Content uploaded by Rita Cavallotti
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Rita Cavallotti on Oct 06, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
Unmasking the Antecedents of Work-Family Conflict and Work-
Family Enrichment: Empirical Evidences among Spanish Families
during Covid-19
Marc Grau-Grau, Rejina Mary Selvam, Rita Cavallotti
ICWF 2021 – Track “remote work”
July 7, 2021
Spanish families living through COVID-19
Project financed by Santander Universities
“forced integrators”
Work and family roles
are becoming highly
permeable and
blurred. Physical and
mental fences which
separate such
domains are
disappearing due to
the rise and
democratization of
technological devices
such smartphones,
the globalization, and
more recently, by the
irruption of COVID-19.
Variables/Phases
1st Phase
Natural Unity
2nd Phase
Artificial
Separation
3rd Phase
Artificial
Integration
4th Phase
Artificial Unity
Historical time
Before
Industrial
Revolution
(Middle Ages)
Industrial
Revolution
(18th century -
19th century)
Gender
Revolution
(mid-20th
century)
Hyper-connectivity Rev
(end-20th – 21st century)
Permeability:
home and work
Total
permeability
Total
impermeability
Asymmetric
permeability
Permeability
Segmentation –
integration
Natural
integrators
Forced
segmenters
Segmenters
and integrators
Forced integrators
Boundary
management
Natural
availability
Rigidity
Flexibility
Artificial availability
Time regulated
Natural
rhythms
(e.g.,
Agricultural
cycles
Rising / Setting
times
Rhythms of
family)
Punctuality
(e.g., Factory
bell)
Semi-
punctuality
Corporate
needs +++
Family needs+
No-
punctuality=Availability
Corporate needs +++
Family needs ++
Individual needs++
Family
relationships
Extended
family
Nuclear family
Decline of
nuclear family
Multigenerational bonds
Predominant type
of will
Essential will
Arbitrary will
Arbitrary will
+++
Essential will +
Arbitrary will++
Essential will++
Predominant type
of social
relationships
Gemeinschaft
Gesellschaft
Gesellschaft >
Gemeinschaft
Gesellschaft <>
Gemeinschaft
Goal
In a context like this, it would be interesting to understand more clearly
the predictors of the positive and negative side of work family balance
during full lockdown (March-May 2020).
Thus, the aim of this paper is to understand the antecedents of work-
family conflict and work-family enrichment during COVID-19. For doing
this, we will examine a sample of 1177 full-time workers working from
home due to COVID-19 in Spain.
Theoretical framework
Spanish Context
Model
Figure 1. Hypothesized model relating work-family conflict and work-family
enrichment. CRQ = Children relationship quality; PIC = Parent involvement with
children; WFC = Work-family conflict; WFE = Work-family enrichment; Fam-support =
Family support; Fam-together = Family togetherness; Emo-sus = Emotional sustenance;
CPRQ = Couple relationship quality; Fam-life sat = Family life satisfaction. Plus and
minus signs indicate the direction of the influence of one variable on the other.
CRQ
PIC
WFC
CPRQ
Couple
support
Fam-
support
Fam-
Together
Fam-life
sat
Stress
WFE
Emo-sus
Model
Figure 1. Hypothesized model relating work-family conflict and work-family
enrichment. CRQ = Children relationship quality; PIC = Parent involvement with
children; WFC = Work-family conflict; WFE = Work-family enrichment; Fam-support =
Family support; Fam-together = Family togetherness; Emo-sus = Emotional sustenance;
CPRQ = Couple relationship quality; Fam-life sat = Family life satisfaction. Plus and
minus signs indicate the direction of the influence of one variable on the other.
CRQ
PIC
WFC
CPRQ
Couple
support
Fam-
support
Fam-
Together
Fam-life
sat
Stress
WFE
Emo-sus
Sample
Participants in this study were 1177 full-time workers working from home
due to COVID-19, pooled by a survey which was sent to all the 19
autonomous provinces of Spain to represent a national sample.
