1 REVISITING THE SECOND SHIFT: GENDER ROLE TRADITION ALISM, CONGRUITY BETWEEN PARTNERS, AND WORK-FAMILY OUTCOMES By BETH ANN LIVINGSTON A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2009
2 2009 Beth Ann Livingston
3 To my family
4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank m y husband, James, for his support th roughout this process. I also thank my parents, advisors, committee and colleagues for their kind words, advice, and guidance on this paper and on many others.
5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................4LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. ..........7LIST OF FIGURES.........................................................................................................................8ABSTRACT.....................................................................................................................................9 CHAP TER 1 INTRODUCING THE SECOND SHIFT............................................................................... 11Introduction................................................................................................................... ..........11The Set of Studies............................................................................................................. ......122 EXAMINING THE SECOND SHIFT: TH E EFFECT OF GENDER ROLES ON ROLE NEGOTIATION .......................................................................................................... 14Introduction................................................................................................................... ..........14Gender Role Traditionalism...................................................................................................16Negotiation Tactics for Dividing Roles.................................................................................. 18Theoretical Paradigms.......................................................................................................... ..21Predictions from the Gender Role Ideology Perspective................................................22Predictions from a Gender Construction Perspective......................................................24Integrative Negotiation Hypotheses................................................................................ 27Negotiation Topics.......................................................................................................... 28Career and Family Outcomes................................................................................................. 29Emotional Labor at Home............................................................................................... 29Job Burnout.....................................................................................................................31Relationship Burnout.......................................................................................................34Mediation.........................................................................................................................35Study 1 Methodology.............................................................................................................36Sample.............................................................................................................................36Procedure.........................................................................................................................37Measures..........................................................................................................................37Analyses..................................................................................................................................40Results.....................................................................................................................................41Study Discussion....................................................................................................................443 A MULTI-LEVEL INVESTIGATION OF GENDER ROLE TRADITIONALISM AND WORK AND FAMILY OUT COMES AMONG DUAL-EARNING COUPLES....... 57Introduction................................................................................................................... ..........57Gender Role Traditionalism...................................................................................................58
6 Negative Work-Family Spillover: Conflict............................................................................ 58Gender Role Similarity and Emotional Outcomes................................................................. 61Job and Spousal Satisfaction..................................................................................................62Career/Job Satisfaction.................................................................................................... 62Relationship/Family Satisfaction..................................................................................... 63Work-Family Spillover, Emo tions and Satisfaction........................................................65Study 2 Methodology.............................................................................................................66Sample Selection.............................................................................................................66Procedure.........................................................................................................................67Measures..........................................................................................................................68Analyses..................................................................................................................................69Results.....................................................................................................................................71Study Discussion....................................................................................................................754 CONCLUSION AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS........................................................ 92Conclusion..............................................................................................................................92Strengths and Limitations...................................................................................................... .92Practical Implications......................................................................................................... ....94APPENDIX: EQUATIONS FOR STUDY 2 MULTILEVEL ANALYSES................................ 96LIST OF REFERENCES...............................................................................................................98BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.......................................................................................................110
7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 2-1 Summary of hypotheses and m easures used in Study 1 .................................................... 48 2-2 Intercorrelations among variables in Study 1....................................................................50 2-3 Results for Hypothesis H1.1 th rough H1.5 (for wom en and men).................................... 51 2-4 Results for Hypothesis H1.10H1-13: Em otional exhaustion............................................ 52 2-5 Results for Hypotheses H1.6-H1.9, and H1.14-H1.17...................................................... 52 2-6 Hypothesis H1.18: Direct effects of m ediation (relationship burnout).............................. 53 3-1 Summary of hypotheses and m easures used in Study 2 .................................................... 79 3-2 Correlations and reliability co efficients: Levels 1, 2 and 3 ............................................... 80 3-3 Variance analyses for Study 2............................................................................................ 81 3-4 Results for Hypotheses 2.1 and 2.2.................................................................................... 82 3-5 Results for Hypothesis 2.3................................................................................................. 83 3-6 Results for Hypotheses 2.4a and 2.5a: Job satisfaction..................................................... 84 3-7 Results for Hypotheses 2.4b and 2.5b: Spousal satisfaction .............................................. 85 3-8 Results for Hypothesis 2.6: Job satisfaction and spousal satisfaction ............................... 86
8 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1-1 Proposed relationships among gender roles and careerand fam ily-related outcomes..... 13 2-1 highlighting the hypothesized relatio nships am ong variables in Study 1.......................... 53 2-2 The Dual-Concern Model.................................................................................................. 54 2-3 Womens gender role traditionalism and accommodative emotional negotiation tactics. ....................................................................................................................... .........54 2-4 Womens gender role traditionalism a nd avoidan t work negotiation tactics..................... 55 2-5 Womens gender role traditionalism and avoidan t emotional negotiation tactics............. 55 2-6 Mens gender role traditionalism and com petitive work negotiation tactics..................... 56 2-7 Mens gender role traditionalism and com petitive emotional negotiation tactics............. 56 3-1 Hypothesized relationships among va riables examined in Study 2................................... 87 3-2 Hypothesis 2: Perceived gender role sim ilarity and work-interfering-with-family conflict...............................................................................................................................87 3-3 Hypothesis 2: Perceived gender ro le sim ilarity and positive emotions............................. 88 3-4 Hypothesis 3: Actual gender role sim ilarity and positive emotions.................................. 88 3-5 Hypothesis 3: Actual gender role sim ilarity and negative emotions................................. 89 3-6 Hypothesis 4a: Perceived gender role sim ilarity and job satisfaction...............................89 3-7 Hypothesis 4a: Actual gender role sim ilarity and job satisfaction.................................... 90 3-8 Hypothesis 4b: Perceived gender role sim ilarity and spousal satisfaction........................ 90 3-9 Approximated mediation model to test Hypothesis 6 (only significant paths are reported) .............................................................................................................................91
9 Abstract of Dissertation Pres ented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy REVISITING THE SECOND SHIFT: GENDER ROLE TRADITION ALISM, CONGRUITY BETWEEN PARTNERS, AND WORK-FAMILY OUTCOMES By Beth Ann Livingston May 2009 Cochair: Timothy A. Judge Cochair: John Kammeyer-Mueller Major: Management It has been suggested that the gender role traditionalism of partners in a couple would affect the career and relationship outcomes that they experience. Gender role traditionalism refers to how strongly one endorse s the separation of the work a nd the family roles as opposed to more equally shared roles. This dissertation revisits this work, investigating how couples negotiate their work and family roles and the work and familial outcomes they experience, as affected by partners gender role traditionalism. Study 1 focuses on gender role traditionalism a nd the negotiation proce ss, integrating the traditional negotiation literature with the family bargaining literature. Results from survey data collected at three different point s in time suggest that similar ity in gender role traditionalism leads to women avoiding the negotiation of work and family roles less often. Similarity also leads men to act more competitively when negotiating work and family roles. The negotiation tactics used by partners predict burnout and emo tional labor within the relationship, such that competitive tactics lead to more emotional ex haustion, surface acting and relationship burnout. Additionally, integrative tact ics lead to less surface act ing and relationship burnout.
10 Study 2 investigates how similarity in gende r role traditionalism affects ones workfamily conflict and his or her emotional and att itudinal outcomes. Study 2 utilizes an experience sampling methodology in which indivi duals in relationships comple te one survey per day for a week. Results suggest that gender role similarity (both actual and perceived) affects work-family conflict, emotional outcomes and both job and s pousal satisfaction. Perceived similarity leads increased experience of work-interfering-with-family conflict and spousal satisfaction and leads to decreased job satisfaction. Different results we re found for actual similar ity. Actual similarity resulted in more positive emotions when the partners were both traditional but less positive emotions when they were both egalitarian. The same pattern was observed for negative emotions and job satisfaction. Finally, results suggest that positive emotions mediate the effect of workfamily conflict and gender role similarity on satisfaction. Implications for organizational and family research are discussed.
11 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCING THE SECOND SHIFT Introduction In 1970, 49% of m arried couples were dual-ea rner (both spouses were employed outside of the home). By 2006, this number had increased to 61% of married couples (U.S. Census Bureau, 2007). The relative increase in the presence of dual-earner families1 (e.g, Bond et al., 2003; Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2007; U.S. Census Bureau, 2007) has spurred increased attention on the work-family interface (Pleck, 1987) The age of dual-earning couples effectively transcends what Kanter (1977) labeled the separate spheres model of work and family, which is based on distinct gender roles th at assign men to the economic s phere of paid work and women to the household sphere of unpaid domestic work. The separate spheres perspective assumes that the spheres of work and family will not affect or conflict with one another. However, with the increase in both partners in a couple actively participating in both spheres, the attainment of this ideal is far from realistic. The permeable boundaries of work and family often result in spilloverthe experience of work affecting family life or vice versa (A ryee, Luk, Leung, & Lo, 1999; Frone et al., 1997; Greenberger & ONeil, 1990; Kinnunen & Gerris, 1996; Spitze, 1988), even if individuals would prefer to live a life of true separate spheres. Alternatively, for couples in which the husband is the sole wage-earner (thus achieving the ideal of separate spheres), both partners may not strongly identify with their resp ective roles (e.g., a wife may stay home with her children but aspire to hold a full-time job, or a husband may wo rk full-time and aspire to stay home with his children). The degree to which i ndividuals identify with and stri ve for the ideal of separate 1 Though for some couples, the decision to be dual ear ner is a choice (Herring & Wilson-Sadberry), many see this decision as an economic necessity (Bal swick & Balswick, 1995). Regardless of the couples reasons, the likelihood for sphere interference when both partners work is likely to be high. Additionally, the choice versus necessity distinction will be addressed at least somewhat through examination of the gender role attitudes of partners.
12 spheres (e.g., gender role traditionalism) is likely a critical variable for predicting work and family outcomes. Hochschilds The Second Shift (1989) suggest ed that the gender role traditionalism and congruity between the partners attitudes (e.g., the degree to which partners gender role traditionalism are similar) impacted not only the structure of their family and household labor, but also the career choices made by the individuals within the ma rriage. Hochschilds in-depth evaluation of 50 married couples demonstrated that the attitudes of each partner concerning paid and unpaid labor (and the congruity between the partners attitudes) had sometimes devastating effects on the stability of and satisfaction with the marriage. Unfortunately, this poignant observation has often been overlooked in the ge nder role, the career, and the marital decisionmaking literatures since Hochsch ilds initial research (with some notable exceptions, e.g., Greenstein, 1996). The Set of Studies The current work intends to integrate dim e nsions of Hochschild s (1989) propositions into an investigation of gender role trad itionalism congruity in committed, cohabiting relationships2 and its effect on career and family pr ocesses and outcomes using two studies. I target individuals who are members of dualand single-earning couples, whether married or cohabitating, in some cases targeting both partne rs within a couple. Th e model in Figure 1-1 illustrates the proposed relationships I examin e. Though the model is necessarily complex, I present it as a guide for organizing the theo retical components which are broken down more specifically in Studies 1 and 2. 2 This article applies only to heterosexual couples who are in committed, cohabitating relationships (e.g., married couples). Though it is likely that a similar process exists for homosexual couples (Kurdek & Schmitt, 1986), this is beyond the scope of this article.
13 The two studies that follow examine differe nt subsets of this overall model. Study 1 examines the one subset of the model using longitudinal analysis over three time periods. examining the effects of gender role traditiona lism on within-couple ne gotiation and career and family decision making using moderated and me diated linear regression. Study 2 examines the back end of the model using multi-level analysis, focusing on how gender role traditionalism affects work-family spillover and emotional outco mes. Together, these two studies provide an initial examination on how the concepts of gender role traditionalism of partners affect role negotiation, spillover and work and family outco mes, as guided by Figure 1-1. (Throughout both studies, I will use a numbering system such that Hypothesis 1 from Study 1 will be labeled Hypothesis 1.1 and Hypothesis 5 from Study 2 will be labeled Hypothesis 2.5 .) Mens Gender Role Traditionalism Womens Gender Role Traditionalism Role Negotiation Work-family Spillover: Positive and negative Emotional Outcomes Career Outcomes Family Outcomes Figure 1-1. Proposed relationships among gender ro les and careerand family-related outcomes
14 CHAPTER 2 EXAMINING THE SECOND SHIFT: THE EFFECT OF GENDER ROLES ON ROLE NEGOTIAT ION Introduction The introduction of work-fa m ily conflict in the early 1980 s represented a landmark merging of the family and work psychology lite ratures (e.g., Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). Much research has since been conducted on work and fa mily in the organizational field. For instance, Ford, Heinen and Langkamer (2007) summarized the relationship across domains between work/family satisfaction and conflict, Byron ( 2005) examined the antecedents of work-family conflict, Kossek and Ozeki completed two meta-analytic summaries of work-family conflict and work outcomes (1998, 1999), and Eby, Casper Lockwood, Bordeaux, & Brinley (2005) produced a narrative review of 190 articles dealing with the work -family interface in the IO/OB literature. The considerable gains produced by these quantitative and qualitative reviews notwithstanding, there remains a dearth of resear ch on how interactions between partners in a couple affect one anothers work and family decisions and outcomes. As is apparent from these reviews, much of the work-family research has been conducted in reference to an individual and his or her occupation, regardless of the individuals marital status or family situation. The current study will specifically investigate the dynamics that exist within the committed relationship and how those dynamics affect ones work and family decisions. The roles negotiated by a couple within the relationship dictate important familial and career outcomes such as career and relationship burnout. In much of the literature on negotiation within couples, re searchers approach the issue either from an economic perspective (e.g., Iyigun & Walsh, 2007) or a sociological perspective (e.g., Bittman et al., 2003). From the economic pe rspective, negotiation is modeled using game theoretic models, including vari ables such as income, education and fertility estimates.
15 Alternatively, in the sociological approach, outcomes are often examined in large, national data sets and presume the existence of bargaini ng when differential outcomes are observed. Researchers may also utilize qualitative interv iew approaches which ask couples how they negotiate household labor decisions (Klei n, Izquierdo, & Bradbury, 2007; Mannino & Deustch, 2007). With that said, no research of which I am aw are has attempted to merge the organizational negotiation literature with hous ehold bargaining. Topics discu ssed in the general negotiation literature (e.g., dual-concern theory [Pruitt & Ru bin, 1986]; integrative/di stributive negotiations [e.g., Fisher & Ury, 1981]) have not been effectiv ely integrated into the family bargaining literature. Likewise, examination of within -couple negotiation tends to focus on how household labor tasks are divided, and ra relyif everdiscusses the appor tioning of emotional or career roles (for an exception see Er ickson, 2005). This study addresse s these gaps by focusing on the negotiation of career and emoti onal roles exclusively, and by utilizing an organizational framework of negotiation. Figure 2-1 presents the general subset of the overall model in Figure 1-1 which is tested in this study. The current study expands upon the concep tualization presented in Figure 1-1 by also examining the emotion work demands in the home. First, I investigate how gender role traditionalism affects negotiation tactics. Then, I examine how negotiation tactics affect career and relationship burnout with the mediating me chanism of surface acti ng in the relationship. Because the perspectives of both male and female partners are essential to th e understanding of the negotiation process that exists within couple s, I examine the first sets of hypotheses from both the male and female points of view. Howeve r in order to avoid th e complexity and powerrelated drawbacks of three-way interactions, I hypothesize the male and female perspectives
16 separately. Thus, I will presen t sets of hypotheses predicting effects for women concerning certain types of negotiation tactics, followed by sets of hypotheses predicting alternative effects among men. I have included a table to clarify wh ich measures will be used in conjunction with which hypotheses (Table 2-1). Gender Role Traditionalism One of the most im portant roles that individua ls assume is their gender role. Gender roles are often described as situated around a conti nuum, from the traditional to the nontraditional (Larsen & Long, 1988; Scanzoni, 1979). In the traditional3 conceptualization, men hold power and decision-making, and women are oriented main ly toward the family and put the familys interests above their own (F erber & Kordick, 1978; Shih adeh, 1991). The nontraditional4 definition maintains that family power is less clearly delineated and d ecisions are negotiable (Peyton, Pitts, & Kamery, 2003), which leads to more equity between the sexes (Beere, King, Beere, & King, 1984). According to Hochschild (1989), ones gender ideology, or gender role traditionalism, determines which sphere he or she wants to identify with (home or work). Thus, a traditional woman wants to identify with the home and wants her male partner to identify with work. Both nontraditional men and women identify with work and home. In the past, traditional gender roles dictated the realm of expertise that men and women would hold: men were responsible for generating income, and wome n were primarily responsible for the home and its work (Beavers, 1982). Howeve r, the majority of households are now dualearner, such that both spouses conduct outside work. This change has not been a movement from complete specialization in either domestic or economic s phere to shared breadwinning, 3 The term traditional is used throughout the literature to refer primarily to a separa te spheres mentality between men and women as popularized in Western cultures in the post-industrial period. 4Others use the term modern (e.g., Peyton, Pitts, & Kamery, 2003) or egalitarian (e.g., Larsen & Long, 1988).
17 however. Many couples are neotraditional wi th women who do some market work but continue to adapt their career s to accommodate mens labor market opportunities and family responsibilities (e.g., Hochschild, 1989). The weight of the eviden ce often supports the assertion that wives economic contributions remain la rgely secondary to that of their husbands5 (Becker & Moen, 1999; Moen & Sweet, 2003), which may be the case for those couples who tend to gravitate toward trad itional gender roles. Though gender appropriate roles used to be a way of life for American men and women, the breakdown of the historically relevant system of highly gender-differe ntiated adult roles has been facilitated by the increase in womens earnings potenti al. Men and women have begun to experience shifts in gender role traditionalism as part of an adjustment to these new behavioral patterns (Davis & van den Oever, 1982). Researchers have noted that gender role attitudes have tended to change over the years toward more nontr aditional, or egalitarian, perspectives (Amato & Booth, 1995), with mens attitudes shifting mo re quickly away from traditional and toward nontraditional (though still lagging behind women; Judge & Livingston, 2008). Although work and family roles used to be perceived as dependent on one another for women and independent of each other for men (D iBenedetto & Tittle, 1990), whether one holds this perspective may actually be an indication of ones gender role traditionalism. The commonly held stereotype that the major ity of the responsibility for ma king the career and family life coordinate should fall upon the woman (Price-Bonham & Murphy, 1980) may actually be more of a reality for those with certain gender role attitudes (i.e., traditiona l). I expect that an 5 Although this is the case on average, the wage differential between men and women does tend to grow with age, and may also be lessened or nonexistent for certain regions (e.g., New York City or Dallas; Roberts, 2007) or occupations. For instance, in 2005, women between ages 16-24 made 94.5% of mens weekly median earnings, while women ages 25 years old and up made 78.7% (U.S. Census Bureau, 2007).
