain-specific strain in the daily lives of working mothers. It investigated whether social support is an antecedent or a moderator in this interplay.

The Conservation of Resources (COR; Hobfoll, 1989, Hobfoll, 2001) and social support resource theories (Hobfoll, Freedy, Lane, & Geller, 1990) serve as the main theoretical bases for this study. According to COR, people are motivated to preserve and protect their resources and expand their resource pool. Resources are defined as objects, external conditions, personal characteristics, or energies that are valued in their own right by the individual and the cultural environment, or that are instrumental in obtaining valued goals and outcomes. Stress occurs if these resources are threatened or lost, or if resource investment does not result in the desired resource gain. More specifically, the occurrence of stress and its outcomes depends on how the resources fit the demands (Hobfoll, 2001).

Social support represents a key social resource, and has two functions: It is self-defining and instrumental in protecting existing resources and obtaining new ones. Hobfoll and Stokes (1988, p. 499) define social support as “social interactions or relationships that provide individuals with actual assistance or with a feeling of attachment to a person or group that is perceived as caring or loving.” This also includes informational support, i.e., providing advice and guidance. Resources are needed to deal with increasing demands and stress. All resources are finite and can be consumed, but additionally Hobfoll’s theory suggests that the use of social support as a resource comes at a cost. It can threaten a person’s competence, create an unwillingness to subjugate, necessitate the obligation to repay a favor, or awaken the anxiety of becoming dependent on someone.

This study analyzed the interplay between the four different sources of social support (supervisors, co-workers, partners, and other family members) and work–family conflicts. More specifically, it investigated two possible interrelations: (a) Social support as an antecedent of work–family conflicts, i.e., influencing domain-specific strain, thereby influencing work–family conflicts; (b) social support as a buffer of the relationship between strain and work–family conflicts. Two forms of measurement were used: A cross-sectional questionnaire and a standardized diary format. Diary data is particularly useful for assessing processes in everyday life as it is subject to less retrospective bias (Bolger, Davis, & Rafaeli, 2003); and diary data enables even small changes to be detected. Indeed, it can be assumed that the influence of support on daily work–family conflicts is swift. Williams and Alliger (1994) differentiated between three levels of analysis of work and family experiences: (1) The first level focuses on immediate experiences, current thoughts and feelings, and everything that is happening now, assessed by the experience sampling method. (2) The second level is measured by end-of-day diaries: Short-term judgments, where a person has to reflect only a short time-period, whereas on the third level (3) people make global, long-term evaluations of their experiences in a survey. The authors argue that the third level is appropriate if general patterns of stable variables are of interest, whereas diary data provides more detailed and accurate information about work and family experiences.

Consequently, the use of daily diaries is particularly appropriate and effects should be even more pronounced at a synchronous, cross-sectional level. The results of questionnaire and diary assessments might be qualitatively different, with questionnaire data reflecting more global self-constructions, for example social support as a relatively stable construct (Sarason, Sarason, & Shearin, 1986), and micro-longitudinal diary data providing greater scope for assessing daily perceptions of enacted support. Furthermore, a micro-longitudinal diary study enables observation of time-lagged associations that can also answer questions like: Does social support lead to fewer conflicts the next day, or do conflicts trigger supportive behavior in others? The diary data will allow us to test assumptions both on a more finely tuned level of everyday experiences and in terms of time-lagged relations.

Greenhaus and Beutell (1985, p. 77) defined the “work–family conflict” as “a form of inter-role conflict in which the role pressures from the work and family domains are mutually incompatible in some respect.” There are two directions of interference: The family domain interferes with working life (i.e., family-to-work conflicts) and the work domain interferes with family life (i.e., work-to-family conflicts; for a meta-analysis see Mesmer-Magnus & Viswesvaran, 2005). Work-to-family and family-to-work conflicts have different antecedents and outcomes: Work demands, for example working hours, predict work-to-family conflicts (Adams et al., 1996, Byron, 2005), whereas household and childcare duties predict family-to-work conflicts (Frone et al., 1992, Grandey and Cropanzano, 1999). In addition, work-to-family conflicts mainly impair job-specific well-being, whereas family-to-work conflicts mainly impair family-specific well-being (e.g., Allen et al., 2000, Kossek and Ozeki, 1998). Cross-domain relations are typically weaker (for a review, see Ford, Heinen, & Langkamer, 2007).

