a
2.2:!
. .4 .2. .«t
_ c.
9.1; . . ‘ .
:1... to.
Ed.

J L...
. "0:23 3: ..
$41.!
x. .kL
.t.

x. v... z.
.1. .3.
In...

.x 2...!

35......
hard
.4

in» Y!)

i ( ¢

igmn
«amp».

hr":

 

 

, our.”
5.3.553 . _. 3

1 JV
2.». 3m}:

i 2 LIBRARY
200w Michigan State
University

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

Anticipated Work-Family Conﬂict: The Construct, Its
Antecedents and Consequences

presented by

Alyssa Jill Friede

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for the

MA. degree in PsychologL

 

 

 
   

%%//

Major Pro/fess r’

MSU is an Afﬁrmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

PLACE IN RETURN Box to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2/05 c:IClRC/DateDue.ind¢p.15

 

 

ANTICIPATED WORK-FAMILY CONFLICT: THE CONSTRUCT, ITS
ANTECEDENTS AND CONSEQUENCES

By

Alyssa Jill Friede

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS
Department of Psychology

2005

ABSTRACT

ANTICIPATED WORK-FAMILY CONFLICT: THE CONSTRUCT, ITS
ANTECEDENTS AND CONSEQUENCES

By
Alyssa Jill Friede

The study described here examines the constructs of anticipated work-family
conﬂict and anticipated work-family positive spillover. In particular, a focus on the
extent to which demographics, personality, and attitudes predicted these constructs is
central to the research presented here. Results indicate that core self-evaluations,
knowledge about how to plan for future roles, and the importance that individuals place
on their careers were shown to be particularly inﬂuential in the prediction of these
constructs. This study also investigated the relationship between anticipated work-family
conﬂict and positive spillover and the personal and professional choices that individuals
plan to make in the future. Directions for future theory development and empirical

research are discussed.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................. v
LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... viii
INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
Deﬁning Anticipated Work-Family Conﬂict .................................................................. 3
Related Literature ........................................................................................................... 4
Work-Family Conﬂict ................................................................................................... 10
A Model of Anticipated Work-Family Conﬂict ........................................................... 13
Predictors of Anticipated Work-Family Conﬂict ......................................................... 14
Demographics ............................................................................................................... 15
Personality .................................................................................................................... 21
Attitudes towards Future Roles ..................................................................................... 23
Personal and Professional Plans and Anticipated Work-Family Conﬂict .................... 27
Anticipated and Actual Work-Family Conﬂict ............................................................ 33
Anticipated Work-Family Positive Spillover ............................................................... 35
METHOD ......................................................................................................................... 39
Procedure ...................................................................................................................... 39
Method of Administration (Paper-and-Pencil vs. Web-Based) .................................... 4O
Participants .................................................................................................................... 41
Measures ....................................................................................................................... 43
RESULTS ......................................................................................................................... 57
Research Question 1: Demographics and Anticipated Work-Family Conﬂict ............. 62

Research Question 2: Core Self-Evaluations and Anticipated Work-Family Conﬂict 62
Research Questions 3 — 5: Attitudes toward Future Roles and Anticipated Work-

Family Conﬂict ............................................................................................................. 63
Research Question 6: J ob/Career Choices and Levels of Demand and Anticipated
Work-Family Conﬂict ................................................................................................... 68
Research Question 7: Relationship/Family Plans and Anticipated Work-Family
Conﬂict ......................................................................................................................... 79
Research Question 8: Anticipated Work-Family Positive Spillover ............................ 86
Additional Analyses: Gender Differences in Other Study Variables ........................... 93
DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................... 99
Anticipated Work-Family Conﬂict and Positive Spillover ......................................... 100
Predictors of Anticipated Work-Family Conﬂict and Positive Spillover ................... 103
Demographics ............................................................................................................. 104
Personality .................................................................................................................. 105
Attitudes ...................................................................................................................... 106
Job/Career Plans ......................................................................................................... 1 16

iii

Relationship/Family Plans .......................................................................................... 120

Additional Analyses: Gender Differences in Other Study Variables ......................... 122
Limitations and Future Research Directions .............................................................. 123
Conclusions ................................................................................................................. 123
APPENDICES ................................................................................................................ 135
Appendix A: Recruitment Emails ............................................................................... 135
Appendix B: Consent Form ........................................................................................ 137
Appendix C: Introduction ........................................................................................... 138
Appendix D: Permission to Re-Contact ...................................................................... 139
Appendix E: Personal Characteristics ......................................................................... 140
Appendix F: Relationship and Family Choices .......................................................... 141
Appendix G: Job/Career Choices ............................................................................... 143
Appendix H: Specialization Ratings ........................................................................... 144
Appendix I: Specialization Ratings Scale Development ............................................ 146
Appendix J: Anticipated Work-Family Conﬂict ........................................................ 147
Appendix K: Anticipated Work-Family Beneﬁts ....................................................... 149
Appendix L: Anticipated Work-Family Beneﬁts Scale Development ....................... 150
Appendix M: Role-Importance ................................................................................... 151
Appendix N: Role-Importance Scale Development ................................................. 1552
Appendix 0: Role-Sharing ......................................................................................... 155
Appendix P: Role-Sharing Scale Development .......................................................... 156
Appendix Q: Role-Planning ........................................................................................ 158
Appendix R: Role-Planning Scale Development ........................................................ 160
Appendix S: Core Self-Evaluations ............................................................................ 163
Appendix T: Core Self-Evaluations Scale Development ........................................... 164
Appendix U: Deﬁnition of Family .............................................................................. 165
Appendix V: Sample Expert-Ratings of Specialization and Setting Demands .......... 166
Appendix W: Expert-Ratings of Specialization/Setting Demands ............................. 168
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 169

iv

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Demographic Information by Medical School ................................................... 43
Table 2: Estimates of Fit Indices for Anticipated Work-Family Conﬂict ........................ 48
Table 3: Correlations Among Study Variables ................................................................. 58

Table 4: Relationship between Demographics and Anticipated Work-Family Conﬂict .. 62

Table 5: Hierarchical Regression Predicting Behavior-Based Work-Interference-With-

Family ....................................................................................................................... 65
Table 6: Hierarchical Regression Predicting Behavior-Based Family-Interference—With-
Work ......................................................................................................................... 65
Table 7: Hierarchical Regression Predicting Strain-Based Work-InterferenceWith—
Family ....................................................................................................................... 66
Table 8: Hierarchical Regression Predicting Strain-Based Family-Interference-With-
Work ......................................................................................................................... 66
Table 9: Hierarchical Regression Predicting Time-Based Work-Interference—With-Family
................................................................................................................................... 67
Table 10: Hierarchicao Regression Predicting Time-Based F amily-Inteference-With-
Work ......................................................................................................................... 67
Table 11: Descriptives for Medical Specialization ........................................................... 71
Table 12: Descriptives for Medical Settings ..................................................................... 72

Table 13: Correlations between Specialization Ratings (Self and Expert) and Anticipated
Work-Family Conﬂict ............................................................................................... 74

Table 14: Correlations between Setting Ratings (Expert) and Anticipated Work-Family
Conﬂict ..................................................................................................................... 74

Table 15: Correlations between Medical Plan Certainty and Anticipated Work-Family
Conﬂict ..................................................................................................................... 75

Table 16: Hierarchical Regressions for Medical Specialization Demands (Self-Ratings)
Predicting Anticipated Work-Family Conﬂict .......................................................... 77

Table 17: Hierarchical Regressions for Medical Specialization Demands (Expert-Ratings)

Predicting Time-Based Work-Interference-With-Family ......................................... 78
Table 18: Hierarchical Regressions for Medical Setting Demands (Expert-Ratings)
Predicting Anticipated Work-Family Conﬂict .......................................................... 79
Table 19: Descriptive Results for Relationship/Family Plans .......................................... 81
Table 20: Correlations between Relationship/Family Plans and Anticipated Work-Family
Conﬂict ..................................................................................................................... 83
Table 21: Hierarchical Regressions: Relationship/Family Plans Predicting Six Forms of
Anticipated Work-Family Conﬂict ........................................................................... 85
Table 22: Relationship Between Demograhpics and Anticipated Work-Family Positive
Spillover .................................................................................................................... 87
Table 23: Hierarchical Regression Predicting Anticipated Work-Family Positive
Spillover .................................................................................................................... 88
Table 24: Correlations between Medical Specialization and Setting Demands and
Anticipated Work-Family Positive Spillover ............................................................ 89
Table 25: Hierarchcal Regressions: Medical Specialization Demands (Self-Ratings)
Predicting Anticipated Work-Family Positive Spillover .......................................... 90
Table 26: Hierarchical Regressions: Medical Setting Demands (Expert-Ratings)
Predicting Anticipated Work-Farnily Positive Spillover .......................................... 90
Table 27: Correlations between Relationship/Family Plans and Anticipated Work-Family
Conﬂict ..................................................................................................................... 91
Table 28: Hierarchical Regressions: Relationship/Family Plans Predicting Anticipated
Work-Family Positive Spillover ............................................................................... 92
Table 29: Correlations between Gender and Other Study Variables ................................ 95
Table 30: Male/Female Differences in Specliazation/Setting Choice .............................. 98
Table 31: Intercorrelations for Self-Rated Specialization Ratings Items ....................... 146
Table 32: Factor Loadings for Self-Rated Specialization Ratings .................................. 146

Table 33: Intercorrelations for Anticipated Work-Family Positive Spillover Items ...... 150

Table 34: Factor Loadings for Anticipated Work-Family Positive Spillover ................. 150

vi

Table 35: Intercorrelations for Role-Importance Items .................................................. 152

Table 36: Factor Loadings for Role-Importance ............................................................ 153
Table 37:F actor Loadings for Role-Importance Forcing Four Factors ........................... 154
Table 38: Intercorrelations for Role-Sharing Items ........................................................ 156
Table 39: Factor Loadings for Role-Sharing .................................................................. 157
Table 40: Intercorrelations for Role-Planning Items ...................................................... 160
Table 41: Factor Loadings for Role-Planning ................................................................ 162
Table 42: Intercorrelations for Core Self-Evaluations Items .......................................... 164
Table 43: Factor Loadings for Core Self-Evaluations .................................................... 164

Table 44: Mean and Standard Deviation of Expert-Ratings for Hours and On—the-J ob
Demands for Each Specialization and Setting ........................................................ 168

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Model of Anticipated Work-Family Conﬂict .................................................... 14

viii

INTRODUCTION

In the past 25 years, the number of dual-eamer couples has markedly increased as
has the total number of hours that couples are working (Bond, Thompson, Galinsky, &
Prottas, 2002). Women are working more than ever before, while men are taking on
increased responsibility for domestic responsibilities and childcare (Bond et a1., 2002).
These facts highlight the importance of research on work-family conﬂict, deﬁned by
Greenhaus and Beutell (1985) as a type of inter-role conﬂict in which the competing
demands of work and family roles are incompatible and participation in one role makes
participation in the other role more difﬁcult. The effects of work-family conﬂict have
been shown to be severe, including higher depression, increased alcohol use, increased
psychological burnout, greater reporting of psychosomatic symptoms, decreased job
satisfaction, and increased intention to turnover at work. (of, Burke, 1988; Hammer,
Brockwood, & Neal, 2001; Frone, Russell, & Cooper, 1993).

While considerable research attention has been paid to the construct of work-
family conﬂict, surprisingly little attention has been paid to the concept of anticipated
work-family conﬂict. Adopting the Greenhaus and Beutell (1985) deﬁnition leads to the
following deﬁnition of anticipated work-family conﬂict: the belief that participation in
one ’sﬁtture work-role will interfere with participation in one ’sﬁrturefamily—role (and
vice versa). This anticipated work-family conﬂict could be experienced, for example, as
individuals prepare to enter the workforce after college, when a new child is expected,
when they plan career changes, when a spouse changes jobs, or when considering re-

entering the workforce. In any situation where individuals expect their work or family

roles to change, they can anticipate work-family conﬂict between these two roles in the
future. To be clear, anticipated work-family conﬂict can exist when only one role (work
or family) changes and the other stays the same or when both are changing
simultaneously.

Research on ﬁiture life roles has tended to examine career and non-work choices
separately. Barnett, Gareis, James and Steele (2003) note that most of the literature on
college students’ plans for the future focuses on choice of career and or course of study,
with little attention paid to the interaction between non-work and work decision-making.
Yet, thoughts about the interaction and potential conﬂict between these roles may be
related to important life decisions such as the choice of job or career, and the timing of
marriage and childbirth. Importantly, research on anticipated work-family conﬂict may
provide insight into how to effectively prevent actual work-family conﬂict (and hopefully
the negative outcomes associated with it) before it even occurs. By studying the process
by which individuals think about and plan for conﬂict between work and family, there is
the potential to develop interventions to reduce such conﬂict. This study will examine
the nature of anticipated work-family conﬂict and a number of potential correlates of this
construct.

I begin by clarifying the construct of anticipated work-family conﬂict. To do this,
I review the literature on actual work-family conﬂict and on constructs conceptually
similar to anticipated work-family conﬂict (e.g., attitudes towards multiple role
planning). The goal of this portion of the paper is to more thoroughly understand what is
meant by anticipated work-family conﬂict by reviewing conceptually related literature on

how individuals think about and plan for their ﬁxture roles and the literature on actual

work-family conﬂict. I highlight how related constructs are similar to and distinct ﬁom
anticipated work-family conﬂict. While these related constructs have signiﬁcant value in
their own right, the focus of this paper is how or why they relate to anticipated work-
family conﬂict, rather than their unique predictive potential. Next, a model is presented
that describes some potential correlates of anticipated work-family conﬂict. Each
component of this model is then discussed in more detail. This includes a review of
possible predictors of anticipated work-family conﬂict, including demographics,
personality, and attitudes. Then, I discuss the possible reciprocal relationship between
anticipated work-family conﬂict and personal and professional plans for the future.
Finally, I discuss the relationship between anticipated work-family conﬂict and actual
work-family conﬂict (even though this relationship is not empirically tested in this

study).

Deﬁning Anticipated Work-Family Conflict

Because research on anticipated work-family conﬂict is in its infancy, it is vital
that a fuller understanding of what this construct really means is reached. The few
articles that have speciﬁcally discussed anticipated work-family conﬂict as a construct
have offered only a basic deﬁnition of anticipated inter-role conﬂict. For example, in one
anticipated work-family conﬂict article, the author states that “In contrast to previous
studies on current perceptions of work-family conﬂict, this study examined future
expectations for work-family conﬂict” (Burley, 1994, p.116). This ﬁrst study on
anticipated work-family conﬂict does not mention how the author adapted the work-

family conﬂict scale that was used to assess future work-family conﬂict (Burley, 1994).

A 1996 follow-up article on the same t0pic also does not provide much detail regarding
the meaning of anticipated work-family conﬂict in a similar fashion to the 1994 paper
(Livingston, Burley, & Springer, 1996). In this article, however, the authors elaborate on
the measurement of anticipated work-family conﬂict in which they take a traditional
work-family inter-role conﬂict scale (Kopelman, Greenhaus, & Connolly, 1984) and
translate the sentences into a future tense. That is, a sample survey item reads “My ﬁxture
work will take up time that I would like to spend with my family and ﬁ'iends” (Livingston
et al., 1996, p. 184, italics added).

Despite the lack of development of the anticipated work-family construct in prior
literature, this is not to say that there has been no research about how individuals feel that
they will manage their future work and family roles. A discussion of related constructs in
the literature can shed led onto how we think about anticipated work-family conﬂict and
what its causes and consequences might be. Speciﬁcally, I will discuss the concepts of
career-marriage conﬂict, work-family balance self-efﬁcacy, attitudes towards role-
planning, attitudes towards role-sharing, perceptions of future difﬁculties, and anticipated
identity importance, highlighting how these constructs are similar to or different from the

construct of interest.

Related Literature

One recent study by Barnett et a1. (2003) examines concern about career-
marriage conﬂict. This construct reﬂects the fact that career plans must be integrated
with the expected and ideal age of marriage. The authors assessed how much college

students worried about their future career conﬂicting with their partner’s career, their

career conﬂicting with their romantic relationship, their partner’s career conﬂicting with
their own career, and their partner’s career conﬂicting with their romantic relationship.
This is quite similar to the concept of anticipated work-family conﬂict and yet does not
capture it in its entirely, due to the fact that it does not incorporate all aspects of the
family life, only those related to marriage. In this examination of anticipated work-
family conﬂict, conﬂict is addressed ﬁ'om a broader perspective on family-life, not only
conﬂict between work and marital roles.

Killian et a1. (2003) discuss a concept they call work-family balance self-eﬂicacy,
which is the belief that individuals hold about their ability to balance future work and
family roles. This individual difference construct may be related to the construct of
anticipated work-family conﬂict. That is, individuals who believe that they will be able
to balance their future work and family roles may be less likely to anticipate conﬂict
between the two roles. The authors provided two sample survey items that were used to
measure work-family balance self-efﬁcacy. They were, “I could integrate job and family
roles without too much difﬁculty” and “If I had family problems on my mind, I don’t
think I could concentrate at work” (Killian et al., 2003, p.6-7). These items certainly
seem to reﬂect an anticipation of work-family conﬂict as a form of conﬂict between the
work and family roles. However, a conceptual distinction that needs to be made
regarding work-family balance self-efﬁcacy is whether it refers to the ability to avoid
conﬂict or the ability to manage conﬂict well if it occurs. If deﬁned as beliefs regarding
one’s ability to avoid work-family conﬂict in the future, work-family balance self-
efﬁcacy is likely a predictor of anticipated work-family conﬂict, how much conﬂict

individuals anticipate experiencing. If work-family balance self-efﬁcacy is considered an

ability to manage conﬂict when it arises, it is probably less predictive of anticipated
work-family conﬂicts and probably more closely associated with the use of coping
strategies to manage work-family conﬂict once it arises. Due to the fact that this
construct is not well deﬁned, its speciﬁc relationship with anticipated work-family
conﬂict remains unclear. Therefore, it will not be examined in this initial investigation of
anticipated work-family conﬂict. However, generalized self-efﬁcacy (not speciﬁc to
work-family issues) will be discussed further in this paper.

A number of researchers have addressed the attitudes that young adults hold
towards their future roles. One such construct is called attitudes towards multiple role
planning (ATMRP; Weitzman, 1994). Multiple role planning reﬂects intentions to
balance work and family in the future. ATMRP is considered the general orientation that
an individual holds regarding planning for the combination of career and family roles,
such as conﬁdence in the ability to integrate work and family roles, commitment towards
having multiple roles, and feelings of autonomy regarding the ability to make choices
regarding family and work roles for oneself. McCracken and Weitzman (1997) created a
new name for the ATMRP construct, multiple role realism, which they deﬁne as the
“recognition that simultaneous work and family involvement is a complex and potentially
stressful lifestyle” and found that individuals with greater multiple role realism are more
aware of the need to consider and carefully plan for the interaction between work and
family roles (p.149). It is measured using the same ATMRP scale that Weitzman (1994)
used. Conceptually, attitudes towards multiple role planning (or multiple role realism) are
distinct from anticipated work-family conﬂict. However, they may be related. Perhaps

individuals who have a positive attitude towards planning for the ﬁiture roles that they

will hold anticipate less work-family conﬂict because they feel prepared for the
challenges that they will face. Thus, attitudes towards multiple roles (i.e., ATMRP) are
not the same as beliefs about the conﬂict that will be experienced between them (i.e.,
anticipated work-family conﬂict). That is, the attitudes that individuals hold about their
future roles and how they will be managed may inﬂuence the anticipation of experiencing
conﬂict, but are conceptually distinct from it.

Another related issue concerns the attitudes that individuals hold towards future
role-sharing. For example, a study by Hallett and Gilbert (1997) examines the
expectations that career-oriented women in a university setting who plan to have a career,
marriage, and children have regarding how they will manage these multiple roles. The
authors compared women who plan to manage these roles conventionally (e.g., the
female is primarily responsible for managing the home and parenting — in addition to
having a career) to those who espoused a preference for greater role-sharing, in which
both spouses have careers and help with housework and parenting. Thorn and Gilbert
(1998) also examined attitudes towards role-sharing to understand how male students
believe that they will integrate their work and family lives (e.g., sharing household
responsibilities and childcare with spouse). These two articles focused on attitudes
towards sharing domestic obligations with one’s spouse. Similarly to the previously
mentioned attitudinal constructs, it is likely that attitudes towards role-sharing are related
to anticipated work-family conﬂict. However, the nature of these relationships is unclear.
It may be that individuals who expect to share household responsibilities with their
spouse anticipate less conﬂict because they will not have to manage all of these

responsibilities alone. However, it is also possible that people who only have major

responsibilities in one role (either work or family) anticipate less conﬂict between roles
because they only have to focus their efforts on a single role. Again, while attitudes
towards role-sharing may be related to anticipated work-family conﬂict, it is a
conceptually distinct construct.

Hallett and Gilbert (1997) also offer a future diﬁ‘iculties scale which was
developed by Gilbert, Dancer, Rossman and Thorn (1991). It assesses the perceptions
that young adults hold regarding the challenges and realities associated with having a
dual-career marriage. It assesses anticipated difﬁculties associated with ﬁnding
childcare, sharing family work with a spouse, and career advancement. This future
difﬁculties scale is similar to the construct of anticipated work-family conﬂict in that it
assesses future challenges, yet distinct in that it does not directly address inter-role
conﬂict. That is, it focuses on challenges within a domain (work or family) but does not
reﬂect challenges that arise from conﬂict between roles (i.e., the interference of family
life with work or vice versa). Presumably, more challenges within a single role make it
more likely that it will interfere with performance in another role. For example, the more
time spent arranging childcare, the more likely it is to interfere with obligations in the
work domain. Thus, the relevant effects of perceived future difﬁculties are likely to
manifest themselves within the assessment of anticipated work-family conﬂict.
Perceptions of future difﬁculties may relate to anticipated work-family conﬂict, yet they
are distinct conceptually.

Another relevant construct, as discussed by Kerpelrnan and Schvaneveldt (1999),
is that of anticipated role importance, the relative level of importance that the individual

plans to place on career, marriage, and parental roles once they are accumulated.

Individuals in this study were rated as balance-oriented (placing equal importance on all
three roles), family-oriented, career-oriented, or career-marriage oriented (placing heavier
weight on career and marriage than on the parental role). These attitudes towards future
roles may be related to anticipated work-family conﬂict. Similar to the attitudes towards
role-sharing discussed above, individuals who place a heavy weight on a particular role
may anticipate experiencing less conﬂict than individuals who place equal weights on all
roles. That is, individuals who are very dedicated to their role as a parent may anticipate
experiencing little work-family conﬂict because of the relatively little importance that
they plan to place on work obligations. Alternatively, individuals who place equal
weight on all roles may experience less anticipated work-family conﬂict because they
will not anticipate being as disturbed or ﬁ'ustrated when one role demands attention that
would ordinarily be given to another. Having to forsake family time for work obligations
may not be as conﬂicting for an individual with a more balanced identity importance as
compared to a highly parentally-oriented individual because the associated perceived
costs may be less. Thus, while it seems likely that anticipated role-importance is related
to anticipated work-family conﬂict, these constructs are also conceptually distinct.
Rather than being considered a component of anticipated work-family conﬂict,
anticipated role importance is more aptly considered a predictor of it.

In sum, while there is little research on anticipated work-family conﬂict, per se,
distinct yet related constructs can help us better understand the nature of anticipated
work-family conﬂict. Speciﬁcally, a review of the literature suggests that career-
marriage conﬂict, work-family self-efﬁcacy, and future difﬁculties are constructs that are

similar to anticipated work-family conﬂict yet do not encompass all of its characteristics.

For that reason, relevant aspects of these constructs (as discussed above) will be
considered subsumed under anticipated work-family conﬂict. On the other hand, the
research regarding role-planning, role-sharing, and role-importance suggest that they are
useful and distinct concepts ﬁom anticipated work-family conﬂict and may be important

attitudinal predictors of it.

Work-Family Conﬂict

Beyond the research related to future roles, it is worthwhile to examine research
on current work-family conﬂict to discover how it has been deﬁned and measured and
how this may inﬂuence our understanding of anticipated work-family conﬂict. A 1985
article by Greenhaus and Beutell has largely been responsible for deﬁning the work-
family conﬂict construct. As mentioned earlier, they deﬁne work-family conﬂict as a
form of inter-role conﬂict in which there are competing demands arising ﬁom an
individual’s participation in different roles (in this case, the work and family roles).
Greenhaus and Beutell (1985) discuss three major forms of work-family conﬂict. The
ﬁrst is time-based conﬂict. This reﬂects the fact that individuals have a ﬁnite amount of
time and that time spent at work cannot be spent with the family and vice versa. This
form of inter-role conﬂict exists because time dedicated to one role makes it challenging
to ﬁll the requirements of a different role. Another type of work-family conﬂict that
Greenhaus and Beutell (1985) discuss is strain-based conﬂict. This exists when strain in
one role (e.g., tension, anxiety, fatigue, or irritability) makes participating in the other
role more difficult. For example, stress from work may spillover into the family role and

affect one’s ability to have a healthy and satisfying family life. Finally, Greenhaus and

10

Beutell (1985) describe behavior-based conﬂict. This is when certain patterns of
behavior within one role are incompatible with behaviors necessary for effective
functioning in another role. For example, the authors discuss how managers may be
expected to display aggressiveness and objectivity in the workplace and that they may be
expected to be warm and nurturing in their home environments. The incompatibility of
these two types of behaviors may cause behavior-based work-family conﬂict. Research
has supported the existence of time- and strain-based conﬂict but behavior-based conﬂict
has been difﬁcult to operationalize and is less supported by research (Kelloway, Gottlieb,
& Barham, 1999).

Furthermore, Greenhaus and Beutell (1985) discuss another key issue in the
conceptualization of work-family conﬂict, the directionality of the conﬂict. The authors
create a distinction between the perception that work is interfering with family and the
perception that family is interfering with work. They propose that an individual’s
response to a situation with competing role demands will determine whether it is
perceived as family-interference-with-work or work-interference-withfamily. For
example, if a person chooses to attend a meeting at work rather than his child’s school
performance, this situation will be perceived as work-interfering—with-family. However,
if the opposite choice was made, it would be perceived as family-interfering-with-work.
To this end, the authors argue that it is important to develop work-family conﬂict scales
that contain items that reﬂect both directions of role interference.

Research in the work-family conﬂict area has attempted to predict the different
types of conﬂict and the directionality of the conﬂict from different antecedents and

examined the different outcomes expected from these types of conﬂict. For example, in a

11

longitudinal study of work-family conﬂict conducted by Kelloway et al. (1999), results
showed that work-interference-with-family could be distinguished from family-
interference-with-work and that strain-based conﬂict could be distinguished from time-
based conﬂict. The authors found that only strain-based family-interference-with-work at
Time I predicted stress and intent to turnover in a job at Time 2, while time-based work-
interference-with-family at Time 2 was predicted by stress at Time 1. Similarly, Hammer
et a1. (2001) found that family-interference-with-work predicted depression while work-
interference-with—family did not. Frone, Russell, and Cooper (1992) found that work-
interference—with—family was predicted by job stressors while family-interference-with-
work was predicted by farme stressors and family involvement.

Thus, ﬁndings from the literature on work-family conﬂict suggest that these six
dimensions are relevant to the nature of that construct. For this reason, they may also be
relevant to the related construct of anticipated work-family conﬂict. The types of conﬂict
anticipated and the perceived directionality of the conﬂict have not been addressed in the
minimal literature on anticipated work-family conﬂict. Because anticipated work-family
conﬂict is being deﬁned as the belief that participation in one’s future work-role will
interfere with participation in one’s future family role (and vice versa), it is important to
recognize that individuals may anticipate time-, behavior-, and/or strain-based conﬂict in
either direction (work-interference-with-family and/or family-interference—with-work)
and to measure the construct accordingly. Thus, item content in the anticipated work-
family conﬂict measure will incorporate the different types and directions of conﬂict,
reﬂecting the six-dimensional Greenhaus and Beutell (1985) classiﬁcation of work-

family conﬂict. However, because there has been no research to date conducted on the

12

structure of anticipated work-family conﬂict construct, it is difﬁcult to make predictions
about how the six-dimensions of conﬂict will be related to the other constructs being
measured here, given that their existence must be ﬁrst established. Thus, in this initial
study of anticipated work-family conﬂict, no predictions are made regarding how

different types and directions of conﬂict are related to different predictors.

A Model of Anticipated Work-Family Conﬂict

The model that follows presents the predicted relationships between anticipated
work-family conﬂict and the other focal variables in this study. The numbers along the
paths in the model correspond to Research Questions in this study. First, I discuss the
three sets of predictors (Research Questions 1 - 5). This is followed by a discussion of
how relationship/family and job/career plans may relate to anticipated work-family
conﬂict (Research Questions 6 — 7). Then, I discuss the possible relationship between
anticipated work-family conﬂict and actual work-family conﬂict. Note that actual work-
family conﬂict was not assessed due to the cross-sectional nature of this study. However,
a longitudinal follow-up study is planned that will assess actual work-family conﬂict.
Due to the fact that there is so little research on anticipated work-family conﬂict, the
relationships in this study will be examined as exploratory questions, rather than as

directional hypotheses.

13

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Demographics
0 Age
0 Year in
school
Gender \
Marital R 1
status
Personali Anticipated Possible Outcomes
0 Core 83f — R2 Work-Family - 0 Actual work-family conﬂict
evaluations Conﬂict
R.-. T
R6 - 7
Attitudes l
R l
. iIISertance Plans
0 Role 0 Relationship/Family Plans
sharing . 0 Job/Careerle
0 Role
planning

 

 

 

Figure 1. Model of Anticipated Work-Family Conﬂict

Predictors of Anticipated Work-Family Conﬂict

I will ﬁrst discuss the left-hand side of the model which addresses possible
antecedents of anticipated work-family conﬂict. It is important to note that there is no
over-arching theory about what predicts actual work-family conﬂict (Eby, Casper,
Lockwood, Bordeaux, & Brinley, 2005). Research studies on work-family conﬂict tend
to incorporate only a few of the possible predictors of this construct and no set of
predictors has been universally agreed upon by work-family researchers. However, three
types of predictors that have received research attention in the work-family literature are

demographics, personality, and attitudes. A recent review of the IO/OB literature on

14

work and family examined predictors in work-family research (Eby et al., 2005). The
authors report that 24.1% of this research has focused on demographics and background
characteristics as predictors. 20.0% of the research has considered attitudes towards
work and family as a predictor. 4.7% of research has focused on individual differences
as a relevant predictor of work-family outcomes (with 24.4% of that research focused on
personality; Eby et al., 2005). Despite the somewhat limited focus on personality as a
predictor to date, researchers have recently begun to call for increased attention to
dispositional inﬂuences on work-family conﬂict (e.g., Carlson, 1999; Sumer & Knight,
2001; Wayne, Musisca, & F leeson, 2004). No other type of predictor (e.g., stress, coping
strategies) was used as a predictor in more than 10% of studies on work-family conﬂict.
Based on the popular inclusion of demographic and attitudinal predictors in the work-
family literature and the recent call for more research on personality as a predictor, it was
determined that the inclusion of demographics, personality, and attitudes was appropriate
for this initial investigation of the predictors of anticipated work-family conﬂict. I will

discuss research supporting the inclusion of these three categories in more detail in turn.