Initially, the total participants who responded were 1707 from all the
autonomous provinces. A total of 1177 participants were then chosen,
who met the following criteria for the study:
a) if they were full-time workers and working from home,
b) if they were married/partners and living together,
c) if they had at least one child
Measures
Stress
The level of stress was assessed on different dimensions like work,
economic situation, family management, using a 11-item scale ranging to
responses from 1 (absolutely nothing) to 4 (very much) and 5 (it doesn’t
concern me). The items included such as,“loss of job”, “not to have enough
money to spend”, “work-family balance” (α = .77).
Emotional sustenance
Emotional sustenance feelings were assessed using 3-item scale, where
participants had to respond on a scale of 1 (never) to 5 (always). The items
included such as, “I felt relaxed”, “I felt discouraged and sad” (α = .78).
Measures
Work-family conflict
Two items assessed conflict between work and family, where participants
indicated the prevalence of conflict on a scale ranging from 1 (totally
disagreed) to 5 (totally agreed). The items which were adapted from the
theory (Agha & Khan, 2017; Hayman, 2005) included, “My work life
intrudes my personal life” and “I find it difficult to combine both work
activities and personal life activities”, stating a higher score to have an
increased work-family conflict (α = .75).
Work-family enrichment
Work-family enrichment was assessed using two items with a response
scale ranging between 1 (totally disagreed) to 5 (totally agreed) adapted
from theory (Agha & Khan, 2017; Hayman, 2005). The items included “my
life gives energy for my work” and “my work gives energy to carry out my
family activities” (α = .60).
Measures
Family support
Family support during stressful situation was assessed using 5-items,
where participants had to respond on a scale of 1 (Nothing) to 5 (very
much). This scale was adapted from the theory on dyadic coping
(Bodenmann, 2008). The items included such as, “They listened to me and
intended to understand me”, “They proposed practical solutions to solve
problems provoked by the situation” (α = .81).
Family-life satisfaction
Family-life satisfaction during the time of COVID-19 was assessed using a
9-item, where participants had to respond on a scale of 1 (Very
dissatisfied) to 5 (totally satisfied). The items included such as “The
quantity of time we spend together in family”, “the capacity of our family
to face difficulties” (α = .95).
Measures
Couple support
Couple support was assessed using a 4-item scale to which participants
responded from 1 (nothing) to 5 (very much). The items included such as
“He/she helped me to see the stressful situation from a different
perspective”, “He/she helped me with the things which I normally do” (α =
.88).
Family togetherness
Family togetherness was assessed using a 13-item scale to which
participants responded from 1 (totally disagreed) to 5 (totally agreed). The
items included such as “we enjoy quite a lot of time together”, “we do
more activities together”, “we are emotionally united” (α = .73).
Measures
Parent involvement with children
Parent involvement with children was assessed using a 25-item scale to
which participants responded from 1 (never) to 5 (always). The items
included such as “I dedicate time with children doing activities”, “I manage
to put myself in the place of my children”, “I show explicitly my love for my
children”, (α = .89).
Children relationship quality
Perceptions on children relationship quality was assessed using a single-
item scale of “how do you evaluate the relationship with your children
during this period of COVID-19”, where the participants respond from 1
(very negative) to 10 (very positive). This scale was adapted from quality of
marriage theory (Norton, 1983).
Measures
Couple relationship quality
Perceptions on couple relationship quality was assessed using a single-
item scale of “how do you evaluate the relationship with your
couple/spouse during this period of COVID-19”, where the participants
respond from 1 (very negative) to 10 (very positive). This scale was
adapted from quality of marriage theory (Norton, 1983).
Measures
Couple relationship quality
Perceptions on couple relationship quality was assessed using a single-
item scale of “how do you evaluate the relationship with your
couple/spouse during this period of COVID-19”, where the participants
respond from 1 (very negative) to 10 (very positive). This scale was
adapted from quality of marriage theory (Norton, 1983).