Grandey and Cropanzano (1999) applied the Conservation of Resources theory to their research on work–family conflicts. In line with previous studies, they assumed that stressors in the family domain lead to family-to-work conflicts, whereas work role stressors lead to work-to-family conflicts. Furthermore, work–family conflicts as a form of inter-role conflict may lead to stress because coordinating work and family roles is resource-consuming. One would assume that, overall, women with more personal and social resources, e.g., social support, would combine work and family roles more easily, thus experiencing fewer conflicts.

As stated above, social support can be seen as a social resource that has been found to be associated with reduced work–family conflict (e.g., Adams et al., 1996, Erdwins et al., 2001). In particular, research has shown that the domain-specific effects of social support are especially strong, i.e., support from the partner reduces family-to-work conflict, whereas support from one’s supervisor or co-workers reduces work-to-family conflict (see Bellavia & Frone, 2005). A meta-analysis by Ford et al. (2007) found a weighted mean correlation between work support and work-to-family conflict of ρ = −.23 and a correlation of ρ = −.17 between family support and family-to-work conflict. There are also cross-domain relations, i.e., work support influences family-to-work conflict and family support influences work-to-family conflict, but these relations are weaker (Byron, 2005, Ford et al., 2007, van Daalen et al., 2006). This is also in line with the Conservation of Resources theory. Most studies have only investigated the impact of a single source of social support, most often the partner or supervisor (see Ford et al., 2007).

However, analyses of the relationship between social support and work–family conflicts still produce inconsistent results. This study focused on two forms of interplay between social support and work–family conflicts: (a) Social support as an antecedent of work–family conflict, i.e., mediation of its influence by domain-specific strain, and (b) social support as a moderator of the relationship between domain-specific strain and work–family conflicts (buffering effect).

Social support might be an antecedent of work–family conflicts, with its influence mediated by stress and strain. Supervisors, co-workers, partners, and other family members may be involved in the stressors at home and at work that cause work–family conflicts, or they play a role in determining whether demands are evaluated as threatening, thus leading women to experience strain. Social support would then have a direct impact on stressors and strain rather than on the work–family conflicts themselves or a moderating effect on the relationship between stress/strain and work–family conflicts. In an extension of their influential model, Frone, Yardley, and Markel (1997) described work and family support as antecedents of work and family stressors/strain that lead to work–family conflicts. More specifically, they differentiated between “proximal” and “distal” predictors of work–family conflict. Distal predictors influence work–family conflicts via proximal predictors, i.e., they are indirect and mediated by the proximal ones. Furthermore, “direct” precursors refer to what Greenhaus and Beutell (1985) called time-based and strain-based predictors. The time devoted to one’s work or family (“time-based predictor”) is assumed to be a limited resource and, indeed, has been found to be a cause of work–family conflict (Byron, 2005). Strain-based predictors incorporate role-related distress or strain, for example job strain. This study focused on domain-specific strain. Both types of proximal predictors are domain-specific: For example, working distress influences work-to-family conflicts whereas family strain might lead to family-to-work conflicts (Frone et al., 1997). One distal predictor suggested by the authors is instrumental social support, which is defined as direct assistance or advice. As for stress and strain, the relation between social support and work–family conflicts is assumed to be domain-specific: Social support by the work environment is a distal predictor of work-to-family conflicts (i.e., via job strain), whereas social support by spouse and family is a distal predictor of family-to-work conflicts. We share this assumption but use a broader conceptualization of social support comprising instrumental, informational, and emotional support.