Demographics

The following demographics are included in this study: age, year in school,
gender, marital status, and parental status. These demographics are often the focus of
research on future roles. Unfortunately, in most studies, these demographics are
controlled for (either statistically or by limiting the sample) and thus their direct effects
on outcomes of interest are unknown. For example, McCracken and Weitzman (1997)

controlled for education level in their study of attitudes towards multiple role-planning

15

because they found it to be correlated with the construct. Also, the McCracken and
Weitzman (1997) study only included women while Hallett and Gilbert’s (1997) study
included only female, never-married, upper-classmen thus controlling for year in school,
gender, and marital status through the selection of the sample. While Kerpelman and
Schvaneveldt (1999) included both men and women in their study, they only included
participants who were never married, never a parent, and were within the age range of 18
to 25. Many studies assess the race of the participants, controlling for its effects on the
outcomes of interest. (of, Livingston et al., 1996).

Research conducted on actual work-family conﬂict also tends to consider
demographics, yet limited conclusions have been reached regarding their inﬂuence on
work-family conﬂict. As mentioned previously, demographics and background
characteristics have been shown to comprise almost 25% of the predictors included in
research on the work-family interface (e.g., age, race, gender, and marital status).
Lockwood, Casper, Eby and Bordeaux (2002) note that questions about children were
“almost non-existent in this research” (p. 16). As one example of an investigation of
demographics as a predictor of work-family conﬂict, Burke (1988) found that being
married was associated with increased work-family conﬂict but that age, gender,
education level, and years on the job were not. However, parental status was not assessed
in this study. Other studies have also examined the inﬂuence of demographic variables
with mixed results (of, Frone et al., 1992). For example, different researchers have
found that women experience greater conﬂict (e.g., Behson, 2002), less conﬂict (e.g.,
Parasurman & Simmers) and no differences in conﬂict (e.g., Duxbury & Higgins, 1991)

as compared to men.

16

The demographics included in this study reﬂect commonly used demographics
from the literature on actual work-family conﬂict as well as those relevant to the
population examined in this study. In this study, ﬁve demographic characteristics are
examined. The reasoning behind the inclusion of these demographics in this study is
presented below.

Age. This study will examine the relationship between age and anticipated work-
farnily conﬂict. Individuals who are older are likely getting closer to an age at which
they plan to have children or may already have children. This proximity of having
children may encourage individuals to think differently about how they will balance their
future work and family roles and they may therefore experience more anticipated work-
farrrily conﬂict (because it is in the forefront of their minds) or less (because they feel that
they have thought about parenthood and made plans for it).

With regards to this particular sample, older medical students may have had more
exposure to relationship/family demands that they should expect in the future (e. g., by
having children themselves or having friends or perhaps through interactions with former
students who have children). Therefore, older medical students may have a different
perspective regarding the demands of balancing work and family. Despite the fact that it
is difﬁcult to predict whether older students will anticipate more or less conﬂict, it is
nonetheless valuable to investigate the relationship between age and anticipated work-
family conﬂict.

Year in school. In a similar vein, students who are farther along in school are
closer to actually having a job than those who are earlier in their education. The reality

of balancing their work and non-work lives as professionals is looming closer in the

17

future. While age and year in school are likely to be correlated, there may be particular
insights that are gained through progressing through medical school that are unrelated to
age. For medical students, those who are further along in school will have had greater
exposure to the different career options that lie ahead of them. They will have learned
more about the different specializations formally in the classroom as well as had more
exposure to informal education from other students about the demands of different
medical careers (e.g., through knowing other students who have graduated already and
begun their residency programs). Therefore, we also examine the relationship between
year in school and anticipated work-family conﬂict.

Gender. In today’s society, women are still taking on the primary role of
providing childcare (Bond et al., 2002). And yet, although still working fewer hours
outside of the home than men, women in the workforce are more educated than men and
are more likely to be managers and professionals than men (men are more likely to hold
blue-collar jobs than women; Bond et al., 2002). Also, mothers have been shown to have
less time to themselves than men, according to the 2002 Highlights of the National Study
for the Changing Workforce (Bond et al., 2002). These societal-level differences
between the lives of men and women may mean that women anticipate different amounts
of work-family conﬂict than men because males and females tend to have somewhat
different expectations and experiences in the home and at work domains.

With regards to medical students, in the 2001-2002 academic year, 47.6% of new
entrants to medical school were women (Women in US. Academic Medicine, 2004,
para. 3). The women in this study are entering into a challenging profession and yet will

likely assume the primary responsibility for childcare in their households (see above).

18

Women may also have different values than men, thus inﬂuencing the extent to which
they anticipate feeling conﬂict between the multiple roles that they hold. Therefore, we
consider the extent to which gender is associated with anticipated work-family conﬂict.

Marital status. Marital status may also affect the anticipation of work-family
conﬂict. Similar to the predicted effects of age, those individuals who are married or
have long-term partners may be more likely to have children in the near future (as
compared to those who have not yet found a spouse). Further, those individuals who are
married or have long-term partners may have had important discussions with their
partners about how the couple will manage work and family responsibilities, whereas

single individuals may have spent considerably less time thinking and talking about this
issue. Again, this attention placed on future balance may lead to an awareness of the
challenges of balancing work and family, and therefore an increased reporting of
anticipation of work-family conﬂict. Alternatively, married/partnered individuals may be
more likely to make plans for how the responsibilities will be managed. Therefore, as
compared to single individuals who are unsure of how they will balance their work and
family roles, married/partnered individuals might be more prepared and calm about the
ﬁrture roles and experience less anticipated work-family conﬂict.

With regards to medical students, the reasoning above is likely to apply. Further,
because of the speciﬁc constraints associated with the completion of medical school (e. g.,
paying off large debt ﬁ'om schooling, choosing a residency program, etc.), these
married/partnered students may be especially likely to have to plan for and discuss work
and family roles following medical school. Therefore, the relationship between marital

status and anticipated work-family conﬂict is considered in this study.

19

Parental status. Parents (as compared to non-parents) may anticipate different
amounts of work-family conﬂict because they may be more aware of the demands that
children place on their time or may have already developed plans or coping strategies to
deal with the demands of parenthood and medical school. Because prior research on
future roles has tended to exclude parents from their samples, this relationship will be
particularly interesting and informative.

In the case of medical students, medical school is an extremely challenging
environment that may equal (if not exceed) the rigors of actually practicing medicine.
Because medical student-parents are already managing the demands of their school and
family lives, they may be more aware of the challenges that lie ahead and anticipate more
conﬂict. Or, perhaps they are more conﬁdent in their ability to cope with the work and
family demands that lie ahead because of their experiences in medical school and
therefore anticipate less conﬂict. Based on the potential for parental status to inﬂuence
anticipated work-family conﬂict, we investigate this relationship in this study. For
individuals who are already parents, we consider whether the age of their youngest child
is associated with their anticipated work-family conﬂict, because children of different
ages may place different types and amounts of demands on these individuals once they
become doctors.

In sum, there will be diversity along these ﬁve demographic dimensions (i.e., age,
year in school, gender, marital status and parental status) in the sample of medical
students, providing an opportunity to examine the inﬂuence of demographic variables
that have heretofore generally been controlled for via sample selection. Again, there is

too little information at this point to pose well-informed directional hypotheses.

20

Research Question I : What are the relationships between age, year in school, gender,

marital status, and parental status and anticipated work-family conﬂict?

Personality

Because the research on personality and future roles is so limited, research from
the literature on actual work-family conﬂict can be useful in understanding which
personality variables may predict anticipated work-family conﬂict. Recently, researchers
have begun to consider the role of personality in the experience of work-family conﬂict.
For example, research has addressed the role of negative affectivity (of, Carlson, 1999;
Stoeva, Chiu & Greenhaus, 2002) and the “Big Five” (cf., Bruck & Allen, 2003) in the
experience of work-family conﬂict. A book chapter by Friede and Ryan (2004) argues
that core self-evaluations will predict work-family conﬂict and that people with more
positive core self-evaluations will experience less work-family conﬂict. Core self-
evaluations are considered the fundamental premises individuals hold about themselves,
or the extent to which individuals possesses a positive self-concept (Judge, Erez, & Bono,
1998). The four traits that comprise this higher level construct are self-esteem,
generalized self-efﬁcacy, locus of control and emotional stability. Core self-evaluations
are a latent, multivariate construct or a compound personality variable in that it is
comprised of four more speciﬁc traits (Judge et al., 1998).

This study will focus on core self-evaluations as the personality trait of interest.
One reason for this is that it includes generalized self-efﬁcacy, which is related to work-
farnily balance self-efﬁcacy, the only personality-like factor considered in the literature

on future roles (Killian et al., 2003). The work of F riede and Ryan (2004) argues that

21

individuals who have more positive core self-evaluations will experience less work-
family conﬂict. They suggest that individuals with positive core self-evaluations may
select environments for themselves that are more supportive of demands in other
domains, such as selecting a job that is ﬂexible and allows the individual to meet family
demands (Diener, Larson, & Emmons, 1984; Judge et al., 1998). Thus, they experience
less work-family conﬂict than individuals with more negative core self-evaluations. It is
also possible, according to Friede and Ryan (2004), that individuals simply perceive their
environments differently based on their core self-evaluations. That is, individuals with
negative core self-evaluations perceive the environments from their multiple life domains
more negatively and as less supportive of obligations in other domains (Fogarty et al.,
1999; Larsen, 1992; Moyle, 1995). Therefore, they feel as though they have more
conﬂict in their lives. Further, individuals with positive core self-evaluations may use
more effective coping styles to handle the demands of their work and non-work lives, and
in doing so, decrease the amount of conﬂict that they experience (Aryee, Luk, Leung, &
Lo, 1999).

One study has examined the relationship between core self-evaluations and the
conﬂict that student-parents experience between their school and parental roles. Results
indicate that student-parents with more positive core self-evaluations experience less
conﬂict between these roles (Friede & Ryan, unpublished manuscript). However, no
research has been conducted relating core self-evaluations to conﬂict between work and
family roles. Because of the limited research on these relationships, it is difficult to
surmise what the relationship between core self-evaluations and anticipated work-family

conﬂict will be. While the theoretical argument put forth by Friede and Ryan (2004) and

22

the research conducted by Friede and Ryan (unpublished manuscript) suggest that the
relationship may be negative (i.e., more positive core self-evaluations are associated with
less anticipated work-family conﬂict), it is also possible that individuals who perceive
themselves as capable and able to control their futures might be willing to accept that
they may face conﬂict between work and family in the future. Less self-efﬁcacious
individuals who do not feel in control of their environments may be less willing to admit
that balancing work and family will be a challenge in the future. Based on the global
nature of core self-evaluations and their prior linkage with actual work-family conﬂict,
the relationship between this personality construct and anticipated work-family conﬂict is
explored in the study presented here.

Research Question 2: What is the relationship between core self-evaluations and

anticipated work-family conﬂict?

Attitudes towards Future Roles

There are three relevant types of attitudes towards future roles that emerged from
the literature review on anticipated work-family conﬂict and related constructs. Each is
now discussed in turn.

Role-importance. One type is role-importance, or how much importance
individuals place on the roles of parent, spouse/partner, worker, or a combination of
these. In the small literature on future roles, role-importance has emerged as a popular
attitudinal construct. For example, Kerpehnan and Schvaneveldt ( l 999)compare the
importance that males and females placed on their career, marital, and parental roles.

Raj adhyaksha and Bhatnagar (2000) examined gender and age differences in role-

23

importance in married dual-career couples in India. Bu and McKeen (2000) investigated
differences between Canadian and Chinese business students in the importance that they
placed on the three life roles. With regard to actual work-family conﬂict, Cinarnon and
Rich (2002) examined the conﬂict experienced by men and women who placed the
highest role importance on work, family, or a combination of the two and found that,
when controlling for gender, there was no difference between groups in the amount of
work-family conﬂict experienced. Because the majority of research has examined role-
irnportance descriptively, rather than as a predictor of work-family conﬂict, it is difﬁcult
to surmise what the relationship between the three types of role-importance and
anticipated work-family conﬂict will be. Overall, the limited literature suggests that it is
essential to examine the importance that individuals place on their future roles as a
possible predictor of anticipated work-family conﬂict.

In this study, the importance that individuals place on each of three main roles
(work, marital/partner, and parental) is assessed. Again, predicted directionality of the
relationship between how much importance individuals place on each of the three roles
and their anticipated work-family conﬂict is unclear. Individuals who place a large
emphasis on a particular role may experience less conﬂict because demands outside of
this role are not seen as having primary importance. Therefore conﬂict between roles
may be reduced. Alternatively, those who balance the importance that they place on the
different roles may feel less conﬂict because demands from all roles are seen as
important. Based on the fact that role-importance is conceptually related to anticipated
work-family conﬂict and has emerged as an important attitudinal construct in the

literature on how young adults think about their future roles (e. g., Kerpelman &

24

Schvaneveldt, 1999), it will be examined in this study as a possible predictor of
anticipated work-family conﬂict.
Research Question 3: What is the relationship between work, marital/partner, and

parental role-importance and anticipated work-family conﬂict?

Role-sharing. A second type of attitude towards future roles is attitudes towards
role-sharing. This concept consists of whether individuals plan to share role
responsibilities with a spouse or signiﬁcant other. Hallett and Gilbert (1997) examined
attitudes towards role-sharing and found that women who preferred a lifestyle in which
domestic responsibilities were shared with a spouse had higher self-esteem, greater
vocational commitment, and more liberal views than those who ascribed to a traditional
family arrangement with women taking on the majority of the responsibility for domestic
life. Thorn and Gilbert (1998) found that young adult males who were more committed
to role-sharing were more liberal but also found that role-sharing attitudes were not
related to self-esteem or vocational identity.

Research has not addressed whether attitudes towards role-sharing are related to
anticipated work-family conﬂict nor what the relationship might be, if found. It is
unclear whether individuals who plan to share domestic responsibilities (e. g., childcare,
chores, and ﬁnancial management) will anticipate more or less conﬂict. There is limited
evidence which suggests that role-sharing among couples can have beneﬁcial effects.
For example, a study of fully-employed Israeli mothers showed that those mothers who
had spouses who were emotionally and/or practically supportive (e. g., helping with

household chores) experienced less anxiety and dysphoria than those with less supportive

25

husbands (Rosenbaum & Cohen, 1999). While this suggests that expecting to share
responsibilities may be associated with less anticipation of work-family conﬂict, it is also
possible that those people who expect their partners to take on greater responsibility
expect this because they anticipate having great demands on themselves. At this point, it
is unclear whether role-sharing attitudes and anticipated work-family conﬂict will be
related, and if they are, what the nature of this relationship will be. A general
investigation of this relationship, therefore, will be valuable.

Research Question 4: What is the relationship between attitudes towards role-sharing

and anticipated work-family conﬂict?

Role-planning. The third type of attitude towards future roles is attitude towards
multiple role-planning (ATMRP; Weitzman, 1994). ATMRP is considered the attitude
that an individual holds regarding planning for the combination of career and family
roles. It consists of conﬁdence in the ability to integrate work and family roles,
commitment towards having multiple roles, and feelings of autonomy regarding the
ability to make choices about family and work roles for oneself (W eitzman, 1994).
While aspects of the ATMRP construct overlap with attitudes towards role-importance
and role-sharing, the attitudinal construct being discussed here, role-planning, will be
represented by the belief that one knows how to plan for holding multiple roles (role-
planning knowledge) and that it is important to begin to do so (role-planning
involvement). Having the attitude that it is important to prepare for holding multiple
roles may be related to anticipated work-family conﬂict in both positive and negative

ways. Feeling like one knows how to plan for holding multiple roles may be associated

26

with less anticipated work-family conﬂict because individuals feel that they know how to
start planning to balance those future roles. Alternatively, individuals who know more
about how to plan for multiple roles may in fact anticipate more conﬂict because they
have a heightened awareness of the complex demands associated with balancing work
and family. Individuals who see a more urgent need to begin planning for holding
multiple roles (role-planning involvement) may anticipate less conﬂict because they
believe that they will be prepared for the demands of each role by the time that they enter
them. On the other hand, individuals who feel the need to plan for their multiple roles
might feel this way because they anticipate a great deal of conﬂict between their work
and family roles.

Research Question 5: What is the relationship'between attitude towards role-planning

and anticipated work-family conﬂict?

Personal and Professional Plans and Anticipated Work-Family Conﬂict

In this portion of the paper, I consider how anticipated work-family conﬂict may
be related to the plans that individuals make for their personal (e.g., when to marry, how
many children to have) and professional (e. g., what medical specialization to enter) lives.
First, I discuss the social cognitive theory of career development and how it provides a
useful framework for thinking about why and how anticipated work-family conﬂict and
future plans are likely to be related. I then discuss job/career choices and
relationship/family choices separately in more detail, highlighting previous ﬁndings

about their relationship to actual work-family conﬂict.

27

The social cognitive theory of career development sheds light onto why and how
anticipated work-family conﬂict may relate to the career-related (and farnily-related)
choices that individuals make (Lent et al., 1994). Before describing the theory in more
detail, it is important to point out that the focus of this study is not on career and family
decision-making, but rather on the potential correlates of anticipated work-family
conﬂict. Therefore, the social cognitive theory of career development is presented as a
rationale for why anticipated work-family conﬂict and plans may be related, rather than
as a model to be tested.

The social cognitive theory of career development suggests that self-efﬁcacy for
certain careers and outcome expectations interact to predict the career paths that
individuals will eventually select for themselves. Individuals will gravitate towards
careers that they think they will be able to be successful in (self-efﬁcacy) and that will
lead to the outcomes that they desire (outcome expectations; Lent, Brown, & Hackett,’
1994)

According to Lent et a1. (1994), the outcome expectations that individuals hold
are comprised of the outcomes that are expected to result from the participation in a given
activity and the relative value of these outcomes for individuals. To the extent that
individuals expect certain career paths to cause conﬂict between work and family and to
the extent that individuals value avoiding conﬂict between work and family, the outcome
expectations of different individuals will vary. According to the social cognitive career
development theory, these differing outcome expectations will interact with self-efﬁcacy
to inﬂuence individuals’ interests and their eventual career path (Lent et al., 1994). It is

possible that such outcome expectations inﬂuence the family-related choices that

28

individuals make, as well. If individuals expect that certain family-related choices will
increase their future work-family conﬂict and they value a lack of conﬂict, the logic of
social cognitive theory suggests that they may also be likely to select particular personal
paths for themselves.

The social cognitive theory of career development argues that a reciprocal
relationship between choices and outcome expectations exists. As individuals proceed
through the process of career development, they will adjust their outcome expectations in
accordance with their experiences and select new experiences on the basis of their revised
outcome expectations. Therefore, it is possible that the relationship between anticipated
work-family conﬂict and work/family decisions will also be reciprocal. An example of
this process might be a medical student who plans to become an Obstetrician and decides
to talk to an Obstetrician about the pros and cons of this specialization. Upon talking
with the Obstetrician, the medical student learns about the demanding and unpredictable
hours of this specialization, and therefore anticipates work-family conﬂict. Because the
medical student values having balance between work and family, she might (a) revise her
career-related plans and consider entering Family Medicine because it has less
demanding hours or (b) decide not to have children in order to avoid having conﬂict
between being an Obstetrician and parenting. If she decides to enter Family Medicine
instead, the medical student might pursue more information about this specialization
which would then lead to a further revision of her outcome expectations, and so on.
Thus, the reciprocal process between outcome expectations and career- and family-

related decision-making starts over again.

29

Job/career plans. Anticipated work-family conﬂict may inﬂuence the choices
that individuals make regarding their careers and jobs. Greenhaus, Callanan, and
Godshalk (2000) have discussed the importance of work-family conﬂict in career
decision-making throughout the lifespan. Researchers have shown that the employment
expectations of students can inﬂuence their choices of courses and majors (Barnett et al.,
2003). Additionally, attention to future work conditions (such as support for child care)
may affect the career and job choices that students make (Barnett et al., 2003; Arnold,
1993; Covin & Brush, 1991; Levy, Sadovsky, & Troseth, 2000; Wheeler, Candib, &
Martin, 1990). Individuals may choose speciﬁc jobs with certain features or they may
select their career because of their overall compatibility with their goals in terms of the
management of work and family lives.

Professional choices have also been shown to be related to actual work-family
conﬂict. Individuals who are self-employed experience greater work-family conﬂict than
those who are not (Parasurrnan & Sirnmers, 2001). Individuals who work non-traditional
hours (e.g., weekends) and those who work irregular hours experience greater amounts of
work-family conﬂict than individuals who work traditional and/or regular hours (Staines
& Pleck, 1984). Lee, MacDermid, Williams, Buck and Leiba-O’Sullivan (2002) found
that managers and professionals who worked a reduced-load experienced less conﬂict
between work and family than those who did not.

Because the sample for this study consists of medical students, speciﬁc research
that demonstrates a relationship between doctors’ career-related choices and work-family
conﬂict points to the importance of considering these variables in this study. Barnett and

Gareis (2002) showed that doctors who worked longer hours experienced greater work-

30

family conﬂict. Some research has also investigated choice of medical specialization and
the work/non-work interface. Schwartz et al. (1990) reported that medical students were
more likely to select specializations that required fewer hours of work per week, allowed
more time to pursue leisure activities, and had a decreased number of nights on call.
These lifestyle-related decisions were found to predict choice of specialization more
strongly than traditional inﬂuences on specialization choice, including prestige and
income (Schwartz et al., 1990). J arecky, Schwartz, Haley, and Donnelly (1991) found
that physicians who changed specializations listed time to pursue leisure activities and
family activities as an important factor in this decision. Dorsey, J arj oura, and Rutecki
(2003) found that more medical students selected specializations with a controllable
lifestyle (i.e., greater control over work hours) as their ﬁrst choice in 2002 than in 1996.
Based on the social cognitive theory of career development, evidence that
thoughts about future roles inﬂuence career-related decision-making, and evidence that
professional choices have been shown to be associated with actual work-family conﬂict,
it is important to examine the relationship between anticipated work-family conﬂict and
job/career choices. Research suggesting that choice of medical specialization may be
inﬂuenced by factors associated with non-work life (e.g., time for leisure activities)
provides a particularly compelling argument for the incorporation of work-related
decisions in a study of the anticipated work-family conﬂict of medical students. In order
to do this, this study investigates whether anticipated work-family conﬂict is related to
the medical specializations and settings that individuals choose to enter and the demands
of these specializations and settings (as perceived by the individuals who choose to go

into them and as rated by medical doctors)

31

Research Question 6: What is the relationship between anticipated work-family conﬂict

and job/career choices and levels of demand ?

Relationship/family plans. According to the logic of social cognitive career
development theory, anticipated work-family conﬂict may also have important
implications for numerous non-work-related decisions. With regard to marital decisions,
Livingston et a1. (1996) write that “it is likely that young people may make life decisions
such as the timing of marriage based on whether they anticipate conﬂict between work
and family situations” (p.180). It is possible that other important decisions, such as the
timing of child-bearing and the number of children desired may also be inﬂuenced by
anticipated work-family conﬂict.

Research on actual work-family conﬂict has highlighted the importance of
relationship- and family-related choices and work-family conﬂict. For example,
Friedman and Greenhaus (2000) found that women who were parents felt that their
family interfered with their career more than women who were not parents. Also, both
men and women with children in pro-school experienced more conﬂict between career
and family than individuals who did not have children in pre-school (Friedman &
Greenhaus, 2000). Women in dual-earner couples were more likely to feel that their
family-life interferes with work than both men in dual-earner couples and women not in
dual-earner couples (Friedman & Greenhaus, 2000)

In this study, the relationship between relationship plans (e.g., whether or not to

marry/partner, anticipated age of marriage/partnership), family plans (e.g., whether or not

32

to have children, anticipated age of childbearing), and childcare-related plans (e.g., who
will provide childcare) are examined in relation to anticipated work-family conﬂict.
Again, this relationship is likely to be reciprocal over time, according to the social
cognitive career development theory described above. Relationship/family plans will
inﬂuence anticipated work-family conﬂict and anticipated work-family conﬂict will
inﬂuence relationship/family plans, as well. As discussed earlier, the purpose of this
study is an initial investigation of how plans and anticipated conﬂict are related, rather
than a test of the process by which they inﬂuence one another over time.

Research Question 7: What is the relationship between anticipated work-family conﬂict

and relationship/family plans?

Anticipated and Actual Work-Family Conﬂict

One possible outcome of anticipated work-family conﬂict is actual work-family
conﬂict. No research to date has examined whether individuals who anticipate more
conﬂict actually experience it. The nature of this relationship is unclear and may depend
on the time span between the two measures. It is possible that individuals do not have an
accurate sense of how much work-family conﬂict they will actually experience. There
may, in fact, be no relationship between anticipated work-family conﬂict and subsequent
actual work-family conﬂict for a given job. Young adults may not have a sense of the
challenges that they will face integrating their future roles. For example, Hallett and
Gilbert (1997) note that the college-aged women in their study thought that “neither
combining work and family. . .nor advancing their careers would be particularly

conﬂictual for them” and point out that this may be due to the fact that these challenges

33

are too distinct from the issues that they face on a daily basis (p.319). Thinking about
work and family is not yet a concern for these individuals so they experience little
anticipation of conﬂict. They may not realize the difﬁculties associated with parenting
while working full-time, arranging reliable and satisfactory childcare, or the challenges of
being in a dual-career couple. Therefore, they may not actually anticipate conﬂict,
although it may be a signiﬁcant challenge for them in their future.

Additionally, if there is a relationship, theory at this point does not tell us whether
anticipated work-family conﬂict it is likely to be positively or negatively related to actual
work-family conﬂict. It is possible that individuals are accurately assessing the amount
of conﬂict they will experience in the future, such that individuals who anticipate more
conﬂict will actually experience more conﬂict. Alternatively, it is possible that
individuals who anticipate more work-family conﬂict make family- and work-related
choices that will reduce the conﬂict they experience. Individuals who anticipate a high
degree of conﬂict may choose to delay childbirth or work part-time in order to eliminate
the conﬂict that they anticipate and thus may experience less actual work-family conﬂict.
In this scenario, anticipated conﬂict is acting like a “wake-up call” that work-family
issues need to be considered when making important decisions. Therefore, individuals
who anticipate more conﬂict may actually experience less of it.

Further, the relationship between anticipated work-family conﬂict and actual
work-family conﬂict may be different for different individuals. For example, individuals
considering a job change within a particular ﬁeld might be better “anticipators” of future
conﬂict than those who are entering into the job market for the ﬁrst time. This nature and

direction of this relationship is important to understand because of the negative outcomes

34

that have been associated with actual work-family conﬂict, such as increased depression
(Frone, Russell, & Cooper, 1991), decreased general life satisfaction (Kossek & Ozeki,
1998), psychological distress (Allen, Herst, Bruck, & Sutton, 2000), self-reported poor
physical health (Grzywacz & Marks, 2000) and increased alcohol use (Frone et al.,
1993). Unfortunately, the cross-sectional nature of this study will not allow for analysis
of this research question. However, a longitudinal follow-up of study participants is
planned in order to examine if and how anticipated work-family conﬂict translates into
actual work-family conﬂict.

Future Research Question: What is the relationship between anticipated work-family

conﬂict and actual work-family conﬂict?

Anticipated Work-Family Positive Spillover

Recent research on actual work-family conﬂict has begun to explore the
possibility that engaging in work and family roles may actually enhance one’s ability to
meet obligations in the other domain (often called work-family enrichment, facilitation,
or positive spillover (cf., Hammer et al., 2001; Rothbard, 2001; Grzywacz & Bass,
2003)). Rothbard (2001) writes that, “The enrichment argument suggests that a greater
number of role commitments provide beneﬁts to individuals rather than draining them.
In fact, the enrichment argument directly challenges the notion that peOple have ﬁxed
resources and proposes, instead, that attention and energy can expand” (p.656). Some
researchers have chosen to examine this work-family positive spillover from a
bidirectional perspective, in a similar fashion to the directionality used in the work-family

conﬂict literature (of, Grzywacz & Marks, 2000). Work-to-family positive spillover is

35

when positive aspects of the work domain “spillover” in to the family domain while
family-to-work positive spillover is the opposite.

Researchers have found that work-family positive spillover has a number of
important predictors and consequences. For example, greater decision latitude at work,
more supportive coworkers, and more hours at work have been associated with more
work-to-family positive spillover while having a more supportive spouse and being
married were associated with more family-to-work positive spillover (Grzywacz &
Marks, 2000). Researchers have also shown the positive outcomes that can result when
individuals experience positive spillover between their work and family lives. For
example, Brockwood (2002) found that individuals with higher levels of work-to-family
positive spillover experienced greater family satisfaction. Stephens, Franks and Atienza
(1997) found positive spillover from work-to-family to be associated with greater
psychological well-being. Grzywacz (2000) also found that individuals with greater
positive spillover ﬁ'om family-to—work experienced fewer chronic health problems and
more positive well-being.