18 individuals gender role traditionalism will lead to the enactment of certain role negotiation tactics, which are described subsequently. Negotiation Tactics for Dividing Roles Role negotiation is when two consciously inte ra ct with the expre ss purpose of altering the others expectations about how a role should be enacted a nd evaluated (Miller & Jablin, 1996, p. 296). Often, couples must learn to negotiate the demands of the household and develop a system for negotiating the re sponsibility for certain househ old tasks (Bartley, Blanton, & Gilliard, 2005). For instance, Hochschild (1989) reported that among her sample of 50 couples, 48% of the women were actively tr ying to change the division of roles in the home using either passive (e.g., faking illness) or active (e.g., aski ng for specific help) negotiation tactics. Differences in gender role traditionalism l ead to men and women focusing on different issues. For instance, a traditi onal woman may negotiate to ha ve more input over parental responsibilities and less in term s of her career. On the othe r hand, a nontraditional woman may negotiate to have more input over her career and less in terms of pa rental responsibility. Alternatively, if a man has more nontraditional attitu des, he may want to participate fully in the caregiving responsibilities at the expense of his career, while a traditional man may desire to focus on his career at the expense of his caregiv ing responsibilities. Thus, the outcomes of role negotiations will likely be affected by the gende r role traditionalism of the partners within a couple.6 The general negotiation literatu re provides a guide to how partners will negotiate their roles. Researchers in organizational negotiati on suggest that negotiati on behavior is best 6 Throughout this study, I assume that both partners are interested in the ongoing health of the relationship. Obviously, many of the arguments I put forth could be radically different if the partners in a couple did not care much whether the relationship continued or not. This could produce more adversarial negotiations.
19 described as two dimensions: concern for self and concern for others (Ruble & Thomas, 1976; Thomas, 1976). Using this paradigm as a frame, it would suggest that the husbands and wives who negotiate household and career roles vary in the degree to which they value/prioritize the concerns of their partner relativ e to their own concerns. The dual concern model refers to five specific tactics along those dimensions (Bla ke & Mouton, 1964; Pr uitt, 1983): avoiding, accommodating, collaborating, competing and compro mising. I focus on four of these tactics, representing the extreme levels of con cern for self and concern for other. Accommodating behavior is char acterized by low concern for self and high concern for others. When individuals accommodate, they are more concerned with wh ether their counterpart attains his or her desired outco mes than with their own outcomes. Competitive behavior is characterized by low concern for others and high concern for self. Individuals who compete pursue their own outcomes strongl y, with little regard for thei r counterparts outcomes. These two tactics are not opposite ends of the same con tinuum; rather, they repr esent the extremes of two dimensions: concern for other and concern for self. Avoidance refers to the lack of concern for either self or other, thus one avoids th e negotiation alt ogether. Finally, collaboration (or integrative negotiation) is when one is concer ned with his/her own outcomes as well as the outcomes of his/her partner. An individual seeks, in these cases, to find win-win solutions that allow both parties to walk away happy. Accommodation (also known as cooperation; Walters, Stuhlmacher, & Meyer, 1998) and competition have been described as occurring along gender lines, such that men are more competitive and women more cooperative (e.g., Walters, Stuhlmacher & Meyer, 1998). Social role theory suggests that gende r norms, or stereotypes, often pertain to communal and agentic attributes (see Bakan, 1966; Eagl y, 1987). Men are expected to be more agentic, which subsumes
20 qualities such as aggression, and competitivene ss, while women are expected to be more communal, which refers to caring and nurturi ng qualities, and coopera tiveness (Eagly, 1987). Thus, women are expected to behave in an accommodating fashion while men are held to a standard of behavior that is quite the opposite (Graziano & Eise nberg, 1997). Avoidance is often seen as a stereotypically feminine behavior (e.g., Brown & Gilligan, 1992), with its definitional opposite of assertiveness being seen as more akin to competitiveness, a behavior stereotyped as masculine (e.g., Eagly, 1987). Collaboration (or integr ation) does not seem to fit any widely held gender role stereotypes, but the more similar ne gotiating partners are generally, the more likely they are to work together toward a win-win outcome. The degree to which individuals ascribe to these gender norms and enact certain negotiation tactics may be affect ed by the attitudes toward gende r roles that they hold. For instance, recent research suggest s that stereotypes can be imp licitly activated, causing men and women to act in more stereotypically mascu line or feminine ways (e.g., Kray, Thompson & Galinsky, 2001; Kray, Rebb, Galinsky & Thompson, 2004) To reflect the gender-typed nature of negotiation tactics according to social role theo ry, in the first sets of hypotheses on negotiation tactics, I present one set of hypotheses for men and two for women that reflect the degree to which gender role traditionalism affects womens accommodation womens avoidance, and mens competitiveness in negotiation. I also present an overarching hypothesis concerning both womens and mens integration in negotiation. Individuals holding more tradit ional gender role attitudes are more likely to endorse traditional stereotypes about men and women (e .g., men are more competitive and thus better negotiators). I expect that those who are more tr aditional in gender roles may also be more likely to act stereotypically in their negotiations. Tr aditional men will be more competitive than will
21 nontraditional (or egalitarian) men, and traditio nal women with be more accommodative and more avoidant than will nontraditional women. Hypothesis 1.1. Gender role traditionalism will lead to increased competitiveness for men and accommodativeness/avoidance for women. Individuals with tradit ional spouses are also likely to conform to gender stereotypical ways of negotiating. Perspectivetaking, the act of imagining the world from anothers vantage point, may result in the adoption and mirroring of the others ster eotypical traits and behaviors (Galinsky, Wang, & Ku, in press), even as research suggests that it leads to reduced stereotyping of others (e.g., Galinsky & Moskow itz, 2000). If individuals are like ly to engage in perspectivetaking, as might be expected in close relati onships (Galinsky, Ku, & Wang, 2005), individuals may act in accordance to the stereotypes their partners hold. For instance, if a woman has a traditional spouse, she may take his perspective th at she should enact gender-typical behaviors, such as accommodation and avoida nce and thus enact such negotia tion tactics. If a man has a traditional spouse, he may take her perspective th at he should enact more competitive tactics and act in a more masculine manner. Hypothesis 1.2. The gender role traditionalism of ones spouse will lead to increased competitiveness for men and accommodativeness/avoidance for women. Theoretical Paradigms Though the fa mily negotiation literature is pr imary focused on the division of domestic household labor (e.g., hours spenst on each task) and not necessarily on other roles, I can use the dominant paradigms from that literature to or ganize my predictions for overall role negotiation. Other than the economic theories, there are two dominant theoretical paradigms in the household bargaining literature: the ge nder role ideology perspectiv e and the gender construction perspective (e.g., see Coltrane, 2000, for a review). The gende r role ideology perspective
22 suggests that ones own attitude s concerning womens role in th e home are most predictive of household labor divisions. The ge nder construction perspective, on the other hand, suggests that partners consistently negotiate gendered roles, and partners are more lik ely to react to their partners expectati ons and attitudes th an to their own. I present competing hypotheses to test the gender role ideology and gender construction perspectives. Researchers have recently suggested that the gender construction approach is more likely to explain partners behavior, but as of yet, they have not been empirically compared (Coltrane, 2000; however, see Bittman, England, Sayer, Folbre & Matheson, 2003, for a recent exception). Except for the integrative negotia tion hypothesis, I present hypotheses from both perspectives for men and for women: gender ro le ideology hypotheses have subscripts a and gender construction hypothes es have subscript b.7 Predictions from the Gender Role Ideology Perspective I expect the intra-household negotiation process to be affected by the gender roles of the partners (Rh oden, 2003). Recent research has found that gender role attitudes/ideology affects how intensely men and women react emotionally to work-family conflict (Livingston & Judge, 2008) and how much men and women earn in the workplace (Judge & Livingston, 2008). Likewise, gender role traditionalism has been found to affect the division of household labor. The gender role ideology perspe ctive suggests that the division of household labor in the home results from how each partner identifies him or herself with the gendered division of roles (e.g., Greenstein, 1996; Mannino & Deut sch, 2007; Sanchez, 1994), such that when women espouse traditional gender role attitudes, they will shoulder a disproportionate share of the household labor. Thus, ones own attitudes are predictive of ones own behavior. 7 This identifying subscript technique only applies to hypotheses in study 1.
23 Game theoretic models of negotiation ofte n assume that one is most interested in optimizing his/her economic outcomes. However, th is assumption may not be as applicable in highly relational contexts such as married coupl es. Research suggests th at couples may forfeit economic outcomes in exchange for relational outcomes, in a phenomenon called relational accommodation (Curhan, Neale, Ross, & Rosencranz-Engelmann, 2008). Similar to the dualconcern models concept of accommodation, in relational accommodation, one forgoes his or her best economic interests (concern for self) in favor of relationship-oriented interests (concern for others). Because traditional con ceptions of gender roles (i.e., soci al role theory; Eagly & Steffen, 1984) suggest that women will be more accommod ating and avoiding, I expect that women who ascribe more strongly to traditional conceptions of gender will be even more accommodating and avoiding. Using the gender role ideology perspective as a lens, I expect that an individuals own attitudes will drive his or her behavior, al though they may be exacerbated by ones partners attitudes. For instance, I expect that if a woman were more nontraditional and her partner was more traditional, she would find the need to use less accommodating or avoidance tactics while negotiating and make fewer concessions, as as sumedly his position on who should do what would differ from her own. Thus, when gender role attitudes are more similar, women will be able to use more accommodating or avoiding negotia tion tactics because they will share the same goals with their partner. I thus predict an interaction effect, such that a womans gender role traditionalism will interact with those of her partner, as specified by the following hypothesis: Hypothesis 1.3a. Among women, gender role similarity will result in the use of more accommodating and avoidant negotiation tactics than will dissimilarity.
24 Social role theory suggests that men are more likely to utilize competitive negotiation tactics, and thus the following hypothesis consider s how gender role traditionalism will affect a mans use of competitive negotiation tactics. Just as in the hypothesis above, the gender role ideology perspective suggests that mens own gende r role attitudes will be the driver of mens own behavior. Thus, the degree to which a ma n uses competitive negotiation tactics may be exacerbated by his partners attitudes. For instance, if a man is more traditional, he may utilize even more competitive negotiation tactics with a le ss traditional (or egalitarian) partner, as she will likely desire a division of labor which is cont rary to his desires. This will force him to be more competitive in order to get the division of labor he desires. If a man is less traditional, he may utilize less competitive negotiation tactics with a less traditional partner, as they will likely agree on the division of labor within the rela tionship. Thus, I present the following hypothesis concerning men, from the gender role ideology perspective: Hypothesis 1.4a. Among men, gender role similarity will result in the use of less competitive negotiation tactics than will dissimilarity. Predictions from a Gender Construction Perspective In the cu rrent study, I will also examine the relationship of gender role traditionalism to negotiation and household labor allocation using a gender cons truction lens. Though there is much research on the effects of gender role traditionalism on household labor allocation, the gender construction perspective ha s gained theoretical traction since the early 1990s (Coltrane, 2000). The gender role ideology perspective allows us to predict how an individual woman might negotiate, focusing on her own personally-held attitudes, and each individual must work out his or her own system of role relationshi ps (Goode, 1963). With that said, the gender role attitudes of couples likely dynami cally interact to predict diffe rent behaviors for individual partners.
25 Gender construction theories s uggest that differences in hous ehold labor roles are due to men and women continually demonstrating and reaffirming gendered relations. For instance, as women contribute more to the household income, c ouples often try to reduce a threat to the husbands masculinity and reaffirm the wives femininity (e.g., Bittman et al., 2003; Brines, 1994). Gender construction theories gained popula rity throughout the 199 0s (Coltrane, 2000), and have also been called doing gender (Col trane, 1989) and gender theory (Ferree, 1991). The gender role ideology hypotheses suggest that traditional women will complete more of the household labor than nontraditional women and traditional men will complete less of the household labor than nontraditional men. The gender c onstruction theories suggest that the effect is much more complicated and is determined not by ones own gender role at titudes, but more so by ones partners attitudes, in order to main tain the norms of the relationship regarding gendered roles. Coltrane (2000) states that the behavi or of couples regarding household labor distributions is affected more so by the expectat ions which are held by others (e.g., Fenstermaker & Berk, 1985; South & Spitze, 1994; West & Zimmerman, 1981). Additionally, Bittman, England, Sayer, Folbre & Mathes on (2003) suggest that individua ls are more affected by their perceptions of others expectations than by their own attitude s. Thus, a gender construction hypothesis would predict that an individuals negotia tion tactics would be predicted by ones perspective of ones partners gender role attitudes. For instan ce, if a woman thought that her husband held more traditional atti tudes and thus expected her to assume a secondary career role, she may be less likely to try and negotiate her way out of such an arrangement as a way to maintain the well-being of the family, rega rdless of her own pe rsonal attitudes.
26 Individuals who hold more trad itional gender role attitudes are likely also to hold the prescriptive stereotypes of women as accommodating and avoiding and men as competitive. Thus, according to gender construction theory, egalitarian (or nontraditional) women may utilize more accommodative and avoidance negotiation tactic s with traditional pa rtners in order to preserve the balance of gender within the household. This is the opposite of what the gender ideology perspective suggested, such that egalitar ian women with traditio nal partners would be less accommodative because they woul d have to negotiate more cont entiously in order to fulfill the desires implied by their attitudes. When women perceive that their male partners hold more traditional attitudes toward the division of roles within the household, they will not utilize negotiati on tactics which could wound their male partners sense of masculinity or the balance of gender within the home. For instance, Bittman and colleagues (2003) find th at women will partake in more household labor when they make more money than their husband s in order to protect their husbands perceived wounded masculinity. According to a gender constr uction perspective, even if a woman may be more prone to use less accommodative or avoida nce tactics (i.e., she has more nontraditional gender role attitudes thus feel s no attitudinal qualms against being less accommodating), she may choose to use more accommodative or avoidance ta ctics to preserve the gender balance in her household. Hypothesis 1.3b Among women, gender role similarity will result in the use of less avoidant and accommodating negotiation ta ctics than will to dissimilarity. For men, a similar effect is predicted by gender construction.8 I expect that mens competitive negotiation behavior will be affected by their partners gender role traditionalism. 8 Though the gender construction theory has been the subject of much research concerning women, it has rarely been used to describe mens behaviors.
27 Thus, a man with a traditional attitude may be less likely to use competitive tactics with a more egalitarian wife, because he is reacting to her expectations and attitude s. If he has a more traditional wife, he may act more competitively, in order to retain the balance of gender in the home and confirm to her expectations. Thus, I present the following hypothesis: Hypothesis 1.4b. Among men, gender role similarity will result in the use of more competitive negotiation tactic s than will dissimilarity. Integrative Negotiation Hypotheses Integrative negotiation (also know n as collaboration) refers to when individuals have concern for both them selves and their partners ou tcomes and seek a way that both parties can achieve satisfaction (Fisher & Ury, 1981). Integrative negotiati on requires an expand-the-pie mentality, in which both sides can win through crea tive solutions. Integrative tactics thus do not conform to traditional gender role stereotypesas neither mascu linity nor femininity is more strongly associated with these tact ics. Thus, it is not prudent to e xpect these results to conform to the propositions of the gende r role ideology or gender construction frameworks. I expect that both men and women will react si milarly to gender role attitude similarity when we consider integrative ne gotiation. I expect that when indi viduals have similar attitudinal frames, they will be more likely to act in ways th at will be beneficial to both parties because there is increased agreement on the underlying power structure of the rela tionship. For instance, Swaab, Postmes, van Beest, and Spears (2007) found that when people had shared cognitions or similar thoughtsthey tended to come up with more integrative negotiated agreements. Thus, I propose that, for both men and women, similarity in gender role traditionalism will lead to increased use of integrative tactics: Hypothesis 1.5. For both men and women, gender role si milarity will result in the use of more integrative negotiation tactics than will dissimilarity.
28 Negotiation Topics All of the hypotheses concerning n egotiation tactics will be inve stigated within two frames of reference: career roles and emotional support roles. For instance, I investigate competitive negotiation tactics regarding the work/career ro le and competitive negotiation tactics regarding the emotional support role. Investigating two sepa rate frames illustrates how partners negotiate many roles within their relationship. While most families today cannot afford to ha ve one partner who does not work outside of the home, this does not mean that both partners car eers are equally valued. Career roles will be negotiated within a couple, leading to a division of labor in whic h one partners career is primary or both are considered equally valued. Whether ones career is considered primary will predict whether one can move for his or her job, can take certain promotion offers, and/or will go above and beyond for ones workplace. Thus, each negotia tion tactic will first be assessed within a career frame (e.g., which negotiation tactics do you use to negotiate whose career will be primary with your spouse/partner?). Emotion work and emotional support have been investigated in the workplace, demonstrating that emotional roles predict bot h stress and satisfaction (e.g., Grandey, 2000). Few researchers have examined emotion work, includi ng emotional support and/or emotional labor, at home (see Wharton & Erickson, 1993, and Wharton, 2003, for exceptions). Negotiation tactics will thus also be assessed within an emotiona l support frame (e.g., which negotiation tactics do you use to negotiate who will be responsible for the emotional support roles with your spouse/partner).
29 Career and Family Outcomes Figure 2.1 also suggests that the tactics partne rs us e to negotiate their household roles will affect their work and relationship outcomes, speci fically emotional labor within the relationship, job burnout, and relationship burnout. Emotional Labor at Home Emotional labor is a critical activity with in families and between partners (DeVault, 1991; Seery & Crowley, 2000). Hochschild (1983) de scribes emotional labor as the management of feeling to create a publicly observable facial and bodily display, suggesting that one must engage in active work to achieve an emotional display that fulfills a need. Though typically we discuss emotional labor as an organizationa l phenomenon, Hochschild (1983) claimed that emotion management is an ongoi ng activity in all settings. Emotions researchers have suggested that many social roles (including wife and husband or woman and man) have expectations regarding appropriate emotions (Ekman, 1984; Hochschild, 1983). These expectations expande d to cover the emotional components of the home and family as well, for instance, who will comfort a crying child or who will show empathy for the others workplace conflict. Alte rnatively, men and women may feel that they must (or must not) express certain emotions. For instance, a man may feel that fear or sadness should be hidden at all times, while women may feel the same about emotions such as anger or pride. The work it takes for an individual at home to suppress or express the appropriate emotions may also spillover to the workplace, where those skills may or may not be rewarded. Because of the social roles that traditiona l individuals ascribe to, they may experience emotional dissonance when they must express em otions which are congruent with those roles though they do not actually feel th at way. For instance, if a man is feeling sad and vulnerable, because of his self-expectation that he should be the strong and stoic provider, he may suppress
30 these feelings and alter his displayed feeli ngs (surface acting), which reduces well-being (Sheldon, Ryan, Rawsthorne & Ilardi, 1997). Su rface acting is more strongly related to emotional exhaustion and negatively related to feelings of personal accomplishment, than is deep acting (Brotheridge & Lee, 2003). I expect that the emotional role negotiation ta ctics utilized by individuals will affect the surface acting in which they engage with their partners. Surface acting oc curs when a situation demands an emotional display, but a person does not want to (or cannot) expend the effort to truly change the emotions they feel. I ex amine how competitive negotiation tactics, accommodative negotiation tactics, avoidance ne gotiation tactics, and integrative negotiation tactics will all pred ict surface acting. When individuals negotiate comp etitively to negotiate the types of emotional roles they will enact within their relationship, they are s eeking to promote their own interests over the interests of their partne rs. Thus, this type of competitive be havior might lead to someone being more likely to fake an emotion that is expected of him or her, especially if it is in his/her best interest to do so. Research indicates that emotions can be used to strategically facilitate desired outcomes (Kopelman, Rosette, & Thompson, 2006). For instance, in order to get the division of emotional labor that he wants in a competitive ne gotiation, a man might enact certain displays to facilitate his desired outcome. He may have to act more confident than he is or pretend to be concerned when he is not. If someone is willing to forgo the interests of his or her partner in a negotiation, he or she might not be willing to trul y empathize with a partner and be more likely to fake emotional displays like concern and inte rest. Thus, I expect that competitive negotiation will lead to an incr ease in surface acting.