Frone and colleagues’ (1997) findings speak in favor of mediating effects: Support by supervisor and co-workers reduced work distress and work overload, thus easing work-to-family conflicts; support by spouse and family reduced family distress and parental overload, thus easing family-to-work conflicts. They point out that the assumption of strain as an antecedent of work–family conflicts has not been tested sufficiently. Some exceptions are mentioned in the following. Fisher (1985) showed that social support from supervisor and co-workers was negatively correlated with stress by unfulfilled expectations that could be conceptualized as an experience of strain. In a study by Ganster, Fusilier, and Mayes (1986) social support from different sources had a direct impact on work strain. Schaubroeck, Cotton, and Jennings (1989) tested a comprehensive model of role strain antecedents and outcomes that included a path of social support leading to role overload, which in turn leads to role conflicts. They could not find a direct association between social support and role overload. However, role overload is not the same as domain-specific strain, as the former concept focuses on time demands. A longitudinal diary study by Williams and Alliger (1994) showed that family distress was a predictor of family-to-work conflicts. Carlson and Perrewé (1999) compared existing models of the interplay of social support and work–family conflicts in a cross-sectional study. They found that indeed a model of social support as an antecedent to stressors resulting in work–family conflicts best fits the data, although main effects of social support on work–family conflicts were also existent. They credit social support with a “protective function” and describe it as a coping mechanism: People with strong social support should be less likely to perceive and evaluate demands as stressors (Carlson & Perrewé, 1999, p. 518), thereby experiencing less strain. Note that the authors investigated the availability of social support and see this as particularly important in ongoing stress, whereas this study analyzed self-constructions of received social support. Like Frone and his colleagues (1997), Carlson and Perrewé also claimed for a replication of the finding of social support as an antecedent of work–family conflicts. In a study by Beehr, Jex, Stacy, and Murray (2000), co-worker support predicted psychological strains that were assessed as depression and frustrations. Baltes and Heydens-Gahir (2003) examined the interplay between life-management strategies and work–family conflicts. They used social support as a control variable and found that supervisor support influences work-to-family conflicts through job stressors; and spousal/family support influences family-to-work conflicts through family stressors, but it also had a direct positive effect on family-to-work conflicts. Boyar, Maertz, Mosley, and Carr (2008) proposed a mediation model of work support that eases subjective work demands, which in turn lead to work-to-family conflicts, respectively a mediation model of family support, family demands and family-to-work conflicts. Their assumptions could only be partially supported. Based on this theoretical framework and existing literature, we tested the following antecedence hypotheses (Fig. 1):

Hypothesis 1

Social support provided by a supervisor and co-workers weakens job strain, thereby reducing work-to-family conflicts.

Hypothesis 2

Social support provided by the partner and other family members weakens family/partnership strain, thereby reducing family-to-work conflicts.

In the “buffering models,” social support interacts with stressors or strains, thus reducing their impact. From a buffering perspective, social support is particularly important in times of threatened resources. The Conservation of Resources theory implies that people have different amounts and types of resources; they also have different skills in dealing with stressful situations. Therefore, individual differences in received social support can moderate the strains-conflicts relationship.

Empirical evidence of the moderating effects of social support is less clear than evidence of main effects. Carlson and Perrewé (1999) concluded that most research has found either no evidence of the moderating effect of social support or mixed results, and Frese (1999) noted that the buffer effect is not very strong. Dormann and Zapf (1999) pointed to a lack of longitudinal studies on the moderating effects of work support. This study addressed this lack with a micro-longitudinal diary assessment.