Kirchmeyer (1993) suggested that work-family conﬂict and work-family positive
spillover are most likely two separate constructs that can occur at the same time. In
accordance with this, Grzywacz and Marks (2000) found that positive spillover ﬁ'om
work-to-family and positive spillover from family-to-work were uncorrelated with both
directions of work-family conﬂict. To date, limited research has examined whether there
may be multiple types of positive spillover similar to the types of work-family conﬂict
(time-, behavior-, and strain-based conﬂict). One study to do so was conducted by

Hanson et al. (2003). The authors suggested that positive spillover may result ﬁom the

36

transference of positive moods from one domain to another, when the values adopted in
one domain guide behavior in the other domain, when the skills learned in one domain
are useful in the other domain, and when the behaviors utilized in one domain increase
effectiveness in the other domain (Hanson, Colton, & Hammer, 2003). These four sub-
types of possible anticipated work-family positive spillover have not yet been widely
addressed in the literature on work-family engagement nor has a measure of them been
validated, unlike the three types of work-family conﬂict. Recently, a measure of work-
family positive spillover was developed by Carlson, Kacmar, Wayne, and Grzywacz (in
press). These authors provide a validated six-dimensional measure of positive spillover.
Although the Carlson et al. (in press) study was conducted after data was collected for
this study, their ﬁndings have implications for» the results of the current study. The
Carlson et al. (in press) study is discussed in more detail in the Discussion section of this
paper.

The concept of work-family positive spillover might also have an “anticipated”
parallel. That is, do people believe that engagement in the work role will enhance their
ability to be successful in the family role (and vice versa)? For example, do medical
students feel that by having a career that they enjoy and by helping others they can be
more loving and happy family members? Further, do they believe that satisfying family
lives will spillover into their ability to be a successful doctor? Due to the fact that the
existence of different types of positive spillover were not well-researched prior to the
data collection in this study, a more general measure of anticipated work-family positive

spillover that includes both directions of spillover which have been more widely

37

supported by the literature (work-to-family and family-to-work) but not distinct types of
spillover was used.

It is interesting to consider how the antecedents discussed (attitudes,
demographics, and personality) are related to anticipated work-family positive spillover.
Do individuals with positive core self-evaluations anticipate more positive spillover than
others? Do individuals who place a large importance on having multiple roles anticipate
more spillover? Further, the relationship between anticipated positive spillover and
relationship/family and job/career plans is considered. Is choice of medical specialization
associated with degree of anticipated positive spillover? Do individuals who plan to
delay marriage or child-bearing anticipate greater or less positive spillover? Irnportantly,
what is the relationship between anticipated work-family conﬂict and anticipated work-
farnily positive spillover? Because this construct has never been studied before, it is
difﬁcult to make directional hypotheses regarding the nature of these relationships.
However, all analyses conducted for anticipated work-family conﬂict will be replicated
with anticipated work-family positive spillover.

Research Question 8: How is anticipated work-family positive spillover related to the

predictors and outcomes in the model presented?

38

METHOD
Procedure

The sample for this study was comprised of medical students of all years at
Michigan State University in the College of Human Medicine (CHM; 433 students
enrolled at the time of data collection) and the College of Osteopathic Medicine (COM;
526 students enrolled at the time of data collection). Medical students were selected as
the target sample for this study because they are required to make concrete career
decisions prior to leaving medical school (i.e., which medical specialization to enter).
Further, there are a limited number of discrete specializations available for selection. For
these reasons, medical students are a practical sample for examining career decision-
making, as opposed to undergraduates or working employees who select jobs and careers
from a broader range of options, thus limiting the ability to make comparisons across
participant career choices.

For the 1St year medical students, one sit-down, paper-and-pencil data collection
session was conducted during Orientation for each of the medical schools. Attendance at
these events was not mandatory, but highly recommended. Survey completion was
voluntary and anonymous.

A link to a web-based questionnaire was sent via email to 2nd, 3'“, and 4th year
medical students from both the COM and CHM. This email was also sent to COM 1St
students. The email described the nature of the study and explained how students could

participate. Participation in the survey was voluntary and conﬁdentiality of responses

39

was assured to the participants. The recruitment emails, study consent form, and survey
introduction can be found in Appendices A, B, and C, respectively.

Both the web-survey and paper-and-pencil version took approximately 10-20
minutes to complete. Time to complete the web-based survey was tracked. The mean
time to complete the survey was 17.62 minutes (SD = 11.55). The median completion
time was 15 minutes. The mean may be skewed upwards because some participants may
have left their computers for an extended period of time and returned to take the survey
later without logging out of the survey system.

A rafﬂe for a $50 gift certiﬁcate to a medical textbook store was conducted.
Everyone who completed the survey was entered into the rafﬂe. At the end of the survey,
students were asked for permission to re-contact them in the future for longitudinal
follow-up (not part of this research proposal). The permission to re-contact form can be
found in Appendix D.

Method of Administration (Paper-and—Pencil vs. Web-Based)

Method of administration is confounded with year in school since only 1St year
students completed the paper-and-pencil version of the survey. Because of the high
response rate expected through these sit-down administrations during Orientation
sessions, it was determined that the beneﬁts of confounding method of administration and
year in school outweighed the potential costs. The extent to which the method of
administration was associated with responses to the main study variables was examined
(1 = paper-and-pencil, 2 = web-based survey). Method of administration was correlated
with role-sharing regarding childcare (r = .15, p < .01), occupational role importance (r =

-.l8, p < .01), role-planning involvement (r = .11, p < .05), the belief that one’s

4o

specialization helps with work-family balance (r = .10, p < .05), and time-based work-
interference-with—family (r = .11, p < .05). Because method of administration and year in
school are confounded in this study, an examination of whether method of administration
explained incremental variance in the variables above when controlling for year in school
was conducted. For role-sharing childcare, method of administration explained a small
but signiﬁcant amount of incremental variance above and beyond the effects of year in
school (RZA = .01, p < .05). For occupational role-importance, role-planning
involvement, the belief that one’s specialization will help/hinder their ability to achieve
balance, and time-based family-interference-with-work, method of administration did not
explain incremental variance above and beyond the effects of year in school. These
results suggest that, for the most part, the relationships between method of administration
and the key study variables were due to the fact that method was correlated with year in
school. Therefore, the effects of method of administration are not likely to be
problematic in this study and are not considered further.
Participants

A total of 470 medical students participated in this study. In the COM, 122 1St
year students completed the paper—and-pencil survey (out of a total of 148 lSt year
students; 82.4%). In the CHM, 103 participants (out of a total of 106 lSt year students;
97.2%) completed the paper-and-pencil survey.

In the CHM, 75 students who were not in their 1St year took the web-based survey
(out ofa total of 327 2““, 3'“, and 4th year students; 22.9%). In the COM, 169 participants
took the web-based survey (out of a total of 378 2nd, 3rd, and 4th year students, 44.7%).

32 COM students and 1 individual who did not identify his/her school who took the web-

41

based survey identiﬁed themselves as ﬁrst-year students. The web-survey data for these
individuals was dropped from further analysis because it was not possible to determine
whether or not all of these lSt year students also took the paper-and-pencil version of the
survey (at least 16 people can be identiﬁed as having taken the survey twice since they
included their name on their web-survey). Therefore, the ﬁnal number of COM students
completing the web-survey is 137. The ﬁnal total sample size is 437.

Demographic information is presented for each of the schools and for the total

sample in Table l.

42

Table 1
Demographic Information by Medical School

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

COM CHM Total
Final number of participants 259 178 437
Percentages
Overall response rate 49.2 33.8 45.6
lSt year participants 47.1 57.9 51.5
2“d year participants 22.4 17.4 20.4
3'1d year participants 13.5 13.5 14.6
4th year participants 17.0 1 1.2 17.8
Age: 22 or younger 16.6 19.7 17.8
Age: 23 — 24 32.4 30.9 31.8
Age: 25 — 26 22.0 25.3 23.3
Age: 27 — 28 9.3 13.5 11.0
Age: 29 or older 19.7 10.7 16.0
Female 56.6 62.4 58.9
Currently married 29.0 32.0 30.2
Having one or more children that live with 13.2 10.1 11.9
them
Of parents, % with child under age 5 76.3 85.0 79.3
African-American, Black 2.7 7.3 4.6
Asian 4.7 9.6 6.7
Hispanic 2.3 6.7 4.1
Caucasian, White 81.0 69.7 76.4

Measures

Measures were administered in the order they are described. Scale reliabilities are along
the diagonal of Table 3. When used, item/scale abbreviations are presented in italics in
parentheses next to the construct they represent.

Demographics. The demographics assessed were: age, year in school (year),
gender, ethnicity, marital status (marriage) and parental status (parent), and age of

youngest child. Demographic items are presented in Appendix E. Age and year are

43

continuous variables. Gender was coded as 0 = male, 1 = female. Due to small numbers
of minorities from distinct ethnic subgroups, minority (non-White) and multiethnic
individuals were categorized together and analyses were conducted comparing White and
non-White participants (0 = White, 1 = Minority/Multiethnic). 23 individuals who self-
identiﬁed as “other” for ethnicity or did not respond to this question were not included in
these analyses. For marriage, responses were coded as either not currently
married/partnered (O) or currently married/partnered (1). Parent was coded into two
categories: individuals who never had children (0) and individuals who have children
living with them (1). Because only 6 individuals had children who were not living with
them (e. g., given up for adoption, other parent has full custody), these individuals were
not included in further analyses using this variable. Age of youngest child was requested
for participants who had children. Because only 57 participants have children, this
variable was not included in further analyses.

Relationship and family plans. Participants indicated whether they planned to
marry or have a life-long partnership. This variable (marry) was coded as 0 = yes and 1
= other (no, unsure, or haven’t thought about it). Participants were also asked to indicate
at what age they plan to marry/partner (age marry). This was treated as a continuous
variable and only those individuals who identiﬁed an age of expected marriage were
included (N = 244).

For parenting-related plans, individuals were asked whether they plan to have
children (0 = other (no, unsure, haven’t thought about it), 1 = yes; children) and how
many children they plan to have (n children). Number of children planned was treated as

a continuous variable with the responses of only those individuals who indicated the

number of children that they plan to have included (N = 384). Participants were also
asked at what age they plan to start having children (age children). Again, this was
treated as a continuous variable with only those individuals who indicated the age at
which they plan start having children included (N = 244). Participants were asked to
indicate whether they expect to have other people besides themselves and their spouse
provide regular childcare (other care). This was coded as 0 = yes, 1 = other (no, unsure,
or haven’t thought about it; N = 426). The type of childcare that participants intend to
use during the hours that they work was also requested. Participants were able to select
more than one option and each option was recoded as 0 (participant does not plan to use
this form of childcare) or I (participate does plan to use this form of childcare). When
analyzing these results, we considered individuals who do not plan to have their spouse
provide childcare (0) versus those that do (1; N = 43 7; spouse care). Participants were
asked how much they expected themselves and their partner to work once they had
children. Responses were coded to indicate whether the individual planned to work ﬁrll-
time (0) or did not plan to work full-time (1; N = 299). Individuals who did not specify
whether they planned to work full-time were not included in these analyses. Participants
were also asked to indicate their certainty that the relationship (relate. certain) and family
plans (family certain) they identiﬁed will actually happen (on a 5-point scale from “very
unsure” to “very sure”). See Appendix F for relationship and family plan items.
Job/career plans. Participants were asked which specialization they plan to go
into (rating their top two most likely choices) and which setting they plan to practice in.

Participants were also asked to indicate what setting they plan to work in. Certainty

45

regarding medical career plans was also rated on a 5-point scale from “very unsure” to
‘Very sure”). See Appendix G for job plan items.

Specialization ratings. Participants were asked to respond to nine questions
about the specialization that they rated as their ﬁrst choice. These questions assessed the
work-family balance demands of the specialization. Response options for eight out of the
nine items were on a 5-point scale ranging from “less” to “more.” For one item, the
response option was on a 5-point scale from “slower than” to “faster than”. Specialization
rating items can be found in Appendix H.

An exploratory factor analysis using principal axis factoring with a varimax
rotation yielded two factors. The ﬁrst factor includes items referring to the time-based
demands (i.e., hours per week, predictability of hours, control over hours, and hours on
call) of the specialization. The second factor includes items referring to demands on-the-
job, including behavioral- (i.e., following protocols, behavioral control) and strain-based
demands (i.e., emotional challenges, difﬁcult decisions, and pace of work) of the
specialization. Therefore, two scales were created reﬂecting demands on time (4 items;
hours demands (self-ratings); a = .82) and the physical and psychological demands at
work (5 items; on-the-job demands (self-ratings); a = .75). The intercorrelations among
items and factor loadings ﬁom the exploratory factor analysis can be found in Appendix
1.

Participants were also asked to answer a single item regarding the extent to which
the specialization that they chose as their ﬁrst choice will help them or hinder them from

experiencing an ideal balance between work and family life (help/hinder). Response

46

options were on a 5-point scale from “it will Me; my ability to have balance a lot” to
“it will help my ability to have balance a lot”.

Anticipated work-family conﬂict. The l8-item work-family conﬂict scale created
by Carlson, Kacmar, and Williams (2000) was altered to reﬂect the measurement of
“anticipated” conﬂict. Therefore, all items were rewritten in a future tense. Six types of
anticipated work-family conﬂict were measured including anticipated behavior-based
work-interference-with-family (behavior WIF), anticipated behavior-based farnily-
interference-with-work (behavior F1 W), anticipated strain-based work-interference-with-
family (strain WIF), anticipated strain-based family-interference-with—work (strain FI W),
anticipated time-based work-interference-with-family (time WIF) and anticipated time-
based family-interference-with—work (time F] W). See Appendix J for the anticipated
work-family conﬂict scale.

Carlson et al. (2000) found that a structural equation model with six correlated
latent factors ﬁt their data best. A conﬁrmatory factor analysis was conducted to
examine whether a six factor structure ﬁt the data collected for this study best, as well.
Listwise deletion was used to remove 25 participants who had missing data from the
data-set. A six factor model was compared to a three factor model (which reﬂected time-
, strain-, and behavior-based conﬂict — ignoring direction of conﬂict), a two factor model
(work-interference with family and family-interference-with-work - ignoring type of
conﬂict), and a unidirnensional model (all work-family conﬂict items). Factors were
allowed to correlate. Table 2 shows the ﬁt statistics of the four models. Results indicate
that the six dimensional model of anticipated work-family conﬂict ﬁt the data

signiﬁcantly better than the alternative models (p < .01 for all comparisons). This CFA

47

uses the same methods as Carlson et a1. (2000) and replicates their ﬁndings for the

anticipated work-family conﬂict scale.

 

 

Table 2
Estimates of F it Indices for Anticipated Work-Family Conﬂict
36 Df P Comparative Fit Root mean square
Index (CPI) error of

approximation
(RMSEA)

6-dimensional model 202.87 120 .00 .98 .04

3-dimensional model 676.63 132 .00 .83 .10

2-dimensional model 1742.75 134 .00 .51 .17

Unidirnensional model 1871.96 135 .00 .47 .18

 

Based on the ﬁndings ﬁ'om the conﬁrmatory factor analysis, scale scores for each
of the six dimensions were created. The reliability of the six scales range from a = .75
(time FIW) to a = .88 (strain F IW).

Anticipated work-family positive spillover. The work-family positive spillover
scale was adapted from Sumer and Knight (2001). Items were rewritten in the future
tense to reﬂect an “anticipated” scenario. The original scale consisted of nine items, four
reﬂecting positive spillover from work-to-family and ﬁve items reﬂecting spillover from
family-to-work. An additional three items were added to counter-balance the direction of
the existing items and to hopefully raise the alpha levels of the two sub-scales (both of
which were a = .68 in the original study). Therefore, the ﬁnal scale consisted of 12 items
(6 reﬂecting each direction of spillover). See Appendix K for work-family positive
spillover items. Response options were on a 5-point scale ranging ﬁ'om “strongly

disagree” to “strongly agree.”

48

An exploratory factor analysis using principal axis factoring with a varimax
rotation yielded three factors. It was not possible to discern any content differences
across factors. Irnportantly, the ﬁrst factor explained more than three times the variance
of the second or third factor. Based on these ﬁndings, a unidimensional scale was created
(positive spillover). The reliability of the ﬁnal scale was a = .86. See Appendix L for the
intercorrelations among items and the factor loadings from the exploratory factor
analysis.

Role-importance. The measure of role-importance was adopted from Amatea,
Cross, Clark, and Bobby (1986). Their Life Role Salience Scale (LRSS) was used by
Kerpelman and Schvaneveldt (1999) and is one of the more prominent measures of role-
importance. According to the Amatea et a1. (1986) article, two aspects of role
expectations were assessed by the scales: (a) the personal importance or value attributed
to participation in a particular role and (b) the intended level of commitment of personal
time and energy resource to enactment of a role. The attitudinal construct assessed here
(as presented earlier) is focused on role-importance (not role-commitment). Participants
were asked about their plans for engaging in future roles in a separate section and their
certainty of these decisions was assessed. It would have been redundant to include a
measure of role-commitment here and thus only role-importance is measured by this
scale. Further, the LRSS addresses four major life roles - the occupation, the marital, the
parental, and the homecare roles. However, the literature on work and non-work conﬂict
focuses mainly on the conﬂict between work and family roles and does not address those
associated with homecare. Therefore, in keeping in line with current research, role

importance associated with homecare was not measured. The LRSS was designed to

49

assess the role importance of men and women currently engaged in and those anticipating
the different life roles.

Participants completed a role-importance scale for each of the 3 relevant roles, the
occupational (5 items), relationship (e.g., marriage/partnership; 5 items), and parental (5
items) roles. Response-options were on a 5-point scale ranging from “strongly disagree”
to “strongly agree”. See Appendix M for role-importance items.

All 15 items were entered into an exploratory factor analysis using principal axis
factoring with a varimax rotation. Five factors were extracted. The ﬁrst factor consisted
of items reﬂecting relationship importance. The second factor consisted of items
reﬂecting the importance of the parental role. The third factor consisted of items
reﬂecting relationship and parental role importance, with high cross-loadings on the ﬁrst
and second factors. The fourth and ﬁfth factors consisted of items reﬂecting occupational
role importance. Because items in the third factor had high cross-loadings with items in
the ﬁrst and second factor, a second exploratory factor analysis was conducted using
principal axis factoring with a varimax rotation forcing four factors. In this case, those
items that had high cross-loadings onto the third factor loaded onto the ﬁrst (relationship
role-importance) and second (parental role-importance) factors only. Therefore, two
scales reﬂecting these two constructs were created. One item (relationship role-
importance item 1) had had high cross-loadings on the ﬁrst and second factor. Because
its content was related to the ﬁrst factor and it had a slightly higher loading onto the ﬁrst
factor, it was included in the relationship role-importance scale. The third factor included
the two items focused on career satisfaction while the fourth factor included the three

items focused on career achievement/status. Because the two career satisfaction

50

importance items (factor 3) are most similar to the importance items for the other roles
and because the two item scale using just the career satisfaction importance items has a
reliability of a = .73 while scales using the other occupational importance items have
inadequate reliabilities, this scale was used for further analyses examining occupational
role importance (RI — occupational). Mean scale scores were also created for the parental
(RI — parenting; a = .80) and relationship role importance (RI - relationship; a = .88)
items (5 items each). See Appendix N for the intercorrelations among items and the
factor loadings from both exploratory factor analyses.

Role-sharing. The scales used to measure role-sharing were adapted ﬁom the
Orientation to Occupational-Family Integration (OOFI) Scale developed by Gilbert et a1.
(1991). The complete measure consists of three separate scales that reﬂect three types of
orientations towards the combining of occupational and family roles. The sub-scale of
interest is the role-sharing scale (the OOFI-RS). Items in this scale reﬂect the degree to
which an individual plans to share responsibilities with a prospective partner. This scale
was altered for the purposes of this study. First, the original scale asks the same items
multiple times reﬂecting different scenarios (after marriage with children and after
marriage before or with children). This distinction seems unnecessary and repetitive due
to the fact that the second scenario is inclusive of the ﬁrst. Also, items were re-worded to
include both spouse and partner rather than just spouse to reﬂect the possibility of
participants having long-term same-sex relationships. Irnportantly, original items
confounded the issue of having both partners work ﬁrll-time and sharing responsibilities.
Because a question about how much each partner will work is included as a

relationships/family plans item, this part was eliminated from each question. Also, rather

51

than listing a domain of responsibilities (e.g., childcare) and then having a number of
examples of responsibilities ﬁom that domain, the questions were rewritten such that
each responsibility became its own item and participants are asked to rate how they
intend to share that role with their spouse/partner.

Items were rescored for data analysis. Response options 1 and 2 were rescored to
be equal to 1, 3 was rescored to be equal to 2, 4 and 5 were rescored to be equal to 3, and
6 was scored as missing data. This results in a continuous variable ranging from 1
(participant will take the majority of the responsibility for this) to 3 (participant will take
the minority of the responsibility for this) A score of 2 indicates equal role-sharing. See
Appendix 0 for the role-sharing items.

An exploratory factor analysis of the recoded items was conducted using principal
axis factoring with a varimax rotation and three factors were extracted. The ﬁrst factor
consisted of six items associated with doing daily chores and two negatively loading
items (bringing in income and maintaining our home/apartment — e.g., painting, yard
work). The second factor consisted of four items associated with child involvement (e. g.,
supporting our children emotionally). The third factor consisted of items about
maintaining the ﬁnances (e. g., managing the household budget). Based on these results,
we created three scale scores (daily chores, child involvement, and ﬁnances). The two
items that loaded negatively on the ﬁrst factor (income and maintenance) were not
included in these scales. The reliability of the daily chores scale is (RS — chores)
adequate (a = .84). However, the reliabilities for the child involvement (RS - childcare)

and ﬁnances scales (RS — ﬁnances) were lower than is generally acceptable (or = .58 and a

52

= .57, respectively). See Appendix P for the item intercorrelations and factor loadings
ﬁom the exploratory factor analysis.

Role-planning. The role-planning items were adopted from the Attitudes
Towards Multiple Role Planning (ATMRP) Scale created by Weitzman and Fitzgerald
(1996). The ATMRP Scale includes ﬁve sub-scales: knowledge/certainty, commitment
to multiple roles, independence, involvement, and ﬂexibility/compromise. As discussed
previously, role-planning in this study was conceptualized as the belief that it is important
to think about and plan for having multiple roles. Two of the subscales of the ATMRP
scale reﬂect this attitude towards role-planning. First, the “knowledge/certainty”
subscale is deﬁned as “self-perceptions regarding the degree of knowledge about multiple
role planning and certainty of one’s ability to plan for multiple roles in a realistic
fashion.” The second relevant scale is “involvement” and it is deﬁned as “perceptions of
the immediacy of the need to engage in multiple role planning” (W eitzrnan & Fitzgerald,
1996). The other scales do not directly tap into the issue of planning, but instead reﬂect
being committed to having multiple roles rather than planning for them, making decisions
about future roles independently or with the advice of others, and being willing to
compromise around ﬁrture roles. They are not reﬂective of intent to plan for ﬁrture roles,
but instead are more peripheral to this issue. These are issues related to planning but do
not reﬂect planning behaviors in and of themselves. Therefore, only the
knowledge/certainty scale (10 items) and the involvement scale (10 items) were included
in this study. Items were rated on a 5-point scale from “strongly disagree” to “strongly

agree.” See Appendix Q for role-planning items.

53

An exploratory factor analysis using principal axis factoring with a varimax
rotation yielded three factors. No items had their highest loading on the third factor. The
ﬁrst factor consisted of all of the knowledge/certainty items and the second factor
consisted of all of the involvement items. Therefore, the two subscales were created as
the mean of the scores on the items that comprise them (RP - knowledge (a = .90) and RP
— involvement (0. = .87), respectively). See Appendix R for the item intercorrelations and
factor loadings from the exploratory factor analysis.

Core self-evaluations. Core self-evaluations were measured using the Core Self-
Evaluations Scale (CSES) developed by Judge, Erez, Bono, and Thoresen (2003). The
CSES is a unidimensional 12-item measure representing four more speciﬁc core traits
(generalized self-esteem, self-efﬁcacy, neuroticism, and locus of control). Appendix S for
the core self-evaluations scale.

An exploratory factor analysis using principal axis factoring with a varimax
rotation was conducted. It yielded two factors. These factors represent items that were
positively word (factor 1) and negatively word (these items were recoded; factor 2).
Because the scale has been demonstrated to be unidimensional in prior research, and the
reliability of the unidimensional scale is adequate in this data set (a = .80), and the two
factors were not related to item content, a single scale was created of all core self-
evaluation items. See Appendix T for the item intercorrelations and factor loadings from
the exploratory factor analysis.

Deﬁnition of family.At the end of the survey, participants were asked to identify
those types of individuals that they included in their deﬁnition of family. 38.4% of

participants deﬁned family as the nuclear family (including themselves, a spouse, and

54

children — or the possibility of children). For 49.9% of participants, their deﬁnition of
family included extended family, such as the participants’ parents, grandparents, or
siblings. 11.7% of participants provided a different type of answer such as “a group of
people who share their lives by choice and support each other thru thick and thin” or did
not answer this question. This item was included to gain insight into what individuals
had in mind when responding to the other survey items. Because participant responses
were very similar and reﬂected, for the most part, traditional conceptualizations of
family, this item was not incorporated into any further analyses. This item can be found
in Appendix U.

Expert ratings of specializations/settings. This measure was given to expert raters
(medical doctors). A total of 23 medical specializations and 4 work settings were rated
by the doctors. Note that doctors rated the demands of specializations and settings
whereas participants only rated the demands of their top choice of specialization (not
setting). To clarify, doctors rated specializations and settings separately, not each
specialization within each setting. Two surveys were created so that no rater had to rate
all 23 specializations and 4 settings. One survey consisted of rating 12 specializations
and 2 settings. The other survey consisted of rating 11 specializations and 2 settings.

12 experts fully completed the lZ-specialization survey while 15 experts fully
completed the l 1-specialization survey. Only the data from raters who completed the
entire survey were included for analysis. Experts were recruited through informal
contacts and emails sent to medical faculty at Michigan State University and the

University of Michigan. The surveys were completed online. Participants were directed

55

to one of the two surveys based on an Access ID that they received in the recruiting email
and entered upon visiting the study website.

Each specialization/setting was rated on nine items (the same nine items that the
medical students used to rate their ﬁrst choice of medical specialization). A scale score
for the hours (4-items; hours demands (expert-ratings)) and on-the-job demands (5-items;
on-the—job demands (expert-ratings)) of each specialization/setting was created by
averaging the ratings provided by the doctors for the items that comprised each scale (see
Specialization Ratings for participants above). The average internal-consistency
reliability of the hours demands scale across the 23 specializations was a. = .70 and across
the 4 settings was a = .76. The average internal-consistency reliability of the on-the-job
demands scale across the 23 specializations was a = .70 and across the 4 settings was
a = .70. .

Each participant received an expert rating score for the hours and on-the-job
demands that corresponded with their ﬁrst choice of specialization and setting. See
Appendix V for an example of an expert-rating task for a specialization and a setting.

The avera

56

RESULTS

Results are organized according to Research Question. First, Research Questions
1 through 5 address the relationship between the predictors of anticipated work-farmly
conﬂict (demographics, core self-evaluations, and attitudes) and the six forms of
anticipated work-family conﬂict. Next, Research Questions 6 and 7 focus on the
relationship between anticipated work-family conﬂict and medical specialization/setting
and relationship/family plans. Finally, Research Question 8 replicates the analyses from
Research Questions 1 - 7 using anticipated work-family positive spillover as the focal
construct, rather than the six forms of anticipated work-family conﬂict.

Table 3 presents the means, standard deviations, and reliabilities for key study
variables. Note that individuals anticipated a great deal of work-family positive spillover
and that there was low variance on this scale. Also, participants had fairly high core self-

evaluations (3.66 out of 5). Again, this scale also had low variance.

57

85.0 e
003082.03... Sign Maia 35.3.0.“

 

 

7.0»: Mb . N e a e e e m e .b
.. no.0 m0....m<e.cwee=m Pee 98 23
N. ”20 wrung . 0:28 8.; Pee be 2.3
e. W20 2:55 - 05302.0 N8 .85 b. .3 meme
5. were mew—.8 - 33500“. ..ee be. -.: be .8 bed
e. ”0.0 5.33500 . 383.8 .8... 9% be be -be .8 :3
e. No.0 5628300 - w0.e~.o:m=.e Pee Pee .8 be :3 be he Ca:
8. ”20 569.3500 - Cancun—".30. Pee Pee -b. -be -be -be :8 Le 88
m. ”20 225.8 - 5.92.0an P... 8: be be -be -be be .8 J: bee.
e. ”20 1.25.8 .. 5.57.0303 e.ee 9.3 ..b be .3 .8 he .8 :8 .3 b8.
5. O:.§0...o.c 00333.8.m.§.=m$ e..b bee -b. ..e be -be be .8 be -b. .8 8e.
2. :95 003.5% Am0_m.§.=mmv 8.3 98 -ba .8 .8 -ba be .8 .3 ..—e -be .m—
8. 10.35589. 98 ..~e .2 r... J: bb be be :3 be be r.
.e. $033.2 (5.1 Pub Pen :8 be b. .be be b. be .._e .8 .5
3. 832.3 39} 8.8. 98 -._e .be be .b. ..8 be .3 -. -be .2
.e. 98.: (5.1 ~.~e 9.: :8 be .5 -ba ...—b :8 .3 Jun be .3
.e. 98.: 2.2.. ..ee bbu {8 -be -.8 .8 ..8 :8 .3 :8 -be be
.8. .230 ‘5... P8 88 Le be be b. be .8 be Jun .8 .N—
a. nan 2;... N. «a e d - .3 .8 .8. .8 .3 .3 - .3 a... .8 .2
5.1855 me...o<0~ A. 8 b. be .5 - be b. - be .8 .3 I be be he .8

 

220. ”2.5% «8.0 . I e we a: $53.3 p.55. €70: 3.2520 8.32.5. 83:30.; 0.25. 3.. 980305.. 5 3.02.388 anm 30 BE:
Emmosa. 2m v e8. 0240.288 98 2.0 38502: B h A be m8 2.0833. 5 .35. 0030.883 £3. a N _bee_ 2.0 amazon... 2 e A be wee

ww_. Go. 2.0 £8583 8 e A b..

)5..." Iﬁonr..=.0nm0~0=00-£.9-m25.en snafu Iv.08..v:.=.0%0~0=o0-€.3-€o~w.