31 I also expect that surface acting will in crease when individuals attempt to avoid negotiations. When individuals a void negotiations, they do not have either their own or their partners interest in mind. Rather they are seeking to avoid ne gotiation altogether. Thus, they may resort to displaying emotions strategically to avoid having to get into a negotiation with their partners. I expect to observe the opposite for accommoda tive and integrative negotiation tactics. For accommodative tactics, if individuals are overly concerned with their part ners interests and not with their own, they will be less likely to fake emotional displays to get their way. Integrative tactics are those in which individuals value both their own and their partners interests equally. When individuals utilize these type s of tactics, they are seeking to create value for both parties, facilitated by trust. Increased trust can facilita te integrative negotiation (e.g., De dreu, Giebels, & van de Vliert, 1998), and when one has high trust in a relationship, the need and desire to fake emotions will be reduced. Hypothesis 1.6. Using competitive negotiation tactics to negotiate emotional roles will be positively associated with surface acting in the relationship. Hypotheses 1.7. Using accommodative negotiation tactic s to negotiate emotional roles will be negatively associated with surface acting in the relationship Hypothesis 1.8. Using avoidance negotiation tactics to negotiate emotional roles will be positively associated with surface acting in the relationship. Hypothesis 1.9. Using integrative negotiation tactics to negotiate emotional roles will be negatively associated with su rface acting in the relationship. Job Burnout Job burnout denotes a state of em otional exha ustion that is associated with working intensely and intimately with others at work over a sustained period of time (Maslach, 1976).
32 Maslach (1982) created a tr ipartite model of burnout, enco mpassing emotional exhaustion, depersonalization and diminished personal accomp lishment. Emotional exhaustion is the most popular of these dimensions and thus is the one I will concentrate on in this paper. Emotional exhaustion is most closely parallel to traditional stress-related outcomes like fatigue and anxiety (Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, & Schaufeli, 2001). Emotional exhaustion best encompasses the core meaning of burnout (Cropanzano, Rupp & Byrne, 2003) and predicts both performance (Wright & Bonett, 1997) and turnover (Lee & Ashf orth, 1996), making it a cr itical outcome to consider in organizationa l and career research. I expect that career role negotiation tactics us ed by individuals will either increase or decrease job burnout, depending on which tactic is being employed. For instance, when individuals negotiate competitively with their partners about career roles, they are do in order to argue for a career priority that they feel is in their best interest. Using competitive negotiation tactics does not necessarily mean that individua ls achieve their goals, and if they have to negotiate so arduously, they may be more likely to end up with a career role that they do not like and that is stressful to them. If a woman does not want to have a primary career but her husband wants her to work, she may attempt to negotiate competitively to achieve her interests. If she does not get what she wants, however, she may end up in a less-than-ideal situation, leading to burnout. Negotiating competitively often ends up in a win-lose situation, and the person who loses may be much more likely to burn out in their job. Those that do no t have to negotiate so fervently may not feel that they have as much at stake (e.g., a stressful career to try to avoid). Additionally, the process of competitively negotiating is stressful in and of itself. When one uses competitive negotiation tactics with his/her spouse, tension will result, potentially leading to
33 burnout and stress. Thus, I expect that competitiv e negotiation tactics will lead to increased burnout. Hypothesis 1.10. Using competitive negotiation tactics to negotiate career roles will be positively associated with emotional exhaustion. When individuals accommodate, they seek to sa tisfy the interests of their partner rather than their own. If they negotiate for the best inte rests of their partner, they are more likely to receive an end-result that is not necessarily in their own best interest. While competitive negotiators may feel motivated to try to avoid a potentially stressful outcome, and may or may not succeed, accommodative negotiators forgo their interests from the outset. Though this may be because they dont believe that they have a nything to lose (so why debate harshly), it is probably more likely (in a relationship context) to be because the accommodator seeks to appeal to his/her partner. Though sacrificing ones own interests for ones partner may be good for the relationship, it may not be good for oneself. Not promoting ones own interests when negotiating career roles may lead to a person having an in creasingly stressful job, and thus experiencing burnout. Hypothesis 1.11. Using accommodative negotiation tactics to negotiate car eer roles will be positively associated with emotional exhaustion. Individuals who dont feel the n eed to negotiate their career roles whatsoever (i.e., they avoid negotiating) may do so because they do not feel that they have a bad option. They decide to not push for their own or their partners intere sts, resulting in no change from the status quo. Thus, those who seek to avoid negotiating care er roles are probably not concerned about potential stressors in their careers and are likely to not experience increased burnout.
34 Hypothesis 1.12. Using avoidant negotiation tactics to negotiate career roles will be negatively associated with emotional exhaustion. Those who use integrative negotiation tactic s value both their own and their partners interests and are thus less likely to experien ce burnout. I expect that while those who are competitive feel that they have something to lose and those who are accommodating feel that they must sacrifice for their pa rtner, those who negotiate inte gratively create value for both parties, likely resulting in more positive outcomes for both partners. Hypothesis 1.13. Using integrative negotiation tactics to negotiate career roles will be negatively associated with emotional exhaustion. Relationship Burnout Relationship burnout ref ers to a state of emotional exhausti on associated with working intensely and intimately with a partner (Erickson, 1993). I expect that em otional role negotiation tactics will predict relationship burnout similarly as to how career role negotiation tactics affect on-the-job burnout. Those who act competitively do so because they feel that they have a lot to lose by ignoring their own interests and they may cause some damage to the relationship by refusing to acknowledge the interests of their partner. Competitive negot iation tactics do not contribute to the health of long term relati onships (Dabholkar, J ohnston, & Cathey, 1994), potentially leading to incr eased relationship burnout. Hypothesis 1.14. Using competitive negotiation tactics to negotiate emotional roles will be positively associated with relationship burnout. Accommodative negotiation in a relationship context will likely lead to reduced relationship burnout. When individuals sacrifice their own self-inter est for the interests of their partner, they experience positive relationship outcomes (Wieselquist, Rusbult, Foster, & Agnew,
35 1999), suggesting that if they do th is in the process of negotiating with their spouse/partner, they may experience less relationship burnout. Hypothesis 1.15. Using accommodative negotiation tactic s to negotiate emotional roles will be negatively associated with relationship burnout. Avoiding negotiating emotional roles in a relation ship context is likely to lead to increased burnout because a person is not appreciating the interests of his or he r partner. Anytime one disregards the interests of ones partner, it can lead to negative relationship outcomes, even if one is not actively campaigning against them (e.g., competitive negotiations). When a pair negotiates who will be responsible for the emo tional support in a relationship, one partner may seek to avoid the negotiation. He or she is then al so avoiding the emotiona l needs and interests of his or her partner. I expect that this avoidance will result in increased relationship burnout. Hypothesis 1.16. Using avoidant negotiation tactics to negotiate emotional roles will be positively associated with relationship burnout. Finally, I expect that couples who use integrative negotiation tactics while negotiating their emotional support roles will reduce their relatio nship burnout. When partners attend to one anothers needs, the relationship flourishes, especially when valu e is created and both partners feel like they have exited the negotiation as winners. Hypothesis 1.17. Using integrative negotiation tactics to negotiate emotional roles will be negatively associated with relationship burnout. Mediation Relationship burnout is identified by Hochsch ild (1983) as a potential consequence of em otional labor and (lack of) emotional support within a relationship. Erickson (1993) found that emotional work (encompassing emotional support role s) increased relationship burnout, but as of
36 yet, no one has examined whether couples experi ence surface acting as em ployees do, or whether this surface acting might lead to relationship burnout. It is likely that surface acting by either partner will lead to increased marital stress and burnout. When individuals fake emotions on the job, it is more likely to lead to emotional exhaustion and burnout (e.g., Grandey, 2003), thus it follows that faking in a relationship would lead to similar feelings. I exp ect that surface acting will act as a mediating mechanism between tactics used by partners to ne gotiate emotional roles and rela tionship burnout experienced. Hypothesis 1.18. Surface acting will mediate the rela tionship between negotiation tactics and relationship burnout. Study 1 Methodology Next, I describe the methodology used in Study 1. Sample Participants were recruited from worki ng undergraduate students at a Southeastern university and using contacts from independent data collectors (e.g., research assistants contacted working individuals of varying ages to comple te the study). I purposively sampled for age and length of time in relationship in order to improv e generalizeability. Individuals participated in three surveys over a peri od of one month. In total, 129 wome n completed the Time 1 survey, 93 completed Time 2, and 74 completed all three surv eys for an attrition rate of 43%. Additionally, 96 men completed the Time 1 survey, 56 completed Time 2, and 49, Time 3, for an attrition rate of 49%. The only significant difference between the attrition group and the group that completed the survey was that, among women, the leavers worked longer hours (42 vs. 32/week) and were enrolled in less hours of classes (5.4 vs. 7.9/ week). For men, younger in dividuals were more likely to leave (29 vs. 34 years of age). There we re no significant differen ces on the critical study variables.
37 The average age of the female sample is 29.9 years and of the male sample is 32.2 years. Men were more likely to be married than were women (75% vs. 66%); but since marital status did not materially affect any re sults, it was not included in th e analyses. Both men and women had one child on average, and men worked more hours and made more money than women did (43 vs. 35 hours; $59,100 vs. $36,500). Women were in their relationships longer than were men (9.9 years vs. 8.9 years). Both the male and fema le samples were predominately white/Caucasian (84% and 86.5%, respectively). Procedure Participan ts completed three surveys at three separate time pointssurvey 1 at time 1, survey 2 at time 2 and the survey 3 at time 3. Each time point was separated by 2 weeks to decrease the effect of same-source bias. Su rvey 1 contained measures of gender role traditionalism, demographic information, and nego tiation tactics, survey 2 collected emotional labor information, and survey 3 collected data on relationship and job bur nout. Individuals had the option of utilizing a confidential and unique ID number if they were uncomfortable using their names on the surveys, and they had the opti on of completing online or paper versions of the surveys. Participants were encouraged to have their spouse/partner also complete each survey in the series.9 Measures The m easures for study 1 are described below. Gender role traditionalism I assessed gender role traditionalism with a scale administered via the time 1 survey. I used the Larsen and Long (1988) scale in my analyses. Larsen and Longs (1988) Traditional-Egalitarian Sex Roles scal e has 20 items and is scored on 9 Only 32 couples completed data, thus I was unable to run comparative analyses between ones perception of their partners gender role traditionalism and ones pa rtners reported gender role traditionalism.
38 a 5-point Likert type scale (f rom 1=strongly disagree to 5=st rongly agree). It produces and average scale score from 1=nontraditional sex roles to 5=traditional sex roles. This measure has been previously used to assess gender role attitudes in studies of work-family conflict and emotions (Livingston & Judge, 2008). I asked participants rate both their own gender role traditionalism and what they perceived their partners ge nder role traditionalism to be, using the same scale.10 Coefficient alpha for this scale is .84 for ones own GRT and .88 for ones partners GRT. Negotiation tactics To assess competitive negotiation tactics, I used a measure derived from DeDreu & Boles (1998) scal e. It included items such as d id you feel that your partners loss was your gain. Coefficient alpha for this scale is .84 for work negotiation and .89 for emotional negotiation. For integr ative negotiation, I used items from DeDreu & Boles (1998) scale including, Share and shar e alike. Coefficient alpha for this scale is .87 for work negotiation and .90 for emotional negotiation. I also utilized a 5-item ad hoc measure of accommodation tactics with items such as cared more about trying to make your partner happy than getting everything that you wanted. Coefficient alpha for this scale is .80 for wo rk negotiation and .83 for emotional negotiation. For avoidant negotiation, I used a sc ale derived from Mannino and Deutschs (2007) 14-item scale, with questions such as we both avoid talking about the problem, and I clam up and become silent. Coefficient alpha for this scale is .73 for work negotiation and .74 for emotional negotiation. 10 Perceived gender role traditionalism is more important for the current study because I suggest that individuals react to what they think th eir spouse/partner believes, not necessarily what they actually believe. Amongst the 32 matched pairs, there is a .54 correlation (p<.05) between ones per ceived spousal gender role traditionalism and ones partners reported gender role traditionalism.
39 Control and descriptive variables Additionally, via the tim e 1 survey, I collected demographic data concerning marital status, leng th of relationship, numbe r of children, age, and hours worked per week. I also collected data on age at marriage, age at cohabitation, who has primary responsibility for the childcare, whether a person has help from family with childcare, and whether one has satisfactory childcare availa ble to him/her. Finally, I collected data on income, job title, industry, tenur e at ones job, and education. As controls, I also assessed the Big Five pe rsonality traits using Johns (1990) Big Five Inventory and Core Self Evalua tions using Judge and colleagues (2003) CSE scale. Finally, I collected ones social value orientation (Van Lange, Otten, De Bruin & Joireman, 1997), because prosocial individuals are seen as more c ooperative (deDreu & McCusker, 1997), and more distributive/competitive tactics are used when indi viduals are not prosocial (Carnevale & Probst, 1997). Surface acting. I assessed surface acting at time 2 w ithin the relationship using a 3-item scale derived from Brotheridge and Lees (2003) Emotional Labour Scale. Items were prefaced by In my relationship with my spouse/partner, I: and included, Resis t expressing my true feelings, and Pretend to have emotions that I d on't really have. Coefficient alpha for this scale is .78. Emotional exhaustion/burnout. I assess emotional exhaustion at time 3 using the 9-item emotional exhaustion scale of the Maslach Bu rnout Inventory (Maslach, Jackson & Leiter, 1996). Sample items include, I feel emotionally dr ained from my work, and I feel burned out from my work. Coefficient alpha for this scale is .95.
40 Relationship burnout. To assess relationship burnout, at time 3, I used Ericksons (1993) 12-item marital burnout scale. Sample items include, I feel burned out from my relationship, and, My relationship energizes me (reverse code d). Coefficient alpha for this scale is .94. Analyses Though the hypotheses concerning gender role traditionalism discuss similarity between partners, how to accurately assess similarity is wrought with debate. Th e relational demography literature has used a number of methods to assess similarity be tween individuals and groups, and a recent methodological review concluded that though difference (D-) scores make intuitive sense when assessing how simila r or different one person is fr om another, they suffer from fundamental problems (Riordan & Wayne, 2008). Thus, to test my hypotheses, I will employ interactions (moderation) to assess similarity, whic h is suggested as an al ternative to D-scores by Riordan and Wayne (2008). Interactions are not fr ee from criticism, but they will allow me to avoid some of the methodological issues associat ed with using D-scores to assess similarity. Data was analyzed using moderated and mediated linear regression using SPSS. All moderation hypotheses will utilize st andardized variables to elimin ate multicollinearity. Because of my relatively low sample si ze, I first analyzed each control variables correlation with each dependent variable to determine whether any of the dependent variables seem to vary significantly by the control variable s, and when applicable, I incl uded those control variables in the first step of a linear regression analysis. If th e results were not materially affected (i.e., the magnitude and pattern of results were preserved) I did not include the co ntrol variable in the final regression so as to preser ve degrees of freedom. Thus, I in cluded relevant control variables when confounding and/or contamination is most likely, and I use the remainder of the control variables as descriptive statistics.
41 To test mediation, I utilize Sobels (1982) indirect test for mediation. MacKinnon and colleagues (2002) suggest that this is the most appropriate method to test for intervening variables and provides more power than Baron and Kennys (1989) causal steps. Sobels test involves calculating the unstandardized coefficients and standard errors of each coefficient for the independent variable on the mediator and fo r the mediator on the dependent variable, while controlling for the independent vari able. The standard error for the Sobel test is ca lculated using first order Taylor series appr oximation of the standard error (MacKinnon et al., 2002), which is calculated as the square root of sa 2b2 + sb 2a2. Results Intercorrelations among the st udy variables are provided in Ta ble 2-2. Analysis of control variables demonstrated that marital status was associated with competitive negotiation, and core self evaluations, conscientiousness and openness w ith almost all of the dependent variables (e.g., integrative emotional negotiation, avoidance work negotiation, surface acting). Entering these four variables into the regression an alyses did not materially affect most of my results (other than decreasing degrees of freedom), thus I do not in clude them in the analyses reported below. To assess hypotheses 1.1 and 1.2, I regressed avoidant, accommodative and competitive negotiation tactics on gender role traditionalism of self and partner. Neither ones own gender role traditionalism nor ones partners predicted negotiation tactics as predicted. Thus, hypotheses 1.1 and 1.2 were not supported. Results are presented in Table 2.3. To assess hypotheses 1.3a and 1.3b, I estimated four linear regression analyses using the female sample, with accommodative work negotiation, accommodative emotional negotiation, avoidant work negotiation and avoidant emoti onal negotiation as dependent variables. In each, ones own gender role traditionalism (standa rdized), perceived partners gender role traditionalism (standardized) and the product be tween the two were entered as independent
42 variables. For accommodative emotional negotia tion, the interaction coefficient approached significance (B=.30, p<.10). This provides some support for the accommodation section of hypothesis 1.3a, the gender role ideology perspe ctive as egalitarian women tend to be more accommodative with egalitarian spouses (see Figure 2-3). Egalitarian individuals are those that score 1 SD below the mean on gender role trad itionalism; traditional individuals are those that score 1 SD above the mean (M=0.00, SD=1.00)11. Results for accommodative work negotiation were not significant. For avoidant work negotiation, I find that the relationship is significant (B=-.20, p<.05), which seems to support H1.3b, the gender constr uction perspective (see Figure 2-4). When traditional women have egalitarian spouses, they tend to use more avoidant tactics, and when egalitarian women have traditional spouses, they tend to use more avoidant tactics. For traditional women, however, an incongruent result is observed. Traditional women with egalitarian spouses tend to be more avoidant than when their spouses are more traditional. Finally, for avoidant emotiona l negotiation, H1.3b is also supported (B=0.23, p<.05). Again, egalitarian women tend to act more avoidant when they have traditional spouses, though, for traditional women, the same incongruent resu lt is observed for traditional women with egalitarian spouse (see Figure 2-5). To assess hypotheses 1.4a and 1.4b, I estimated similar analyses as with hypotheses 1.3a and 1.3b, using competitive work and emotional negotiation as dependent variables with the male sample. For competitive work negotiati on, I found that traditional men are more competitive with traditional spouses (B =.25, p<.05), supporting H1.4b, or the gender 11 Gender role traditionalism was standardized for all analys es (prior to computing interactions). Thus, for all figures, the mean of GRT = 0.00 and the standard deviation of GRT = 1.00. All graphs use the same definition of egalitarian and traditional (+/1 SD).