Social support may alter the impact of stressors and strain on work–family conflicts in such a way that women who feel strongly supported by their environment are less affected by stressors and strain and, in turn, experience fewer work–family conflicts (see Cohen and Wills, 1985, van Daalen et al., 2006). This study investigated job and partnership/family strain as predictors of work-to-family and family-to-work conflicts. From a COR perspective a high level of job strain, for example, binds personal resources so that less time and energy remain for the family role, which might lead, in turn, to work-to-family conflicts. Instrumental assistance from the work environment provides the resources (e.g., time, encouragement) required to deal with existing job strain, thereby reducing their impact on work-to-family conflicts (see Grandey, Cordeiro, & Michael, 2007). Existing job strains might also be evaluated as less threatening if co-workers and supervisors are perceived as supportive (i.e., providing resources) (cf. Cohen & Wills, 1985). This could prevent worry, thereby easing work-to-family conflicts. In the family domain, a woman’s partner might provide instrumental support when she experiences strain related to her children. This would, for example, protect her time-related resources, thus preventing family strain from spilling over into her working life, thereby reducing family-to-work conflicts.

There is some empirical evidence to support this buffering effect, but it is inconsistent. This study viewed the subjective experience of strain as a potential cause of work–family conflict and analyzed social support as a moderator. As for support from those at work, several studies have investigated the supervisor as a potential moderator of the stressor–strain relationship and found inconsistent results (cf. Carlson and Perrewé, 1999, Ford et al., 2007, Kahn and Byosiere, 1992, Kickul and Posig, 2001). Results that supported the hypothesis were, for example, from the following researchers: Fox and Dwyer (1999) reported that supervisor support weakened the relation between working hours and work-to-family conflicts (see also Fu & Shaffer, 2001). As for the family domain, in a cross-sectional study, Aryee, Luk, Leung, and Lo (1999) found that support from the spouse eased the effect of parental overload on family-to-work conflicts. Matsui, Ohsawa, and Onglatco (1995) reported that support from the husband weakened the relationship between parental demands (i.e., family stress/strain) and work–family conflicts. Other studies showed no moderation effect (cf. Carlson & Perrewé, 1999).

As mentioned previously, influences of social support are mainly domain-specific, such that, for example, the work environment provides social resources that can be applied to the job and, therefore, ease job demands or work-to-family conflicts. However, as we focus on existing domain-specific strain as a precursor to work–family conflicts, it could be argued that social support helping to cope with strain could also weaken the association in the other life domain (see Westman & Etzion, 2005, focusing on stressors). For example, if social support provided by a spouse lessens a woman’s emotional pain from her job strain, this could prevent her from worrying about it, which would consume time and energy, and could lead to work-to-family conflicts as a consequence. Thus, women with a supportive partner would have fewer work-to-family conflicts if they experience job strain than women who are not supported. But as buffering effects need a good fit between the demands of a stressful situation and social support (Cohen & Wills, 1985), we expect this effect to be weaker. Combining theoretical considerations and previous research, we assumed that social support from different sources buffers the impact of domain-specific strain on work–family conflicts (Fig. 1). More specifically:

Hypothesis 3

Social support weakens the relationship between domain-specific strain and work–family conflicts.

With regard to the strength of the moderator effect, we expected work support to have a stronger effect on the relationship between work strain and work-to-family conflict and support from the family domain to have a stronger effect on the relationship between family-related strain and family-to-work conflict.

Section snippets

Design and procedure

To recruit working mothers, we advertised in newspapers and magazines in the German-speaking part of Switzerland, mainly the Zurich area, and asked professional women’s organizations to send recruitment letters to their members by e-mail. Participants had to be women who worked at least part-time and who had at least one child younger than 16 years of age living with them. Participants filled out several self-report questionnaires and received 20 Swiss francs (about $17) for participation,

Discussion

Social support as antecedent. The proposition of social support as an antecedent of work–family conflict with domain-specific strain as a mediator was clearly supported by the questionnaire data: Supervisor and partner support predicted domain-specific strain experiences, thereby influencing work-to-family and family-to-work conflicts (Hypothesis 1, Hypothesis 2) respectively. Moreover, the model fit of the antecedence model exceeded the fit of the moderator model. However, in the diary study,

References (64)

  • G.A. Adams et al.