58

 

 

.320 u nooadv

.. .N .e 3 .e .e 8 .m .e Nb 8.
no. >M0 b. .8 .8 b. be he b. be ..be -
8.. <81: M078. J8 Lu J8 J8 J8 -be -be be J8 .8 -
8. 0030.. -be .8 J8 J8 bb J8 J8 J8 .8 J8 .8
8. 755.05. .8 J8 be .8 be .8 -b. J8 -be .8 J:
8. .5018. maps—m J8 .8 J8 J8 -be -be .8 .8 be .8 .8
Ne. $8.036. mam—8m be be .8 -be -be b. -be .8 .8 .3 .8

 

59

 

 

.320 u €318

38: Mb _ N w A m o q a o 8
we. >ma who :— 38 .3 .3 .3 -bm :3 :8 .3 Lu .8
3. <03 :— mosoa #2 r: :8 :8 .3 .8 -bo 33 3:. .on .3 38
MN. Gaza—on rue be J: Jun sow .3 38 J: .8 3:. be :3
Nu. E3385. :0 .3 :3 Jo— )? .co .9» :3 .2 .8 -b— .3
NA. 3918. £35 :3 ha .8 .3 .3 .3 .3 .5 J: .5 bu .3
Nu. 58:8. mesa :N .8 .3 .5 .oo .9. .3 .8 a; .N— .uu .3

 

60

 

 

$.23 A8513
8 8 NA NM
8. >%
B. <81: wage.
NM. 0252 -
8.. 9.583. .2 -
N... 7358— 95... :3 :8 -
mm. 5831 £25 :3 new .uu -

 

61

Research Question 1: Demographics and Anticipated Work-Family Conﬂict

As can be seen in Table 4, demographics were largely uncorrelated with
anticipated work-family conﬂict. Because year in school and parental status were
uncorrelated with any of the six forms of anticipated work-family conﬂict, they were not
considered in further analyses that include demographics. Female medical students
anticipate less behavior-based work-interference-with-family and time-based work-

interference-with—family than male students.

Table 4

Relationship between Demographics and Anticipated Work-Family Conﬂict
Age Year Gender Ethnicity Marriage Parent

 

 

Behavior WIF“ .07 -.04 v -.12 .09 -.02 .08
Behavior NW" .01 -.03 -.04 .07 -.12 -.05
Strain WIFa .06 -.04 .00 .09 -.O6 -.06
Strain FIWb .10 -.O6 -.04 .17 -.09 .01
Time WIFa .01 -.05 -.13 -.01 .07 -.06
Time 1=Iwb .05 .06 -.02 -.04 .08 04

 

Note. Ns > 406. Correlations that are signiﬁcant at p < .05 are presented in bold.
Correlations with r 2 |.10| are signiﬁcant at p < .05 and r 2 |.13| are signiﬁcant at
p < .01.

aWIF = Work-Interference-with—Family. bFIW = F amily-Interference—with-Work.

Research Question 2: Core Self-Evaluations and Anticipated Work-Family Conﬂict

As can be seen in Table 3, core self-evaluations were negatively correlated with
all six forms of anticipated work-family conﬂict (r 's range from -. 12 to -.32, p < .05 for
all). In other words, individuals with more positive core self-evaluations expected to

experience less work-family conﬂict in the future.

62

Research Questions 3 — 5: Attitudes toward Future Roles and Anticipated Work-Family
Conﬂict

Research Questions 3 through 5 address the extent to which attitudes regarding
role-planning, role-importance, and role-sharing are associated with anticipated work-
farnily conﬂict. Since role-sharing ﬁnances and role-planning involvement were
unrelated to any of the six forms of anticipated work-family conﬂict, these variables were
not included in further analyses regarding the relationship between attitudes and
anticipated work-family conﬂict.

Table 3 presents the zero-order correlations between attitudes towards future roles
and the six forms of anticipated work-family conﬂict. Hierarchical regressions predicting
each of the six forms of anticipated work-family conﬂict were conducted. Because
demographics and core self-evaluations are considered more stable and immutable
characteristics of individuals as compared to attitudes, demographics and core self-
evaluations were entered as Step 1 and Step 2 of the hierarchical regressions,
respectively. The analyses that follow examine the extent to which attitudes towards
future roles explain variance in the six forms of anticipated work-family conﬂict above
and beyond the effects of demographics and core self-evaluations.

Tables 5 through 10 show the results of the six hierarchical regression analyses.
Results indicate that core self-evaluations explain a signiﬁcant amount of incremental
variance in all six forms of anticipated work-family conﬂict (p < .05 for all) above and
beyond the effects of demographics. Further, attitudes explain a signiﬁcant amount of
variance in all six forms of anticipated work-family conﬂict above and beyond the effects

of demographics and core self-evaluations. Results show that role-planning knowledge

63

emerged as a signiﬁcant predictor of all six forms of anticipated work-family conﬂict
when entered with the other attitudes as a set. Individuals with more knowledge about
role-planning anticipate less of all six forms of work-family conﬂict.

The importance that individuals place on achieving job satisfaction (occupational
role importance) was a signiﬁcant predictor of three of the six forms of anticipated work-
family conﬂict. It was positively correlated with both behavior-based and strain-based
work-interference-with—family. In other words, a stronger emphasis on occupational
importance was associated with a stronger believe that strain ﬁ'om work will interfere
with effective ﬁmctioning at home and that behaviors necessary for work will be
ineffective at home. Interestingly, individuals who place more emphasis on their job also
anticipate less time-based family-interference—with—work. For three of the six forms of
anticipated work-family conﬂict, role-planning knowledge and occupational role-
importance were the only two signiﬁcant attitudinal predictors. For strain-based family-
interference-with—work, only role-planning knowledge was a signiﬁcant predictor when
entered with the other attitudes as a set.

Two forms of role-sharing (role-sharing chores and role-sharing childcare) were
also signiﬁcant predictors of anticipated work-family conﬂict. Role-sharing chores was
associated with both strain-based and time-based work-interference-with—family.
Individuals who expected their spouse to take on more of the responsibility for chores
anticipated more of each of these two forms of conﬂict. Also, individuals who expected
their spouses to take on more of the childcare responsibility (role-sharing childcare)

anticipated more time-based work-interference-with-family.

64

Table 5

Hierarchical Regression Predicting Behavior—Based Work-Interference- With-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Family
(N = 374)
R2 A R2 Unstandardized p
Coefﬁcient
Step 1 - Demographics .03 .03 .03
Age .04 .22
Gender -.21 .01
Marital Status -.05 .60
Ethnicity .16 .12
Step 2 -— Core Self-Evaluations .05 .02 .01
Step 3 — Attitudes .08 .03 .04
Role Sharing — Chores -.03 .78
Role Sharing - Childcare .06 .76
Role Importance — Parenting .02 .79
Role Importance — Relationship .04 .49
Role Importance — Occupational .09 .04
Role Planning — Knowledge -. l 6 .01
Table 6
Hierarchical Regression Predicting Behavior-Based F amily-Interference- With-
Work
(N = 374)
R2 A R2 Unstandardized P
Coefﬁcient
Step 1 — Demographics .02 .02 .06
Age .02 .47
Gender -. 12 .13
Marital Status -. l 9 .03
Ethnicity .12 .20
Step 2 — Core Self-Evaluations .05 .02 .01
Step 3 - Attitudes .12 .07 .00
Role Sharing - Chores -.11 .28
Role Sharing — Childcare .08 .63
Role Importance - Parenting -.04 .56
Role Importance — Relationship -.01 .79
Role Importance - Occupational .07 .08
Role Planning — Knowledge -.26 .00

 

65

Table 7

Hierarchical Regression Predicting Strain-Based Work-Interference- With-Family

 

 

 

 

 

 

(N = 374)
R2 A R2 Unstandardized P
Coefﬁcient
Step 1 — Demographics .01 .01 .38
Age .02 .56
Gender .03 .70
Marital Status -.07 .44
Ethnicity .16 .10
Step 2 - Core Self-Evaluations .09 .08 .00
Step 3 — Attitudes .25 .16 .00
Role Sharing — Chores .29 .00
Role Sharing — Childcare .12 .49
Role Importance - Parenting -.06 .33
Role Importance - Relationship -.02 .72
Role Importance - Occupational .13 .00
Role Planning - Knowledge -.30 .00

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 8
Hierarchical Regression Predicting Strain-Based F amily-Interference- With- Work
(N = 374)
R2 ARZ Unstandardized P
Coefﬁcient

Step 1 - Demograghics .04 .04 .00
Age .05 .04
Gender -.03 .67
Marital Status -.14 .07
Ethnicity .24 .00
Step 2 -— Core Self-Evaluations .15 .10 .00
Step 3 — Attitudes .19 .04 .01
Role Sharing - Chores -.01 .91
Role Sharing - Childcare .04 .77
Role Importance — Parenting -.06 .25
Role Importance — Relationship .02 .61
Role Importance — Occupational .05 .10
Role Planning — Knowledge -.15 .00

 

66

Table 9

Hierarchical Regression Predicting T ime-Based Work-Interference- With-Family

(N=374)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

R2 ARI Unstandardized P
Coefﬁcient

Step 1 — Demographics .02 .02 .09
Age -.02 .55
Gender -.23 .01
Marital Status .08 .45
Ethnicity .01 .90
Step 2 — Core Self-Evaluations .04 .02 .01
Step 3 — Attitudes .24 .20 .00
Role Sharing — Chores .30 .00
Role Sharing - Childcare .50 .01
Role Importance - Parenting -.05 .47
Role Importance — Relationship .08 .l 1
Role Importance — Occupational .07 .12
Role Planning — Knowledge -.39 .00
Table 10
Hierarchical Regression Predicting T ime-Based F amily-Interference- With- Work
(N = 374)

R2 AR2 Unstandardized P

Coefﬁcient

Step 1 — Demogragcs .02 .02 .23
Age .00 .90
Gender -.02 .79
Marital Status .17 .06
Ethnicity -.08 .41
Step 2 - Core Self-Evaluations .04 .02 .01
Step 3 - Attitudes .09 .05 .00
Role Sharing — Chores .00 .97
Role Sharing — Childcare .10 .59
Role Importance — Parenting -.01 .89
Role Importance — Relationship .08 .14
Role Importance — Occupational -.11 .01
Role Planning - Knowledge -.19 .00

 

67

Research Question 6: Job/Career Choices and Levels of Demand and Anticipated Work-
Family Conﬂict

Research Question 6 addresses the relationship between the demands of working
in the different medical specializations and settings that individuals choose for
themselves and anticipated work-family conﬂict. The demands of the medical
specialization were rated by both the individual completing the survey him/herself and by
expert raters. Both ratings (self and expert) are examined in relation to the amount of
work-family conﬂict that individuals anticipate. First, descriptive information about the
types of medical specializations that individuals plan to enter into and the average level
of demands of these specializations (both as rated by the participants who plan to enter
these specializations and the experts) is provided. Then, descriptive information
regarding the settings that individuals plan to go into and expert ratings of the demands of
these settings is presented. Next, correlational analyses regarding how the demands of
specialization/setting relate to anticipated work-family conﬂict are presented. Finally, the
extent to which specialization/setting demands explain incremental variance in the six
forms of work-family conﬂict when controlling for the more proximal individual

characteristics of demographics, core self-evaluations, and attitudes is examined.

68

Descriptive results for medical specialization/setting. Table 11 presents medical
specializations for which at least 5% of participants indicate that it was their ﬁrst or
second choice (seven specializations). More than 5% of individuals indicated that they
were unsure about their ﬁrst or second choice. One-way AN OVAs were conducted to
examine whether there were differences in self-rated on-the-job demands, hour demands,
and perceptions that one’s specialization will help/hinder balance based on which
specialization individuals planned to go into (for the top seven specializations). Results
indicate that there were signiﬁcant mean differences in the ratings given by individuals
who plan to enter the different specializations on all three of these dimensions (p < .01
for all). Post-hoc analyses were conducted which compared the specialization with the
highest and lowest self-ratings (on hours demands, on-the-job demands, and help/hinder)
to the other specializations. Results of a Tukey’s HSD post-hoc test indicate that
Emergency Medicine was perceived by participants to have higher on-the-job demands
than all six of the other specializations (p < .05 for all comparisons). Family Practice
was perceived by participants as having lower on-the-job demands than four out of the
six other specializations considered (all except Internal Medicine and Pediatrics; p < .05
for all other comparisons). For hours demands, Obstetrics and Gynecology was found to
have a signiﬁcantly higher mean rating of demand than four out of the six other groups
(all except Orthopedic Surgery and General Surgery, p < .01 for rest). Emergency
Medicine was perceived as having lower hours demands than the other specializations
except for Family Medicine and Pediatrics (p < .01 for rest). For perceptions that one’s
specialization helps/hinders balance, Emergency Medicine was perceived to help an

individual achieve balance more than four out of the six other specializations (all except

69

Family Practice and Pediatrics, p < .05 for rest). General Surgery was seen as hindering
the ability to ﬁnd balance more than all specializations except for Obstetrics and

Gynecology and Orthopedic Surgery (p < .01 for all other comparisons).

7O

ﬂea—o Z

bmunlmzeemNex Rmamni MRQNQEES:

 

 

gnome—masses .X. _a e\e Nae Onions—ow :ocnm Inn—1:33.. 05-99.57 30:8
938 0:28 Una—Baa 035:3 Amanneasmmv Una—25m Cage—am
Amaﬁéﬁmammv Amaﬁrnmasmmv A333. A969?
Bﬁmsmmv 333mm;
magma—8% PM ah Pea 6A3 PM.“ 23 Pmm C .Nd P; :8 New C .80
Zoqmomso
$517. 3; Eu Nam 23 Pt Abov who 2 b: wow 38 wow 23
$8038
5832 Sb 3; Wow 33 who a: PG Chev wow 38 PAM :8
32:93
03838 85 9a Sm who A53 Poe 38 NB 8.ch PS A63 93 $8
055.88%
03.83? mm H: 93 T2: Pg 33 PNN 8.on PE QC Pam $8
9:.an
madman—mom 2: mb Pmm 33 NE 33 mad 2 .oC PS 3: wow 38
9:.an I MN Pm Pam A63 93 33 New Akov 9% $3 5.3 a:
@253—
CsmEd MN 3.x in Re Rm 2» 2m

 

268. 0:7. :58 magma—Emacs.“ m2. £50: :88 :6: max. em :5 333685 maamoﬁoq 9m" m" 2% 90:. m8" 2. 883
oromoo 8.0 589 “596. men mimiaaamm. 302$ :33 8302 Enema 3‘ Sawing; $50 8583 :5" mega—mums?

um 93.. 38" 2.98. mgama 33325 cm 33: 823mm 20 Being 5 38:98am. Enema :68 o: m mom—o em — 8
m. <39 m msamommsm mag—Sn man—25m.

71

Table 12

Descrzptivesfor Medical Settings
Setting % 1St choice On-the-J ob Hours Demands
Demands (expert-ratings)
(expert-ratings)

 

 

Hospital 28.2 3.77 (.52) 3.40 (.76)
Private Practice 42.9 2.95 (.21) 3.02 (1.04)
Pharmaceutical Corporation 0.2 1.67 (.49) 1.49 (.59)
University Research Setting 1.9 2.93 (1.06) 3.05 (.84)
Unsure 19.8 n/a n/a

 

Standard deviations of mean ratings are provided in parentheses. Ratings of
demands were on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 indicating greater demands.
Table 12 shows that almost half of all students plan to enter into a private
practice, with working in a hospital as the second most popular choice.
Medical students were also asked to indicate how certain they are about their
medical school plans. The mean level of certainty was 3.51 (out of 5; SD = .99).
Correlational analyses for medical specialization/setting plans. Table 13
includes the zero-order correlations between self-rated perceptions of specialization
demands and the six forms of anticipated work-family conﬂict. Results indicate that
individuals who perceived their medical specializations to have more on-the-job physical
and psychological demands anticipated greater behavior-based family-interference—with-
work, behavior-based work-interference-with-family, strain-based work-interference-
with-family, and time-based work-interference-with-family (p < .05 for all). Self-ratings
of hour demands of one’s ﬁrst choice of medical specialization were associated with ﬁve
out of the six forms of anticipated work-family conﬂict (all except behavior-based

family-interference-with-work; p < .05 for rest).

72

Table 13 also provides the zero-order correlations between expert-ratings of
specializations and the six forms of anticipated work-family conﬂict. Individuals who
were entering into specializations that experts rated as having more hours and on-the—job
demands anticipated more time-based work-interference-with-family (p < .05 for both).
Included in this table are also the correlations between expert-ratings and self-ratings of
on-the-job and hours demands of specializations. Results show that the expert-ratings of
on-the-job specialization demands were correlated r = .49 with the self-ratings of on-the-
job specialization demands (p < .01). The expert-ratings of specialization hours demands
were correlated r = .57 with participant ratings of the specialization hours demands of
their ﬁrst choice of medical specialization (p < .01).

Table 14 presents the correlations between expert-ratings of setting demands and
the six forms of anticipated work-family conﬂict. Individuals planning to work in
settings that experts rated as having more hours and on-the-job demands anticipated
greater behavior-based family-interference-with-work and less time-based family-
interference-with-work (p < .05 for both).

Also, as can be seen in Table 3, the perception that one’s choice of specialization
will help the ability to balance work and family was negatively correlated with strain-

based conﬂict (both directions) and time-based conﬂict (both directions; p < .01 for all).

73

Table 13

Correlations between Specialization Ratings (Self and Expert) and Anticipated Work-

 

 

Family Conﬂict
On-the-J ob Hours On-the-J ob Hours Demands
Demands Demands Demands (expert-ratings)
(self-ratings) (self-ratings) (expert-ratings)
Behavior WIFa .10 .1 1 .08 .03
Behavior MW" .11 .04 .03 -.06
Strain WIFa .14 .12 .06 .02
Strain 171wb .05 .13 .02 .08
Time WIF" .21 .37 .12 .15
Time 1=Iwb .04 .16 .04 .09
On-the-job
Demands
(self-ratings) n/a .31 .49 .10
Hours Demands
(self-ratings) .31 n/a .31 .57

 

Note. Ns > 309. Correlations that are signiﬁcant at p < .05 are presented in bold.
Correlations with r _>_ |.103| are signiﬁcant at p < .05 and r 2 |.15| are signiﬁcant at

p<.01.

WW = Work-Interference-with-Family. bFIW = F amily-Interference-with—Work.

 

Setting Hours Demands
(expert-ratings)

.10
.14
.09
.02
.06

Table 14
Correlations between Setting Ratings (Ewen) and Anticipated Work-Family Conﬂict
Setting On-the-J ob
Demands (expert-ratings)

Behavior wn:a .10

Behavior 1=1wb .14

Strain WTF“ .08

Strain FIWb .02

Time WIF" .06

Time FIWb -.13

-.12

 

Note. Ns > 309. Correlations that are signiﬁcant at p < .05 are presented in bold.
Correlations with r _>_ |.103| are signiﬁcant at p < .05 and r 2 |.15| are signiﬁcant at

p<.01.

W = Work-Interference-witl1—Fa1nily.bF1W = Family-Interference-with-Work.

74

Table 15 shows the correlations between certainty regarding medical plans and
the six forms of anticipated work-family conﬂict. Greater certainty regarding one’s
medical specialization plans was associated with less strain-based and time-based work-

family conﬂict (both directions; p < .05).

Table 15
Correlations between Medical Plan Certainty and Anticipated Work-Family Conﬂict

 

Medical Plan Certainty

 

Behavior WIFa '-02
Behavior FIWb “-05

Strain WIF" -.15
Strain Fiwb -.10
Time WIFa -.15
Time FIWb --12

 

Note. Ns > 429. Correlations that are Signiﬁcant at p < .05 are presented in bold.
Correlations with r 2 |.09| are signiﬁcant at p < .05 and r 2 |.11| are signiﬁcant at p <
.01.

aWIF = Work-Interference—with-Family. bFIW = Family-Interference-with-Work.

75

Hierarchical regressions for medical specialization/setting. As can be seen in
Table 16, participant self-reported perceptions of medical specialization demands (hour
and on-the-job demands) explain incremental variance in four out of the six forms of
anticipated work-family conﬂict when controlling for demographics, core self-
evaluations, and attitudes. For behavior-based family-interference-with-work and strain-
based work-interference—with-family, perceived on-the-job demands were the signiﬁcant
driver of this relationship. For time-based work-interference—with-family and time-based
family-interference-with-work, the perception that one’s job had highly demanding hours
explained incremental variance in conﬂict above and beyond the effects of demographics,

core self-evaluations, and attitudes.

76

Table 16

Hierarchical Regressions for Medical Specialization Demands (Self-Ratings) Predicting

Anticipated Work-Family Conﬂict (N = 368)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

R2 A R2 Unstandardized P
DV: Behavior W11:a
Step 1 — Demographics .03 .03 .04
Step 2 — Core Self-Evaluations .05 .02 .01
Step 3 — Attitudes .09 .04 .01
Step 4 — Medical Specialization Demands . 10 .01 . 12
DV: Behavior FIwb
Step 1 — Demographics .02 .02 .07
Step 2 — Core Self-Evaluations .05 .02 .00
Step 3 - Attitudes .12 .08 .00
Step 4 — Medical Specialization Demands .14 .02 .02
On-the-J ob Demands .16 .00
Hour Demands -.05 .26
DV: Strain w11=a
Step 1 - Demographics .0] .01 .43
Step 2 — Core Self-Evaluations .09 .08 .00
Step 3 - Attitudes .25 .16 .00
Step 4 — Medical Specialization Demands .27 .02 .02
On-the-Job Demands .15 .01
Hour Demands -.02 .65
DV: Strain I=Iwb
Step 1 — Demographics .04 .04 .00
Step 2 — Core Self-Evaluations .14 .10 .00
Step 3 — Attitudes .19 .05 .00
Step 4 — Medical Specialization Demands .20 .01 .30
DV: Time WIFa
Step 1 — Demographics .03 .03 .05
Step 2 — Core Self-Evaluations .05 .02 .01
Step 3 - Attitudes .24 .19 .00
Step 4 — Medical Specialization Demands .32 .08 .00
On-the-Job Demands .08 .14
Hour Demands .24 .00
DV: Time 1=Iwb
Step 1 — Demographics .02 .02 .23
Step 2 — Core Self-Evaluations .04 .02 .01
Step 3 - Attitudes 09 .05 .00
Step 4 - Medical Specialization Demands 11 .02 .01
On-the-J ob Demands .00 .94
Hour Demands .13 .00

 

aWIF = Work-Interference-with—F amily. bF [W = Family-Interference-with-Work

77

A hierarchical regression was also conducted to examine the incremental validity of
expert-ratings of medical specialization above and beyond the effects of demographics,
core-self-evaluations, and attitudes. Because only time-based work-interference-with-
family was correlated with expert-ratings of specialization demands, only one
hierarchical regression was conducted. Results indicate that expert-ratings of demands
do not explain a signiﬁcant amount of incremental variance in time-based work-

interference-with-family (see Table 17).

Table 17

Hierarchical Regressions for Medical Specialization Demands (Expert-Ratings)
Predicting T ime—Based Work-Interference— With—FamiILﬂV = 31 7)

 

 

 

A R2 p
DV: Time WIFa
Step 1 — Demographics .03 .03 .05
Step 2 — Core Self-Evaluations .06 .03 .00
Step 3 - Attitudes .23 .17 .00
Step 4 — Medical Specialization Demands (expert-rating) .24 .01 .09

 

aWIF = Work-Interference-with-Family.

Two hierarchical regressions were conducted to examine the relationship between
expert-ratings of the demands of one’s planned medical setting and behavior-based and
time-based family-interference-with-work (see Table 18). For both of these forms of
anticipated work-family conﬂict, expert-ratings of setting demands explain a signiﬁcant
amount of incremental variance above and beyond the effects of demographics, core self-
evaluations, and attitudes (p < .05 for both). However, neither of the beta-weights for on-

the-job or hours setting demands were signiﬁcant in either regression.

78

Table 18

Hierarchical Regressions for Medical Setting Demands (Expert-Ratings) Predicting
Anticipated Work-Family Conﬂict (N = 276)

 

A R2 Unstandardized p

 

 

 

 

Coeﬂicient

DV: Behavior FIWa

Step 1 — Demographics .02 .02 .28
Step 2 — Core Self-Evaluations .04 .02 .01
Step 3 — Attitudes .14 .09 .00
Step 4 — Medical Setting Demands .16 .03 .02
On-the-Job Demands 3.08 .34
Hours Demands -6.02 .39
DV: Time FIWa

Step 1 — Demographics .02 .02 .18
Step 2 — Core Self-Evaluations .05 .03 .00
Step 3 - Attitudes .12 .06 .01
Step 4 — Medical Setting Demands .14 .02 .04
On-the-J ob Demands -5.76 .09
Hour Demands 12.00 .10

 

aFIW = Family-Interference-with-Work.

Research Question 7: Relationship/Family Plans and Anticipated Work-Family Conﬂict
Research Question 7 focuses on the relationship between relationship/ family
plans and anticipated work-family conﬂict. First, descriptive ﬁndings regarding
relationship and family plans are presented. Then, the zero-order correlations between
these plans and anticipated work-family conﬂict are examined. Finally, hierarchical
regressions are presented examining the relationship between relationship/family plans
and anticipated work-family conﬂict when controlling for other individual characteristics.
Because relationship and family plans are considered choices that individuals make, they
are considered distinct ﬁ'om more stable individual characteristics, including
demographics, personality, and attitudes. Also, controlling for these characteristics

ensures that the correlations that demographics, personality, and attitudes have with both

79

anticipated work-family conﬂict and relationship/family plans do not obscure the nature
of the relationship between relationship/family plans and anticipated work-family
conﬂict. Therefore, the hierarchical regressions control for demographics, core self-
evaluations, and attitudes towards future roles when looking at the relationship between
relationship/family plans and anticipated work-family conﬂict. It is important to note
again here that relationship/family plans are considered to have a reciprocal relationship
with anticipated work-family conﬂict. That is, feeling conﬂict can inﬂuence the plans
that individuals make. However, the plans that individuals make can also inﬂuence how
much conﬂict they anticipate experiencing.

Descriptive results for relationshipﬂamily plans. Table 19 presents descriptive
information regarding the relationship and family plans of participants in this study. The
vast majority of participants (95.7%) plan to marry/partner, with the majority of those
individuals planning to marry/partner between the ages of 25 and 30 years old. Most
participants also plan to have children. More than half of participants expect to have
someone other than themselves or their partner provide childcare. The majority of

participants also plan to work full-time once they have children.

80

Table 19
Descriptive Results for Relationship/Family Plans

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Questions %
Do you plan to marry/partner? (many)
Yes 95.7
Other (no, maybe, haven’t thought about i9 3.9
At what age do you plan to many/partner (for those who indicated an age)?

_(c_1ge many)
22-25 years old 11.9
25-30 years old 67.6
30-35 years old 18.0
35 years old or older 2.5
Do you plan to have children at some point in your life? (children)
Yes 87.5
Other (no, maybe, haven’t thought about it) 12.5
How many children do you plan to have (for those who plan to have children)?
(n children)
0 0.0
l 2.9
2 47.7
3 31.5
4 14.8
5 or more 3.1
At what age do you plan to start having children (for those who indicated an

__age)? (age children)
21-23 0.6
24-26 6.0
27-29 30.2
30-32 42.3
33-35 15.7
35+ 5.1

 

Do you plan to have others (besides you and your spouse/partner provide
regular childcareﬂother care)

 

 

 

Yes 58.9
Other (no, maybe, haven’t thought about it) 41.1
Do you plan to work full time? (full time)

Yes 84.3
No 15.7

 

Do you plan for your spouse to provide childcare during your working hours?

(spouse care)

Yes 40.0
No 60.0

Note. Variable abbreviations are in italics in parentheses next to corresponding question.

81

The mean level of relationship plan certainty was 3.62 (SD = 1.08) and the mean
of family plan certainty was 4.07 (SD = 1.17).
Correlational analyses for relationshipiamily plans. Table 20 provides the

correlations between relationship/family plans and anticipated work-family conﬂict.

82

.588 No
083-2282 $28: 8883222283.? 292 Si 228223 2325835 022:2

>2 z >% me: 089 mecca-ea ”@88- 35:0.
Zea-v. Zen-v. 03:88: 0388: 0388: .330 03... 02.0 0388 0288
2222 22. 2 2 2 -2 . 2 2 -.2 -.2 2 -2
2222 22.. 2 .2 -2 -2 -2 2 .2 -2 -2 -2
232 22.. .2 .3 -2 -2 2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2
282 22a -2 .3 -2 -2 2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2
23a 22a. .2 -2 -2 -2 -.2 -2 2 2 -2 -2
2:5 22.. -2 -2 2 .2 -2 .2 -.: 2 2 -2

 

22m. 72 v who. nongmaoa 82 20 22582 2 .u A .3 88 38228 8 .85. 098.283 £8 - w _. _o_ 28 mam—.582 2
u A .8 28 x w _._u_ m8 mmmsmmoma a u A .S. 785 n Go «o: Em: 8 38283222 .92 32d. u 2 i=2 wma no we: 18
8 358329 2.2 880 2.8 8.2888 n: mmovw 0388: n Co «on Em: 8 38 2:88: a 8:8 wow: m: 055. ES. 2
GEES: u :92 :83. 0383: go «o: Em: 8 =98 c.2- 880 £8 E»: 8 .88 02883..» >mo 0388: n >2 £8: £0 8
«o: E»: 8 «8: 325 0388: Q2 :88 £8 89888 n: mmovw ms: .230 .1- Go 2o: 22. 8 £on 8: man-.0 082. 98 n
Go «o: E»: 8 :88 0:88 8888 we: 28 05:.- muocmquwnaoa 2380 8m=§ 015882 mwocmo 98 .1. Do we: Em: 8~
055 28:8 8 282% 2:588 953m 055 £253 85% 588. 0288 u 02.825. om “88.8238 225. 35.5.
02.88 H 028:5. o»- mmBm—v. 323m.

35m u (<01?888838-223??? :52 n 335.222.3382mgr-€01”.

83

Because results of these correlational analyses indicate that whether individuals
plan to have children, the number of children they plan to have, and the age at which they
plan to start having children are unrelated to all six forms of anticipated work-family
conﬂict, they are not included in hierarchical regression analyses that follow.

Hierarchical regression results for relationship/family plans. As discussed
above, six hierarchical regressions were conducted in which the effects of
relationship/family plans were considered above and beyond the effects of demographics
(Step 1), core self-evaluations (Step 2), and attitudes (Step 3). Also, since the number of
participants included in analyses when age of planned marriage/partnership and planning
to work full-time are included is reduced (N is reduced from 366 to 166 due to the
exclusion of some participant responses in the coding of these variables; see Methods
section), the regressions are calculated without the inclusion of these variables. Table 21
provides the results of these analyses. Results indicate that when controlling for
demographics, core self-evaluations, and attitudes, relationship/family plans do not
explain incremental variance in any of the six forms of anticipated work-family conﬂict.
Hierarchical regressions were also conducted in which age of planned
marriage/partnership and planning to work full-time were included in order to compare
the results. These regressions yielded similar results. That is, in both cases,
relationship/family plans did not explain incremental variance in any of the six forms of

anticipated work-family conﬂict.