43 construction perspective. Similarity in gende r role attitudes seemed to lead to more competitiveness rather than less. With that sai d, a similar incongruence as found with the women emerged, such that egalitarian men were slightly more competitive with egalitarian partners than with traditional ones. Graphical depiction of this relationship is available in Figure 2-6. For competitive emotional negotiation, found the same pa ttern as with competitive work negotiation (B=.21, p<.05), which also supports H1.4b (Figur e 2-7). Again, the same incongruence was observed. Graphical depiction of this relationship is available in Figure 2-7. All of these results are available in Table 2-3. For H1.5, I assessed the relationship of gende r role traditionalism with integrative negotiation tactics for both men and women separa tely. Integrative work negotiation tactics were not predicted by the interaction of gender role traditionalism for women (B=-.18, p>.10) or for men (B=-.01, p>.10). For integrative emotional ne gotiation tactics, ther e were no significant results observed (women: B=.16, p>.10; men: B=.08, p>.10). Thus, H1.5 was not confirmed. These results are also available in Table 2-3. For hypotheses H1.10-1.13, regardin g job burnout, I entered e ach work-related negotiation tactic into a separate equation with emotional exhaustion as a dependent variable. Because I was not specifically concerne d with gender differences and the problems that arise from three-way interactions, I used the entire sample for each analysis. Of these, only H1.6 (competitive work negotiation, B=.22, p<.05) was significant, such that competitive work negotiation led to increased emotional exhaustion. Results are available in Table 2-4. For hypotheses H1.6-1.9, and H1.14-1.17, I present all results in a single table, Table 2-5. Hypothesis 1.18 involves mediation, thus I report Sobel statistics for indirect effects as a test of mediation (direct effects ar e presented in Table 2-6).
44 I find that H1.6, H1.14 and full mediation (H 1.18) for competitive emotional negotiation are supported. When surface acting was added to the regression equation (B=.48, p<.05), competitive emotional negotiation was no longer significantly related to relationship burnout (B=.03, ns) A Sobel test of indirect effects produ ced a Sobel statistic of Z=2.92 (p<.01), suggesting a significant indirect effect of competitive emotional negotiation on relationship burnout, through surface acting. While H1.7, H1.15, and H1.18 for accommoda tive emotional negotiation are not significant (Sobel Z=-.50, p>.05), I do find significant support for H1.8, H1.16, and full mediation (H1.18) for avoidant emotional negotiation. When surface acting was added to the regression equation (B=.49, p<.05), avoidant emo tional negotiation was no longer significantly related to relationshi p burnout (B=.034 ns) A Sobel test of indirect effected produced a Sobel statistic of Z=3.19 (p<.01) for avoidant emoti onal negotiation and relationship burnout. Thus, avoidant emotional negotiation ha s a significant indirect effect on relationship burnout through surface acting. Finally, I also find support for H1.9, H1.17 and mediation (H1.18) for integrative emotional negotiation tactics. The Sobel statistic was Z=-3.21 (p<.01), demonstrating that integrative emotional negotiati on tactics reduced relationshi p burnout through a reduction in surface acting. Study Discussion Study 1 tested whether gender role traditi onalism between partners would affect how partners negotiated their work and emotional ro les and whether thes e negotiation tactics would significantly affect work and relationship outco mes. Findings support many of my hypotheses. I presented two separate and mutually exclusive theoretical paradigmsgender role ideology and gender construction. In most cases, however, there existed anomalous results.
45 While the gender construction hypothesis was sup ported for avoidance tactics (for women) and competitive tactics (for men), it was only supported for one sub-group of individuals. Egalitarian women and traditional men seemed to act as hy pothesized, while I observed incongruent effects for traditional women and egalitarian men. Overall, however, men and women tended to experience similar effects of gender role traditionalism. For women, it seems that the gender construc tion hypothesis explains egalitarian womens reaction while traditional women are more explai ned by the effects of their own attitudes. If acting in an avoidant manner is stereotypically associated with a wo mans behavior, then a woman who ascribes strongly to th ese norms might act in that manner regardless of her spouses attitudes. Similarly, for men, a gender constructi on frame explains why traditional men act more competitively with traditional women rather than with egalitarian women as they are driven to act in the masculine manner expected by their spouses. However, though egalitarian men tend to act slightly more competitive w ith an egalitarian spouse than a traditional one, it may be more theoretically congruent with gender construction than it seems. These results may be observed because an egalitarian man does not feel any compunction against acting competitively with his spouse; he does not see her as a fragile entity to be protected. Thus, he may be acting on her expectationsspecifically, on her ex pectation that she be treated as an equal in the relationship and not coddled. Regardless of the anomalie s observed, this paper breaks new ground on examining gender construction among men. Another possibility is that tr aditional men negotiate competit ively with traditional spouses not because of gender construction, but rather becaus e of that pressure that emanates from their breadwinner identity. In the current economic clim ate, being the sole breadwinneror at the least, being expected to be the primary br eadwinneris a daunting proposition. Some of the
46 resulting competitiveness may be because even tr aditional men are feeling pressured to have some help in supporting the family, and traditiona l women are more likely to fight back on those desires. Future analysis of open-ended respons es to the types of negotiation encountered by couples may help discern the li kelihood of this explanation. I also examined whether negotiation tactics were likely to lead to relationship and career outcomes, and whether the effect on relationship burnout was mediated by a type of relationshiporiented emotional labor. I did not, unfortunately find much support for the effect of negotiation tactics on emotional exhaustion, ex cept for competitive work nego tiation. Individual s feel their job is stressful when they competitively negotiate their career roles with their spouses. Future research should attempt to discern whether indivi duals who lost their work role negotiations felt more burnout (e.g., they felt their job was going to be stressful and thus tried fervently to negotiate their way out of it, but their spouse won the negotiation) or if the act of negotiating competitively tended to result in individuals feeling more stressed by their jobs. More substantial results were found for the outcomes of relationship burnout and surface acting. Three out of the four negot iating tactics used to negotiate emotional roles in the home led to surface acting (the exception was accommodativ e tactics). Competitive negotiation tactics and avoidance tactics led to in creased surface acting and incr eased relationship burnout, and integrative tactics reduced both surface acti ng and relationship burnout. All three of the significant effects on relationshi p burnout were found to be me diated by surface acting. These results are intriguing because they provide a firs t test of an organizati onally-relate d construct (i.e., surface acting) in a relationship context. They also demons trate that, much like emotional labor in the workplace, emotional labor at hom e leads to burnout. Future research should
47 investigate whether ones emotional labor at ho me spills over into ones ability to surface and deep act on the job. All-in-all, Study 1 demonstrates that tw o organizational and management-related conceptsnegotiation and emotiona l laborare also pertinent at the relationship level. I also demonstrate that gender role attitudesspecifically the congru ity between part ners attitudes are theoretically important to consider when di scussing how partners make decisions. The workfamily literature has, for decades, suggested that individuals are affected by more than just the job context, and the current res earch goes further to demonstrate the role of ones spouse in the decision-making process. Future research should more specifically link the decision making at home to the decision making on the job as well as how gender role congru ity between partners might affect other work outcomes, such as work -family conflict and job satisfaction, which will be investigated in Study 2.
48 Table 2-1. Summary of hypotheses and measures used in Study 1 Hypotheses Which measures used? Hypothesis 1.1: Gender role traditionalism will lead to increased competitiveness for men and accommodativeness/avoidance for women. (1) Traditional-Egalitarian Sex Roles (2) Accommodative negotiation (3) Avoidant negotiation (4) Competitive negotiation Hypothesis 1.2: The gender role traditionalism of ones spouse will lead to increased competitiveness for men and accommodativeness/avoidance for women. (1) Traditional-Egalitarian Sex Roles (2) Accommodative negotiation (3) Avoidant negotiation (4) Competitive negotiation Hypothesis 1.3a: Among women, gender role similarity will result in the use of more accommodating and avoidant negotiation tactics than will dissimilarity. (1) Traditional-Egalitarian Sex Roles (2) Accommodative negotiation (3) Avoidant negotiation Hypothesis 1.3b: Among women, gender role similarity will result in the use of less avoidant and accommodating negotiation tactics than will to dissimilarity. (1) Traditional-Egalitarian Sex Roles (2) Accommodative negotiation (3) Avoidant negotiation Hypothesis 1.4a: Among men, gender role similarity will result in the use of less competitive negotiation tactics than will dissimilarity. (1) Traditional-Egalitarian Sex Roles (2) Competitive negotiation Hypothesis 1.4b: Among men, gender role similarity will result in the use of more competitive negotiation tactics than will dissimilarity. (1) Traditional-Egalitarian Sex Roles (2) Competitive negotiation Hypothesis 1.5: For both men and women, gender role similarity will result in the use of more integrative negotiation tactics than will dissimilarity. (1) Traditional-Egalitarian Sex Roles (2) Integrative negotiation Hypothesis 1.6: Using compe titive negotiation tactics to negotiate emotional roles will be positively associated with surface acting in the relationship. (1) Competitive negotiation (2) Surface acting Hypotheses 1.7: Using accomm odative negotiation tactics to negotiate emotional roles will be negatively associated with surface acting in the relationship. (1) Accommodative negotiation (2) Surface acting Hypothesis 1.8: Using avoidance negotiation tactics to negotiate emotional roles will be positively associated with surface acting in the relationship. (1) Avoidant negotiation (2) Surface acting
49 Table 2-2. Continued. Hypotheses Which measures used Hypothesis 1.9: Using integra tive negotiation tactics to negotiate emotional roles will be negatively associated with surface acting in the relationship. (1) Integrative negotiation (2) Surface acting Hypothesis 1.10: Using competitive negotiation tactics to negotiate career roles will be positively associated with emotional exhaustion. (1) Competitive negotiation (2) Emotional exhaustion Hypothesis 1.11: Using accommodati ve negotiation tactics to negotiate career roles will be positively associated with emotional exhaustion. (1) Accommodative negotiation (2) Emotional exhaustion Hypothesis 1.12: Using a voidant negotiation tactics to negotiate career roles will be negatively associated with emotional exhaustion. (1) Avoidant negotiation (2) Emotional exhaustion Hypothesis 1.13: Using integrat ive negotiation tactics to negotiate career roles will be negatively associated with emotional exhaustion. (1) Integrative negotiation (2) Emotional exhaustion Hypothesis 1.14: Using competitive negotiation tactics to negotiate emotional roles will be positively associated with relationship burnout. (1) Competitive negotiation (2) Relationship burnout Hypothesis 1.15: Using accommodati ve negotiation tactics to negotiate emotional roles will be negatively associated with relationship burnout. (1) Accommodative negotiation (2) Relationship burnout Hypothesis 1.16: Using a voidant negotiation tactics to negotiate emotional roles will be positively associated with relationship burnout. (1) Avoidant negotiation (2) Relationship burnout Hypothesis 1.17: Using integrat ive negotiation tactics to negotiate emotional roles will be negatively associated with relationship burnout. (1) Integrative negotiation (2) Relationship burnout Hypothesis 1.18: Surface acting w ill mediate the relationship between negotiation tactics and relationship burnout. (1) Competitive negotiation (2) Accommodative negotiation (3) Avoidant negotiation (4) Integrative negotiation (5) Surface Acting (6) Relationship burnout
50Table 2-2. Intercorrelations among variables in Study 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1. GRT (.84) .64** .26** -.20* .02 .18* .25* -.10 .05 .14 .23* .15 .20 2. Partner's GRT .66** (.88) .33** -.24** .06 .15 .24* -.17 .10 .13 .32** .08 .35** 3. Competitive work negotiation .32** .35** (.84) -.20* .12 .19* .65** -.13 .05 .15 .08 .15 .28* 4. Integrative work negotiation -.28** -.26* .09 (.87) .49** -.59** -.19 .61** .38** -.42** -.20 .02 -.42** 5. Accommodating work negotiation -.09 -.19 .32** .70** (.80) -.38** .16 .27** .54** -.29** .07 .00 -.24* 6. Avoidant work negotiation .24* .23* -.01 -.62** -.60** (.73) .12 -.47** -.36** .59** .16 .14 .29* 7. Competitive emotion negotiation .36** .37** .68** -.06 .06 .18 (.89) -.01 .16 .05 .24* .21 .36** 8. Integrative emotion negotiation -.18 -.29* -.03 .60** .42** -.49** -.10 (.90) .64** -.68** -.26* -.06 -.36** 9. Accommodating emotion negotiation -.16 -.22 .11 .44** .60** -.47** -.07 .73** (.83) -.56** .09 -.01 -.02 10. Avoidant emotion negotiation .17 .18 .02 -.38** -.29* .63** .19 -.47** -.44** (.74) .28** -.06 .24 11. Surface acting: Relationship .31* .21 .22 -.26 -.13 .31* .36** -.48** -.35* .34* (.78) .42** .59** 12. Emotional exhaustion/ Burnout .33* .21 .31* -.08 .18 .21 .39* -.16 -.06 .17 .55** (.95) .35** 13. Relationship burnout .50** .35* .17 -.20 .10 .11 .02 -.28 .02 .00 .27 .31* (.94) Notes: ** p<.01, *p<.05, p<.10; Reliabilities are on the diagonal; female sample above the diagonal and male sample below the diagonal
51 Table 2-3. Results for Hypothesis H 1.1 through H1.5 (for women and men) Variable B-statistics: Women B-statistics: Men Accommodative work tactics (n=119)Competitive work tactics (n=84) Partners GRT .10 .25 Own GRT -.05 .15 GRT X GRT .23 .25* Accommodative emotional tactics (n=101) Competitive emotional tactics (n=71) Partners GRT .17 .23 Own GRT -.05 .15 GRT X GRT .30 .21* Avoidant work tactics (n=119) Partners GRT .04 Own GRT .14 GRT X GRT -.20* Avoidant emotional tactics (n=102) Partners GRT .07 Own GRT .10 GRT X GRT -.23* Integrative work tactics (n=119) Integrative work tactics (n=85) Partners GRT -.14 -.18 Own GRT -.19 -.26 GRT X GRT -.18 -.01 Integrative emotional ta ctics (n=102) Integrative emotional tactics (n=71) Partners GRT -.21 -.52* Own GRT -.02 .10 GRT X GRT .16 .08 Notes: ** p<.01, *p<.05, p<.10; coefficients for non-product terms (ex cept for integrative tactics) are from a model without the product included.
52 Table 2-4. Results for Hypothesis H1.10-H1-13: Emotional exhaustion Variable r2 Competitive work negotiation tactics .22* .04* Integrative work negotiation tactics -.02 .00 Accommodative work negotiation tactics .07 .00 Avoidant work negotiation tactics .14 .02 Notes: ** p<.01, *p<.05, p<.10 Table 2-5. Results for Hypot heses H1.6-H1.9, and H1.14-H1.17 Variable r2 Surface Acting Competitive emotional negotiation tactics .28**.08** Integrative emotional negotiation tactics -.35**.11** Accommodative emotional negotiation tactics -.03 .00 Avoidant emotional negotiation tactics .31** .09** Relationship Burnout Competitive emotional negotiation tactics .20* .04* Integrative emotional negotiation tactics -.34** .11** Accommodative emotional negotiation tactics .00 .00 Avoidant emotional negotiation tactics .17 .03 Notes: ** p<.01, *p<.05, p<.10
53 Table 2-6. Hypothesis H1.18: Direct effects of mediat ion (relationship burnout) Variable R2 Competitive emotional negotiation tactics .03 .25** Surface acting .48** Integrative emotional negotiation tactics -.21* .29** Surface acting .44** Avoidant emotional negotiation tactics .04 .25** Surface acting .49** Notes: ** p<.01, *p<.05, p<.10 Partners Gender Role Traditionalism Partners Gender Role Traditionalism Negotiation Tactics for Dividing Emotional and Career Roles : 1. Accommodative 2. Competitive 3. Avoidant 4. Inte g rative Emotional Labor: Surface Acting Burnout: Relationship and Job Figure 2-1. Figure highlighting the hypothesized relationships among variables in Study 1
54 Competing Avoiding Collaborating Accommodating Compromising Concern for Self Concern for Others Figure 2-2. The Dual-Concern Model Figure 2-3. Womens gender role traditionali sm and accommodative emotional negotiation tactics.
55 Figure 2-4. Womens gender role traditionalism and avoidant work negotiation tactics Figure 2-5. Womens gender role traditionalism and avoidant emotional negotiation tactics
56 Figure 2-6. Mens gender role traditionalism and competitive work negotiation tactics Figure 2-7. Mens gender role traditionalism and competitive emotional negotiation tactics
57 CHAPTER 3 A MULTI-LEVEL INVESTIGATION OF GE NDER ROL E TRADITIONALISM AND WORK AND FAMILY OUTCOMES AMO NG DUAL-EARNING COUPLES Introduction W ith the increase in dual-earning couples (e.g., Bureau of Labor Stat istics, 2007), it is not surprising that the proportion of employees who re port some or a lot of interference between the work and family roles has increased from 34% in 1977 to 45% in 2002 (Bond et al., 2003). The separate spheres model of work and family (Kanter, 197 7) suggests that men are responsible for the paid work sphere and women for unpaid do mestic work sphere, and it assumes that they will not affect one another. However, with the increase in both partners in a couple actively participating in both spheres, the attainment of th is ideal is far from realistic. The permeable boundaries of work and family often result in sp illoverthe experience of work affecting family life or vice versa (Aryee, L uk, Leung, & Lo, 1999; Frone et al ., 1997; Greenberger & ONeil, 1990; Kinnunen & Gerris, 1996; Spitze, 1988)even if individuals would prefer to live a life of truly separate spheres. Interference between the work and family role s is oft-investigated, however it is most often studied with between-individual methodol ogies that examine snapshots of peoples experiences at one moment in time. Rarely is re search conducted in which researchers consider interactions between partners (see Greenstein, 1996, for an exception), even though individuals who are in committed relationships act do not likely act independently. The current study seeks to assess how the gender role tr aditionalism of partners affects work-family conflict, emotional outcomes, and work and family outcomes using a within-individual, multi-level methodology. Figure 3-1 illustrates the model th at will guide the current research and is a subset of the model put forth in Figure 1-1, and Ta ble 3-1 presents the hypotheses that will be tested and the associated measures.