Results
Variable
Female
Male
M
SD
M
SD
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1.CRQ
8.37
1.21
8.36
1.25
-
.29**
.26**
.14**
-.03
-.03
-.11**
.00
.00
-.07
.24**
2. PIC
1.79
2.22
1.64
2.01
.14**
-
.25**
.06
.08
-.01
-.27**
08
-.05
.18**
.14**
3.Couple support
2.45
1.91
2.35
1.91
.18**
.15**
-
.60**
.02
-.08
-.08
.06
-.49**
.07
.20**
4. CPRQ
6.61
4.17
4.25
15.08
.05
.07
.34**
-
.01
-.11*
-.04
.11*
-.92**
-.13**
.21**
5. Emo-sus
3.09
.43
3.12
.48
.06
-.04
-.12
-.04
-
-.03
-.00
.12**
-.00
.08*
.05
6. Stress
4.35
5.95
4.10
5.04
.02
-.03
.04
-.04
-.00
-
-.05
.08
.14**
.03
-.03
7. WFC
2.73
1.25
2.75
1.16
-.12**
-.18**
-.11**
-.05
.03
.00
-
.15**
.00
.24**
.07
8. WFE
3.28
.97
3.23
.95
.19**
.02
.05
.08
.15**
.05
-.22**
-
.04
.08*
.16**
9.Fam-support
.47
1.23
.22
.84
.03
.07
.32**
.99**
.05
.05
-.04
.05
-
.06
.00
10.Fam-together
3.11
.55
3.08
.51
.09*
.14**
.15**
-.01
.10*
.01
.-22**
.01
-.00
-
12**
11. Fam-life sat
3.63
.81
3.52
.73
.55**
.16**
.20**
.10*
.06
.05
-.09*
.22**
-.05
-.03
-
Table 3. Descriptive statistics and correlations of all the variables for male and female
workers. male N = 614; female N = 563; p < .01**, p < .05*
Results
Variable
Female
Male
M
SD
M
SD
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1.CRQ
8.37
1.21
8.36
1.25
-
.29**
.26**
.14**
-.03
-.03
-.11**
.00
.00
-.07
.24**
2. PIC
1.79
2.22
1.64
2.01
.14**
-
.25**
.06
.08
-.01
-.27**
08
-.05
.18**
.14**
3.Couple support
2.45
1.91
2.35
1.91
.18**
.15**
-
.60**
.02
-.08
-.08
.06
-.49**
.07
.20**
4. CPRQ
6.61
4.17
4.25
15.08
.05
.07
.34**
-
.01
-.11*
-.04
.11*
-.92**
-.13**
.21**
5. Emo-sus
3.09
.43
3.12
.48
.06
-.04
-.12
-.04
-
-.03
-.00
.12**
-.00
.08*
.05
6. Stress
4.35
5.95
4.10
5.04
.02
-.03
.04
-.04
-.00
-
-.05
.08
.14**
.03
-.03
7. WFC
2.73
1.25
2.75
1.16
-.12**
-.18**
-.11**
-.05
.03
.00
-
.15**
.00
.24**
.07
8. WFE
3.28
.97
3.23
.95
.19**
.02
.05
.08
.15**
.05
-.22**
-
.04
.08*
.16**
9.Fam-support
.47
1.23
.22
.84
.03
.07
.32**
.99**
.05
.05
-.04
.05
-
.06
.00
10.Fam-together
3.11
.55
3.08
.51
.09*
.14**
.15**
-.01
.10*
.01
.-22**
.01
-.00
-
12**
11. Fam-life sat
3.63
.81
3.52
.73
.55**
.16**
.20**
.10*
.06
.05
-.09*
.22**
-.05
-.03
-
Table 3. Descriptive statistics and correlations of all the variables for male and female
workers. male N = 614; female N = 563; p < .01**, p < .05*
Results
.25*** -.12***
-.16***
.13*** -.06**
.32***
.38*** -.03** .35*** -.08** -.12***
.34*** .18***
.03***
.10***
.05 .40*** .25***
.28*** -.01**
.01*** .32*** .09**
Figure 2. Hypothesized model relating work-family conflict and work-family enrichment
showing the standardized beta weights for all the relationships on the dependent variables
with **p < .05; ***p < .001. The non-significant coefficients are denoted by dotted lines
and the significant coefficients are denoted by continuous lines. R represents multiple R
predicted by all independent variables.