84

Table 21

Hierarchical Regressions: Relationship/Family Plans Predicting Six F arms of

Anticipated Work-Family Conflict (N = 367)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

R2 A R2 p

DV: Behavior w11=a

Step 1 — Demographics .03 .03 .02
Step 2 — Core Self-Evaluations .05 .02 .01
Step 3 — Attitudes .09 .04 .03
Step 4 — Relationship/Family Plans .10 .01 .55
DV: Behavior FIWb

Step 1 — Demographics .03 .03 .04
Step 2 — Core Self-Evaluations .05 .02 .00
Step 3 — Attitudes .12 .07 .00
Step 4 — Relationship/Family Plans .13 .01 .80
DV: Strain w11=a

Step 1 - Demographics .01 .01 .41
Step 2 - Core Self-Evaluations .10 .09 .00
Step 3 — Attitudes .26 .16 .00
Step 4 -— Relationship/Family Plans .27 .01 .71
DV: Strain FIwb

Step 1 — Demographics .05 .05 .00
Step 2 — Core Self-Evaluations .16 .12 .00
Step 3 — Attitudes .20 .04 .01
Step 4 — Relationship/Family Plans .22 .02 .15
DV: Tirne WIFa

Step 1 — Demographics .03 .03 .05
Step 2 — Core Self-Evaluations .04 .02 .01
Step 3 - Attitudes .24 .19 .00
Step 4 - Relationship/Family Plans .25 .01 .47
DV: Time FIW"

Step 1 — Demographics .02 .02 .24
Step 2 — Core Self-Evaluations .04 .02 .01
Step 3 — Attitudes .09 .05 .01
Step 4 — Relationship/Family Plans .10 .01 .65

 

aWIF = Work-Interference-with-Family. bFIW = Family-Interference-with-

Work.

85

Research Question 8: Anticipated Work-Family Positive Spillover

Research Question 8 addresses the relationship between anticipated work-family
positive spillover and the other key study variables. First, the relationship between
anticipated work-family positive spillover and anticipated work-family conﬂict is
examined. Next, the relationship between anticipated work-family positive spillover and
demographics, core self-evaluations and attitudes is explored. Then, the relationship
between anticipated work-family positive spillover and relationship/family and medical
specialization/setting plans is examined.

Anticipated work-family positive spillover and anticipated work-family conflict.
The relationship between anticipated work-family positive spillover and anticipated
work-family conﬂict was examined (see Table 3). Individuals who anticipated greater
positive spillover between roles also anticipated greater behavior-based work-family
conﬂict (both work-interference-with-family and family-interference—with-work; r = -.35
and -.3 8, respectively, p < .01 for both) and strain-based conﬂict (both work-interference-
with-family and family-interference—with-work; r = -.23 and
-.19, respectively, p < .01 for both). Neither direction of time-based anticipated work-
family conﬂict was signiﬁcantly correlated with anticipated work-family positive
spillover.

Demographics and anticipated work-family positive spillover. As can be seen
from Table 22, anticipated work-family positive spillover was not correlated with any of
the demographics considered. Therefore, demographics are not statistically controlled in

further analyses predicting anticipated work-family positive spillover.

86

Table 22

Relationship between Demographics and Anticipated Work-Family Positive
Spillover

 

Age Year Gender Ethnicity Marriage Parent
Positive Spillover -.09 -.03 .07 -.05 .09 .02
Note. Ns > 404. Correlations with r 2 |.lO| are signiﬁcant at p < .05. Year = Year
in School. Marriage = Marital Status. Parent = Parental Status.

 

 

Core self-evaluations and anticipated work-family positive spillover. As can be
seen in Table 3, core self-evaluations were positively correlated with anticipated work-
family positive spillover (r = .18, p < .01). Individuals with more positive core self-
evaluations anticipate more positive spillover between work and family.

Attitudes toward ﬁtture roles and anticipated work-family positive spillover.
Table 3 presents the zero-order correlations between attitudes towards future roles and
anticipated positive spillover. A hierarchical regression predicting anticipated work-
family positive spillover was conducted (Table 23). Again, because core self-evaluations
are considered more a more stable and immutable characteristic of individuals as
compared to attitudes, core self-evaluations were entered as Step 1 of a hierarchical
regression. Attitudes towards future roles were entered as Step 2. Note that since
demographics were not correlated with anticipated work-family positive spillover, they
are not being controlled for in this analysis. Also note that, as with anticipated work-
family conﬂict, only those attitudes that were signiﬁcantly correlated with anticipated
work-family positive spillover were included in Step 2 (parenting role-importance,
relationship role-importance, role-planning knowledge, and role-planning involvement).
Results indicate that when controlling for core self-evaluations, attitudes explain a
signiﬁcant portion of the variance in anticipated positive spillover (p < .01). Role-

planning knowledge and relationship role-importance have signiﬁcant beta-weights in the

87

prediction of anticipated positive spillover when attitudes are entered as a set (p < .01 for

both).

Table 23

Hierarchical Regression Predicting Anticipated Work-Family Positive (N = 421)
R2 A R2 Unstandardized p

 

 

 

 

Coefﬁcient
Step 1 — Core Self-Evaluations .03 .03 .00
Step 2 — Attitudes .10 .07 .00
Role Importance — Parenting .07 .05
Role Importance — Relationship .11 .00
Role Planning — Knowledge .11 .00
Role Planning — Involvement .06 .06

 

Job/career choice levels of demand and anticipated work-family positive
spillover. Table 24 provides the zero-order correlations between perceptions of
specializations demands and anticipated work-family positive spillover. Results indicate
that individuals who expect their medical specializations to have demanding hours
anticipate less positive spillover between work and family.

Table 24 also presents the zero-order correlations between expert-ratings of
specialization and setting demands and anticipated work-family positive spillover.
Expert-ratings regarding specialization were not signiﬁcantly correlated with anticipated
positive spillover. Individuals who plan to work in settings that experts rated as having
more on-the-job demands and hours demands anticipate less positive spillover (p < .05

for both).

88

Table 24

Correlations between Medical Specialization and Setting Demands and Anticipated
Work-Family Positive Spillover

 

 

 

 

Medical Specialization/Setting Demands Positive Spillover
Specialization On-the-J ob Demands (self-ratings) .04
Specialization Hours Demands (self-ratings) -.ll
Specialization On-the-J ob Demands (expert-ratings) .04
Specialization Hours Demands (expert-ratings) .03
Setting On-the-J ob Demands (expert-ratings) -.12
Setting Hours Demands (eyed-ratings) -.12

 

Note. Ns > 309. Correlations that are signiﬁcant at p < .05 are presented in bold.
Correlations with r 2 LI 1| are signiﬁcant at p < .05.

Certainty regarding medical specialization and anticipated positive spillover was
also examined. Results indicate that they are not signiﬁcantly correlated. For perceptions
that one’s specialization will help/hinder balance, the belief that one’s medical
specialization will help the ability to ﬁnd balance in the future was positively and
signiﬁcantly correlated with anticipated work-family positive spillover (r = .10, p < .05).

Table 25 diSplays the results of a hierarchical regression examining the
incremental prediction offered by self-rated perceptions of medical specialization above
and beyond the effects of core self-evaluations and attitudes. Since perceptions of on-
the-job demands were not correlated with anticipated positive-spillover, that variable is
not included in the following analysis. Results indicate that perceived medical
specialization hours demands do not explain incremental variance in positive spillover

when controlling for core self-evaluations and attitudes.

89

Table 25

Hierarchical Regressions: Medical Specialization Demands (Self-Ratings)
Predicting Anticipated Work-Family Positive Spillover (N = 412)

 

 

R2 A R2 p
Step 1 — Core Self-Evaluations .04 .04 .00
Step 2 — Attitudes .10 .07 .00
Step 3 — Medical Specialization Demands (Hours) .11 .Ol .14

 

Because neither of the expert ratings of medical specialization (on-the-job or
hours demands) were signiﬁcantly correlated with anticipated positive spillover, a
hierarchical regression examining the extent to which these variables explain incremental
variance in positive spillover was not conducted.

A hierarchical regression was conducted examining the extent to which expert-
ratings of setting demands (both hours and on-the-job) explain incremental variance in
positive spillover above and beyond the effects of core self-evaluations and attitudes (see

Table 26). Results suggest that expert-ratings of setting demands do not explain a

Table 26

Hierarchical Regressions: Medical Setting Demands (Expert-Ratings)
Predicting Anticipated Work-Family Positive Spillover (N = 3 03

 

 

AR2 P
Step 1 — Core Self-Evaluations .05 .05 .00
Step 2 — Attitudes .12 .07 .00
Step 3 — Medical Setting Demands .13 .02 .09

 

9O

signiﬁcant amount of incremental variance in anticipated work-family positive spillover.
Relationship/family plans and anticipated work-family positive spillover. Table
27 shows the relationships between relationship/family plans and anticipated work-family
positive spillover. The only relationship/family plan signiﬁcantly related to positive
spillover is whether one plans to marry or not. Individuals who plan to marry anticipate

greater positive spillover between work and family than those who do not.

Table 27

Correlations between Relationship/Family Plans and Anticipated Work-Family
Conﬂict

 

 

Relationship/FamilyPlans Positive Spillover
Marry" -.10
Age Marryb -.03
Children6 .05
N Childrend .10
Age Children" -.07
Other Care .03
Full Timeg .00
Spouse Careh .03
Relate. Certain .02
Family Certaini .04

 

Note. N > 239. Correlations that are signiﬁcant at p < .05 are presented 1n bold.
Correlations with r > |.103| are signiﬁcant at p < ..05 .“Do you plan to
marry/partner? bAt what age do you plan to marry/partner (for those who indicated
an age)? cDo you plan to have children at some point in your life? dHow many
children do you plan to have (for those who plan to have children)? °At what age do
you plan to start having children (for those who indicated an age)? Do you plan to
have others (besides you and your spouse/partner provide regular childcare? 8Do
you plan to work full time? hDo you plan for your spouse to provide childcare
during your working hours? 'Certainty of Relationship Plans. JCertainty of Family
Plans. Certainty of Medical Plans.

A hierarchical regression was conducted to examine whether plans to marry
explain incremental variance in positive spillover above and beyond the effects of core

self-evaluations and attitudes (Table 28). Note again that demographics were not

91

included in these analyses because of their non-signiﬁcant relationships with positive
spillover. Also, only attitudes that were signiﬁcantly correlated with positive spillover
were included. This regression indicates that plans to marry do not explain incremental
variance in positive spillover above and beyond the effects of core self-evaluations and

attitudes.

Table 28

Hierarchical Regressions: Relationship/Family Plans Predicting Anticipated Work-
Famtly Positive Spillover (N = 408)

 

 

R2 A R2 19
Step 1 — Core Self-Evaluations .04 .04 .00
Step 2 — Attitudes .10 .07 .00
Step 3 — Marry‘I .10 .00 .89

 

aDo you plan to marry/partner?

92

Additional Analyses: Gender Diﬂerences in Other Study Variables

Results examining the relationship between gender and anticipated work-family
conﬂict show that women anticipate less behavior- and time-based work-interference-
with-family. There were no differences in anticipated positive spillover between men
and women. Although analyses predicting anticipated work-family conﬂict statistically
controlled for the effects of gender when examining the extent to which other study
constructs related to anticipated work-family conﬂict, it is still interesting to examine
gender differences in those variables examined as correlates of anticipated work-family
conﬂict and positive spillover. Differences between genders are important in their own
right because these ﬁndings add to the vast literature on gender differences in family and
career attitudes and choices (particularly in this highly educated, pre-professional
sample). Although that literature was not reviewed for the purposes of this study, a
further consideration of the gender differences on some of these variables might be an
interesting avenue for future research.

Results show that women have more positive core self-evaluations than men.
With regards to attitudes towards role-sharing, women expect to take more of the primary
responsibility for chores than their spouse while women are more likely to expect their
spouse to take on more responsibility for ﬁnancial obligations than men (see Table 29).
For role-importance, there were no signiﬁcant gender differences in the importance
placed on parenting and occupational roles. Male participants placed a higher importance
on their relationship than female participants. For role-planning, female students
indicated less knowledge about how to plan for their ﬁrture roles. There were no gender

differences in involvement in planning for future roles.

93

Gender differences in relationship/family plans were also examined. Women plan
to marry at a younger age and have fewer children than men do. Women are more likely
to expect that they will have others (besides themselves and their spouse) provide
childcare than men. Women were also signiﬁcantly less likely to plan to work full-time
than men. Men were more likely to think that their spouse would provide childcare than
women.

For demands of specialization/setting, the only signiﬁcant difference between
males and females was that women rated their future specializations as having fewer on-
the-job demands than men. There were no differences in the expert-ratings of the

specializations that males and females planned to go into.

94

Table 29
Correlations between Gender and Other Study Variables

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gender

Core Self-Evaluations .1 1
Attitudes
Role Sharing — Chores -.52
Role Sharing — Childcare -.08
Role Sharing — Finances .16
Role Importance — Parenting -.09
Role Importance — Relationship -.11
Role Importance - Occupational .00
Role Planning - Knowledge -.10
Role Planning - Involvement .09
Relationship/Family Plans
Marrya -.05
Age Marryb "15
Childrenc -.09
N Childrend '-12

. C 01
Age Children '
Other Caref "28
Full Timeg ~37
Spouse Careh . "21
Relate. Certain'. ’-01
Family Certain] '-09
Specialization Levels of Demand
Hours Demands(self-ratings) -.05
On-the-Job Demands (self-ratings) -.10
Help/Hinder .07
Hours Demands (expert-ratings) .09
On-the-Job Demands (expert-ratingsL .08
Setting Levels of Demand
Hours Demands (expert-ratings) -.02
On-the-Job (expert-ratings) -.04
Medical Certain" -.04

 

Note. 0 = male. 1 = female. Ns >273. Correlations that are signiﬁcant at p < .05 are presented in bold.
Correlations with r 2 |.10| are signiﬁcant at p < .05 and r 2 |.14| are signiﬁcant at p < .01. aDo you
plan to marry/partner? bAt what age do you plan to marry/partner (for those who indicated an age)?
cDo you plan to have children at some point in your life? d'How many children do you plan to have
(for those who plan to have children)? eAt what age do you plan to start having children (for those
who indicated an age)? fDo you plan to have others (besides you and your spouse/partner provide
regular childcare? 8Do you plan to work full time? I"Do you plan for your spouse to provide childcare

during your working hours? Certainty of Relationship Plans. JCertainty of Family Plans. kCertainty
of Medical Plans.

95

Table 30 examines the extent to which male and female participants planned to enter
different specializations and settings as their ﬁrst choice. A chi-square test indicates that
there are signiﬁcant male-female differences in the choice of medical specialization when
the seven top specializations and other (all other choices including other specializations,
unsure, and haven’t thought about it) are compared (762 = 26.10, p < .01). Differences
between males and females that reﬂect a greater than 5% difference in the proportions
planning to enter different specializations/settings are discussed. Results show that a
higher percentage of women planned to enter Family Practice, Obstetrics and
Gynecology, and Pediatrics than men. A higher percentage of men intended to enter
Emergency Medicine and Orthopedic Surgery than women.

A chi-square test was also conducted examining whether there were gender
differences in choice of setting, comparing three settings (excluding pharmaceutical
corporation because N=l) to all other choices (e. g., unsure, haven’t thought about it).
The results of this test indicate no signiﬁcant differences in choices between males and
females ()6 = 3.20, p > .05). Therefore, gender differences in the choice of setting are not
discussed further.

The last four columns of Table 30 present a rank-ordering of the specializations in
order of the demands that they place on the individual (hours and on-the-job) as rated by
both the participant him/herself and the experts (lower number ranking = more
demanding). A higher percentage of women plan to go into Family Practice. This
specialization was ranked by both the participants and experts as having very low hour
and on-the—job demands. A higher percentage of women also planned to enter Obstetrics

and Gynecology. This specialization was seen as having very demanding hours by both

96

participants and experts and as having fairly high on-the-job demands as well. A higher
percentage of women were also planning to go into Pediatrics than men. This was seen
as having fairly low hours and on-the-job demands as compared to the other
specializations by both participants and experts.

More males planned to go into Orthopedic Surgery than women. This
specialization ranked at about the middle on the hours and on-the-job demands it was
perceived to have by participants. For Experts, it ranked around the middle on hours
demands and last on on-the-job demands. A higher percentage of men planned to enter
Emergency Medicine than women. This was considered to have high on-the-job
demands (by experts and participants) and very low hours demands (by experts and
participants).

To summarize, a higher percentage of women planned to enter two specializations
that were fairly low on demands (Family Practice and Pediatrics). However, a higher
percentage of women also planned to enter Obstetrics and Gynecology, which had highly
demanding hours and somewhat high on—the-job demands. One specialization that a
higher percentage of men planned to enter had medium levels of demands (Orthopedic
Surgery) while the other (Emergency Medicine) had very low hours demands and very

high on-the-job demands.

97

Haw—a mo

388-28528 238.883. Skeweswwazdimﬁzsm 0:88

 

 

 

 

$88528: .x. .x. .x. 7.88 .- Wgw $95 was.“ 03-88-83 55* 395.. mean 97:8-
7.88 madam e\e wage—a 038:3 08:53am Unawaam .83 02:22am

Ame—3.28? Ame—m-Bsamwv onvnnaﬁasmmv 8x83-8::mmv

magma—8v. a _ q _

388:8 She Soc 98

$5.5. 3.828 2.3 3.2. -m._ _ a a o a

58:8. 2 m A m

388:8 3.3 3.3 P. _

03839.. 88 _ u _ N

028883. mum who -92

035888 w A w a

magma—Q. one Paw 9.3

$8838 ﬂwa 5.3 -m. _ c m a m A

9225. I N N N w

0282: a. _ m hum :3

95:8 who 93 _.u_ :8 :2 =2 :8

mmasm

2838— w _ .Nm nabs 93 :8 Eu _ _

3.728 3.838 3.3 3.8 9.8. :8 :8 u w

9:585. =8 :8 N N

”838: measm ram 73 robq

CBS-a 3.3 N _ .3 .080 :8 :8 is =8

 

98

DISCUSSION

The focus of this study was on understanding the constructs of anticipated work-
family conﬂict and positive spillover. In particular, an examination of the extent to
which demographics, personality, and attitudes predicted these constructs was central to
the research presented here. Results indicate that while demographics were not a strong
predictor of anticipated conﬂict or positive spillover, personality and attitudes did explain
a signiﬁcant amount of variance in all six forms of anticipated work-family conﬂict and
positive spillover. In particular, core self-evaluations, knowledge about how to plan for
future roles, and the importance that individuals place on their careers were shown to be
inﬂuential in the prediction of these constructs. This study also investigated the
relationship between anticipated conﬂict and positive spillover and the personal and
professional choices that individuals plan to make. Relationship/family plans showed
little variance across participants and were not associated with any of the six forms of
anticipated conﬂict or positive spillover (when controlling for demographics, personality,
and attitudes). On the other hand, the self-perceived demands of the specializations and
settings that individuals plan to enter into were associated with greater anticipated work-
family conﬂict (although not with anticipated positive spillover).

The discussion that follows reviews the ﬁndings from this study in more detail
and presents a number of directions for future research. I begin by discussing the
measurement and dimensionality of the anticipated work-family conﬂict and work-family
positive spillover scales, and the relationship between these two constructs. Next, I
review the ﬁndings regarding each of the predictor variables in more detail and suggest

future research on the prediction of anticipated work-family conﬂict and positive

99

spillover. Then, the ﬁndings regarding personal and professional plans and anticipated
work-family conﬂict and positive spillover are reviewed and discussed. Finally, I discuss
the study more broadly, focusing on the limitations of this research and directions for
future research. In particular, suggestions regarding the development of a theoretical
model of anticipated conﬂict and positive spillover are discussed.
Anticipated Work-Family Conﬂict and Positive Spillover

A key aspect of this study was the development of the constructs of anticipated
work-family conﬂict and anticipated work-family positive spillover. In addition to
examining their predictors and other correlates, it was important to consider the
measurement of these constructs and their dimensionality. The anticipated work-family
conﬂict measure was adapted from a popular measure of actual work-family conﬂict
developed by Carlson et al. (2000). The ﬁndings from this study indicate that the six-
factor structure that emerges in the measurement of actual work-family conﬂict also
emerges in the measurement of anticipated work-farme conﬂict. Thus, similar to actual
work-family conﬂict, anticipated work-family conﬂict can be said to be comprised of
three types of conﬂict (behavior, time, and strain) ﬂowing in two directions (work-
interference-with-family and family-interference-with-work). It is important to note,
however, that this measure was adapted from research on actual work-family conﬂict
rather than developed for the purpose of measuring the construct of interest, anticipated
work-family conﬂict. Perhaps interviews with medical students and pilot testing of items
would have revealed untapped dimensions of anticipated work-family conﬂict.
Developing a revised or new measure of anticipated work-family conﬂict using such

methods may be a valuable direction for future research.

100

The anticipated work-family positive spillover scale was adapted ﬁ'om Sumer and
Knight (2001). These authors conceptualized this scale as having two dimensions
(positive spillover from work-to-family and positive spillover from family-to-work).
However, in the current study, the two directions of positive spillover were not
distinguishable and a unidimensional scale was formed. In the Sumer and Knight (2001)
study, the correlation between the two directions of positive spillover (when corrected for
unreliability) was r = .66. The authors do not provide results from an exploratory factor
analysis and their conﬁrmatory factor analysis does not provide a comparison of how
well a model of the data that considered these two directions of positive spillover to be
separate dimensions ﬁt the data as compared to a model that considered them to be a
single dimension (Sumer and Knight, 2001), Therefore, it is difﬁcult to determine
whether the scale would have been better conceived of as a unidimensional measure in
the Sumer and Knight (2001) study.

As mentioned previously, a recent article (after the data was collected for this
study) by Carlson et al. (in press) describes the development and validation of a measure
of work-family enrichment (another term for positive spillover). These authors found
positive spillover from work-to-family to be distinct from positive spillover ﬁom family-
to-work. These authors also found that there were distinct types of positive spillover
from family-to-work and work-to-family. Both types of spillover consisted of
development spillover (when knowledge and skills gained in one domain assist
functioning in the other) and affect spillover (when positive moods and attitudes from
one domain affect the other). However, family-to-work positive spillover also consisted

of efﬁciency spillover (when involvement in family motivates the individual to perform

lOl

more efﬁciently at work) whereas work-to-family positive spillover also consisted of
capital spillover (when work provides psychological resources such as security and self-
esteem; Carlson et al., in press). Because the Sumer and Knight (2001) measure did not
result in distinguishable dimensions in the current study, future research should consider
the development of an anticipated work-family positive spillover scale based on the six-
dimensional Carlson et al. (in press) measure. A more detailed analysis of the predictors
and correlates of different types of positive spillover might then be possible. It is also
conceivable that individuals are not able to distinguish between different types of
anticipated positive spillover (thus causing the lack of distinguishable dimensions found
in the current study). Because these potential beneﬁts are in the future and somewhat
abstract, it is possible that participants cannot distinguish between directions of positive
spillover in this type of future-oriented measure, while they are able to do so for actual
work-family positive spillover.

The relationship between anticipated work-family conﬂict and anticipated work-
family positive spillover is also important for understanding these new constructs. The
research presented here shows that anticipated work-family positive spillover was
signiﬁcantly negatively correlated with four out of the six forms of anticipated work-
family conﬂict (even when controlling for core self-evaluations). It was not signiﬁcantly
correlated with time-based work-interference-with-family or time-based family-
interference-with-work. These ﬁndings differ from much prior research that suggests that
the correlations between actual work-family conﬂict and actual work-family positive
spillover are generally weak or non-signiﬁcant (e.g., Grzywacz & Marks, 2000;

Kirchmeyer, 1993). Interestingly, the newly developed Carlson et al. (in press) measure

102

of positive spillover found that all three types of positive spillover from work-to-family
and from family-to-work were negatively correlated with behavior-based conﬂict and that
two out of the three types of positive spillover (other than developmental) were
negatively correlated with strain-based conﬂict. These authors also found that none of
their positive spillover subscales were correlated with time-based conﬂict. Thus, these
results quite closely mirror the relationships found in the current examination of the
correlations between types of anticipated work-family conﬂict and positive spillover.

In sum, the measure of anticipated work-family conﬂict was found to match the
dimensionality of the measure of actual work-family conﬂict it was based upon. The
current study found anticipated work-family positive spillover to be have no
distinguishable dimensions. Future research should consider using a different measure of
anticipated work-family positive spillover (perhaps the Carlson et al. (in press) measure)
to determine whether this lack of clear dimensionality is a result of the particular items
used to measure it or a reﬂection of participants’ true perceptions of future positive
spillover. Although the correlations between anticipated work-family positive spillover
and work-family conﬂict diverge from much of the prior research on the relationship
between these two constructs, they are similar to the ﬁndings ﬁ'om the Carlson et al. (in
press) study that found positive spillover to be correlated negatively with behavior-based
and strain-based conﬂict but not correlated with time-based conﬂict.

Predictors of Anticipated Work-Family Conﬂict and Positive Spillover

In this study, demographics, personality, and attitudes were considered possible

predictors of anticipated work-family conﬂict and positive spillover. Below, I summarize

the ﬁndings regarding each of these types of predictors and present possible

103

interpretations for these ﬁndings. Future directions for research on the predictors of
anticipated work-family conﬂict and positive spillover are also considered.
Demographics

In general, demographics were not highly correlated with any form of anticipated
work-family conﬂict. There were no signiﬁcant correlations between anticipated work-
family positive spillover and demographics. For anticipated work-family conﬂict, only 5
out of the 36 potential correlations were signiﬁcant, with the strongest correlation being
r = .17 (p < .01). Demographics as a set explained less than 5% of the variance in each of
the six dimensions of conﬂict.

One interesting ﬁnding is that women anticipated less time- and behavior-based
work-interference-with-family. In a review of the IO/OB literature on work-family
conﬂict, Eby et al. (2005) report mixed ﬁndings regarding gender differences in actual
work-family conﬂict. Only one study reported men experiencing higher levels of work-
family conﬂict than women (Parasurman & Simmers, 2001). This gender difference in
anticipated work-family conﬂict begs the question of whether the women in this sample
will experience less actual work-interference-with-family when they become doctors. It
is possible that women and men have different expectations of conﬂict but that their
actual work-family conﬂict will be aligned with prior ﬁndings (e.g., women experiencing
equal or more conﬂict than men; Eby et al., 2005). Alternatively, perhaps women in this
sample will actually experience less work-interference-with-family than males. The
longitudinal follow-up study planned with this group of medical students will be useful in

answering this research question.

104

In sum, the demographics examined here were not highly correlated with work-
farnily conﬂict and not signiﬁcantly correlated with positive spillover at all. Critics of
the work-family ﬁeld have claimed that the research conducted in this ﬁeld tends to place
too strong of an emphasis on demographics as a predictor of work-family conﬂict (Eby et
al., 2005; Zedeck, 1992). Based on the limited relationship between demographics and
the constructs of interest in this study (as well as similarly limited ﬁndings in the
literature on actual work-family conﬂict), further research on anticipated work-family
conﬂict and positive spillover should not focus on the demographics examined here as
primary predictors. Demographic characteristics should nonetheless by assessed and
reported in such research so that sample characteristics are available for examination and
comparison across studies. Further, other demographic characteristics may be stronger
predictors of the constructs examined here. For example, ﬁnancial status may be related
to anticipated conﬂict and positive spillover and career- and family-related choices
because of the different ﬁnancial burdens that individuals will have when beginning their
careers and families. This is particularly relevant when studying medical students
because many of them will graduate with a signiﬁcant amount of debt.

Personality

In the work-family ﬁeld, there has been a call for a greater research focus on
personality and other individual differences as predictors of work-family conﬂict and
positive spillover (Eby et al., 2005; Lockwood et al., 2002; Sumer & Knight, 2001). The
ﬁndings ﬁom this study support the inclusion of personality measures in the examination
of anticipated work-family conﬂict and positive spillover. Core self-evaluations were

negatively correlated with all six forms of anticipated work-family conﬂict and positively

105

correlated with anticipated work-family positive spillover. Core self-evaluations also
explained incremental variance in the prediction of these constructs above and beyond
demographics. Core self-evaluations had particularly strong correlations with strain-
based work-interference-with-family and strain-based family-interference—with-work
(explaining an incremental 8% and 10% of the variance in these variables above and
beyond demographics, respectively). This suggests that personality may most strongly
inﬂuence whether people anticipate being able to manage the strain associated with
balancing multiple roles, more so than the time or behavior demands of such roles.

Due to its nature as a global personality trait (comprised of four more speciﬁc
traits), core self-evaluations may be an especially useful predictor of anticipated (and
actual) work-family conﬂict and positive spillover. To the extent that individuals broadly
view themselves as capable and in control of their lives, they will see themselves as more
able to handle the challenges of balancing work and family in the future. Further, as
reported by Friede and Ryan (unpublished manuscript), core self-evaluations also explain
a signiﬁcant portion of variance in the actual school-family conﬂict and positive spillover
of student-parents. It is important to note that research not directly focused on
personality as a predictor of anticipated work-family conﬂict or positive spillover may
still beneﬁt from measuring and controlling for it when examining other predictors of
anticipated conﬂict and positive spillover. Controlling for personality is critical when
examining the relationship between other constructs (e.g., attitudes) and anticipated
work-family conﬂict/positive spillover.

Attitudes

106

Attitudes towards the roles that individuals will be engaging in (role-sharing, role-
planning, and role-importance) explained incremental variance in all six dimensions of
anticipated work-family conﬂict and in positive spillover when controlling for the effects
of demographics and core self-evaluations. In particular, attitudes explained an
additional 16% of the variance in strain-based work-interferenee-with-family and an
additional 20% of the variance in time-based work-interferenee-with-family.

Role-Planning. Currently being involved in planning for future roles (role-
planning involvement) was not signiﬁcantly correlated with any of the six forms of
anticipated work-family conﬂict. While role-planning involvement did have a positive
correlation with anticipated work-family positive spillover, it did not have a signiﬁcant
beta-weight when entered as a set with the other attitudinal constructs in the prediction of
positive spillover (when controlling for demographics and personality).