58 Gender Role Traditionalism Gender roles are often described as situated arou nd a continuum, from the traditional to the nontraditional (Larsen & Long, 1988; Scanzoni, 1979). In the tr aditional conceptualization, power and decision-making revert to men, and wo men are oriented mainly toward the family (Ferber & Kordick, 1978; Shihadeh, 1991). The nontra ditional definition maintains that family power is shared more equally (Peyton, Pitts & Kamery, 2003). Additionally, ones gender ideology, or gender role traditiona lism, determines which sphere he or she wants to identify with (home or work; Hochschild, 1989). Thus, a traditional woman wants to identify with activities at home and wants her male partner to base his identity on work (vice versa for a traditional man), and a nontraditional woman would want to identify more with both home and work and wants her male partner to do the same. In organizational behavior and in family psychology, researchers often focus on the individual as determinant of his or her own beha vior, such that ones own attitudes will be most predictive of ones own behavior. Gender cons truction theory (e.g., Coltrane, 2000), however, suggests that the attitude of gender role traditiona lism is most predictive when considered as part and parcel of the dynamic that occurs between tw o intimate partners. This implies that ones own gender role traditionalism will not nearly be as predictive as the interaction between the gender role attitudes of partners. I e xpect that this inte ractionor the similari ty/congruity between partners in terms of their gender role traditio nalismwill predict the daily work and family outcomes of individuals. Negative Work-Family Spillover : Conflict Gender role traditionalism is likely to impact the dimensions of the work-family interface. Though the separate spheres conceptual ization (Kanter, 1977) supposes that the work
59 and family spheres are distinctly separate, the life course perspective maintains that domains such as family and work are interconn ected and are linked lives (Elder, 1994). The ways in which the spheres of work and home interact can take many forms. In the organizational behavior literatu re, scholars often refer to work -family spillover (e.g., Campbell & Campbell, 1994; Kinnunen & Mauno, 1998; Livings ton, Burley, & Springer, 1996) as well as work-family conflict (e.g., Greenha us & Beutell, 1985). Spillover is described as the feelings, attitudes and behaviors that deve lop in one sphere and then are carried over to another sphere (Googins, 1991). These effects can be either positive or negative, a nd either from work to family or from family to work.1 When spillover is negative, it is sometimes referred to as work-family conflict (e.g., Netemeyer, Boles, & McMurr ian, 1996), though it may not differ from other measures of negative spillover (e.g., Frye & Breaugh, 2004; Hill, Yang, Hawkins, & Ferris, 2004; Voydanoff, 2005). I expect that negative sp illover, or work-family conflict, will be affected by the gender role tr aditionalism of partners. The specific definition of work-family conflict is presented as a form of interrole conflict in which work and family demands are incompatible in some respect, such that participation in one role is perceived as more difficult because of participa tion in the other (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). This perspective is often suppor ted by Goodes (1960) scarcity hypothesis, which proposes that since individuals ha ve a finite amount of energy, wh en energy is put forth in one domain, it is depleted and thus unavailable for use in other roles (e.g., Williams, Suls, Alliger, Learner & Wan, 1991). This suggests that the intera ction between the roles is often negative, and results in a reduction in desira ble outcomes including emotional well-being (e.g., Adams, King 1 Though most work-family researchers make a distinction between work-interfering-with-family and familyinterfering-with-work, for the purposes of hypothesizing, I do not make such a distinction. I expect that gender role traditionalism will affect both directionalities in the same ma nner. I measure and analyze both directions of conflict, but I do not hypothesize differences between them.
60 & King, 1996; Kossek & Ozeki, 1998), job attitude s (e.g., Aryee, 1992; Netemeyer et al., 1996; Thomas & Ganster, 1995), family satisfaction (e.g., Carlson & Kacmar, 2000; Carlson, Kacmar, & Williams, 2000; Wayne et al., 2004), and job performance (e.g., Aryee, 1992; Wayne et al., 2004). This conflict may also be positively rela ted to undesirable outcomes, including burnout (e.g., Barling, MacEwen, Kelloway, & Higginbotto m, 1994; Frone et al., 1992; Grandey & Cropanzano, 1999; Parasuraman & Greenhaus, 2002) and even intentions to quit work (e.g., Grandey & Cropanzano, 1999; Greenhaus Collins, Singh, & Parasuraman, 1997). Work and family are governed by distin ct and potentially incompatible norms (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). This is the predominant perspective that supports the effects of gender role traditionalism on work-family conflict. Ones gender role traditionalism, by definition, subsumes a level of gendered role expectations, in which traditional individuals ascribe to very distinct gende red roles of work and family and nontraditional individuals are more flexible in their role assignments. Additi onally, a related construc t, job involvement, has been found to be related to work-family confli ct (Higgins et al., 1992) Adams, King, and King (1996) also found that family involvement was re lated to both work-interfering-with-family and with family-interfering-with-work. I expect that individuals who ar e more traditional, and thus feel that the domains of work and family s hould be separate (and ge ndered), will experience greater perceived work-family conflict because this interference will be salient and distressing to them. The interference between the work and family spheres runs contrary to their strongly held norms that the spheres should remain separate. Hypothesis 2.1. Gender role traditionalism will be positively related to work-family conflict (negative spillover).
61 Gender construction theory pos its that it is truly the in teraction and dynamic between partners gender role attitudes that predict behavior in a relationshi p. A lack of similarity in role expectations is often presente d as a source of role conflict (Lobel, 1991), which suggests that partners who have similar expectations for the gendered roles of work and family may experience less conflict, and those who have diss imilar role expectations may experience more conflict. Even though I expect that traditiona l individuals will experience more work-family conflict in general, if two traditional individuals are in a relationship, they may experience less net conflict than if with a dissimilar partner. Similar individuals may be better able to understand each others perspectives and share role expectations, Hypothesis 2.2. Partners with dissimilar gender role attitudes will experience more workfamily conflict than will similar partners. Gender Role Similarity and Emotional Outcomes The study of emotions and the prediction of emotional outcomes are critical for understanding work outcomes (Hochschild, 1983). Previous research has examined anger at work (Fitness, 2000), how the emotional expressions of leaders affect their followers (Lewis, 2000) and how mood is related to job satisfac tion (Fisher, 2000). Thus, understanding what causes emotions and the effects those emotions have on work and family outcomes are important to psychological and organi zational researchers alike. Research has demonstrated that partners who are more similar experience reduced negative affect and increased marital satisfac tion (Gaunt, 2006). Byrn es (1971) similarityattraction paradigm is grounded in the idea that similar individua ls develop increased affect toward one another; they are attracted to one an other and may demonstrate bias toward or against others based on this interpersonal affect. It hol ds, then, that when husbands and wives are more similar in terms of their gender role traditionali sm, they will experience more positive emotions
62 and less negative emotions on a daily basis, as they will not feel as much of the inevitable conflict that results from dissimilarity (e.g., Lankau, et al., 2007) For instance, if both husband and wife are high in gender role traditionalism, they will likely agree on the amount of the work role for which they should each be responsible (e .g., not much for the wife and the majority for the husband). This similarity reduces conflict ov er the work role, resulting in increased positive emotional outcomes and reduced negative emotions Alternatively, if they disagree on issues such as this (i.e., are dissimilar in terms of ge nder role traditionalism), the increased conflict may result in more negative and less positive emotions. Hypothesis 2.3. Gender role similarity will be negatively related to negative emotional outcomes and positively related to positive emotional outcomes. Job and Spousal Satisfaction Satisf action with the facets of ones life, such as job satisfaction or relationship satisfaction, is also likely to be affected by the gender role traditionalism of partners in committed relationships. Though relationship outcomes are integral in and of themselves, they are also likely to affect career outcomes th rough many of the mechanisms specified in workfamily spillover models (e.g., Rogers & May, 2003). I expect that career and spousal satisfaction will be affected by the gender role similarity of partners. For instance, similarity within couples has generally been found to lead to increased marital satisfaction (Gaunt, 2006), even though gender role attitudes have not been specifically investigated. Career/Job Satisfaction Career s atisfaction is the overall affective or ientation of an individual toward his or her career or work role (Gattike r & Larwood, 1988). It has been linked to organizational outcomes such as organizational commitment (e.g., Carson Carson, Phillips, & Roe, 1996; Igbaria, 1991) and intentions to leave, or "t urnover intentions" (e.g., Igbaria, 1991). Research has also identified
63 the link between the work-family interface and care er satisfaction (Martins, Eddleston & Veiga, 2002; Powell & Mainiero, 1992), sugges ting that ones career satisf action is not independent of ones family structure and marital relationships. The association between the gender role congruity in ones marriage and ones career satisfaction is likely even more pertinent for dua l-career couples. Because th e division of labor in the typical family model is an important co mponent in career success (Becker, 1981; Papanek, 1973), whether spouses can succeed in both thei r marriage and their career is a key question (Sekaran, 1983). Dual-earning spouses are ofte n more career satisfied than those in the traditional family (Schneer & Reitman, 1993), but this satisfaction may actually be dependent upon the gender role congruity or incongruity th at the individual experiences at home. Thus, whether one is supported in his or her career and feels able to satisfact orily pursue his or her career goals may be dependent upon whether bot h spouses share similar perceptions of appropriate gender roles and norms. Hypothesis 2.4a. Gender role similarity will be positiv ely associated with job satisfaction. Relationship/Family Satisfaction Relationship (e.g., m arital) satisfaction is an attitude of greater or lesser favorability toward ones own [marital] relationships (Symonds and Horvath, 2004, p. 446), and an important outcome to consider because it is relate d to mental and physical health (Gove, Style, & Hughes, 1990) and to the longevity of the union itself It is often considered to be a facet of life satisfaction (Rice, Near & Hunt, 1980). Previ ous research on the effects of gender role traditionalism on relationship satisfaction has be en inconclusive. For instance, Ray (1990) found that spouses who held nontraditional gender role at titudes were higher in marital satisfaction, and Lye and Biblarz (1993) found that nontraditional at titudes toward marriage and family behavior detracted from marital satisfaction, because t hose who held nontraditional attitudes had very
64 different perceptions of marriage than their tr aditional counterparts. Amato and Booth (1995) also found that wives nontraditional attitudes predicted a decline in marital quality while husbands nontraditional attitudes increased marital quality. The inconclusiveness of the previous research on gender role attitudes and satisfaction sugges ts that the congruity between gender role attitudes among partne rs may be what is truly per tinent to predicting relationship satisfaction. It may be that individuals whose gender ro le attitudes diverge from their spouses attitudes are less satisfi ed with their relationships (Lye & Biblarz, 1993). Relationship (e.g., marital) satisfaction is relate d to marital equity (Houlihan, Jackson, & Rogers, 1990; Rabin & Shapira-Berman, 1997; Ray, 1990), but perceptions of marital equity may be norms that are unique to each couple (Houlihan, Jackson, & Roge rs, 1990). If both spouses share expectations of the union, then feelings of equity will likely be shared as well. Those who share gender role attitudes (e.g., both husband and wife with tr aditional gender role attitudes or both with nontraditional gender role attitudes) may derive mo re satisfaction from the norms they create for their relationship, if only becau se they will agree upon the gende r-based division of household labor, market labor, childrearing, etc. Additionally, relationship satisfaction may be predicted by interdependence theory (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959). Interdependence theory suggests that individuals gauge the outcomes they are receiving in their present relationship against a comparison level, or a standard. The satisfaction they experience will be affected by how their current relationship compares to this standard. If a partners current outcomes in the relationship are better than the comparison level, the individual will be satisfie d with the relationship (Dainton, 2000). Thus, it is not an absolute outcome that predicts satisfacti on, rather it is the comparison, a nd the relationship the individual
65 chooses to as a comparison will influence th e satisfaction he or she experiences (Buunk, Oldersma, & de Dreu, 2001). The choice of compar ison other is likely affected by gender role similarity, as similar partners will choose re ferents who meet a commonly held ideal. Hypothesis 2.4b. Gender role similarity will be positiv ely related to spousal/relationship satisfaction. Additionally, I expect that th e effects of gender role similarity on job/life/family satisfaction will be mediated by ones emotiona l outcomes. The relationship between emotions and attitudinal outcomes is predicted by Aff ective Events Theory (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). Emotions are thought to serve as mediators be tween environmental events (e.g., work-family interaction) and attitudinal react ions (e.g., career satisfaction), a nd attitudes have been found to be influenced by affective expe riences (Brief & Weiss, 2002). Hypothesis 2.5. The relationship of gender role sim ilarity with (a) job and (b) spousal satisfaction will be mediated by emotional outcomes, such that when partners have more similar gender role attitudes, individuals will experience more positive emotions (and less negative emotions) and thus increased satisfaction. Work-Family Spillover, Emotions and Satisfaction Finally, to thoroughly test the m odel presente d in Figure 3-1, I need to examine how the relationship between work-family conflict and sa tisfaction is mediated by emotional outcomes on a daily basis. Kossek and Ozeki (1998) reflect th at not being able to do two things at once may be different than feeling bad about it, suggesting that the experience of work-family spillover may be distinct from the emotions stemming from it. The importance of emotional outcomes from work-family conflict has been esta blished throughout the liter ature. For instance, Greenhaus, Allen, and Spector ( 2006) presented a model in wh ich negative emotions were presented as more proximal outcomes of wo rk-family conflict (than negative health
66 consequences), Rothbard (2001) analyzed gene ral emotional responses to negative and positive work-family interaction, and Willia ms & Alliger (1994) found that th e intrusion of one role (e.g., work) into the other (e.g., family) predicted em otional outcomes. Finall y, Livingston and Judge (2008) found that guilt was predic ted by work-family conflict. Research has meta-analytically summarized the relationship between work-family conflict (both work interfering with family and family interfering with work conflict) and satisfaction (Kossek & Ozeki, 1998). This meta-ana lysis concluded that both directions of workfamily conflict reduced job satisfaction and lif e satisfaction for both men and women. When individuals experience conf lict between what they need to do and what they can get done, they likely will feel dissatisfied. If ones family life in terferes with ones ability to complete work on the job, ones job satisfaction will likely be harm ed. Alternatively, if ones work life interferes with ones ability to do what one needs to do at home, ones satisfaction with ones partner will likely suffer. Thus, I expect that work-family co nflict will lead to emotional outcomes, which will then affect ones satisfaction. Hypothesis 2.6. Emotional outcomes, both positive and negative, will mediate the relationship between work-family conflict and satisfaction, such th at individuals who experience more work-family conflict will experience less positive and more negative emotional outcomes, and thus reduced satisfaction. Study 2 Methodology The method and measures for study 2 are described below. Sample Selection Participants in this study were 88 indivi duals (44 heterosexual couples) between 19 and 46 years of age who were either living together or married for between 1 and 18 years (average 3 years together). They were predominately Caucasian (54%), with 21% reporting as Asian-
67 American, 14% as Hispanic and 10% as othe r. As couples, their average income was $48,100, and they each had between 0 and 3 children. Procedure The typical studies in I/O Psychology and Organizational B ehaviors are conducted as between-individual studies (comparing the experiences of on e individual with another), implicitly treating within-individual variation as measurement error. However, this discounts the likely presence of within-individual variation in issues related to work-family pressures, emotion, and relationships (e.g., Judge, Ilies, & Scott, 2006; Williams et al., 1991). Because the outcome variables in the current study are likely to vary within person (e.g., ones work-family outcomes may vary on a daily basis [Judge, Ilies, & Scott, 2006; Livings ton & Judge, 2008]), I collected data on a daily basi s, using an interval-contingent experience-sampling methodology (Ilies & Judge, 2002; Judge, Ilies, & Scott, 2006; Livingston & Judge, 2008), in which participants completed a daily survey, each da y, for a period of 5 days. Participants also completed a one-time survey and had their s pouse/partner complete the one-time and daily surveys as well. One-time survey The one-time survey was administered at the onset of the study, before participants completed any daily surveys. Partic ipants had the choice of online or paper surveys with self-addressed envelopes and were be given a unique ID number to ensure confidentiality and matching of responses with daily and spousal surveys. The one-time survey contained measures of gender role trad itionalism and demographics. The measures included on the onetime survey are described in the measures section. Daily surveys. The daily surveys were provided via the Internet for both work and home surveys, and paper surveys were also provided (a long with self-addressed, stamped envelopes), if
68 desired. The daily surveys cont ained measures of work-family conflict, job and spousal satisfaction and emotions (see measures section below). Measures Below I des cribe the measures included in the two surveys. Gender role traditionalism. I assessed gender role traditio nalism with a scale included in the one-time survey (administered to both partners in a couple), and each partner also assessed what he/she perceived his/her spouses gender ro le traditionalism to be. I employed the Larsen and Long (1988) Traditional-Egalitarian Sex Roles scale. This 20 item measure is also scored on a 5-point Likert type scale (f rom 1=strongly disagree to 5=st rongly agree), and produces and average scale score from 1=nontraditional sex roles to 5=traditional sex roles. This measure has been previously used to assess gender role traditionalism in st udies of work-family conflict and emotions (Livingston & Judge, 2008). Coefficient alpha reliability for self-reported gender role traditionalism is .88 and for perceived gender role traditionalism of ones partner is .91. Control and descriptive variables Additionally, via the one-time survey, I collected demographic data concerning marital status, length of relationship, num ber of children, age, income, and hours worked per week from each person. Work-family spillover: negative I assessed negative work-family spillover (work-family conflict) on the daily survey using Wayne, Musi sca and Fleesons (2004) Work-Family Conflict and Facilitation Scale. The work-to-family conflic t and family-to-work conflict subscales consist of 4 items each, rated from 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree. Example items include, Your job reduced the effort you can give to ac tivities at home, for wo rk-to-family conflict. Coefficient reliability for work-to-family conflic t is .86 and for family-to-work conflict is .78. Emotions: positive and negative. I collected daily emotion scores using the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS-X; Watson & Clar k, 1994). Each day, part icipants indicated
69 whether they were experiencing each emotion at all that day using a 5point scale with anchors 1 = very slightly or not at all to 5 = very much as an assessment of negative and positive momentary emotional outcomes. Coefficient reliab ility for the positive emotions scale is .94 and for the negative emotions scale is .95. Job satisfaction. To assess job satisfaction on the daily survey, I used five items from the Brayfield and Rothe (1951) scale. Each day, partic ipants will indicate the extent to which they agreed with each item using a 1= strongly disagr ee to 5 = strongly agree scale. An example item is, "Today, I am enthusiastic about my work." Coefficient reliability for this scale is .82. Spousal satisfaction. Marital satisfaction was assessed with Mehrabians (1998) 14-item scale on the daily survey. Participants rated thei r satisfaction with their spouse each day on a 5point scale ranging from 1=very di ssatisfied to 5=extremely satisfied. An example item is, I am very happy with my marriage/relat ionship today. The coefficient re liability for this scale is .89. Analyses The model in Figure 3-1 was tested using multi-level analysis and an experiencesampling methodology. I used hierarchical lin ear modeling (HLM; Bryk & Raudenbush, 1992), allowing us to model both within individual and between individual effects. The current design called for three levels of analysis: within indivi dual (level 1), individu al (level 2) and couple (level 3). I used data provided by 32 coupl es, 54 individuals, and 223 repeated measures responses. As in Study 1, I use interactions to assess similarity for Study 2, which are suggested as an alternative to D-scores by Riordan and Wayne (2008). Interactions are allow me to avoid some of the methodological issues associated with using D-scores to assess similarity. In HLM, to estimate the effect of gender role traditiona lism on WFC at Level-1 (da ily), As described in the measures section above, I ran two separate sets of analyses: gender role traditionalism at
70 level 2 and gender role traditionalism at level 3 For the first set of analyses, I entered an individuals self-reported gender role traditionali sm and what he/she perceives his/her partners gender role traditionalism to be (and the grand-mean centered interaction between them) at level 2 (an individuals report is a level 2 variable). For the second set, I ente red the reported gender role traditionalism of both the male and female pa rtners (i.e., their actual attitudes) and their grand-mean centered interaction at the couple le vel (level 3), since th ese are variables that describe the attitudinal makeup of the couple, rather than the reports of an individual. Similarity between partners actual characteri stics is what is propos ed and studied in the assortative mating literature (e.g., Luo & Klohne n, 2005). In this widely studied phenomenon, partners in a couple self-report attitudinal or pe rsonality characteristics, and difference scores, interactions or correl ations then demonstrate how simila r partners in a couple are. This methodology is paralleled by the level 3 inte raction. With attitudinal and personality characteristics, however, it may be even more pertinent to investigate how similar partners perceive each other to be, which is what I assess using the leve l 2 interactions. Interestingly, not gender, age of the indi vidual, number of children, or length of relationship affected my results. These variable s were not entered into the final analyses. I regressed each dependent variableconflict, emotions and satisfactionon gender role traditionalism (either at level 2 or 3) or on conflict, depending upon which hypothesis was being tested. See the Appendix for the equations used to guide data analysis. Before proceeding with the hypotheses test s using HLM, I investigated whether systematic withinand between-individual varian ce existed in the dependent variables of WFC, FWC, positive emotions, negative emotions, job satisfaction, and spousal satisfaction. Thus, I estimated null models (called Random AN OVA models by Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002) that
71 calculated the within and between individual varian ce. The equations for this analysis and for the hypotheses tests are avai lable in the Appendix. To examine the mediating hypotheses, I again us ed the Sobel method of indirect effects. Krull and MacKinnon (1999) suggest that the be st way to test mediation using multi-level analysis is to again use the firs t order Taylor series approximation of the standard error. Thus, for mediating analyses, I report Sobel Z statistics. I also present direct effects of mediation. Results The corre lations and reliability statistics fo r the Level-1 (within-individual), Level-2 (between-individual), and Level-3 (couple) data can be found in Table 3-2. As shown in Table 3-3, the preliminary vari ance analysis illustrated that the Level-2 variance was significant for all si x of the Level-1 dependent vari ables analyzed, and the Level-3 variance was significant for all but one of the Level-1 dependent variables. The significant coefficient estimates indicate that it is appropr iate to examine the multi-level models posited. To test Hypothesis 2.1, I examined the coeffi cients for gender role traditionalism in a three-level multilevel model with the dependent variables of WFC (work-interfering-withfamily conflict) and FWC (family -interfering-with-work conflict) at both level 2 and level 3. All variables were grand-mean centered to reduce multi collinearity before same-level interactions were calculated (when entered at level 2 or 3) and also grand-mean centered when entered at level 1. Hypothesis 2.1 was not entirely suppo rted, as only one coefficient approached significance: the effect of self-ra ted gender role traditionalism at level 2 on work-interferingwith-family conflict (B010=.28, p<.10). Individuals who are mo re traditional than the average experience somewhat greater work-interferingwith-family conflict than those who are less traditional than average. These results are available in Table 3-4.