    Relationships of job and family involvement, family social support, and work–family conflict with job and life satisfaction

    Journal of Applied Psychology

    (1996)
  • H. Aguinis et al.

    Methodological artifacts in moderated multiple regression and their effects on statistical power

    Journal of Applied Psychology

    (1997)
  • L.S. Aiken et al.

    Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions

    (1991)
  • T.D. Allen et al.

    Consequences associated with work-to-family conflict: A review and agenda for future research

    Journal of Occupational Health Psychology

    (2000)
  • S. Aryee et al.

    Role stressors, interrole conflict, and well-being: The moderating influence of spousal support and coping behaviors among employed parents in Hong Kong

    Journal of Vocational Behavior

    (1999)
  • B.B. Baltes et al.

    Reduction of work–family conflict through the use of selection, optimization, and compensation behaviors

    Journal of Applied Psychology

    (2003)
  • R.B. Baron et al.

    The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (1986)
  • T.A. Beehr et al.

    Work stressors and coworker support as predictors of individual strain and job performance

    Journal of Organizational Behavior

    (2000)
  • G.M. Bellavia et al.

    Work–family conflict

  • G. Bodenmann et al.

    The relationship between dyadic coping and marital quality: A 2-year longitudinal study

    Journal of Family Psychology

    (2006)
  • N. Bolger et al.

    Diary methods: Capturing life as it is lived

    Annual Review of Psychology

    (2003)
  • N. Bolger et al.

    Close relationships and adjustments to a life crisis: The case of breast cancer

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (1996)
  • S.L. Boyar et al.

    The impact of work/family demand on work–family conflict

    Journal of Managerial Psychology

    (2008)
  • D.S. Carlson et al.

    Relation of behavioral and psychological involvement to a new four-factor conceptualization of work–family interference

    Journal of Business and Psychology

    (2003)
  • S. Cohen et al.

    Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis

    Psychological Bulletin

    (1985)
  • C. Dormann et al.

    Social support, social stressors at work and depressive symptoms: Testing for main and moderating effects with structural equations in a three-wave longitudinal study

    Journal of Applied Psychology

    (1999)
  • C.J. Erdwins et al.

    The relationship of women’s role strain to social support, role satisfaction, and self-efficacy

    Family Relations

    (2001)
  • C.D. Fisher

    Social support and adjustment to work: A longitudinal study

    Journal of Management

    (1985)
  • M.T. Ford et al.

    Work and family satisfaction and conflict: A meta-analysis of cross-domain relations

    Journal of Applied Psychology

    (2007)
  • M.L. Fox et al.

    An investigation of the effects of time and involvement in the relationship between stressors and work–family conflict

    Journal of Occupational Health Psychology

    (1999)
  • M. Frese

    Social support as a moderator of the relationship between work stressors and psychological dysfunctioning: A longitudinal study with objective measures

    Journal of Occupational Health Psychology

    (1999)
  • M.R. Frone et al.

    Antecedents and outcomes of work–family conflict: Testing a model of the work–family interface

    Journal of Applied Psychology

    (1992)
  • Cited by (122)

    • Work-family conflict (WFC) – Examining a model of the work-family interface of construction professionals

      2021, Safety Science
      Citation Excerpt :

      H6: Household task demand is positively associated with construction professionals’ experiences of family-to-work conflict. Within the family domain, social support can be provided by family members (Seiger & Wiese, 2009). A supportive partner has been recognised as an important resource to reduce strains in the family domain and alleviate family-to-work conflict (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985).

    View all citing articles on Scopus

    This study was made possible by a research grant awarded to the second author from the Suzanne and Hans Biäsch Foundation. The first author was financed by the Swiss National Science Foundation and by the Forschungskredit of the University of Zurich. We gratefully acknowledge this support. Thanks also to Bernhard Schmitz for his methodological help and advice and to Dominique Le Cocq for proofreading the manuscript.

    View full text