On the other hand, the extent to which individuals felt that they had knowledge
about how to plan for balancing work and family in the future (role-planning knowledge)
was an inﬂuential attitudinal predictor. Individuals who perceived that they had more
knowledge and certainty about how to plan for balancing work and family anticipated
experiencing less conﬂict and greater positive spillover between these roles. This
construct had a signiﬁcant beta-weight in the prediction of all six forms of anticipated
work-family conﬂict and in anticipated work-family positive spillover when entered as a
set with the other attitude variables (and controlling for demographics and personality).

The relevance of this construct in the prediction of anticipated conﬂict and
positive spillover points to some important directions for future research. First, future

research could examine whether the belief that one knows how to balance ﬁrture work

107

and family (perceived role-planning knowledge) is related to actual knowledge about
how to balance these roles effectively. The literature on stress and coping suggests that
identifying the appropriate strategy for dealing with an environment stressor is a key
aspect of stress management (Lazarus, 1991). To the extent that individuals with greater
perceived role-planning knowledge are able to identify more effective coping strategies
when they have to balance actual work and family responsibilities, they may experience
less conﬂict between these roles. Future research could examine whether individuals
with greater perceived role-planning knowledge are better able to identify and implement
coping strategies that are likely to be effective. For example, previous research has
identiﬁed problem-focused coping as a more effective strategy for dealing with work-
family conﬂict than emotion-focused coping (Kirchmeyer, 1993). To the extent that
individuals with greater perceived role-planning knowledge indicate that they would be
more likely (or, when actually balancing work and family, are more likely) to engage in
problem-focused c0ping (as compared to emotion-focused coping), they could be said to
actually know how to cope with work and family demands better than other individuals.
Second, future longitudinal research will consider whether perceived role-
planning knowledge predicts actual work-family conﬂict and positive spillover. If
individuals who feel that they know how to plan for managing multiple roles anticipate
experiencing less conﬂict and actually do experience less conﬂict, the question emerges
of whether helping individuals develop more knowledge about how to plan for balancing
multiple roles may reduce their actual work-family conﬂict and increase their actual
positive spillover. If so, interventions could be developed that increase role-planning

knowledge.

108

The research on anticipatory socialization and realistic job previews tends to show
that individuals who know more about the roles that they are going to occupy before they
enter them are more satisﬁed in these roles and perform better in them (see, for example,
Premack & Wanous, 1985). This research tends to focus on the expectations and
demands of a particular role (e.g., a job). Perhaps individuals who have more realistic
expectations about the demands of each of the roles that they are going to enter (e.g.,
being a doctor, being a parent) have greater knowledge about what to expect within each
role and therefore anticipate and/or experience less conﬂict and more positive spillover
between roles. Future research on this topic could measure within-role role-planning
knowledge (e. g., what it’s like to be a doctor, what it’s like to be a parent) and consider
the extent to which knowledge about future roles is related to anticipated and actual
conﬂict and spillover. Since interventions are likely to already exist that provide
individuals with information about demands of a particular role (e.g., shadowing a
doctor), future research could examine the extent to which such interventions affect
work-family conﬂict and positive spillover (both anticipated and actual).

It is also possible that knowledge within a particular domain is not as critical for
avoiding anticipated and actual work-family conﬂict and gaining anticipated and actual
positive spillover as knowledge about how to balance demands across domains. In this
case, interventions aimed at providing participants with knowledge about how to manage
multiple roles would have to be developed and examined empirically. For example,
doctors could discuss the challenges of balancing work and family and how they deal
with them with medical students. This might help students feel that they have more

knowledge about how to balance multiple roles and actually anticipate and experience

109

less conﬂict. Investigating the extent to which such interventions increase role-planning
knowledge, decrease conﬂict (anticipated and actual) and increase positive spillover
(anticipated and actual) is a valuable next step in research on the work-family interface.
In particular, it is exciting to consider the possibility that such interventions might be able
to prevent individuals from experiencing as much work-family conﬂict as they otherwise
would.

It is also important to also consider the possibility that individuals who think they
know how to plan for their future roles and do not expect to experience much conﬂict
between these roles are actually unrealistic. It may be that the individuals who report the
greatest role-planning knowledge experience the most actual work-family conﬂict and the
least actual positive spillover because they are more conﬁdent in their ability to handle
the challenges ahead and therefore do not take the appropriate steps to avoid such
problems before they arise. Of course, individuals will probably not be able to prepare
themselves completely for the work-family challenges that they will face regardless of
how much planning they do. However, individuals who are overly conﬁdent may not try
to control or avoid those aspects of work-family demands that are predictable. To the
extent that perceptions of role-planning knowledge result in negative outcomes for
individuals, interventions focused on explaining the challenges that lie ahead may help
individuals think more realistically about their future and actually prepare themselves for
the demands of balancing work and family. Regardless of the relationship between
perceived role-planning knowledge and actual work-family conﬂict/positive spillover, the

research presented here points to the importance of considering perceived role-planning

110

knowledge in future research and its potential usefulness in the development of
interventions aimed at alleviating conﬂict and facilitating positive spillover.

Role-Importance. The importance that individuals place on three domains of their
lives (relationship, parenting, and occupation) was also considered as a predictor of
anticipated work-family conﬂict and positive spillover. While all three types of role-
irnportance were correlated with forms of anticipated work-family conﬂict, only
occupational role-importance had a signiﬁcant beta-weight when entered as a set with the
other attitudinal variables. It was a signiﬁcant predictor of three out of the six forms of
anticipated work-family conﬂict. For positive spillover, individuals who placed a greater
importance on their relationship experienced more positive spillover between work and
family.

Individuals who placed a greater importance on achieving occupational
satisfaction anticipated greater behavior-based work-interference-with-family and strain-
based work-interference-with-family. These individuals also anticipated less time-based
family-interference-with-work. In other words, individuals who place a greater value on
their career expected behaviors and strain at work to interfere with family more, and for
time with family to interfere with work less than other individuals. Work was seen as
particularly likely to permeate home-life for these individuals while home-life was seen
as less likely to permeate the work domain. This seems logical given the greater value
that these individuals place on work compared to others. Post-hoe analyses were
conducted that examined whether a difference score between the importance placed on
work and the importance placed on parenting was a signiﬁcant predictor of anticipated

work-family conﬂict (when controlling for the importance placed on work alone).

111

Results indicate that it was the absolute importance that individuals placed on work,
rather than its relative importance (compared to parenting), that explained the variance in
these outcomes.

Research has examined the relationship between the emphasis that individuals
place on their work, such as work involvement and commitment, and the amount of
actual work-family conﬂict that they experience. This research has yielded mixed results.
With regards to job involvement, Carlson and Perrewe (1999) found that individuals
higher in job involvement experienced greater work-family conﬂict. Aryee (1992) found
that individuals who were more involved in their jobs experienced greater conﬂict
between work and parenting roles but less conﬂict between work and marital roles.
Tenbrunsel, Brett, Maoz and Stroh (1995) foundnon-signiﬁcant correlations between
work involvement and work-family conﬂict for both males and females. For job
commitment, a recent Day and Chamberlain (in press) article found that individuals who
are more committed to their jobs experienced less conﬂict between the work and parental
roles. Again, future longitudinal research will hopefully allow an investigation of whether
role-importance prior to entering a role is associated with actual work-family conﬂict and
positive spillover once individuals enter that role.

The question will still remain regarding whether this conﬂict is something that
individuals with high occupational role-importance are motivated to try to reduce,
eliminate, or avoid. Individuals who place a high value on career satisfaction may be
willing to tolerate work-interference-with-family or feel that it is unavoidable. If
individuals are not motivated to alleviate work-interference-with-family, it may not be

appropriate to pursue interventions aimed at helping them to do so. However, one must

112

also consider the potential detrimental effects that work interfering with family may have
on others besides the individual him/herself. If the spouse and/or children of an
individual who places a high value on career suffer because of it, perhaps ﬁndings ways
to alleviate the distress of these family members is valuable. Future research should
continue to investigate the relationship between occupational role-importance and actual
work-family conﬂict and positive spillover. While interventions may not be appropriate
and/or feasible, understanding occupational role-importance is nonetheless valuable for a
theoretical understanding of how and why the work and family domains often conﬂict
with one another and sometimes enrich one another.

The role-importance placed on one’s relationship (i.e., marriage or long-term
partnership) was a signiﬁcant predictor of anticipated work-family positive spillover
when entered as a set with the other attitudinal variables (controlling for personality). It
may be that having a relationship that one values highly helps individuals to appreciate
and enjoy the beneﬁts that come from having multiple roles. As mentioned above, future
research should consider the adOption of a more complex measure of anticipated work-
family positive spillover (e.g., the Carlson et al. (in press) measure). The use of this
measure would facilitate a better understanding of what direction (i.e., family-to-work or
work-to-family) and type (i.e., development, affect, capital, or efﬁciency) of positive
spillover individuals who highly value their relationships anticipate experiencing. It
seems likely that valuing one’s marriage/partnership might be associated with more
affective positive spillover from family-to-work, where the positive moods that result

from engagement in a valued relationship spillover into the work domain. However, it is

113

also possible that other types of anticipated (and actual) positive spillover result from
valuing one’s maniage/partnership.

Also, note that parental role-importance was not a signiﬁcant predictor of
anticipated conﬂict and/or positive spillover in this study. This may be because this
construct had a particularly high mean and low standard deviation (the mean was 4.24 out
of 5 (SD = .69)) as compared to the other forms of role-importance. To the extent that
parenting is seen as universally important, it is less likely to explain variance in the
constructs of interest. Therefore, another potential avenue for future research would be to
identify whether there are individuals who admit to placing a low importance on
parenting and to examine the relationships among these constructs with that sample.
Also, perhaps responses to questions regarding the importance that individuals place on
their parental role are highly inﬂuenced by social-desirability. Individuals may not want
to admit that they do not value their role as a parent. This poses an additional challenge
for researchers interested in the true relationship between parental role-importance and
work-family outcomes.

Role-Sharing. The extent to which individuals plan to share responsibility for
childcare, chores, and ﬁnances with their spouse/partner was examined in relation to
anticipated work-family conﬂict and positive spillover. Note that the means on this
variable are all close to 2, which indicates that individuals tend to expect to share these
responsibilities about equally with their partners.

Plans to share responsibility for ﬁnances were not signiﬁcantly correlated with
any of the six forms of anticipated work-family conﬂict or positive spillover. In fact,

role-sharing only had a signiﬁcant beta-weight in the prediction of anticipated time-based

114

and strain-based work-interference-with-family (when entered with the other attitudes as
a set while controlling for demographics and personality). Individuals who thought that
their partners would do more of the chores anticipated greater time- and strain-based
work-interference-with-family. Individuals who thought that their partners would do
more of the childcare expected greater time-based work-interference-with-family, as
well.

These ﬁndings are interesting. Perhaps individuals who expect to have more help
fulﬁlling these obligations ﬁom their partners feel like they will be in a position to allow
work to interfere with family since they are not the sole care-takers of their family.

These ﬁndings are also somewhat counter-intuitive because one might have expected that
having a partner who takes on greater responsibility at home would allow individuals to
keep their work-life from interfering with their home-life (because home-life may be less
demanding). Again, one beneﬁt ﬁom the opportunity to collect longitudinal data will be
the possibility of examining whether individuals are realistic about role-sharing with their
spouse and partners. Do they end up dividing family responsibilities in the way that they
anticipate? Further, an investigation of whether perceptions of future role-sharing predict
actual work-family conﬂict and positive spillover will be informative and interesting.

It is also worthwhile to consider whether role-sharing perceptions act more like a
stable attitudinal construct (as conceptualized in this study) or as choices that inﬂuence
and are inﬂuenced by anticipated work-family conﬂict and positive spillover. Similar to
other personal and professional plans, it is possible that there is a reciprocal relationship
between the anticipation of conﬂict/positive spillover and the choices that people feel

they will make regarding the division of responsibilities in their families. For example, if

115

individuals anticipate a great deal of conﬂict between work and family, they may seek
out a partner who is more willing to take-on childcare and chore responsibilities at home.

Choosing to alter the amount of effort that one puts into to family responsibilities
in reaction to the anticipation of inter-role conﬂict can be conceived of as a coping
strategy. Lazarus (1991) deﬁned coping as “the cognitive and behavioral efforts a person
makes to manage demands that tax or exceed his or her personal resources” (p. 5). If
individuals perceive that the demands of work and family will exceed their “personal
resources,” they may choose to cope by changing the amount of responsibility that they
intend to take for such things as chores, childcare, and ﬁnances. Coping by altering role-
sharing plans may, in turn, reduce the amount of conﬂict that individuals anticipate
experiencing between roles. The potential for a reciprocal relationship between role-
sharing and anticipated conﬂict and spillover should be considered in ﬁrture research.
Assessing role-sharing perceptions, anticipated conﬂict, and positive spillover at multiple
time points would facilitate an understanding of this potentially complex relationship.
Job/Career Plans

The investigation of occupational plans was focused largely on the demands that
different specializations and settings place on the doctor. Results indicate that
participants’ perceptions of the demands of their medical specialization explain
incremental variance in anticipated behavior-based family-interference-with-work, strain-
based work-interference-with-family and time-based conﬂict (both directions). For
anticipated behavior-based work-interference-with-family and strain-based family-
interference-with—work, the on-the-job demands of the specialization had a signiﬁcant

beta-weight in the prediction of the two forms of conﬂict. On the other hand, the

116

perceived hours demands of specializations were associated with anticipated time-based
conﬂict (in both directions). These ﬁndings are logical, in that the time-demands that
individuals expect their work to place on them are associated with the perception that it
will be difﬁcult to balance time at work and at home. It is also logical that the perceived
psychological and physical demands of one’s specialization are more closely aligned with
the behavior-based and strain-based conﬂict.

Expert-raters (medical doctors) also rated the demands of the different medical
specializations and settings. Expert-ratings of the demands of different medical settings
did explain incremental variance in anticipated behavior-based and time-based family-
interference-with-work. The extent to which experts perceived certain specializations as
more demanding (both on-the-job and hours) did not explain incremental variance in any
of the six forms of anticipated work-family conﬂict or in positive spillover (when
controlling for demographics, personality, and attitudes). In this study, specializations
and settings were rated separately by the expert-raters. However, the demands of the
setting may depend on which specialization one enters (e.g., dermatology in a hospital
may be less demanding than dermatology in a private practice whereas cardiology in a
hospital is more demanding than cardiology in a private practice). Future research should
consider having experts rate the demands of specializations within each setting to better
assess the speciﬁc demands of the careers that medical students plan to enter.

It is interesting to note that the perceptions of these demands, but not the objective
ratings of demands, explain incremental variance in anticipated work-family conﬂict and
positive spillover, given that expert-ratings were fairly highly correlated with self-ratings

(r = .57 for hours demands and r = .49 for on-the-job demands, p < .01 for both). This

117

may have occurred for a number of reasons. First, it may be due, at least in part, to
common method variance. In other words, the fact that the same individuals completed
the specialization ratings and the ratings of anticipated work-family conﬂict may have
inﬂated the relationship between them. However, controlling for a global personality
trait, such are core self-evaluations, is likely to reduce some of this common method
variance (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). Second, this may be due to
the lack of variance in the expert-ratings (since each person going into the same
specialization received the same score). This means that the expert-ratings could not
account for any variance across individuals within the same specialization. Third, it
could be that the shared variance between expert-ratings and self-ratings of
specializations is different from the variance that self-ratings share with anticipated work-
farnily conﬂict. Further research should be conducted that attempts to determine why
self-ratings explained incremental variance in some forms of anticipated work-family
conﬂict but expert-ratings did not despite their high correlations with one another.
Nonetheless, the fact that participants were somewhat accurate in their ratings of the
demands of their ﬁrst choice of specializations is important because realistic expectations
have been shown to have beneﬁcial effects on job-related outcomes and may potentially
have beneﬁcial effects on the levels of work-family conﬂict that individuals experience
(W anous, Poland, Premack, & Davis, 1992).

Future research should consider the extent to which perceived demands (as
compared to expert-ratings of demands) predict actual work-family conﬂict and positive
spillover. A post-hoe analysis was conducted to determine whether the difference

between the participants’ perceptions of specialization demands and the expert-raters’

118

perceptions of specialization demands was associated with any of the six forms of
anticipated work-family conﬂict or positive spillover. Results indicate that this
difference score was not correlated with anticipated work-family conﬂict or positive
spillover (when controlling for individual perceptions of demands). Although not true for
anticipated conﬂict, it may be that individuals who have expectations that more closely
match expert-raters experience less actual work-family conﬂict in the long-run because
their expectations are more closely aligned with reality and they prepare for it
appropriately. An alternative possibility is that more realistic individuals experience the
same amount of work-family conﬂict yet experience fewer of its negative consequences
(e.g., increased depression, burnout, alcohol use) because they are not surprised or
overwhelmed by the conﬂicting demands that they face (cf., Burke, 1988; Hammer et al.,
2001; Frone et al., 1993).

Research on “met expectations” in the IO/OB and broader psychology literature
suggest that a number of negative outcomes occur for individuals when their expectations
of a job do not match the reality they encounter upon beginning that job. For example, a
meta-analysis conducted by Wanous et al. (1992) found an estimated corrected
population correlation of .39 between met expectations and job satisfaction and .11
between met expectations and job performance. An examination of whether the
discrepancy between self-ratings and expert-ratings of job demands is associated with
negative outcomes for graduating medical students is a valuable research question in its
own right. Further, future research should focus on understanding the extent to which
unmet expectations regarding work (and family) are related to actual work-family

conﬂict and positive spillover. As mentioned previously, realistic previews regarding the

119

demands of different roles (e.g., worker, parent) and the demands of balancing work and
family could be investigated as potential interventions aimed at avoiding the negative
outcomes that have been associated with unmet expectations.

Relationship/Family Plans

Results from an examination of the relationship and family plans of participants
indicate that they are largely uncorrelated with anticipated work-family conﬂict and
positive spillover. Excluding the measures of certainty about relationship/family plans,
only 7 out of a possible 63 correlations between relationship/family plans and anticipated
conﬂict/spillover were signiﬁcant. Indeed, when controlling for demographics,
personality, and attitudes, relationship/family plans did not explain incremental variance
in any of the six forms of anticipated work-family conﬂict or in anticipated work-family
positive spillover.

This lack of predictive power may be due, at least in part, to the lack of variance
in relationship and family plans reported by these participants. Over 95% of participants
indicated that they plan to marry/partner, with 67.6% reporting that they planned to do so
between the ages of 25 and 30. 87.5% of the sample planned to have children at some
point, and the vast majority of those individuals plarmed to have either two or three
children. For individuals who planned to have children, over 70% planned to do so
between the ages of 27 and 32. The majority of participants (84.3%) also said that they
planned to work full-time. While there was some variance on the type of childcare that
individuals planned to use, one can see that the participants in this study planned to have

a traditional family with a partner and children, for the most part.

120

According to the US. Census, the 2003 American Community Survey indicates
that 50.4% of all Americans live in households live as part of a married-couple family
(e. g., as compared to single-parent homes or people living with non-family members).
Of those, 44.8% of households had children under the age of 18 years old (United States
Census, 2003). Thus, one can see that the lifestyle that the medical students expected to
experience (i.e., married with children) is reﬂective of the actual family status of a large
portion of the United States population. Future research could focus on the anticipated
work-family conﬂict/positive spillover of individuals who plan to enter non-traditional
relationships and families.

In sum, results indicate that relationship/family plans do not explain a signiﬁcant
amount of incremental variance in anticipated conﬂict and positive spillover. This
ﬁnding may be a result of limited variance in such plans. While it is interesting to
consider the extent to which relationship/family plans and anticipated conﬂict/positive
spillover interact and inﬂuence one another over time, the ﬁndings presented here suggest
that relationship/family plans may not change much over time or may only change for a
small subset of people. Therefore, large-scale survey studies may be unlikely to yield
strong relationships between anticipated or actual conﬂict/positive spillover and
relationship/family plans. Future survey research should not place a strong emphasis on
assessing the relationship between relationship/family plans and anticipated work-family
conﬂict/positive spillover. Perhaps a qualitative examination of why some individuals
change their relationship/family plans (e. g., decide not to marry or have children) might
provide a compelling investigation of the impact of anticipated and actual work-family

conﬂict on people’s lives.

121

Additional Analyses: Gender Diﬂerences in Other Study Variables

The additional analyses conducted investigated gender differences in the
predictors and correlates of anticipated work-family conﬂict and positive spillover.
These ﬁndings add to the literature on gender differences in personality, attitudes, and
personal and professional choices. Results indicate that there were differences in the
medical specializations that males and females intended to enter. Differences in the
perceived and actual demands of different medical specializations and settings may
explain, at least in part, gender differences in entry into particular medical careers.
Further research could use the social cognitive career development theory to model the
process by which medical students decide on a specialization and setting. Such research
should consider how the anticipation of job demands, work-family conﬂict, and positive

spillover play a role in this process.

122

Limitations and Future Research Directions

In additions to those limitations and future research directions described above,
there are two more broad limitations of this research that provide insight into the
direction that future research should take. One limitation of this study was the possibility
that common method biases were responsible for the relationships found in this study.
Common method bias is considered “variance that is attributable to the measurement of
method rather than to the constructs the measures represent” (Podsakoff et al., 2003,
p.879). Podsakoff et al. (2003) discuss four general sources of common method biases.
Each of these four sources will be discussed as a potential cause of common method bias
in this study.

First, Podsakoff et al. (2003) discuss common rater effects as a source of common
method bias. The relationships found between the constructs assessed in this study may
be inﬂated because a single individual completed almost all of the measures. Common
rater effects may be the result of a number of factors, including a desire to maintain
consistency in how individuals respond to questions, a tendency to respond to survey
items in a particular way (e.g., yea-saying), and pervasive dispositional characteristics of
individuals (e.g., negative affectivity; Podsakoff et al., 2003).

These factors can all inﬂate the relationships among measures. As discussed
earlier, the fact that self-ratings of job demands were more highly correlated with
anticipated work-family conﬂict than expert-ratings may reﬂect a common method bias.
However, it is important to note that by controlling for core self-evaluations, a broad

dispositional characteristic, at least some of the common rater effects may be reduced,

123

because variance attributable to this personality trait is statistically controlled for when
examining the relationships between other study variables. The fact that attitudes and
perceptions of specialization demands explained incremental variance when controlling
for core self-evaluations suggest that participant disposition is not solely responsible for
the relationships that were found in this study. Further, common rater effects are
expected to be consistent across measures. Differences in the predictive power of
measures (e.g., role-planning knowledge explained signiﬁcantly more variance in the
outcomes of interest than role-planning involvement) cannot be attributed to common
rater bias.

Overall, while common rater effects may have inﬂated some of the relationships
between constructs measured, the fact that core self-evaluations were statistically
controlled for and differential relationships were found across predictors suggest that it is
not responsible for all of the ﬁndings presented here. The use of expert-raters was
beneﬁcial because it provided an alternative source of information regarding job
demands. For future research, the use of expert-raters and other relevant additional
sources of information about the participant (e. g., his/her coworkers, spouse, children)
will also mitigate the possibility that the relationships found in the study are due to
common rater effects.

The second source of common method bias discussed by Podsakoff et al. (2003)
is item characteristic effects. When items tend to have similar formats, response options,
and wording, this can inﬂate the relationships among measures. In this study, almost all
of the items were rated on a ﬁve-point Likert-type scale. Further, a number of these

scales used response options ranging ﬁ'om “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.” It is

124

possible that these item characteristics inﬂated the relationships among study constructs.
However, differences in the extent to which different subscales of the same construct

(e. g., role—sharing childcare vs. role-sharing ﬁnances) were associated with anticipated
work-family conﬂict and positive spillover are evidence that item characteristic effects
may not be particularly problematic because item formats and response options were
common across all subscales. Future research could consider alternative formats for
items. However, the beneﬁts associated with using well-validated measures may
outweigh the costs associated with using traditional item formats across measures.

A third source of common method bias discussed by Podsakoff et al. (2003) is
item context effects. The context in which items are asked in relation to other items may
inﬂuence participant responses. For example, viewing certain items earlier in a measure
may “prime” individuals to respond in a particular way to later items. For example, in
this study, participants were asked about their personal and professional plans prior to
completing measures of anticipated work-family conﬂict and positive spillover.

Thinking about future family and job demands may have inﬂuenced how individuals
thought about the conﬂict and spillover between these roles (as compared to if they
hadn’t been asked about these plans prior to completing these measures). Therefore, it is
possible that some of the ﬁndings in study are due, at least in part, to the context in which
items are presented.

The fourth source of common method bias that Podsakoff et al., (2003) describe is
measurement context effects. When measures are administered at a single point in time,
in a single location, and/or using a single medium, relationships among constructs may be

inﬂated. Except for the possibility that some participants may have logged out of the

125

web-survey and completed it in a different location later in time, participants completed
the measures at a single location (either in a lecture hall or at a computer), using a single
medium (either paper-and-pencil or web-based survey), at a single point in time. These
measurement context effects may have inﬂated the relationships among self-reported
responses. Future longitudinal research will provide an additional time, location, and (for
some) medium of survey completion.

Overall, while Podsakoff et al. (2003) identify sources of common method bias
that may have inﬂated the relationships found in this study, the use of expert-ratings and
a statistical control of personality decrease the potential impact of common method bias
on the ﬁndings reported here. Further, the fact that predictors were differentially related
to the outcomes of interest suggests that common method bias is not solely responsible
for results obtained in this study. Future research should attempt to reduce common
method bias. However, attention should also be paid to the costs incurred by altering the
source of ratings, the item characteristics, the item context characteristics, and the
measurement contexts.

A second key limitation of this study is that it was exploratory in nature with no
directional hypothesis proposed. Work-family research has been criticized broadly for a
lack of an over-arching theoretical framework (Eby et al., 2005). This study is subject to
that criticism, as well. The research presented here should be considered a ﬁrst-step in
the process of building a theory of anticipated work-family conﬂict and positive
spillover. Future research should try to explain how and why certain predictors are

related to certain forms of work-family conﬂict and positive spillover rather than simply

126

re-examining the relationships presented here or correlating new predictors with the
anticipated conﬂict and spillover constructs.

There are a number of theoretical frameworks that might be useful in
understanding how and why the key constructs in this study are related. Two potential
theoretical frameworks, social cognitive career theory and a stress/coping model, are
discussed here in more detail.

Social cognitive career theory. As discussed previously, social cognitive career
theory can be useful in thinking about how personal and professional choices interact
with anticipated work-family conﬂict and positive spillover over time (Lent et al., 1994).
While this theory has mainly been applied within the academic and job choice literature,
it could also be applied more broadly to develop a dynamic model of decision-making
regarding work and family choices, conﬂict, and positive spillover over time.

More speciﬁcally, social cognitive career theory discusses how self-efﬁcacy and
outcome expectations inﬂuence what individuals are interested in and which activities
they pursue. As young adults develop self-efﬁcacy and outcome expectations within the
academic domain (e. g., “I get praised for getting As in math”) and other life domains,
such as the interpersonal domain (e. g., “I’m good at taking care of others”), they will
choose to engage in behaviors and activities in each domain for which they have high
self-efﬁcacy and outcome expectations (e.g., taking more math classes, acting more
caring towards others). Individuals may also develop self-efﬁcacy and outcome
expectations regarding the interactions between life domains (e. g., “I’m good at
balancing schoolwork and extracurricular activities”). Over time, self-efﬁcacy and

outcome expectations within and across domains may push people towards certain

127

academic/professional and personal choices. As individuals experience different amounts
of success and satisfaction within domains and in managing demands across domains,
their self-efﬁcacy and outcome expectations are further adjusted.

Irnportantly, the other constructs included in this study can also be incorporated
into this theoretical ﬁ'arnework. Demographics, personality, and attitudes are likely to
inﬂuence self-efﬁcacy and outcome expectations within and across domains. As an
example of demographics inﬂuencing outcome expectations, females may not be
encouraged to excel in math thus reducing the belief that pursuing a math-related career
will be rewarding (Eccles, 1994). Anticipated and actual work-family conﬂict and
positive spillover are also likely to be intricately tied to this process. As individuals
consider and make choices in each domain, they will have to re-evaluate the expected
conﬂict and positive spillover across domains. The perception that certain choices are
more likely to result in conﬂict and positive spillover will inﬂuence the outcome
expectations that individuals have for these choices. This reciprocal process repeats itself
over a lifetime, inﬂuencing the choices that individuals make and the conﬂict and
positive spillover that they anticipate and experience.

While a model that repeats continuously over the course of a lifetime is likely to
be difﬁcult to test, it nonetheless provides a useful way of thinking about how and why
the constructs described in this study may be related. Testable hypotheses may be able to
be derived from this model, particularly if longitudinal research is possible. For
example, this model predicts that a lack of self-efficacy for a particular type of activity
results in a lack of interest in and pursuit of engagement in that activity. A resulting

work-family hypothesis would be that lower self-efﬁcacy for balancing work and family

128

in the ﬁrture will be associated with a greater likelihood that individuals plan to avoid
multiple roles (e. g., by being a stay-at-home parent or a working non-parent). Future
research could examine whether the social cognitive theory of career is able to clarify the
relationships between anticipated and actual work-family conﬂict, positive spillover, and
personal/professional decision-making.

Stress/coping model. A second potentially useful theoretical ﬁamework for
thinking about anticipated work-family conﬂict and positive spillover is adopted ﬁ'om the
stress and coping literature. The relevance of stress and coping in understanding the
constructs presented in this study has already been discussed brieﬂy in this paper. One
stress and coping framework that may be particularly useful in thinking about how and
why the constructs described in this study are related to one another was ﬁrst proposed by
Bolger and Zuckerman (1995). The authors describe a framework for examining the role
of personality in the experience of stress. F riede and Ryan (2004) have considered how
this framework can be applied to understanding how personality relates to the experience
of actual work-family conﬂict and positive spillover. This framework could also be
expanded to consider how and why individuals anticipate future work-family conﬂict and
positive spillover.

The Bolger and Zuckerman (1995) model focuses on three pathways by which
personality may be related to stress. First, they describe “differential exposure” to
stressors in which individuals, based on their personality, experience different types or
amounts of actual stressors in their environments. Next, they describe “differential
reactivity” to stressors, in which personality affects the felt intensity of or reaction to

stressors. Third, they describe how personality affects coping strategies; both the coping

129

strategies individuals choose to deal with the stressors that they encounter (“differential
coping choice”) and how effective individuals are at implementing these coping
strategies (“differential coping effectiveness”; Bolger & Zuckerman, 1995).