72 For Hypothesis 2.2, I entered an interaction coefficient calcu lated from the grand-mean centered gender role traditionalism variables used to test Hypothesis 2.1 at either level 2 or level 3. The only interaction that was si gnificant was with work-interfering-with-family for the level-2 interaction (B030=.34, p<.05). This interaction is pres ented graphically in Figure 3-2 and demonstrates that perceived similarity in gende r role traditionalism leads to increased daily work-family conflict. Egalitarian individuals are those that score 1 SD below the mean on gender role traditionalism; traditional individuals are those that score 1 SD above the mean2. Thus, though the coefficient is significant, it is actually in the opposite direction than as predicted. The interaction between partners actual gende r role traditionalism was not significant. For Hypothesis 2.3, I regressed both positive and negative emotions on the same gender role traditionalism interactions as examined in Hypothesis 2. Again, I lo oked at both perceived and actual gender role similarity at levels 2 and 3, respectively. The coefficient for gender role similarity on positive emotions was significant for perceived similarity (B030=-.36, p<.01) and for actual similarity (B003=-.87, p<.01). Interestingly, the interaction plots (s ee Figures 3-3 and 3-4) for these effects demonstrate very different patterns for the perceived and the actual similarity effects. For perceived similarity, there is not a similarity effect for individuals who identify as traditional. Rather, the opposite is true, such that perceived dissimilarity in gender role traditionalism tends to result in increased da ily positive emotional outcomes. For those who report they are egalitarian, howev er, having a perceived egalitarian partner results in increased positive emotions compared to having a perceived traditional partner. For actual similarity, 2 Gender role traditionalism was grand-mean centered for all an alyses (prior to computing interactions). Thus, for all figures, the mean of level 2 GRT = 0.00 and the standard deviation = .60; for level 2 perceived partner GRT, mean=0.00, SD=.75. For level 3, the male partners mean GRT = 0.00, SD=.63, and female partners mean GRT=0.00, SD=.52. All graphs use the same definiti on of egalitarian and traditional (+/1 SD).
73 Hypothesis 2.3 is supported for traditional couples (i.e., actua l similarity in gender role traditionalism leads to increased daily positive emotions), but not for egalitarian couples. For negative emotions, only the coefficient fo r actual similarity (at level 3) approached significance (B003=-.40, p<.10), and the relations hip is identical to th at observed for actual gender role similarity and positive emotions such that Hypothesis 2.3 was supported for traditional partners, but not for egalitarian partners. Results are presented in Table 3-5. To test Hypothesis 2.4a and Hypothesis 2.5a (c oncerning job satisfaction), I first regressed job satisfaction on gender role similarity (at both levels 2 and 3). Hypothesis 2.4a was not supported for perceived gender role traditionalism, not because of in significant results but rather because the results were in an unexpected dire ction (see Table 3-5). Results suggest that for perceived gender role similarity, similar ity results in reduced job satisfaction (B030=-.27, p<.05), such that when one is egalitarian and they perceive their partner as being traditional, they experience high job satisfaction. And when one is traditional and perceives his/her partner as being egalitarian, he/she experiences more job satisfaction on a daily basis than if his/her partner were perceived as traditional. Gr aphical results are available in Figure 3-6, and coefficients are available in Table 3-6. For actual gender role similarity, the results seem to support Hypothesis 2.4a, at least for traditional individuals (B003=-.57). Traditional individuals do tend to experience more job satisfaction when their partners al so self-report as trad itional as opposed to when they self-report as egalitarian. The same is not true for egalitarian individual s. Graphical results for this hypothesis are available in Figure 3-7. The results for Hypothesis 2.5a (for job satisfa ction) are also presen ted in Table 3-6. In Hypothesis 2.5a, I propose that positive and nega tive emotions will mediate the relationship
74 between gender role similarity and job satisfac tion. To assess the presen ce of mediation, I use Sobels test of indirect effects (dir ect effects are reported in Table 3-6). I established the effect of gender role simila rity on emotional outcomes in Hypothesis 2.3; next, I established that the mediating variab lesemotionsare relate d to job satisfaction, controlling for each type of gender role similari ty. When calculating the Sobel statistics using these coefficients, I find that the effects of pe rceived gender role simila rity on job satisfaction was mediated by positive emotions only (Sobel Z = -1.78, p<.05), as was the effect of actual gender role similarity on j ob satisfaction (Sobel Z=-1.79, p<.05). This somewhat supports Hypothesis 2.5a. To test Hypotheses 2.4b and 2.5b, the eff ect of gender role similarity on spousal satisfaction and the mediating effect of daily emotional outcomes on daily spousal satisfaction, I again report Sobel statisti cs (direct effects are reported in Table 3-7). I first regressed spousal satisfaction on gender role similar ity (at both levels 2 and 3) to test Hypothesis 2.4b. Hypothesis 4b was supported for perceived gender role similarity (level 2; B030=.25, p<.05) but not for actual gender role similarity. As is presented in Figur e 3-8, when a person self-r eports as egalitarian and also perceives his/her partne r to be egalitarian, he/she reports much higher daily spousal satisfaction than if the partner is perceived to be traditional. This pattern is the same for traditional couples. The results for Hypothe sis 4b are presented in Table 3-7. The Sobel statistics suggest that only negative daily emotions mediated the effect of actual gender role similarity on spous al satisfaction (Sobel Z=1.50, p<.10) This provides little support for Hypothesis 2.5b. I tested Hypothesis 2.6 by investigating the final component of the model presented in Figure 3-1. I established that wo rk-interfering-with-family each da y was significantly predictive
75 of ones daily negative emotions (B100=.15, p<.05) and family-i nterfering-with-work was significantly predictive of ones daily positive emotions (B200=-.18, p<.05). For the other coefficients needed to run Sobels test, I invest igated whether the mediat ors were significantly related to the dependent variables (controlling fo r work-family conflict), finding that positive and negative emotions predicted job satisfaction and only negative emotions were predictive of spousal satisfaction. Results and direct effect s of mediation are available in Table 3-8. Sobel statistics indicate that negative em otional outcomes mediated the relationship between work-interfering-with-family and job satisfaction (Sobel Z= -1.64, p<.10) and that positive emotional outcomes mediated the relati onship between family-interfering-with-work and job satisfaction (Sobel Z=-1.43, p<.10). Additiona lly, an indirect effect of family-interferingwith-work on job satisfaction was found to exis t through negative daily emotional outcomes as well (Sobel Z=-1.49, p<.10). For inst ance, when individuals experience work that interferes with their family on any given day, they then expe rience increased negative emotional reactions. These negative emotional reactions then se rve to decrease their job satisfaction. For spousal satisfaction, I found that negative emotions signifi cant mediated the effect of work-interfering-with-family conflict on spousal satisfaction (Sobel Z=-1.79, p<.05). Additionally, negative emotions significantly mediated the relationship between familyinterfering-with-work and spousal satisfaction (Sobel Z=-1.46, p< .10). Results are available in Table 3-8, and a graphical depicti on of the significant mediation re sults is available in Figure 39. Study Discussion Study 2 seeks to dem onstrate how gender role si milarity can also affect other work and family outcomes, including emotions and satisfac tion, in an attempt to gauge a more complete view of the validity of the mode l presented in Figure 1-1 (subsets of which were presented in
76 Figures 2-1 and 3-1). Overall, I observed some support for my hypotheses as well as some nonhypothesized effects. There was no observed effect of gender role traditionalism on work-family conflict, which may be because the effects of gender role traditionalism are best observed when two partners interact. The interaction (similarity) effects of gender role traditionalism on outcomes were more strongly supported. I compared tw o methods of constructing sim ilarityperceived and actual in order to determine whether attitudinal sim ilarity might better be assessed by what an individual perceives his or her partner to think versus what the partner actually does think. Traditional assortative mating research uses actu al similarity to predict relationship outcomes, but the current research suggests that perceived similarity might also be important and may result in different results than actual similarity. The first indication of differences that might exist between the two conceptualizations of similarity was found when investigating gender ro le similarity on work-family conflict. Only perceived gender role similarity on work-inter fering-with-family was significant, and actual similarity was not. This may be due to power-rel ated issues, however. Interestingly, the observed relationship between perceived similarity and work-family conflict was not in the expected direction. More similar couples ac tually experienced more work-int erfering-with-family than less similar couples. Though this is unexpected, this relationship may be observed because couples consisting of a partner who perceives him or hers elf as traditional and also perceives his/her partner to be traditional may feel that they do not share the same work-related priorities. The traditional gender role attitude supposes that men will value work and wome n will value home. If this is the case, a man who works all day may feel that his work interferes more with his home
77 life because he has prioritized work. Likewise a traditional woman who perceives her husband as traditional may feel that almost any work she does is interfering with her home duties. The similarity effects on emotions were also contrary to the expected direction, and this time, differences between perceived and actual si milarity were quite pronounced, to the point that contrasting effects of simila rity were observed. Individuals w ho self-report as egalitarian and perceive their partners to also be more egalitarian do experience more positive daily emotions (as expected), but the effect does not translate to traditional individuals. Alternatively, actual similarity in gender role traditionalism resulted in more positive emotions for traditional pairs rather than egalitarian pairs. The same gende r role similarity effect was found for negative emotions, such that trad itional pairs experienced more negative daily emotions. In sum, it seems that couples with two self-pro fessed traditional experience mo re extreme daily emotionsboth positive and negativethan couples consisting of two egalitarians. Why this unexpectedand drasticdifference? It is possible that actual similarity manifests itself via behaviors enacted. It is difficu lt to accurately gauge one s partners attitudes, but those attitudes might result in certain behaviors, which th en affect a persons emotional outcomes. For instance, in both casesnegative and positive emotionswhen both partners are egalitarian, less extreme emotions are experienced. This may be because egalitarianism leads to more openness in negotiating work roles, thus less conflict and unexpected situations that may give rise to extreme positive or negative emotions. Traditional pairs might be less able to flexibly adjust work and family roles, resulting in more extreme negative emotions when that flexibility is needed and more extreme positive emotions when those work and family roles work out well. For job satisfaction, I again obs erve anomalous results and di fferences between actual and perceived similarity. For instance, for perceived gender role similarity, egal itarians tend to report
78 increased job satisfaction when they perceive that their partners are traditional, and traditional individuals report decreased job sa tisfaction regardless of their partners perceived gender role traditionalism. This is potentially because traditi onal individuals feel an increased pressure to keep their work and family lives separate, and wh en focused on work, they feel that they should put work fist. Thus, they tend to ascribe more st rongly to a separate spheres mentalitythat ideal workers are those that can focus on work alone. It is possible that when traditionalist women have jobs, they might attempt to conform to the ideal worker status, working more so to provide and for status, not for enjoyment. Paradoxically, for actual gender role similarity, when a person is a member of a traditional couple (as measured by their self-reported gender role traditionalism), he or she reports more daily job satisfaction. Thus, even though self-reporting tr aditionalists tend to report reduced job satisfaction in the level 2 analysis, when a member of an actual traditionalist couple, they tend to report higher daily job satisfaction. Earlier I noted that the effects of actual gender role attitudes might manifest themselves through behaviors en acted by partners who es pouse those attitudes. Even though traditional individuals might feel incr eased pressure in their work role, when both partners feel that pressure, they might actually be more supportive of each others in their jobs. When your partner is traditional, he or she may understand the focus you feel you should put on your job and show increased support. This support and understanding may then result in increased job satisfaction. The mediation results in this study demons trate that emotions canand doexplain how gender role similarity and work-f amily conflict affect satisfacti on. Greenhaus, Allen and Spector (2006) proposed that emotions would act as more proximal outcomes of work-family conflict than satisfaction, and the curre nt research supports that proposition with daily data.
79 Table 3-1. Summary of hypotheses and measures used in Study 2 Hypotheses Which measures used? What survey? Hypothesis 2.1: Gender role traditionalism will be positively related to work-family conflict (negative spillover). (1) Traditional-Egalitarian Sex Roles (2) Work-family Conflict and Facilitation Scale (1) One-time (2) Daily Hypothesis 2.2: Partners with dissimilar gender role attitudes will experience more work-family conflict than will similar partners. (1) Traditional-Egalitarian Sex Roles (2) Work-family Conflict and Facilitation Scale (1) One-time (2) Daily Hypothesis 2.3: Gender role similarity will be (a) negatively related to negative emotional outcomes and (b) positively related to positive emotional outcomes. (1) Traditional-Egalitarian Sex Roles (2) Work-family Conflict and Facilitation Scale (3) Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (1) One-time (2) Daily (3) Daily Hypothesis 2.4a: Gender role similarity will be positively associated with job satisfaction. (1) Traditional-Egalitarian Sex Roles (2) Job satisfaction (1) One-time (2) Daily Hypothesis 2.4b: Gender role similarity will be positively related to spousal/relationship satisfaction. (1) Traditional-Egalitarian Sex Roles (2) Spousal satisfaction (1) One-time (2) Daily Hypothesis 2.5: The relationship of gender role similarity with (a) job and (b) spousal satisfaction will be mediated by emotional outcomes, such that when partners have more similar gender role attitude s, individuals will experience more positive emotions (and less negative emotions) and thus increased satisfaction. (1) Traditional-Egalitarian Sex Roles (2) Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (3) Job satisfaction (4) Spousal satisfaction (1) One-time (2) Daily (3) Daily (4) Daily Hypothesis 2.6: Emotional outcomes, both positive and negative, will mediate the relationship between workfamily conflict and satisfaction, such that individuals who experience more work-family conflict will experience less positive and more negative emotional outcomes, and thus reduced satisfaction. (1) Work-family Conflict and Facilitation Scale (2) Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (3) Job satisfaction (4) Spousal satisfaction (1) Daily (2) Daily (3) Daily (4) Daily
80 Table 3-2. Correlations and reliabil ity coefficients: Levels 1, 2 and 3 Level 1: 1234 56 1.Work-interfering-with -family conflict (.86) 2. Family-interfering-with-work conflict .53**(.78) 3. Negative emotional outcomes .28**.24**(.95) 4. Positive emotional outcomes -.10 -.13* -.06 (.94) 5. Job satisfaction -.30**-.28**-.25**.26** (.82) 6. Spousal satisfaction -.25**-.33**-.43** .12* .20**(.89) Level 2: 12 1. Gender role traditionalism (.88) 2. Perceived gender role traditionalism of partner .46**(.91) Level 3: 1234 1. Gender role tradi tionalism of male partner (.88) 2. Gender role traditionalism of female partner .49**(.88) 3. Males perceived gender role traditionalism of partner .51**.53**(.91) 4. Females perceived gender role traditionalism of partner .58**.63**.50**(.91) Notes: ** p<.01, *p<.05, p<.10
81 Table 3-3. Variance analyses for Study 2 Variance components WFC FWC Positive Emotions Negative Emotions Job Sat Spouse Sat Level 1 2 .71 .27 .44 .37 .28 .06 Level 2 00 .42** .31**.26**.26** .17** .11** Level 3 u00 .13 .13* .20** .04 .06 .21** Intraclass correlation between persons .33 .44 .29 .55 .33 .29 Intraclass correlation between couples .10 .18 .22 .06 .12 .55 Notes: Intraclass correlation is calculated as 00 (u00)/( 2+ 00+u00). p < .05, p < .10
82 Table 3-4. Results for Hypotheses 2.1 and 2.2 Variable Coefficient Symbol Work-interfering-with-family Intercept 2.88**B000 (level 2) Self-rated GRT .28 B010 (level 2) Perceived GRT of partner -.05 B020 (level 2) GRTxGRT .34* B030 Intercept 2.78**B000 (level 3) Mans self-rated GRT -.11 B001 (level 3) Womans self-rated GRT .24 B002 (level 3) GRTxGRT .35 B003 Family-interfering with work Intercept 2.43**B000 (level 2) Self-rated GRT .05 B010 (level 2) Perceived GRT of partner .11 B020 (level 2) GRTxGRT -.06 B030 Intercept 2.45**B000 (level 3) Mans self-rated GRT .05 B001 (level 3) Womans self-rated GRT .10 B002 (level 3) GRTxGRT .37 B003 Notes: **p<.01,* p<.05, p<.10; coefficients for nonproduct terms are from a model without the product included.
83 Table 3-5. Results for Hypothesis 2.3 Variable Coefficient Symbol Positive emotions Intercept 3.03** B000 (level 2) Self-rated GRT .08 B010 (level 2) Perceived GRT of partner -.39** B020 (level 2) GRTxGRT -.36** B030 Intercept 7.81** B000 (level 3) Mans self-rated GRT 1.47* B001 (level 3) Womans self-rated GRT 2.44* B002 (level 3) GRTxGRT -.87** B003 Negative emotions Intercept 1.76** B000 (level 2) Self-rated GRT .38 B010 (level 2) Perceived GRT of partner -.20 B020 (level 2) GRTxGRT -.19 B030 Intercept 3.86* B000 (level 3) Mans self-rated GRT .94 B001 (level 3) Womans self-rated GRT 1.04 B002 (level 3) GRTxGRT -.40 B003 Notes: **p<.01,* p<.05, p<.10
84 Table 3-6. Results for Hypothese s 2.4a and 2.5a: Job satisfaction Variable Coefficient Symbol Intercept 3.32** B000 (level 2) Self-rated GRT -.15 B010 (level 2) Perceived GRT of partner -.00 B020 (level 2) GRTxGRT -.27* B030 Intercept 6.57** B000 (level 3) Mans self-rated GRT 1.09* B001 (level 3) Womans self-rated GRT 1.42* B002 (level 3) GRTxGRT -.57* B003 Intercept 3.32** B000 (level 2) Self-rated GRT -.10 B010 (level 2) Perceived GRT of partner .05 B020 (level 2) GRTxGRT -.25* B030 Negative emotions -.23** B100 Positive emotions .19* B200 Intercept 6.21** B000 (level 3) Mans self-rated GRT 1.06* B001 (level 3) Womans self-rated GRT 1.23 B002 (level 3) GRTxGRT -.51 B003 Negative emotions -.25** B100 Positive emotions .18* B200 Notes: **p<.01,* p<.05, p<.10
85 Table 3-7. Results for Hypothese s 2.4b and 2.5b: Spousal satisfaction Variable Coefficient Symbol Intercept 3.93** B000 (level 2) Self-rated GRT -.38* B010 (level 2) Perceived GRT of partner .05 B020 (level 2) GRTxGRT .25* B030 Intercept 4.50** B000 (level 3) Mans self-rated GRT -.36 B001 (level 3) Womans self-rated GRT -.47 B002 (level 3) GRTxGRT -.07 B003 Intercept 3.95** B000 (level 2) Self-rated GRT -.33** B010 (level 2) Perceived GRT of partner .05 B020 (level 2) GRTxGRT .26* B030 Negative emotions -.18** B100 Positive emotions .00 B200 Intercept 4.91** B000 (level 3) Mans self-rated GRT -.19 B001 (level 3) Womans self-rated GRT .67 B002 (level 3) GRTxGRT -.15 B003 Negative emotions -.18** B100 Positive emotions .00 B200 Notes: **p<.01,* p<.05, p<.10
86 Table 3-8. Results for Hypothesis 2.6: J ob satisfaction and spousal satisfaction Variable Coefficient Symbol Positive emotions Intercept 2.85**B000 WFC -.01 B100 FWC -.18* B200 Negative emotions Intercept 1.57**B000 WFC .15* B100 FWC .09 B200 Job satisfaction Intercept 3.34**B000 WFC -.16**B100 FWC -.13 B200 Positive emotions .18* B300 Negative emotions -.17* B400 Spousal satisfaction Intercept 4.08**B000 WFC -.04 B100 FWC -.05 B200 Positive emotions -.01 B300 Negative emotions -.17**B400 Notes: **p<.01,* p<.05, p<.10
87 Gender Role Traditionalism Gender Role Traditionalism Work-family Conflict Emotional Outcomes Job and Spousal Satisfaction Job and Spousal Satisfaction Work-family Conflict Emotional Outcomes Women Men Figure 3-1. Hypothesized relationships among variables examined in Study 2 Figure 3-2. Hypothesis 2: Percei ved gender role similarity an d work-interfering-with-family conflict
88 Figure 3-3. Hypothesis 2: Pe rceived gender role similarity and positive emotions Figure 3-4. Hypothesis 3: Actual gender role similarity and positive emotions
89 Figure 3-5. Hypothesis 3: Actual gender ro le similarity and negative emotions Figure 3-6. Hypothesis 4a: Perceived gender role similarity a nd job satisfaction
90 Figure 3-7. Hypothesis 4a: Actual gender role similarity and job satisfaction Figure 3-8. Hypothesis 4b: Perceived gender role similarity and spousal satisfaction
91 Workinterferingwith-family Positive emotions Job satisfaction Familyinterferingwith-work Negative emotions Spousal satisfaction .15 -.18 .18 -.17 -.17 -.16 -.13 Figure 3-9. Approximated mediation model to te st Hypothesis 6 (only significant paths are reported)
92 CHAPTER 4 CONCLUSION AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS Conclusion The gender role traditionalism of partners and the similarity between them are characteristics that have important implicati ons for career and family outcomes. These two studies demonstrate that the congruity between pa rtners gender role traditionalism predict how partners negotiate, the work-family conflict they experience, and the emotions and job satisfaction they report on a daily basis. Though ge nder roles have been inve stigated in numerous studies as predictors of family and work outcomes (e.g., Hochschil d, 1989; Becker & Moen, 1999; Moen & Sweet, 2003), looking at gender role traditionalism as a characteristic of the family unit allows for more consistent predictions of the decisions and behaviors of couples in both the family and work spheres. Strengths and Limitations This set of studies has a num ber of stre ngths. The first study uses an established conceptualization of negotiation from the organizational negotiation literature to frame the negotiation habits of inti mate partners. The dual-concern model helped to establish the different types of strategies employed by men and women when negotiating emotional and career roles with their spouses and also when men and wome n may differ in the stra tegies they choose, depending upon their gender role traditionalism a nd that of their partner. Bowles and McGinn (2008) noted that investigating the behind-thescenes family negotiation tactics might be informative for furthering the organizational ne gotiation literature, and Study 1 establishes that the negotiations that occur between partners ma y affect how one negotiates on the job and for what benefits.
93 Likewise, Study 1 demonstrates that the negotiation tactic s employed by individuals in relationships predict the stress both in the relationship and on the jobthat an individual experiences. Lee and Ashforth (1996) found that emotional exhaustion was significantly related to turnover intentions and other important on-the-job outcomes, suggesting that it might be of organizational importance to consider what ha ppens off the job between employees and their partners. With that said, Study 1 has many limitati ons. Issues of nonindependence and 3-way interactions required the sample to be divided by gender for most analyses reducing the power to find significant results. Thus, it is possible that many of the nonsignificant results reported may be due to low power and not because a relationship does not exist. Additionally, though the variables investigated were tem porally separated, the data we re still submitted by one person, thus I was unable to verify negotiation tactic s by asking the same question of ones partner. Ideally, future research would utilize interviews or descriptions to verify tactics and gather couple-level data to supplement self-reported data on gender role traditionalism and negotiation tactics. Study 2 is important because it demonstrates the effect of gender role similarity on partners daily experiences regard ing home and work. Thus, not only is gender role similarity an important construct when consider ing how couples negotiate their work and emotional roles, but Study 2 demonstrates that gender role similarity also plays a role in predicting work-family conflict, emotions and satisfaction on a daily basis. Study 2 employs a daily multi-level methodology that takes into consid eration the shared variance w ithin a person and the shared variance within a couple. This is an appropria te methodology to examine the effects of couple-
94 level variables (and individual-level variables) on daily outcomes a nd is a strength of the current study. Another significant strength of Study 2 is that it demonstrates the issues that may arise when measuring and assessing sim ilarity, depending upon whether one uses perceived similarity or actual similarity. Though researchers in the family literature, especially those studying assortative mating, mostly assess actual similar ity, some researchers in the medical and pain domain have demonstrated the ve ry real effects of perceived spousal atti tudes and behaviors (e.g., Grant, Long & Willms, 2002). My research de monstrates that differences in conclusions may be drawn dependent upon ones operationaliz ation of similarity, making it even more important to choose a theoretically rele vant calculation when studying similarity. Study 2 is also, however, hampered by relativ ely low sample sizes, which decreases the power available to find significant results, especially when consid ering interactions. This makes it difficult to conclude that the nonsignificant results observed in certain cases actually demonstrate a lack of relationship. Ideally, furthe r research would investigate more couples from a more varied population. Practical Implications The findings in these two studies have prac tica l implications for individuals and for organizations. When considering the career plan ning and family planning processes, one must take into consideration all the e xpected options that one will ha ve. Individuals may not think to discuss their gender role attitude s with potential spouses prior to entering into marriage, which may potentially lead to undesired outcomes. For in stance, if a woman with nontraditional gender role attitudes, and thus potentially more ambitious career plans than a more traditional woman, marries a man with more traditional attitudes to ward gender roles, the role negotiation process may be more contentious for th is couple, leading to less satis factory division of roles.
95 Likewise, as organizations often acknowledge the importance of considering the spouse when making offers such as relocation o ffers (Brett & Werbel, 1980; Kanter, 1977), organizations would be well-served to recogn ize that career outcomes may be accepted and rejected based on the power dynamic within th e household of the employee. Additionally, the employee job satisfaction that organizations are interested in measuri ng may be affected by situations outside of the organi zations control (e.g., ones partne r or spouse). Recognition of the interplay that exists between work and fam ily, and between husband and wife, could help organizations to better understand the decision-making process of employees, as well as to gauge what organizations can do to better accommodate their employees. As evidenced by the lack of family-support options employed by most orga nizations, many companies may overlook the importance of the spousal dynamic in the career decisions of their employees. Research to the contrary may encourage organizations to be more aware of the holistic natu re of their employees, understanding that the career decisions of empl oyees are likely to not be made in a vacuum. Thus, future research would be well-served to in vestigate how the interactions between partners at home affect the choices that individuals make at work. Additionally, the intera ctions observed between partners in intimate couples may help inform us on other close relationships that exist within workplaces, including mentor/protg, advisor/advisee, leader/follower or coworkers. Dyadic research is important, but not often utilized in workplace contexts, as often the dyad is discussed as theoretically important, but the interactions between partners in a dyad are not investigated toge ther. Future rese arch could tell us whether the conceptualizations in the current research (e.g., gender role/attitudinal similarity and negotiation tactics) can help explain how other types of close dyads interact with and affect one another.
96 APPENDIX EQUATIONS FOR STUDY 2 MULTILEVEL ANALYSES Rando m ANOVA Model Yit = work-interfering-with-family of individual i at instance t; family-i nterfering-with-work of individual i at instance t; work-to-family positive sp illover of individual i at instance t; family-to-work positive spillover of individual i at instance t; emotions of individual i at instance t; job satisfaction of individual i at instance t; family sa tisfaction of indivi dual i at instance t; life sa tisfaction of individual i at instance t Level-1 Yit = 0i + eit Level-2 0i = 00 + r0i HLM Means as Outcomes Model (Hypotheses 2.1-2.4) Yit = work-to-family negative spillove r of individual i at instance t; fa mily-to-work negative spillover of individual i at instance t; negative emotions of indi vidual i at instance t; positive emotions of individual i at instance t; job satisfaction of i ndividual i at instance t; spousal satis faction of individual i at instance t Xi = gender role attit udes of individual i Oi = gender role attitudes of individual i's partner Level-1 Yit = 00i + eit Level-2 (if perceived interactions) 00i = 00 + 01 Xi + 02 Qi + 03 Xi Qi +r0i Level-3 (if actual interactions) 00i = 00 + 01 Xi + 02 Qi + 03 Xi Qi +r0i HLM Intercepts as Outcomes Model (Hypothesis 2.5) Yit = job satisfaction of individual i at instance t; spousal satisfaction of individual i at instance t Xi = gender role attit udes of individual i Oi = gender role attitudes of individual i's partner Pit = positive emotions of individual i at instance t Nit = negative emotions of individual i at instance t Level-1
97 Yit = 00i + 10i Pit + 20i Nit + eit Level-2 (if perceived interactions) 00i = 00 + 01 Xi + 02 Qi + 03 Xi Qi +r0i Level-3 (if actual interactions) 00i = 00 + 01 Xi + 02 Qi + 03 Xi Qi +r0i HLM Random Regression Coefficients Model (Hypothesis 2.6) Yit = job satisfaction of individual i at instance t; spousal satisfaction of individual i at instance t Pit = positive emotions of individual i at instance t Nit = negative emotions of individual i at instance t Wit = work-interfering-with-family of individual i at instance t Fit = family-interfering-with-work of individual i at instance t Level-1 Yit = 00i + 10i Pit + 20i Nit + 30i Wit + 40i Fit + eit Level-2 00i = 000 + r0i 10i = 100 + r1i 20i = 200 + r2i 30i = 300 + r2i 40i = 400 + r2i
98 LIST OF REFERENCES Ada ms, G. A., King, L. A., & Ki ng, D. W. (1996). Relationships of job and family involvement, family social support, and workfamily conflict with job and life satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81 411. Amato, P. R., & Booth, A. (1995). Changes in gender role attitudes and perceived marital quality. American Sociological Review, 60 58-66. Aryee, S. (1992). Antecedents and outcomes of work-family conflict am ong married professional women: Evidence from Singapore. Human Relations, 45, 813-837. Aryee, S., Luk, V., Leung, A. & Lo, S. (1999). Role stressors, interrole co nflict and well-being: An examination of the effects of spouse support and coping be haviors among employed parents. Journal of Vocational Behavior 54, 259-278 Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence Boston: Beacon. Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2005). The crossover of burnout and work engagement among working coupl es. Human Relations, 58, 661-690. Barling, J., MacEwen, K. E., Kelloway, E. K., & Higginbottom, S. F. (1994). Predictors and outcomes of elder-care-bas ed interrole conflict. Psychology and Aging, 9 391. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The modera tor-mediator variable di stinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, stra tegic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182. Bartley, S. J., Blanton, P. W., & Gilliard, J. L. (2005). Husbands and wives in dual-earner marriages: Decision-making, gender role attitudes, division of household labor and equity. Marriage & Family Review, 37 69-94. Beavers, W. R. (1982). Healthy, midrange, and severely dysfunctional families. In F. Walsh (Ed.), Normal family processes (pp. 45-66). New York: Guilford. Becker, G. S. (1981). A treatise on the family Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Becker, P. E., & Moen, P. (1999). Scaling back : Dual-earner couples work-family strategies. Journal of Marriage and the Family 61, 995-1007. Beere, C. A., King, D. W., Beere, D. B., & Ki ng, L. A. (1984). The Sex-Role Egalitarianism Scale: A measure of attitudes towa rd equality between the sexes. Sex Roles, 10 563-576. Berk, F. S. (1985). The gender factory New York: Plenum. Bittman, M., England, P., Folbre, N., Sayer, L. C., & Matheson, G. (2003). When does gender trump money? Bargaining and time in household work. American Journal of Sociology 109, 186-214.
99 Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1964), Managing intergroup conflict in history Gulf Publishing Company. Bond, J.T., Thompson, C. Galinsky, E & Prottas, D. (2003). Highlights of the national study of the 2002 changing workforce New York: Families and Work Institute. Bowles, H. R. and McGinn, K. L. (2008). Untapp ed potential in the study of negotiation and gender inequality in organizations. In J. Walsh and A. Brief (Eds.) Academy of Management Annals, 2, 99-132 Brayfield, A. H., & Rothe, H. F. (1951). An index of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 35, 307-311. Brett, J. M., & Werbel, J. D. (1980). The effect of job transfer on employees and their families Washington, D.C.: Employee Relocation Counsel. Brief, A. P., & Weiss, H. M. (2002). Organizational behavior: Affect at work. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 279-307. Brines, J. (1994). Economic dependency, gende r, and the division of labor at home. The American Journal of Sociology 100, 652-688. Brotheridge, C. M., & Lee, R. T. (2003). Deve lopment and validation of the emotional labour scale. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76 365-379. Brown, L.M. and Gilligan, C. (1992) Meeting at the crossroads: Women's psychology and girls' development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models for social and behavioural research: Applications and data analysis methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2007). Women in the labor force: A databook Washington, D. C.: U.S. Department of Labor. Buunk, B.P., Oldersma, F.L., & de Dreu, C. K. W. (2001). Enhanci ng satisfaction through downward comparison: The role of relational discontent and individu al differences in social comparison orientation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 37, 452 Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm New York: Academic Press. Campbell, D. J., & Campbell, K. M. (1994). The effects of family responsibilities on the work commitment and job performance of non-professional women. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67, 283-296. Carlson, D. S. & Kacmar, K. M. (2000). Work-fam ily conflict in the organi zation: Do life role values make a difference? Journal of Management 26 (5), 1031-1054.
100 Carlson, D. S., Kacmar, K. M., & Williams, L. J. (2000). Construction and initial validation of a multi-dimensional measure of work-family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior 56 (2), 249-276. Carson, K. D., Carson, P. P., Phillips, J. S., & Ro e, C. W. (1996). A career entrenchment model: Theoretical development and empirical outcomes. Journal of Career Development 22 273-286. Coltrane, S. (1989). Household labor and the routine production of gender. Social Problems, 36 473-490. Coltrane, S. (2000). Research on household la bor: Modeling and measuring the social embeddedness of routine family work. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62 12081233. Cropanzano, R., Rupp, D. E., & Byrne, Z. S. ( 2003). The relationship of emotional exhaustion to job performance ratings and orga nizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88 (1), 160-169. Curhan, J. R., Neale, M. A., Ross, L., & Rosencranz-Engelmann, J. (2008). Relational accommodation in negotiation: Effects of egalitarianism and gender on economic efficiency and relational capital. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 107, 192-205. Dabholkar, P.A., Johnston, W.J. & Cathey, A.S. (1994). The dynamics of long-term business-tobusiness exchange relationships. Journal of the Academy of Management Science, 22 130-145. Dainton, M. (2000). Maintenance behaviors, expectations, and satis faction: Linking the comparison level to relational maintenance. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 17, 827-842 Davis, K. & van den Oever, P. (1982). Demographic foundations of new sex roles. Population and Development Review 8, 495-511. De Dreu, C. K. W., & Boles, T. L. (1998). Sh are and share alike or winner take all? The influence of social value orientation upon choice and recall of ne gotiation heuristics. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76, 253-276. De Dreu, C. K. W., Giebels, E., & Van de V liert, E. (1998). Social motives and trust in integrative negotiation: Disruptive effects of punitive capability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 408-422. DeDreu, C. K. W., and McCusker C. (1997). Gain-loss frames and cooperation in two person social dilemmas: A transformational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1093-1106.