This model is potentially useﬁrl for building a theory of how and why certain
constructs predict anticipated work-family conﬂict and positive spillover. First,
individuals with different core self-evaluations and attitudes may plan to enter different
types of personal and professional situations (“differential exposure”). For example,
individuals who place a high role-importance on their occupation may be more likely to
plan to enter a demanding career. In the current study, individuals who placed a greater
importance on their occupational role were more likely to plan to enter a specialization
with more demanding hours, as rated by both the participant (r = .12, p < .05) and experts
(r = .10, p = .05). These increased demands may inﬂuence the conﬂict and positive
spillover that individuals expect to experience between work and family roles. For this
“differential exposure” pathway, personality and attitudes are seen as inﬂuencing
personal and professional plans. These plans are then seen as inﬂuencing anticipated and
work-family conﬂict/positive spillover. Further research should consider whether
individuals with different personality characteristics and attitudes make personal and
professional choices that are likely to result in different amounts of anticipated work-
family conﬂict and positive spillover.

Personality and attitudes may also inﬂuence how individuals expect to react to the
work-family challenges that they face. Because individuals are familiar with the way that
they tend to respond to stressors in their environment, they may be able to develop

expectations regarding how they will feel when they experience work-family stressors.

130

For example, individuals who have positive core self-evaluations or place a lower
importance on family-life might expect to react to a work-related stressor (e.g., a last
minute late night meeting) with a slight feeling of work-interfering-with-family. On the
other hand, individuals with more negative core self-evaluations or those who place a
higher importance on family might expect that the same stressor will cause a great
amount of work-interferencewith-family. Therefore, in this “differential reactivity”
pathway, personality and attitudes are seen as affecting anticipated work-family conﬂict
and positive spillover, even when holding the actual characteristics of the future
environment constant. Future research to examine the “differential reactivity” pathway
could ask individuals to report how much work-family conﬂict and positive spillover they
would expect to experience in hypothetical situations. Results that indicate that
individuals with different personality characteristics and attitudes expect to experience
different amounts of conﬂict and positive spillover when reading about the same
objective situation would support the “differential reactivity” pathway.

Personality and attitudes may also inﬂuence the coping styles that individuals
expect to use to deal with future work-family demands (“differential coping choice”) and
how effective they think these coping strategies will be (“differential coping
effectiveness”). If individuals belief that they know what types of coping strategies to
use to cope with work-family demands and that they will effectively be able to use them,
they may anticipate less work-family conﬂict and more positive spillover. Note that in
this study, individual who perceived that they knew how to cope with the demands of
work and family (role-planning knowledge) anticipated less work-family conﬂict (all six

forms) and more positive spillover, even when controlling for demographics and

131

personality. It is important to point out that this pathway is focused on perceived coping
skills (rather than actual coping skills). In other words, a greater perceived ability to
cope with work-family demands is predicted to be associated with less anticipated
conﬂict and more anticipated positive spillover regardless of the accuracy of this
perception. Future research could be aimed at examining the relationship between
perceptions of coping skills and anticipated work-family conﬂict and positive spillover to
follow-up on the suggestions presented here.

Overall, the ﬁndings from the current study suggest that adapting a model of the
relationship between personality and stress/coping to the prediction of anticipated work-
farnily conﬂict and positive spillover may be useful. Additionally, the social cognitive
theory of career development provides an alternative framework for thinking about
anticipated work-family conﬂict and positive spillover. The stress/coping framework is
more focused on predicting anticipated conﬂict/positive spillover whereas the social
cognitive theory is more focused on the relationship between anticipated conﬂict/positive
spillover and personal/professional decision-making over time. The discussion above
provides some initial ideas for future research examining the two potential frameworks
just described. There may be a number of additional theoretical frameworks that could
also be useful in thinking about the constructs of anticipated work-family conﬂict and
positive spillover and their correlates.

One vital characteristic of a theoretical model is the relationship between
anticipated work-family conﬂict and positive spillover and actual work-family conﬂict
and positive spillover. An understanding of whether individuals are accurate or

inaccurate in their anticipation of conﬂict and spillover (e. g., do those who anticipate less

132

conﬂict experience more or less conﬂict?) is going to be an important step in the
theoretical understanding of the relationships between the constructs presented in this
study. Both theoretical frameworks presented above can incorporate both anticipated and
actual forms of work-family conﬂict and positive spillover. Irnportantly, the accuracy of
anticipation is also important for the development of interventions. If individuals are
inaccurate in their anticipation then interventions focused on improving the accuracy of
perceptions of individuals who anticipate little conﬂict should be targeted so that they
become more accurate and make well-informed decisions. On the other hand, if
individuals are accurate in their anticipate (e.g., those who anticipate less conﬂict
experience less conﬂict), then interventions should be targeted at those who experience
the most conﬂict, helping them to make choices that will help alleviate actual work-
farrrily conﬂict and reduce their anticipation of conﬂict. A longitudinal investigation
focused on the relationship between anticipated and actual work-family conﬂict and
positive spillover is planned with the medical students who participated in this study.
Conclusion

The study described here presents one of the ﬁrst comprehensive examinations of
anticipated work-family conﬂict and positive spillover. Results indicate that these are
measurable constructs that can be predicted by personality and attitudes. Broadly, results
suggest that core self-evaluations, role-planning knowledge, and occupational role-
importance are particularly inﬂuential predictors of these constructs. Further, this study
investigates the relationship between personal/professional plans and anticipated work-
family conﬂict and positive spillover. While relationship/family plans did not explain

incremental variance in these variables, this may be due to the lack of variance in such

133

plans across participants. Participant perceptions of the demands of medical
specializations and expert-ratings of the demands of medical settings also added
predictive value in the understanding of some forms of anticipated work-family conﬂict
and positive spillover. Overall, this study has provided a foundation for beginning to
answer more complex questions about the nature of anticipated work-family conﬂict and
positive spillover. Social cognitive career theory and a model linking personality to
stress and coping are two potentially useful theoretical frameworks for modeling these
relationships. The relationship between anticipated and actual work-family conﬂict and
positive spillover is an important key in the development of such theoretical models.
Future research investigating these relationships is essential to theory-building and

interventions aimed at alleviating work-family conﬂict and promoting positive spillover.

134

Appendix A
Recruitment Emails

Dear CHM Medical Student,

We are writing to invite you to participate in a research study that looks at how MSU College of
Human Medicine medical students make choices about how to balance their future medical
career and family life. We're interested in how you think and feel about your future work and
family roles. As part of this study, we're asking you to participate in a web-based survey. The
survey takes about 10 - 15 minutes to complete and contains 128 questions.

There will be a random drawing for a $50 gift certiﬁcate to a medical bookstore for study
participants. The survey is voluntary, conﬁdential, and easy to complete. Your answers will help
us better understand the needs of medical students and the reasons that you make the choices
that you do!

To take the survey, please go to httgzllgsychology.msu.edu/Balance and enter the Access ID:
medicine

If you have any questions about the survey, please contact Professor Ann Marie Ryan at
manaansuedu or (517) 353-8855 . If you have any difﬁculty accessing the web-survey,
please see the "web survey help” instructions below.

We greatly appreciate you taking time out of your busy schedule to participate in this study.
Thank you,

Dr. Wanda Lipscomb, Assistant Dean for Student Affairs and Services
Dr. Ann Marie Ryan, Professor of Psychology
Alyssa Friede, Graduate Student

lf you have any other questions, please email friedealQmsu.edu

135

Dear COM medical student,

Thank you very much to all of you who have completed the survey about balancing work and
family. For those of you who haven't taken it yet, we'd like to remind you that there is still time to
complete the web-based survey. Your response will help us understand the thoughts, feelings,
and needs of COM medical students. Again, it takes about 10 - 15 minutes to complete and
contains 128 questions.

There will be a random drawing for a $50 gift certiﬁcate to a medical bookstore for study
participants. The survey is voluntary, conﬁdential, and easy to complete.

To take the survey, please go to httgscllgsychology.msu.edu/Balance and enter the Access ID:
medicine

If you have any questions about the survey, please contact Ann Marie Ryan at ganaansuedu
or (517) 353-8855

If you have any difﬁculty accessing the web-survey, please see the ”web survey help” instructions
below.

We greatly appreciate you taking time out of your busy schedule to participate in this study.
Thank you,

Dr. Celia Guro

Dr. Bill Falls

Dr. Ann Marie Ryan
Alyssa Friede

136

Appendix B
Consent Form
Anticipated Work-Family Balance
Please read the information below:

We will be asking you to respond to a series of questions about how you think about and
plan for your future career and family life. We are also asking you to respond to some
commonly used personality and demographic questions that will help us interpret the
meaning of your responses to the questionnaire.

We expect that it will take you about 20 minutes for you to ﬁll out the survey. You will
also have a chance to win a $50 gift certiﬁcate to a medical bookstore through your
participation based on a random drawing. There are no foreseeable risks associated with
participating in this study. Your name and information will remain conﬁdential. Your
privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law. The data will be
saved for at least ﬁve years after it is collected and will only be accessible by the primary
investigator and one graduate student. By signing below you indicate that you are ﬂee to
refuse to participate in this project or any part of this project. You may refuse to answer
some of the questions and may discontinue your participation at any time without

penalty.

If you have any questions or concerns about your participation in this project, you can
reach Daniel llgen by phone: (517)355-7503, fax: (517)353-4873, email: ilgen@msu.edu,
or regular mail: 340A Psychology Building, East Lansing, MI 48824.. If you have
questions or concerns regarding your rights as a study participant, or are dissatisﬁed at
any time with any aspect of this study, you may contact - anonymously if you wish —
Peter Vasilenko, Ph.D. Chair of the University Committee on Research Involving
Human Subjects (UCRIHS) by phone: (517) 355-2180, fax: (517)432-4503, email:
ucrihs@msu.edu, or regular mail: 202 Olds Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824.

Please sign you name and write the date below if you agree to participate in this study.

Name

 

Date

 

137

Appendix C

Introduction

Anticipated Work-Family Balance

Introduction: Thank you for participating in this survey of medical students. We
are interested in how you think about and plan for your future, both your
professional and family lives. For many people, family may mean spouse or
partner and/or children; for others, it may include a more extended group of
individuals. Please use your own deﬁnition of your future family when you
answer the questions that follow. We realize that you may not be certain about
all of your plans, but please answer the questions that follow to the best of your
ability. Circle your response to each question in the survey packet. Feel free to
raise your hand at any time if you have a question.

138

Appendix D
Permission to Re—Contact

Permission to Re-Contact: We would like permission to contact you again in the future. We
are interested in how your thoughts and feelings about your work and family lives change over
time and about the choices that you make. By providing your name and email address here, you

indicate your consent to have us send you an email inviting you to participate in a follow-up study
in the future.

Name (please print):

 

Email:

 

139

Appendix E
Personal Characteristics

Part I - Personal Characteristics: Please circle the option below that best descrlbes you.

1. How old are you?

a. 22 or younger
b. 23-24
c. 25-26
d. 27-28
e. 29 or older
2. What year in medical school are you?
a. 1St ear
b. 2 year
c. 3"‘1 year
d. 4”1 year
3. What is your gender?
a. Male
b. Female

4. What is your current marital status?

a. Never married
b. Currently married
c. Divorced
d. Widowed
e. Long-term live-in relationship (for example, common law marriage, same sex
partnership)
5. What is your current parental status?
a. l have never had any children
b. l have children that live with me
e. l have children that do not live with me (for example, other parent has full

custody, gave up child for adoption, children are grown)

6. How old is your youngest child?

a. I do not have children
b. 0-5 years old

c. 6-10 years old

d. 11-15 years old

e. 16 or older

7. What ethnicity do you consider yourself to be?
American Indian or Alaskan native

Asian

Black/African American

Hispanic

Native Hawaiian or other Paciﬁc Islander
White/Caucasian/Not of Hispanic origin
Multi-racial

Other

.320 7w 919.69»

140

Appendix F
Relationship and Family Choices

Part II - Relationship and Family Choices: Please circle the option below that best
describes your future relationship and family plans.

1. Do you plan to be married or have a life-long committed partnership at some point in your
life?

Yes

No

Maybe

I haven’t thought about it

2. At at age do you plan to marry or enter a life-long committed partnership?

I do not plan to be married/partnered

I am already married/partnered

22-25 years old

25-30 years old

30-35 years old

35 years old or older

Unsure

I haven’t thought about it

esﬁseeswg 9.09s»

3. How certain are you that the relationship plans you just described will actually happen?
Very unsure ,

Somewhat unsure

Neither sure nor unsure

Somewhat sure

Very sure

SPF-99'9”

4. Do you plan to have children at some point in your life?

a. Yes

b. No

c. Maybe

d. I haven't thought about it

If you are fairly certain that you do not plan to have children, please skip to
Question 18. If you’re unsure or haven’t thought about it, please answer
the questions assuming that you choose to have children.

5. How many children do you plan to have (include in this number any children that you already

have)?
a. 0
b. 1
c. 2
d. 3
e. 4
f. 5 or more
9. I haven’t thought about it
h. Unsure

141

6. At what age do you plan to start having children?

rare-*5» 9.0.69:

I already have children
21 -23

24-26

27-29

30-32

33-35

35+

I haven’t thought about it
Unsure

7. Do you plan to have other people (besides you and your spouse/partner) provide regular

childcare?

page

Yes

No

I haven't thought about it
Unsure

8. If you plan to be married/partnered, how much do you expect yourself and your partner to
work once you have children?

rsaaepeeeps

We will both work mll-timg.

I will work full-time but my spouse/partner will work part-time.
I will work part-time but my spouse/partner will work full-time.
I will work full-time but my spouse/partner will not work.

I will not work but my spouse/partner will work full-time.

We will both work part-time.

At least one of us will work mll-timg, but I'm not sure who.
Neither of us will work.

I do not plan to be married/partnered.

I haven’t thought about it.

Unsure

9. What type of childcare do you plan to use during your working hours (circle all that apply)?

”sense

I plan for my spouse to provide the care during those hours.

I plan to use a professional group day care for care during those hours.

I plan to have a relative provide care during those hours.

I plan to have a nanny/babysitter provide care in my home during those hours.
I haven’t thought about it.

Unsure

10. How certain are you that the family plans you just described will actually happen?

a.
b.
c.
d
e

Very unsure

Somewhat unsure
Neither sure nor unsure
Somewhat sure

Very sure

142

Appendix G
Job/Career Choices

Part III: Job/Career Choices

1. For the next question, mark an X in the column labeled “First Choice” next to the medical
specialization that you think that you are MOST likely to go into. Mark an X in the column
labeled “Second Choice” next to your SECOND choice of medical specialization. Make only
1 X column.

First Choice Second Choice

medicine
Fam
Internal medicine
Medical

Nuclear medicine
Obstetrics and

ic

— anatomic and clinical
Pediatrics
medicine and rehabilitation
Plastic
Preventive medicine

Radiation

Unsure
Other write in

 

2. What setting do you plan to work in?
Hospital

Private practice
Pharmaceutical corporation
University research setting
Not sure

Other (please write in)

scenes

 

3. How certain are you that your medical career plans that you just selected will actually
happen?
a. Very unsure
b Unsure
c. Neither sure nor unsure
d. Sure
e Very sure

143

Appendix H
Specialization Ratings

4. To what extent do you think that the specialization you chose as your ﬁrst choice above will
allow you to experience an ideal balance between your work and family life?
a. It will hinder my ability to have balance a lot.
b It will hinder my ability to have balance a little.
c. It will not affect my ability to have balance.
d. It will help my ability to have balance a little.
e It will h_elp my ability to have balance a lot.

 

Part IV: Specialization Ratings

Thinking about the specialization that you rated as your flat ghoice as it compares to the other
specializations listed on the previous page. answer the following questions about that
specialization by ﬁlling in the blanks in the statements below using the following scale:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0) Less L
O Somewhat less SL
(3) About the same I equally A
6) Somewhat more SM
6) More M
Specialization Ratings
Home Demands
1. Doctors in my preferred specialization work hours per week compared
to doctors in other specializations.
2. The hours of work in my preferred specialization are predictable compared
to the hours for doctors in other specializations.
3. Doctors in my preferred specialization have control over the hours which
they work compared to doctors in other specializations.
4. Doctors in my preferred specialization are on call hours per week
compared to doctors in other specializations.
On-the-Job Demands

 

1. The emotional challenges (i.e., dealing with stressful or highly emotional
situations, such as upset patients or family members) in my preferred
specialization are challenging compared to the emotional challenges for
doctors in other specializations.

2. The difﬁcult decisions (such as the choice to advise a more aggressive treatment
plan) in my preferred specialization are difﬁcult compared to the decisions
for doctors in other specializations.

3. The behavioral control requirements (i.e., having to act in ways that are different
from one’s natural behavior, such as acting dispassionate in a clinical setting) in
my preferred specialization require control compared to the behavioral
control requirements of doctors in other specializations.

4. Doctors in my preferred specialization have to follow protocols (i.e., strict
requirements for behavior at work rather than making one’s own choice about
behavior) often compared to doctors in other specializations.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

144

Use the following scale to answer the next question.

 

 

Q) Slower than

(2) Somewhat slower than SS

<3) About the same as A

6) Somewhat faster than SF

(5) Faster than F
On-the-Job Demands, Continued. I

5. The pace of work in my preferred specialization is the pace for doctors in I

other specializations.

 

145

Specialization Ratings Scale Development

Table 31

Appendix I

Intercorrelations for Self-Rated Specialization Ratings Items

 

 

1 3 5 6 7
1. Hours Item 1
2. Hours Item 2* .47
3. Hours Item 3* .51 .58
4. Hours Item 4 .61 .53 .51
5. On—the-job Item 1 .21 .09 .21 .16
6. On-the-job Item 2 .24 .13 .21 .19 .53
7. On-the-job Item 3 .14 .13 .15 .11 .45 .45
8. On-the-job Item 4 .20 .14 .23 .16 .20 .27 .37
9. On-the-job Item 5 .28 .18 .21 .17 .37 .38 .28 .37

 

Note. Ns range from 419 to 425. Correlations that are signiﬁcant at p < .05 are

presented in bold. Correlations with r 2 I .095 I are signiﬁcant at p < .05.

Correlations with r 2 I .125 I are signiﬁcant at p < .01. See Appendix H for item

content.

*Items reverse-coded prior to analysis.

 

 

Table 32

F actor loadings for Self-Rated Specialization Ratings

Item Factor 1 Factor 2
Hours Item 1 0.70

Hours Item 2* 0.73

Hours Item 3* 0.71

Hours Item 4 0.74
On-the-job Item 1 0.67
On-the-job Item 2 0.71
On-the-job Item 3 0.64
On-the-job Item 4 0.41
On-the-job Item 5 0.50

 

Note. Two factors were extracted using principal axis factoring
with a varimax rotation. Factor loadings less than I .30 I are not

shown. See Appendix H for item content.

”'1th reverse coded prior to analysis.

146

Appendix J

Anticipated Work—Family Conﬂict

Part V: Anticipated Work-Family Conﬂict

Thinking about your future job in medicine and the family that you plan to have in the future,
please indicate whether you agree or disagree with the following statements. Your ratings should
range from 1 (showing that you strongly disagree with the statement) to 5 (showing that you
strongly agree with the statement).

CD Strongly Disagree SD
(2) Disagree D
(3) Neither Agree nor Disagree N
6) Agree A
G) Strongly Agree SA

 

Anticipated Work-Family Conﬂict

Time-Based Work-lnterference-with-Family

1. My work will keep me from my family activities more than I would like.

2. The time I will devote to my job will keep me from participating equally in
household responsibilities and activities.

3. I will have to miss family activities due to the amount of time I will have to spend
on work responsibilities.

Time-Based FamiIy-lnterference-with-Work

1. The time I will spend on family responsibilities will often interfere with my work
responsibilities.

2. The time I will spend with my family will often cause me not to spend time in
activities at work that could be helpful to my career.

3. I will have to miss work activities due to the amount of time I will have to spend
on family responsibilities.

Strain-Based Work-lnterference-wlth-Family

1. I think that when I get home from work I will often be too frazzled to participate in
family activities/responsibilities.

2. I will often be so emotionally drained when I get home from work that it will

_prevent me from contributinqto my family.

3. Due to all the pressures I will have at work, sometimes when I get home I will be
too stressed to do the things I enjoy.

Strain-Based Family-lnterference-with-Work

1. Due to stress at home, I will often be too preoccupied with family matters at work.

2. Because I will often be stressed from my family responsibilities. I will have a hard
time concentratinlon my work.

3. Tension and anxiety from my family life will often weaken my ability to do my job.

Behavior-Based Work-|nterference-with-Famlly

1. The problem-solving behaviors I will use in my job will not be effective in
resolving problems at home.

2. Behavior that is effective and necessary for me at work will be counterproductive
at home.

3. The behaviors that l will perform that will make me effective at work will not help
me to be a better parent and spouse/partner.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

147

 

Behavior-Based Family-lnterference-with-Work, Continued.

 

1. The behaviors that will work for me at home will not be effective at work.

 

2. Behavior that is effective and necessary for me at home will be counterproductive
at work.

 

 

3. The problem-solving behavior that will work for me at home will not be as useful
at work.

 

148

 

Appendix K
Anticipated Work-Family Beneﬁts

Part VI: Anticipated Work-Family Benefits

Thinking about your future job in medicine and the family that you plan to have in the future,
please indicate whether you agree or disagree with the following statements. Your ratings should
range from 1 (showing that you strongly disagree with the statement) to 5 (showing that you
strongly agree with the statement).

0) Strongly Disagree

(2) Disagree

0 Neither Agree nor Disagree
G) Agree

6) Strongly Agree

g>203

 

Anticipated Work-Family Beneﬁts

My job will show me ways of seeing We that will be helpful outside of work.
My job will develop skills in me that will be useful at home.
My home life will develop skills in me that will be useful at work.
My family/partner wiLqive me support so that I can face the difﬁculties of work.
The quality of my job performance will improve if I am satisﬁed with my home
life. -
My home life will energize me so that I can tackle the challenges of my job.
The quality of my home life will improve if I am satisﬁed with myjob.
My job will give me access to certain facts/information which can be used to
improve my home life.
My family/partner will give me ideas that can be applied to the job.
. My co-workefs will support me and help me face challenges in my home life.
. My work life will energize me so that I can tackle the challenges of my home
life.
12. My home life will provide me with ideas or information that can help me at
work.

 

 

 

 

 

.U'PSPN."

 

 

 

9°.V9’

 

 

 

_s_s(p
_so-

 

 

 

 

149

Appendix L

Anticipated Work-Family Beneﬁts Scale Development

Table 33

Intercorrelations for Anticipated Work-Family Positive Spillover Items
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
. Item 1
. Item 2 .59
. Item 3 .52 .66
. Item 4 .34 .36 .41
. Item 5 .24 .33 .33 .38
. Item 6 .30 .32 .35 .48 .54
. Item 7 .25 .22 .21 .32 .51 .37
. Item 8 .31 .44 .34 .26 .30 .28 .26
. Item 9 .32 .47 .43 .33 .25 .28 .21 .46
10. Item 10 .23 .30 .25 .25 .19 .16 .16 .30 .31
11. Item 11 .24 .37 .30 .18 .15 .24 .21 .36 .35 .42
12. Item 12 .38 .51 .53 .32 .25 .26 .16 .52 .61 .39 .45

\OWQO‘MAUJNr—I

 

Note. Ns range from 424 to 428. Correlations that are signiﬁcant at p < .05 are
presented in bold. Correlations with r 2 I .095 I are signiﬁcant at p < .05.
Correlations with r 2 I .125 I are signiﬁcant at p < .01. See Appendix K for

 

 

item content.
Table 34
Factor Loadingsior Anticipated Work-Family Positive Spillover

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3

Item 1 0.60
Item 2 0.37 0.72
Item 3 0.70
Item 4 0.31 0.48
Item 5 0.74
Item 6 0.65
Item 7 0.60
Item 8 0.55
Item 9 0.58 0.32
Item 10 0.50
Item 11 0.58
Item 12 0.73 0.38

 

Note. Three factors were extracted using principal axis factoring
with a varimax rotation. Factor loadings less than I .30 I are not
shown. See Appendix K for item content.

150

Appendix M

Role-Importance
Part VII: Role Importance

Please indicate whether you agree or disagree with the following statements. Your ratings should
range from 1 (showing that you strongly disagree with the statement) to 5 (showing that you
strongly agree with the statement).

 

O Strongly Disagree SD

O Disagree

O Neither Agree nor Disagree N

O Agree A

O Strongly Agree SA
Role Importance

 

Role-Importance - Occupational (Items 3, 4, and 5 not included)

1. Having work/a career that is interesting and exciting to me is my most important
life goal.

2. I expect myjob/career to give me more real satisfaction than anythingelse I do.

3. Building a name and reputation for myself through work/a career is not one of my
life goals.

4. It is important to me that l have a job/career in which I can achieve something of
importance.

5. It Is important to me to feel successful' In my work/career.

Role-Importance- Relationship

1. My life would seem empty if I never married or had a long-term partner.

2. Having a successful marriage/partnership is the most important thing In life to
me.

3. I expect marriage/partnership to give me more real personal satisfaction than
anything else in which I am involved.

4. Being married/partnered to a person I love is more important than anything else.

5. I expect the major satisfactions in my life to come from my marriage/partnership
relationship.

Role-Importance - Parental

1. Although parenthood requires many sacriﬁces, the love and enjoyment of

children of one’s own are worth it all.

If I chose not to have children, I would regret It.

It is important to me that I will be an effective parent.

The whole idea of haﬂg children and raising them is not attractive to me.

My life would be empty if I never had children.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9'99”!"

 

151

Appendix N

Role-Importance Scale Development

.32» we
ERRQQQSQQENQ wimkiheleznm =83

 

_ N w A e e u m o _b I _N _w E .e

 

_. 983282 :2: _
N. 08:33:”: :2: N .3

u. 08.6282: _83 w -b_ -b:

A. 0026233— :2: A s .5 .N— .3

e. Once—325::— =2: e be he .3 be

e. 553253: :2: _ :3 be b. .5 .3

q. wnieoaav :2: N be be 33 ...b_ -b. .3

a. ”22383: :2: u a: :5 b. be -be .um .3

b. ”228350 :2: A -b.\ :3 be be bu. .3 he .qm

_b. waﬁeoaaznoae J: a; -b_ be .2 .ue .eu .3 a:

2. 33:3: :03: :5 :3 be be .8 he .me .3 .u— .3

_N. 1833. roam J—e Le be .5 b: .3 be .Na .3 .3 .3

3. .0583:— =2:u :3 a; bb .3 .3 .3 .Na .Nb .5 he he .eu
3.12.33: :2: A... ..—e :3 bw .3 be .3 he .5 .3 .N— .mu .3 .3
3.1338283 e in a: be .3 be .3 .3 he .2. .Nb .3 .ea .3 .3

 

22m. 2m game #2: AN: 8 Se. Dona—meoa :5: m8 2 533 m: h A be 28 “388:8“. m: :05. 023.308 £5: 4
N _ bee _ m8 mmmamoma 2 h A be. 02.83203 2:: a w .Se _ :8 mmmamoma 2 h A b_. m8 >383? Z 818:: 8:83.
gnaw 8582088 :12. 8 mac—vim.

152

Table 36

Factor Loadings for Role-Importance

 

Factor 1

Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5

 

Occupational Item 1
Occupational Item 2
Occupational Item 3
Occupational Item 4
Occupational Item 5
Relationship Item 1
Relationship Item 2
Relationship Item 3
Relationship Item 4
Relationship Item 5
Parental Item 1
Parental Item 2
Parental Item 3
Parental Item 4
Parental Item 5

0.38
0.82
0.82
0.89
0.76

0.76
0.75

0.61
0.77
0.58

0.70
0.56 0.53
0.62
0.69
0.35 0.77

 

Note. Five factors were extracted using rincipal axis factoring with a varimax
rotation. Factor loadings less than I .30 are not shown. See Appendix M for

item content.

153

Table 37

Factor Loadingsfor Role-Importance Forcing Four Factors

 

 

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4
Occupational Item 1 0.62
Occupational Item 2 0.86
Occupational Item 3
Occupational Item 4 0.6
Occupational Item 5 0.7
Relationship Item 1 0.42 0.4
Relationship Item 2 0.84
Relationship Item 3 0.82
Relationship Item 4 0.89
Relationship Item 5 0.74
Parental Item 1 0.6
Parental Item 2 0.8
Parental Item 3 0.5
Parental Item 4 0.7
Parental Item 5 0.7

 

Note. Four factors were forced using principal axis factoring with a
varimax rotation. Factor loadings less than I .30 I are not shown. See
Appendix M for item content.

154

Appendix O
Role-Sharing

Part VIII: Role Sharing

If you are fairly certain you do not plan to have a spouse/partner, please skip to
question 90. If you’re unsure or haven’t thought about it, answer the questions
assuming that you choose to have a spouse/partner.

Below are a number of responsibilities that you may face in the future. We are interested in the
extent to which you think that you will share those responsibilities with your spouse/partner or
take care of them yourself. Please use the following scale to describe how you think you and
your future partner may share each responsibility.

I will be entirely responsible for this

I will be mostly responsible for this, but not entirely

We will share this responsibility equally

My spouse/partner will be mostly responsible for this,
but not entirely

My spouse/partner will be entirely responsible for this

Contract out to professional

GO @999

 

Role Sharing

 

Role-Sharing Finances (Item 1 not Included)

1. Bringiﬂg in income

, 2. Managing the household budget

3. Sammoney for the future

Role-Sharing Chores (Item 5 not included)

Cleaning the house

Cooking

Grocery shopping

Doing laundry

Maintaining our home/apartment (e.g., paintingdard work)

TakirLg care of regular errands (e. g., going to the bank, post ofﬁce, dry cleaning) .

.Dain care of the children, such as feeding and dressing them

If you are fairly certain you__ do not plan to have children, please skip to

question 90. If you’re unsure or haven’t thought about it, answer the

questions assuming that you choose to have children.