101 Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B., Nachreiner, F ., & Schaufeli, W.B. (2001). The job demandsresources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86 499-512. DeVault, M. (1991). Feeding the family: The social organi zation of caring as gendered work Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DiBenedetto, B., & Tittle, C. K. (1990). Gender a nd adult roles: Role commitment of women and men in a job-family trade-off context. Journal of Counseling Psychology 37, 41-48. Eagly, A. (1987). Sex differences in social behavi or: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Eagly, A. H., & Steffen, V. J. (1984). Gender ster eotypes stem from the distribution of women and men into social roles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46 735-754. Eby, L. T., Casper, W. J., Lockwood, A., Bordeaux, C., & Brinley, A. (2005). Work and family research in IO/OB: Content analysis and review of the literature (1980-2002). Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 124-197. Ekman, P. (1984). Expression and the nature of emotion. In K. Scherer & P. Ekman (eds). Approaches to Emotion (pp. 319-344) Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Elder, G. H. (1994). Time, human agency, and so cial change: perspectiv es on the life course. Social Psychology Quarterly 57, 4-15. Erickson, R. J. (1993). Reconceptualizing family work: The effect of emotion work on perceptions of marital quality. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 55, 888-900. Erickson, R. J. (2005). Why emotion work matt ers: Sex, gender and th e division of household labor. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67 337-351. Ferber, M., & Kordick, B.(1978). Sex differe ntials in the earnings of Ph.D.s. Industrial and Labor Relations Review 31, 227-238. Ferree, M.M. (1991). The gender division of labor in two-earner families. Journal of Family Issues, 12 158. Fisher, C. D. (2000). Moods and emotions while working: Missing pieces of job satisfaction? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21 185-202. Fisher, R. & Ury, B. (1981). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Fitness, J. (2000). Anger in th e workplace: An emotion script approach to anger episodes between workers and their superior s, co-workers and subordinates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21 147-162.
102 Ford, M. T., Heinen, B. A., & Langkamer, K. L. (2007). Work and family satisfaction and conflict: A Meta-analysis of cross-domain relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92 57-80. Frone, M. R., Yardley, J. K., & Markel, K. S. (1997). Developing and testing an interactive model of the wor kfamily interface. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50, 145-167. Frye, N. K., & Breaugh, J. A. (2004). Family-frie ndly policies, supervisor support, work-family conflict, family-work conflict, and satisfa ction: A test of a conceptual model. Journal of Business and Psychology, 19, 197-220. Galinsky, A. D., Ku, G. & Wang, C. S. (2005). Pe rspective-taking: Fostering social bonds and facilitating social coordination. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 8 109-125. Galinsky, A. D., & Moskowitz, G. B., (2000). Counterfactuals as behavi oral primes: Priming the simulation heuristic and the consideration of alternatives. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 357-383. Galinsky, A. D., Wang, C. S., & Ku, G. (in press). Perspective-takers behave more stereotypically. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Gattiker, U. E., & Larwood, L. (1988). Predictors for managers' career mobility, success, and satisfaction. Human Relations, 41, 569-591. Gaunt, R. (2006). Couple similarity and marital satisfaction: Are similar spouses happier? Journal of Personality, 74, 1401-1420. Goode, W. J. (1960). A theory of role strain. American Sociol ogical Review 25, 483-496. Googins, B. K. (1991). Work/family conflicts: Private lives-public responses New York: Auburn House. Gove, W. R., Style, C. B., & Hughes, M. (1990) The effect of marriag e on the well-being of adults. Journal of Family Issues, 11, 4-35. Grandey, A. A. (2003). When "the show must go on": Surface acting and deep acting as determinants of emotional exhaustio n and peer-rated service delivery. Academy of Management Journal, 46 86-96. Grandey, A., & Cropanzano, R. (1999). The conser vation of resources model and work-family conflict and strain. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54 350. Grant, L. D., Long, B. C., & Willms, J. D. (2002). Women's adaptation to chronic back pain: Daily appraisals and coping strategies, pers onal characteristics a nd perceived spousal responses. Journal of Health Psychology, 7 545-564.
103 Graziano, W. G., & Eisenberg, N. (1997). Agreeableness: A dimension of personality. In S. Briggs, R. Hogan, & W. Jones (Eds.), Handbook of Personality Psychology (pp. 795 824). San Diego: Academic Press. Greenberger, E., & ONeil, R. (1990). Parents concerns about their childs development: Implications for fathers and mothers well-being and attitudes toward work. Journal of Marriage and Family 52 621-635. Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Source s of conflict between work and family roles. The Academy of Management Review 10, 76-88. Greenhaus, J. H., Allen, T. D., & Spector, P. E. (2006). Health consequences of work-family conflict: The dark side of the work-family inte rface. In Perrewe, P. L., & Ganster, D. C. (Eds.), Research in occupational stress and well-being (Volume 5; 61-98). Amsterdam: JAI Press/Elsevier. Greenhaus, J. H., Collins, K. M., Singh, R., & Parasuraman, S. (1997).Work and family influences on departure from public accounting. Journal of Vocational Behavior 50, 249270. Greenstein T. N. (1996). Husband s participation in domestic labor : Interactive effects on wives and husbands gender ideologies. Journal of Marriage and Family 58, 585. Higgins, C. A., Duxbury, L. E., & Irving, R. H. (1992). Work-family conflic t in the dual-career family. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 51, 51-75. Hill, E. J., Yang, C., Hawkins, A. J., & Ferris, M. (2004). A cross-cultural test of the workfamily interface in 48 countries. Journal of Marriage and Family 66, 1300-1316. Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Hochschild, A. R. (1989). The second shift: Working parents and the revolution at home New York: Viking. Houlihan, M. M., Jackson, J., & Rogers, T. R. (1990). Decision maki ng of satisfied and dissatisfied married couples. The Journal of Social Psychology 130, 89-102. Igbaria, M. (1991). Job performance of MIS prof essionals: An examination of the antecedents and consequences. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 8, 141-171. Ilies, R., & Judge, T. A. (2002). Understand ing the dynamic relationships among personality, mood, and job satisfaction: A fi eld experience sampling study. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89, 1119-1139. Iyigun, M., & Walsh, R. P. (2007). Endogenous ge nder power, household la bor supply and the demographic transition. Journal of Development Economics, 82, 138.
104 John, O. P. (1990). The "Big Five" factor taxonomy : Dimensions of personality in the natural language and questionnaires. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.) Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 66-100) New York: Guilford Press. Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E., & Thoresen, C. J. (2003). The Core Self-Evaluations Scale (CSES): Development of a measure. Personnel Psychology, 56 303. Judge, T. A., Ilies, R., & Scott, B. A. (2006). Work-family conflict and emotions: Effects at work and at home. Personnel Psychology 59, 779-814. Judge, T. A., & Livingston, B. A. (in press). Is the gap more than gender? A longitudinal analysis of gender, gender ro le orientation, and income. Journal of Applied Psychology Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P., S noek, J. D., & Rosenthal, R. A. (1964). Organizational stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. Oxford, England: John Wiley. Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation New York: Basic Books. Kinnunen, U., & Gerris, J. (1996). Work experi ences and family functioning among employed fathers with children of school age. Family Relations 45, 449-455. Kinnunen, U., & Mauno, S. (1998). Antecedents and outcomes of work-family conflict among employed women and men in Finland. Human Relations, 51, 157-177. Klein, W., Izquierdo, C., & Bradbury, T.N. ( 2007). Working relationships: Communicative patterns and strategies among couples in everyday life. Qualitative Methods in Psychology, 4 29-47. Kopelman, S., Rosette, A., and Thompson, L. (2006). The three faces of eve: Strategic displays of positive neutral and negative emotions in negotiations. Organization Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 99, 81-101. Kossek, E. E., & Ozeki, C. (1998). Work-family c onflict, policies, and th e job-life satisfaction relationship: A review and directions fo r organizational behavior-human resources research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83 139. Kossek, E. E. & Ozeki, C.(1999). Bridging the work-family policy and productivity gap. International Journal of Community, Work, and Family 2, 7-32. Kray, L. J., Rebb, J., Galinsky, A. D., & Thompson, L. (2004). Stereotype reactance at the bargaining table: The effect of stereotype activation and power on claiming and creating value. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30 399-411. Kray, L., Thompson, L., & Galinsky, A. (2001). Th e gender gap in negotiations: An exploration of stereotype confirmation, regeneration, and reactance. Society of Experimental Social Psychology. Spokane, WA.
105 Lankau, M. J., Ward, A., Amason, A., Ng, T., Sonnenfeld, J. A., & Agle, B. R. (2007). Examining the impact of organizational valu e dissimilarity in top management teams. Journal of Management Issues, 19, 11-34. Larsen, K. S., & Long, E. (1988). Attitudes towa rd sex-roles: Tradit ional or egalitarian? Sex Roles, 19, 1-12. Lee, R. T., & Ashforth, B. E. (1996). A meta-ana lytic examination of the correlates of the three dimensions of job burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81 123-133. Lewis, K. M. (2000). When leaders display emotion: How followers respond to negative emotional expression of male and female leaders. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 221-234. Livingston, B. A., & Judge, T. A. (2008). Emo tional responses to work-family conflict: An examination of gender role orientation among working women. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93 207-216. Livingston, M. M., Burley, K., & Springer, T. P. (1996). The importance of being feminine: Gender, sex role, occupational and marital role commitment, and their relationship to anticipated work-family conflict. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality 11, 179192. Lobel, S. A. (1991). Allocation of investment in work and family roles alternative theories and implications for research. Academy of Management Review 16 507-521. Luo, S., & Klohnen, E. C. (2005). Assortative mating and marital quality in newlywed: A couple-centered approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 304. Lye, D. N., & Biblarz, T. J. (1993). The effect s of attitudes toward gamily life and gender roles on marital satisfaction. Journal of Family Issues 14, 157-188. MacDermid, S. M., Seery, B. L., & Weiss, H. M. (2002). An emotional examination of the workfamily interface. In R. Lord, R. Klimoski, & R. Kanfer (Eds.), Emotions in the workplace (pp. 402-427). Hoboken, NJ: Jossey-Bass. Mannino, C. A., & Deutsch, F. M. (2007). Ch anging the Division of Household Labor: A Negotiated Process Between Partners. Sex Roles, 56 309-324. Martins, L. L., Eddleston, K. A., & Veiga, J. F. (2002). Moderators of the relationship between work-family conflict and career satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 399409. Maslach, C. (1976). Burned-out. Human Behavior, 5, 16-22. Maslach, C. (1982). Understanding burnout: De finitional issues in analyzing a complex phenomenon. In W. S. Paine (Ed.), Job stress and burnout (pp.29-40). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
106 Maslach, C., Jackson, S. E., & Leiter, M. P. (1996). The Maslach Burnout Inventory (3rd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Mehrabian, A. (1998). Manual for a comprehensive system of measures of emotional states: The PAD Model Miller, V. D., & Jablin, F. M. (1996). The ma ternity leave as a role negotiation process. Journal of Managerial Issues 8, 286-309. Moen, P. & Sweet, S. (2003). Time clocks: Couples work hour strategies. In P. Moen (Ed.), It is about time: Couples and careers (pp. 17-34). Ithaca, N.Y.: ILR Press. Netemeyer, R. G., Boles, J. S., & McMurrian, R. (1996). Development and validation of workfamily conflict and family-work conflict scales. Journal of Applied Psychology 81, 400410. Papanek, H. (1973). Men, women, and work: Reflections on the two-person career. American Journal of Sociology 78 852. Parasuraman, S., & Greenhaus, J. H. (2002). Toward reducing some critical gaps in work-family research. Human Resource Management Review 12, 299-312. Peyton, R. M., Pitts, S., & Kamery, R. H. (2003). A review of significant consumer satisfaction/dissatisfaction models: The family decision-making process. In Proceedings of the Academy of Family Business 1, 3-8. Pleck, J. H. (1987). The theory of male sex-role id entity: Its rise and fall, 1936 to the present. In H. Brod (Ed.), The making of masculinities: The new men's studies (pp. 21-38). Boston: Allen & Unwin. Powell, G. N., & Mainiero, L. A. (1992). Cross-cu rrents in the river of ti me: conceptualizing the complexities of womens careers. Journal of Management 18, 215-237. Price-Bonham, S., & Murphy, D. C. (1980). Dual career marriages: Im plications for the clinician. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 6, 181-188. Pruitt, D.G. & Rubin, J. Z. (1986). Social conflict: Escalatio n, stalemate, and settlement. New York: McGraw-Hill. Pruitt, D.G. (1983). Strategic choice in negotiation. American Behavioral Scientist, 27 167. Rabin, C., & Shapira-Berman, O. (1997). Egalitarianism and marita l happiness: Israeli wives and husbands on a collision course? American Journal of Family Therapy 25, 319-330. Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models : Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
107 Ray, J. A. (1990). Interactional patterns and marital satisfaction among dual-career couples. Journal of Independent Social Work 4, 61-73. Rhoden, L. (2003). Relations between marital pr ocess and outcomes in the marriages of nontraditional and traditional women. Psychological Reports 92, 915-929. Rice, R.W., Near, J.P. & Hunt, R.G. (1980). The job satisfaction \life satisfaction relationship: A review of empirical research. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 1 37-64. Riordan, C.M., & Holiday-Wayne, J. (2008). Are a ll measures the same? A critical review and examination of demographic similarity measur es in relational demography within groups research. Organizational Research Methods, 11 562-592. Rogers, S. J., & May, D. C. (2003). Spillover betw een marital quality and job satisfaction: Long term patterns and gender differences. Journal of Marriage & Family 65, 482-495. Rothbard, N. P. (2001). Enriching or depletin g? The dynamics of engagement in work and family. Administrative Science Quarterly 46, 655-684. Sanchez, L. (1994). Gender, labor allocations, and the psychology of entitlement within the home. Social Forces, 73 533-553. Scanzoni, J. (1979). A histori cal perspective on husband-wife bargaining power and marital dissolutions. In G. Levinger & O. Moles (Eds.), Divorce and separation (pp. 20-36). New York: Basic Books. Schneer, J., & Reitman, F. (1993). Effects of alte rnate family structures on managerial career paths. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 830. Seery, B. L. & Crowley, M. S. (2000). Women' s emotion work in the family: Relationship management and the process of bu ilding father-child relationships. Journal of Family Issues, 21(1), 100-127. Sekaran, U. (1983). How husbands and wives in dua l-career families perceive their family and work worlds. Journal of Vocational Behavior 22 288. Sheldon, K. M., Ryan, R. M., Rawsthorne, L. J., & Ilardi, B. (1997). Trai t self and true self: Cross-role variation in the Big-Five personality traits and it s relations with psychological authenticity and subjective well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73 1380-1393. Shihadeh, E. S. (1991). The prevalence of husband-centered migration: Employment consequences for married mothers. Journal of Marriage and the Family 53, 432-444. Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic intervals for indi rect effects in structur al equations models. In S. Leinhart (Ed.), Sociological methodology 1982 (pp.290-312). San Francisco: JosseyBass.
108 South, S. J., & Spitze, G. (1994). Housewor k in marital and nonmarital households. American Sociological Review, 59 327-347. Spitze, G. (1988). Womens employment and family relations: A review. Journal of Marriage and Family 50, 595-618. Swaab, R.I., Postmes, T., Van Beest, I. & Spear s, R. (2007). Shared cognition as a product of, and precursor to, shared so cial identity: Studying the role of communication in negotiation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 187-199. Symonds, D., & Horvath, A.O. (2004). Optim izing the alliance in couples therapy. Family Process, 43, 443. Thibaut, J. W. & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups New York: Wiley. Thomas, L. T., & Ganster, D. C. (1995). Impact of family supportive-work variables on workfamily conflict and strain: A control perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 615. U.S. Census Bureau (2007). Current population su rvey: Annual social and economic supplement. Washington, D. C.: U.S. Department of Labor. Van Lange, P. A. M., Otten, W., De Bruin, E. M. N. & Joireman, J. A. (1997). Development of prosocial, individualistic and competitive orientations: Theory and preliminary evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73 (4), 733-746. Voydanoff, P. (2005). Social integration, work -family conflict and facilitation, and job and marital quality. Journal of Marriage and Family 67, 666-679. Walters, A. E., Stuhlmacher, A. F., & Meye r, L. L. (1998). Gender and negotiator competitiveness: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76, 1-29. Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1994). The PANAS-X manual for the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule: Expanded form Unpublished manuscript: University of Iowa. Wayne, J.H., Musisca, N. & Fleeson, W. (2004). Cons idering the role of pe rsonality in the workfamily experience: Relationships of the big fi ve to work-family conflict and facilitation. Journal of Vocational Behavior 64, 108-130. Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affectiv e Events Theory: A theoretical discussion of the structure, causes and consequences of a ffective experiences at work. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior: An annual series of analytical essays and critical reviews (Vol. 18; pp. 1-74). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, Inc West, C., & Zimmerman D. H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender and Society, 1( 2), 125-151.
109 Wharton, A. S. & Erickson, R. J., (1993). Ma naging emotions on the job and at home: understanding the consequences of multiple emotional roles. Academy of Management Review, 18 (3), 457-486. Williams, K. J., & Alliger, G. M. (1994). Role stressors, mood spillover, and perceptions of work-family conflict in employed parents. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 837858. Williams, K. J., Suls, J., Alliger, G. M., Learner, S. M., & Wan, C. K. (1991). Multiple role juggling and daily mood states in worki ng mothers: An experience sampling study Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 664. Wright, T.A., & Bonett, D.G. (1997). The cont ribution of burnout to work performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18 491-499.
110 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Beth A. Livingston was born and raised in Louisville, KY, and graduated summa cum laude from the University of Kentucky in 2003. Af ter earning her MBA from the University of Kentucky in 2004, Beth received her PhD from th e University of Floridas Department of Management. She has publishe d in journals such as The Journal of Applied Psychology and Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. Her research interests primarily consist of gender and discrimination in organizati ons, work-family balance, social identities and relationships in organizations.