Role-SharinLChildcare

1. Supporting our children emotionally, such as talking and spending time with our
children

2. Overseeinﬂr children’s education, such as meetingwith their teachers

3. Supporting our children’s extra-curricular activities, such as driving them to sports
practices Supporting our children’s extra-curricular activities, such as driving
them to sports practices

4. Disciplining our children

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Newewwe

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

155

Appendix P

Role-Sharing Scale Development

Ame—o 3
282.83.282.88 \9. 3288818 :28

_ N w e e e 3 3 o _b 2 _N 8 _e
_. 18888—22: _

N. 3:888 :2: N .8

u. 3:808 :2: u .u— .e—

e. 0:28 :02 _ emu b. :3

e. 0:28 :2: N :3 -bN ...3 .3

e. 0:28 :08 8 :3 .3 ...3 .me .8

3. 0:28 :2: e :3 be -.Nu be be .m—

3. 0:28 :2: 8 .Nb .8 .3 :3 :3 :8 ..3

o. 0:38 :2: e :8 .3 33 .ee .Nm .3 .3 bb

S. 0:28 :2: 3 a8 .8 Le .m— .3 .Mb .3 :3 .3

2. 03588 .83 _ :3 .3 :8 .3 .8 .Ne .N_ :8 .3 .3

_N. 03888 :2: N :3 .3 .8 .3 .N— .3 .3 .8 .3 .Nb .8

3. 03:82.0 :3: u see .8 ..be .3 .N» .u— .3 -be .3 .8 .3 .3
303502.183 e .8 he .8 be -be :8 .8 .3 be .8 .NN .Nm .3

 

2:8. Zm 35m» $2: 88 8 e8. 028.288 82 2o 22138223» A .8 ma namoaoe 2: e28. 024.2288 £5: a w _ ._bb _ 2.0
85:58:» 2 h A .8. 038—288 SE. a w _ H: _ 20 85:38:. 2 h A b_. m8 >288? O 8188 8:82.
122:8 8580-888 :12 8 8:28;.

156

Table 39
Factor Loadings for Role-Sharing

 

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3
Finances Item 1 -0.68
Finances Item 2 0.55
Finances Item 3 0.70
Chores Item 1 0.75
Chores Item 2 0.59
Chores Item 3 0.76
Chores Item 4 0.66
Chores Item 5 -0.31
Chores Item 6 0.50
Chores Item 7 0.70
Childcare Item 1 0.51
Childcare Item 2 0.65
Childcare Item 3 0.40 0.47
Childcare Item 4 0.46

 

Note. Three factors were extracted using principal axis factoring with a
varimax rotation. Factor loadings less than I .30 I are not shown. See

Appendix 0 for item content.

157

Appendix Q
Role-Planning

Part IX: Role Planning

Please indicate whether you agree or disagree with the following statements. Your ratings should
range from 1 (showing that you strongly disagree with the statement) to 5 (showing that you
strongly agree with the statement).

0) Strongly Disagree SD
(2) Disagree D
(3) Neither Agree nor Disagree N
6) Agree A
G) Strongly Agree SA

 

Role Planning

 

Role-Planning Knowledge

 

1. I don’t know how to plan for combiniqu my medical career and my family.

 

2. Figuring out how to balance my medical career and my family confuses me
because I don’t feel I know enough about myself or about the stresses involved in
balancing these roles.

 

3. I can’t understand how some people can be so certain about how to successfully
manage career and family responsibilities. ‘

 

4. When it comes to combining my medical career with my family, I can’t seem to
make up my mind how to do it successfully.

 

5. It’s easy to be certain how to manage my future medical career and family
obligations in ways that are realistic for me.

 

6. I have little or no idea of what being both a doctor and a parent will be like.

 

7. I don’t know whether my plans for combining my medical career and my family
will allow me to be the kind of person I want to be.

 

8. I’m very clear on how to plan for combining my medical career and family
responsibilities.

 

9. I don’t know whether my plans for combining my medical career with my family
are realistic.

 

10. I know a lot of strategies for combining a family with a career in a way that
minimizes the stress involved.

 

Role-Plannigg involvement

 

1. I can't seem to become very concerned about how to combine my medical
career with my family plans.

 

I seldom think about the ways that I might actually combine my medical career
and my family obﬂqations.

 

until I’m actually involved in both of these roles.

 

2
3. I’m not going to worry about how to combine my medical career with my family
4

I don't worry about managing my medical career and family responsibilities
because I’m sure it will sort itself out sooner or later.

 

5. There is no point in trying to decide how to deal with the demands of a medical
career and a family when the future is so uncertain.

 

6. Finding out who I am as a person is so important right now that it makes planning
for combinigq a medical career and family seem unrealistic.

 

 

7. You shouldn't worry about trying to combine your career with your family because
so much depends on things that are out of your control.

 

 

158

 

Role-Planning Involvement, Continued.

 

8. I feel it's important to “take it as it comes” when it comes to planning for
combining my medical career and my family plans.

 

9. I seem to spend a lot of time these days thinking about how I will combine my
family and my work responsibilities.

 

 

10. It’s very important to me to try and ﬁgure out ahead of time how I will balance my
medical career and family responsibilities.

 

159

 

deb—n Ab
~=8wno§m~e§5xsoa xo~m$~e§§m ~83.

 

 

Appendix R

_ N u A m a .3 a e
_. ﬁnes—ammo =2: _
N. ﬁnes—8% =2: 3 bx
u. ﬁnes—mama :2: w .3 be
A. ﬁnes—«awn _83 A be be be
m. goioamo :2: m... .3 be .3 .mu
m. ﬁnes—ammo :08 a km .3 .3 .ue .m—
3. ﬁnes—name :03 .3 .mb .3 .3 .3 .3 .2.
m. gas—mama :2: m .3 .3 .3 .3 .mu .3 .3
e. 592.8% :03 e km .3 .3 .3 .3 :3 .3 .3
_b. 5.318% :3: 8... he .3 .3 .3 ha .3 .ua .3 .m—
2. 55—539: :2: _ -bw -bsr -bw J3 33 .3 ..b« ..3 -bm
5. 55.5803 :2: N bu bm Lb bu -ba .5 -bb bA bb
3. 345.539: :2: u bb be be bu 33 .3 .8 be .S
I. 352250.: .83 A -b_ bu b. -b_ -bm .3 :8 ba :8
a. 55.332: :2: m .3 .He .3 .3 .3 .Nb .3 .5 .3
3. 55.532: :2: a .8 .3 be .3 .3 .3 .3 .—m be
3. 552259: .83 3 .5 he .3 .3— .3 .3 .3 .3 ba
5. 553959: :9: m .3 Lu .3 .5 be be Lu bm Lu
3. 53.339: :03 e... a; -bm .b... ..._b -bm -b_ )3 b— :3
Nb. 553383 :03 3* -bm -b_ b3 -bb b_ .3 .b.» bm -bb

 

Role-Planning Scale Development

22m. 2m 35% man. 3b 8 3n. 0020.303 2:: m8 awn—.582 e. h A bu m8 3838b 5 ~55. Goad—macaw (<5. a
w _ bem _ m3 mmmzmmoma a h A bu. 09.85303 (39 a N _ .Em _ Ed $6.58.: m" b A b_. moo >233? O 3183 8:83.
18:5 8<o~m9ooaob e19. 8 mam—«am.

160

350 Ab 505.9

 

 

_b 2 3 B E 3 3 3 3 3 Nb
7 505030 :05 b
N. 505030 :05 N
3. 592—950 :05 u
3. 592—030 :05 A
m. 502—030 :05 m...
3. 505950 :05 3
3. 502—030 :05 3
m. 502—03185 m
e. 552—950 :05 e
3. 5.55030 :05 3...
I. 555059: :05 _ -b_
3. 557.059: :05 N .3 .3
3. 557.059: :05 w .3 .3 .3
I. 555059: :05 a .bm .3 .3 .3
3. 557559: :05 m .3 .3 .3 .3 .me
3. 555059: :05 3 .3 .Nb .3 .3 .3 .3
3. 557059: :05 3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .me
3. 555059: :05 m be .3— .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3
3. 55.559: 705 e... .3 .mb .3 .we .3 .3 .3 .3 .3
Nb. 555059: :05 3... .3 .3e .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .mm .mm

 

161

Table 41
Factor Loadingsfor Role-Planning

 

 

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3
Knowledge Item 1 0.79
Knowledge Item 2 0.75
Knowledge Item 3 0.74
Knowledge Item 4 0.77
Knowledge Item 5 0.64
Knowledge Item 6 0.59
Knowledge Item 7 0.65
Knowledge Item 8 0.72
Knowledge Item 9 0.58
Knowledge Item 10 0.60
Involvement Item 1 0.50
Involvement Item 2 0.63
Involvement Item 3 0.79
Involvement Item 4 0.79
Involvement Item 5 0.71
Involvement Item 6 0.50
Involvement Item 7 ' 0.64
Involvement Item 8 0.58
Involvement Item 9 0.49 0.44
Involvement Item 10 0.60 0.42

 

Note. Three factors were extracted using principal axis factoring with a
varimax rotation. Factor loadings less than I .30 I are not shown. See
Appendix Q for item content.

162

Appendix S
Core Self-Evaluations

Part X: Core Self-Evaluations

Below are several statements about you with which you may agree or disagree. Your ratings
should range from 1 (showing that you strongly disagree with the statement) to 5 (showing that
you strongly agree with the statement).

Strongly Disagree SD
Disagree D
Neither Agree nor Disagree

Agree A
Strongly Agree SA

66089

 

Core Self-Evaluations

I am conﬁdent I get the success I deserve in life.
Sometimes l feel dgpressed.

When I try, I generally succeed.

Sometimes when I fail I feel worthless.

I complete tasks successfully.

Sometimes, I do not feel in control of‘my school work.
Overall, I am satisﬁed with myself.

I am ﬁlled with doubts about my competence.

I determine what will happen in my life.

10. I do not feel in control of my success in medical school.
11. I am capable of copigq with most of my problems.

12. There are times when things look pretty bleak and hopeless to me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$99.”???pr

 

 

 

 

 

 

163

Appendix T

Core Self-Evaluations Scale Development

Table 42

Intercorrelations for Care Sci-Evaluations Items

 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

 

Iteml

Item 2* .18

Item3 .41 .14

Item 4* .25 .33 .24

Item 5 .29 .14 .47 .17

Item 6* .14 .25 .12 .29 .19

Item7 .35 .35 .41 .31 .34 .18

Item 8* .27 .35 .28 .43 .28 .34 .43

Item9 .32 .21 .25 .13 .17 .14 .28 .21

Item 10* .24 .15 .23 .25 .18 .34 .23 .36 .23
Item 11 .28 .20 .34 .21 .38 .12 .50 .32 .29 .27
Item 12* .15 .44 .19 .38 .25 .30 .35 .41 .22 .32 .35

 

Note. Ns range from 417 to 421. Correlations that are signiﬁcant at p < .05 are
presented in bold. Correlations with r 2 I .096 I are signiﬁcant at p < .05. Correlations
with r 2 I .126 I are signiﬁcant at p < .01. See Appendix S for item content.

*Items reverse-coded prior to analysis.

Table 43
Factor Loadings for Care Self-Evaluations

 

Factor 1 Factor 2

 

Item 1 0.53
Item 2 0.55
Item 3 0.69
Item 4 0.53
Item 5 0.56
Item 6 0.48
Item 7 0.56 0.38
Item 8 0.32 0.60
Item 9 0.37
Item 10 0.40
Item 11 0.55
Item 12 0.64

 

Note. Two factors were extracted using principal axis factoring with a
varimax rotation. Factor loadings less than I .30I are not shown. See
Appendix S for item content.

164

Appendix U
Deﬁnition of Family

Mgﬁlon 5! Family: In the space below, please write down the types of individuals included in
the deﬁnition of family that you used to answer the survey (e.g., wife, child, parent, etc.).

 

 

 

 

165

Appendix V
Sample Expert-Ratings of Specialization and Setting Demands

Introduction: This survey is part of a larger study that examines the medical
specializations that medical students are choosing to go into and the setting in which they
plan to work. In particular, we are interested in how the demands of the different
specializations are related to whether individuals choose to go into them. Further, we are
assessing the role that perceptions of future work-family balance plan in this decision-
making process. By providing ratings of the demands of the different specializations,
you will help us in this research process.

You will be asked to describe a number of medical specializations by answering 9
questions about each specialization. While it may seem like there are a lot of questions,
we expect that you will be able to move through the survey quickly. Please answer the
questions referring to the specialization described at the top of each page. Following the
questions about medical specializations, there are a few questions about the different
types of settings in which doctors may work. Please answer the questions to the best of
your ability, even if you are not 100% certain.

Please answer the following questions about the medical specialization of ANESTHESIOLOGY.

1. Doctors in this specialization work hours per week compared to doctors in other specializations.
Less Somewhat less About the same/equally Somewhat more More

2. The hours of work in this specialization are predictable compared to the hours for doctors in other
specializations.

Less Somewhat less About the same/equally Somewhat more More

3. Doctors in this specialization have control over the hours which they work compared to doctors in
other specializations.

Less Somewhat less About the same/equally Somewhat more More
4. Doctors in this specialization are on call hours per week compared to doctors in other
specializations.

Less Somewhat less About the same/equally Somewhat more More

5. The emotional challenges (i.e., dealing with stressful or highly emotional situations, such as upset
patients or family members) in this specialization are challenging compared to the emotional
challenges for doctors in other specializations.

Lees Somewhat less About the same/equally Somewhat more More

6. The diﬁcult decisions (such as the choice to advise a more aggressive treatment plan) in this
specialization are diﬁcult compared to the decisions for doctors in other specializations.
Less Somewhat less About the same/equally Somewhat more More

7. The behavioral control requirements (i.e., having to act in ways that are different ﬁ'om one’s natural
behavior, such as acting dispassionate in a clinical setting) in this specialization require control
compared to the behavioral control requirements of doctors in other specializations.

Less Somewhat less About the same/equally Somewhat more More

166

8. Doctors in this specialization have to follow protocols (i.e., strict requirements for behavior at work
rather than making one’s own choice about behavior) often compared to doctors in other
specializations.

Less Somewhat less About the same/equally Somewhat more More

9. The pace of work in this specialization is the pace for doctors in other specializations.
Slower than Somewhat slower than About the same as Somewhat faster than Faster than

Please answer the following questions about working in a PRIVATE PRACTICE.

1. Doctors who work in this setting work hours per week compared to doctors in other settings.
Less Somewhat less About the same/equally Somewhat more More

2. The hours of work in this setting are predictable compared to the hours for doctors in other
settings.
Less Somewhat less About the same/equally Somewhat more More

3. Doctors in this setting have control over the hours which they work compared to doctors in other
settings.
Less Somewhat less About the same/equally Somewhat more More

4. Doctors in this setting are on call hours per week compared to doctors in other settings.
Less Somewhat less About the same/equally Somewhat more More

5. The emotional challenges (i.e., dealing with stressful or highly emotional situations, such as upset
patients or family members) in this setting are Challenging compared to the emotional challenges for
doctors in other settings.

Less Somewhat less About the same/equally Somewhat more More

6. The difﬁcult decisions (such as the choice to advise a more aggressive treatment plan) in this setting are
difﬁth compared to the decisions for doctors in other settings.
Less Somewhat less About the same/equally Somewhat more More

7. The behavioral control requirements (i.e., having to act in ways that are different from one’s natural
behavior, such as acting dispassionate in a clinical setting) in this setting require control compared
to the behavioral control requirements of doctors in other settings. '
Less Somewhat less About the same/equally Somewhat more More

8. Doctors in this setting have to follow protocols (i.e., strict requirements for behavior at work rather than
making one’s own choice about behavior) oﬁen compared to doctors in other setting.
Less Somewhat less About the same/equally Somewhat more More

9. The pace of work in this setting is the pace for doctors in other settings.
Slower than Somewhat slower than About the same as Somewhat faster than Faster than

167

Appendix W

Expert-Ratings of Specialization/Setting Demands

Table 44

Mean and Standard Deviation of Expert-Ratings for Hours and On-the-Job Demands
for Each Specialization and Setting

 

 

 

Specialization/ Setting Hours Hours On-the- On-the-
Mean SD Job Job
Mean SD

Anesthesiology 2.56 1 .00 2.62 0.82
Dermatology 1 .54 0.50 1.93 0.48
Emergency Medicine 2.44 1.23 4.18 0.49
Family Practice 3.35 0.98 3.33 0.59
Internal Medicine 3.45 0.79 3.35 0.58
Medical Genetics 1.75 0.61 2.37 0.99
Neurological Surgery 4.34 0.73 3.82 0.67
Neurology 3.02 0.36 3.13 0.46
Nuclear Medicine 1.81 0.61 1.93 0.59
Obstetrics and Gynecology 4.65 0.29 4.13 0.65
Ophthalmology ‘ 1.81 0.71 2.24 0.67
Orthopedic Surgery 3.85 0.43 3.10 0.51
Otolaryngology 2.77 0.56 2.76 0.40
Pathology — Anatomical and

Clinical 1.57 0.59 1.65 0.60
Pediatrics 3.38 0.52 3.61 0.51
Physical Medicine and

Rehabilitation 1 .78 0.81 2.55 0.67
Plastic Surgery 2.97 0.61 2.92 0.54
Preventive Medicine 1.97 0.68 2.29 0.46
Psychiatry 2.28 0.75 3.56 0.71
Radiation Oncology 2.48 0.56 3.35 0.70
Radiation - Diagnostic 1.87 0.52 1.67 0.53
Surgery - General 4.45 0.51 3.89 0.48
Urology 2.83 0.78 3.08 0.26
Hospital 3.40 0.76 3.77 0.52
Private Practice 3.02 1.05 2.95 0.21
Pharmaceutical Corporation 1.49 0.59 1.67 0.49
University Research Setting 3.05 0.84 2.93 1.06

 

Note. All ratings were made on a 5-point scale. Higher scores reﬂect greater
demands.

168

REFERENCES

Allen, T., Herst, D., Bruck, C. & Sutton, M. (2000). Consequences associated with
work-to-family conﬂict: A review and agenda for future research. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 278-308.

Amatea, E., Cross, G., Clark, J. & Bobby, C. (1986). Assessing the work and family role
expectations of career-oriented men and women: The Life Role Salience Scales.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 48, 831-838.

Arnold, K. D. (1993). Undergraduate aspirations and career outcomes of academically
talented women: A discriminant analysis. Roeper Review, 15, 169-175.

Aryee, S. (1992). Antecedents and outcomes of work-family conﬂict among married
professional women: Evidence ﬁ'om Singapore. Human Relations, 45, 259-278.

Aryee, S., Luk, V., Leung, A., & Lo, S. (1999). Role stressors, interrole conﬂict, and
well-being: The moderating inﬂuence of spousal support and coping behaviors

among employed parents in Hong Kong. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54,
259-278. ‘

Barnett, R., Gareis, K., James, J. & Steele, J. (2003). Planning ahead: College seniors'
concerns about career-marriage conﬂict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 62,
305-319.

Barnett, R., & Gareis, K. (2002). Full-time and reduced-hours work schedules and marital
quality: A study of female physicians with young children. Work and
Occupations, 29, 364-379.

Behson, S. (2002). Coping with family-to-work conﬂict: The role of informal work
accommodations to family. Journal of Occupational Health Psycholog, 7, 324-
341.

Bolger, N., & Zuckerman, A. (1995). A framework for studying personality in the stress
process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 890-902.

Bond, J ., Thompson, C., Galinsky, E., & Prottas, D. (2002). Highlights of the national
study of the changing workforce. New York: Families and Work Institute.

Brockwood, K. (2002). An examination of positive work-family spillover among dual-

eamer couples in the sandwiched generation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Portland State University.

169

Bruck, C. S., & Allen, T. D. (2003). The relationship between big ﬁve personality
traits, negative affectivity, type A behavior, and work-family conﬂict. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 63, 457-472.

Bu, N., & McKeen, C. (2000). Work and family expectations of the ﬁJture managers and
professionals of Canada and China. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 15, 771-
794.

Burley, K. (1994). Gender differences and similarities in coping responses to anticipated
work-family conﬂict. Psychological Reports, 74, 115-123.

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

Carlson, D. S. (1999). Personality and role variables as predictors of three forms of work-
family conﬂict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 55, 236-253.

Carlson, D., Kacmar, M., Wayne, J ., & Grzywacz, J. (in press). Measuring the positive
side of the work-family interface: Development and validation of a work-family
enrichment scale. Journal of Vocational Behavior.

Carlson, D., Kacmar, M., & Williams, L. (2000). Construction and initial validation of a
multidemensional measure of work-family conﬂict. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 56, 249-276.

Carlson, D., & Perrewe, P. (1999). The role of social support in the stressor-strain
relationship: An examination of work-family conﬂict. Journal of Management,
26, 1031-1054.

Cinamon, R. & Rich, Y. (2002). Gender differences in the importance of work and
family roles: Implications for work-family conﬂict. Sex Roles, 47, 531-541.

Covin, T. & Brush, C. (1991). An examination of male and female attitudes toward
career and family issues. Sex Roles, 25, 393-415.

Day, A., & Chamberlain, T. (in press). Committing to your work, spouse, and children:
Implications for work-family conﬂict. Journal of Vocational Behavior.

Diener, 13., Larsen, R. J., & Emmons, R. A. (1984). Person-situation interactions: Choice
of situations and congruence of coping models. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 4 7, 580-592.

Dorsey, E., Jajoura, D., Rutecki, G. (2003). Inﬂuence of controllable lifestyle on recent

trends in specialty choice by US medical students. Journal of the American
Medical Association, 290, 1 173-1 178.

170

Duxbury, L., & Higgins, C. (1991). Gender differences in work-family conﬂict. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 76, 60-73.

Eby, L., Casper, W., 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.

Eccles, J. (1994). Understanding women’s educational and occupational choices:
Applying the Eccles et al. model of achievement-related choices. Psychology of
Women Quarterly, 18, 585-609.

Fogarty, G. J ., Machin, M. A., Albion, M. J ., Sutherland, L. F., Lalor, G. 1., & Revitt, S.
(1999). Predicting occupational strain and job satisfaction: the role of stress,
coping, personality, and affectivity variables. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54,
429-452.

Friede, A., & Ryan, A. M. (unpublished manuscript). Core Self-Evaluations, Social
Support, and School-Family Integration.

Friede, A., & Ryan, A. M. (2004). The Importance of the Individual: How Self-
Evaluations Inﬂuence the Work-Family Interface. In Kossek, E. & Lambert, S.
(Eds), Work and Life Integration: Organizational, Cultural and Individual
Perspectives (pp. 193-210). Mahwah, NJ: LEA Press.

Friedman, S., & Greenhaus, J. (2000). Work and family: Allies or enemies? New York,
NY: Oxford University Press.

Frone, M., Russell, M. & Cooper, L. (1991). Relationship of work and family stressors
to psychological distress: The independent moderating inﬂuence of social
support, mastery, active coping, and self-focused attention. Journal of Social
Behavior and Personality, 6, 227-250.

Frone, M., Russell, M., & Cooper, L. (1992). Prevalence of work-family conﬂict: Are
work and family boundaries asymmetrically permeable? Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 13, 723-729.

Prone, M., Russell, M. & Cooper, L. (1993). Relationship of work-family conﬂict,
gender, and alcohol expectancies to alcohol use/abuse. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 14, 545-558.

Gilbert, L., Dancer, S., Rossman, K., & Thorn, B. (1991). Assessing perceptions of
occupational-family integration. Sex Roles, 24, 107-119.

171

 

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

Greenhaus, J., Callanan, G. & Godshalk, V. (2000). Career Management. (3rd Edition).
Fort Worth, TX: The Dryden Press.

Grzywacz, J. (2000). Work-family spillover and health during midlife: Is managing
conﬂict everything? American Journal of Health Promotion, 14, 236-243.

Grzywacz, J. & Bass, B. (2003). Work, family, and mental health: Testing different
models of work-family ﬁt. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65, 248-262.

Grzywacz, J. & Marks, N. (2000). Reconceptualizing the work-family interface: An
ecological perspective on the correlates of positive and negative spillover between
work and family. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 111-126.

Hammer, L., Brockwood, K. & Neal, M. (2001). A systems theory approach to work-
family research: crossover eﬂects on positive work-family spillover. Paper
presented at the Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, San Diego, CA.

Hallet, M. & Gilbert, L. (1997). Variables differentiating university women considering
role-sharing and conventional dual-career marriages. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 50, 302-322.

Hanson, G., Colton, C. & Hammer, L. (2003). Development and validation of a
multidimensional scale of work-family positive spillover. Paper presented at the
Annual meeting for the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology,
Orlando, FL.

J arecky, R., Schwartz, R., Haley, J ., Donnelly, M. (1991). Stability of medical specialty
selection at the University of Kentucky. Academic Medicine, 66, 756-761 .

Judge, T., Erez, A., & Bono, J. (1998). The power of being positive: The relation
between positive self-concept and job performance. Human Performance, 1 1,
167-1 88.

Judge, T., Erez, A., Bono, J. & Thoresen, C. (2003). The core self-evaluations scale:
Development of a measure. Personnel Psychology, 5 6, 303 -33 1 .

Kelloway, K., Gottlieb, B. & Barhman, L. (1999). The source, nature, and direction of
work and family conﬂict: A longitudinal investigation. Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, 4, 337-346.

172

Kerpelman, J. & Schvaneveldt, P. (1999). Young adults' anticipated identity importance
of career, marital, and parental roles: Comparisons of men and women with
different role balance orientations. Sex Roles, 41, 189-217.

Killian, J ., Casper, W., Sitzman, T., Ellsbury, S., Burtrum, M. & Stephens, K. (2003).
Effects of self-efﬁcacy on views of future work/family roles. Poster
presented at the annual meeting for the Society of Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, Orlando, FL.

Kirchmeyer, C. (1993). Nonwork-to-work spillover: A more balanced view of the
experiences and coping of professional women and men. Sex Roles, 28, 531-552.

Kopelrnan, R., Greenhaus, J. & Connolly, T. (1983). A model of work, family, and
interrole conﬂict: A construct validation study. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 32, 198-215.

Kossek, E. & Ozeki, C. (1998). Work-family conﬂict, policies, and the job-life
satisfaction relationship: A review and directions for organizational behavior-
human resources research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 139-149.

Larsen, R. J. (1992). Neuroticism and selective encoding and recall of symptoms:
evidence ﬁ'om a combined concurrent-retrospective study. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 62, 480-488.

Lazarus, R. (1991). Psychological stress in the workplace. Journal of Social Behavior
and Personality, 6, 1-13.

Lee, M., MacDermid, S., Williams, M., Buck, M., & Leiba-O’Sullivan, S. (2002).
Contextual factors in the success of reduced-load work arrangements among
managers and professionals. Human Resource Management, 41 , 209-223.

Lent, R., Brown, S. & Hackett, G. (1994). Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of
career and academic interest, choice, and performance. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 45, 79-122.

Levy, G., Sadovsky, A. & Troseth, G. (2000). Aspects of young children’s perceptions
of gender-typed occupations. Sex Roles, 42, 993-1006.

Livingston, M., Burley, K. & Springer, T. (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, I I , 179-192.

173

Lockwood, A. L., Casper, W. J., Eby, L. T., & Bordeaux, C. (2002). A review of work-
family literature: Where we’ve been and where we need to go. Paper presented in
W. J. Casper (Chair) and J. Barling (Discussant) Symposium, Emerging
Directions in Work and Family Research at the annual American Psychological
Association Conference, Chicago, IL.

McCracken, R. & Weitzman, L. (1997). Relationship of personal agency, problern-
solving appraisal, and traditionality of career choice to women's attitudes toward
multiple role planning. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 44, 149-159.

Moyle, P. (1995). The role of negative affectivity in the stress process: Tests of
alternative models. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 647-668.

Parasurman, S., & Simmers, C. A. (2001). Type of employment, work-family conﬂict,
and well-being: A comparative study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22,
55 1 -568 .

Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., Lee, J. & Podsakoff, N. (2003). Common method biases in
behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended
remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903.

Premack, S., & Wanous, J. (1985). A meta-analysis of realistic job preview experiments.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 706-719.

Rajadhyasksha, U., & Bhatnagar, D. (2000). Life role salience: A study of dual-career
couples in the Indian context. Human Relations, 53, 489-511.

Rosenbaum, M. & Cohen, E. (1999). Equalitarian marriages, spousal support,
resourcefulness, and psychological distress among Israeli working women.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 102-113.

Rothbard, N. (2001). Enriching or depleting? The dynamics of engagement in work and
family roles. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 655-684.

Schwartz, R., Haley, J., Williams, C., Jarecky, R., Strodel, W., Young, B., & Griffen, W.
(1990). The controllable lifestyle factor and students’ attitudes about specialty
selection. Academic Medicine, 65, 207-210.

Staines, G., & Pleck, J. (1984). Nonstandard work schedules and family life. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 69, 515-523.

Stephens, M., Franks, M. & Atienza, A. (1997) Where two roles intersect: Spillover
between parent care and employment. Psychology and Aging, 12, 30-3 7.

Stoeva, A. Z., Chiu, R. K., & Greenhaus, J. H. (2002). Negative affectivity, role stress,
and work-family conﬂict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 60, l-16.

174

Sumer, C. & Knight, P. (2001). How do people with different attachment styles balance
work and family? A personality perspective on the work-family linkage. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 86, 653-663.

Tenbrunsel, A., Brett, J ., Maoz, E., & Stroh, L. (1995). Dynamic and static work-family
relationships. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 63, 233-
246.

Thom, B. & Gilbert, L. (1998). Antecedents of work and family role expectations of
college men. Journal of Family Psychology, I 2, 259-267.

United States Census (2003). 2003 American Community Survey. Retrieved May 2, 2005,
from http://www.factﬁnder.census. gov.

Wanous, J ., Poland, T., Premack, S., & Davis, K. (1992). The effects of met expectations
on newcomer attitudes and behaviors: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 77, 288-297.

Wayne, J., Musisca, N., & Fleeson, W. (2004). Considering the role of personality in the
work-family experience: Relationships of the big ﬁve to work-family conﬂict and
facilitation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64, 108-130.

Weitzman, L. (1994). Multiple-role realism: A theoretical framework for the process of
planning to combine career and family roles. Applied and Preventive Psychology,
3, 15-25.

Weitzman, L. & Fitzgerald, L. (1996). The development and initial validation of scales
to assess attitudes toward multiple role planning. Journal of Career Assessment,
4, 269-284.

Wheeler R, Candib L, Martin M. (1990). Part-time doctors: reduced working hours for
primary care physicians. Journal of T he American Medical Women ’s Association,
45 , 47-54.

Women in US. academic medicine. (n.d.). Retrieved February 6, 2004, from
http://www.aamc.org/members/wim/statistics/statsOO/start.htm.

Zedeck, S. (1992). Introduction: Exploring the domain of work and family concerns. In

S. Zedeck (Ed.), Work, families, and organizations (pp. 1-32). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.

175