CRQ
PIC
WFC
CPRQ
Couple
support
Fam-
support
Fam-
Together
Fam-life
sat
Stress
WFE
Emo-sus
Results - WFC
Regarding work-family conflict, as hypothesized, workers having higher
level of involvement with children as a parent reported lower levels of
work-family conflict (β = -.12, p < .001). Similarly, the workers who
perceived higher levels of children relationship quality also reported to
have lower levels of work-family conflict (β = -.16, p < .001). Perceptions
on children relationship quality showed positive relationship with parent
involvement with children (β = .25, p < .001) and couple support (β = .14, p
< .001). Furthermore, workers with higher levels of couple support, also
reported lower levels of work-family conflict, (β = -.06, p < .05). Thus,
results show that the involvement and participation of parent workers
with their children, helps lower the work-family conflicts. Furthermore, as
workers perceive higher degree of couple support, work-family conflicts
decrease. Additionally, it should be highlighted that, as perceived higher
levels of children relationship quality increases, parent involvement with
children and perceived couple support increases too.
Results - WFC
Perceptions on higher level of couple relationship quality also showed
positive relationships with parent involvement with children (β = .32, p <
.001), couple support (β = .38, p < .001), family support (β = .34, p < .001),
and perceptions on higher levels of family togetherness (β = .03, p < .001).
Workers’ perceptions on higher level of couple relationship quality also
was related to lower levels of work-family conflicts (β = -.03, p < .05). The
results suggest that a high degree of involvement and participation with
children as a parent and perception on the quality of relationship with
children along with couple support decreases the work-family conflict.
Results - WFC
Futhermore, as predicted, the workers’ who reported higher levels of
family life satisfaction, reported lower levels of work-family conflicts (β = -
.08, p < .05). As hypothesized, family life satisfaction was also positively
related to parent involvement with children (β = .28, p < .001) and was
found to have strong effects on family support too (β = .40, p < .001).
Concerning family togetherness as a predictor of work-family conflict, the
results support that, the workers who have higher levels of perception of
family togetherness, report to have lower levels of work-family conflict (β
= .35 , p < .001). Thus, results show that, as workers’ perceptions on family
togetherness and family life satisfaction increases, the work-family
conflicts weaken.
Results - WFE
As hypothesized, workers having higher levels of emotional sustenance also
reported to have higher levels of work-family enrichment (β = .25, p < .001). In
similar manner, workers having higher levels of stress reported lower level of work-
family enrichment (β = -.01, p < .05) and higher level of emotional sustenance
showed higher level of work-family enrichment (β = .25, p < .001). Emotional
sustenance was not related significantly with family support as predicted, although
it associates with a positive relationship (β = .05 ns), but higher levels of stress was
found to be related with family support (β = .01, p < .001).
Furthermore, it can be seen from the results that, as hypothesized, family support
in turn predicts work-family enrichment significantly (β = .18, p < .001). Thus,
results show that, although emotional sustenance of workers do not relate
strongly with family support, as their stress increases, family support plays an
important role in keeping the balance and has direct relationship with increasing
work-family enrichments. Concerning perceptions on couple relationship quality
on work-family enrichment, results show that workers who perceive higher levels
of couple relationship quality, also reported higher levels of work-family
enrichment (β = .10, p < .001).
Results - WFE
Finally, as hypothesized, results show that there is a strong negative relationship
between work-family conflicts and work-family enrichments (β = -.12, p < .001).
Perceptions on couple relationship quality and family life satisfaction are the only
variables, which relate to both lower level work-family conflicts and higher-level
work-family enrichments.
In summary, results support almost all the hypotheses predicted in the model. The
findings shows that, as workers within their family perceive satisfaction, higher
quality of relationship with children and spouse or partner along with participation
with children in the day to day activities, and perceive the presence of couple
support, the work to family conflicts will not be perceived as the same and it will
actually enrichen the work to family atmosphere.
Results - Gender
In order to assess whether there were mean gender differences on all the variables
of interest, a MANOVA was conducted using gender as the independent variables
and all the study variables as dependent variables. The descriptive statistics and
correlations for male and female workers are presented in Table 3. .
As hypothesized, significant differences were found between male and female
workers on their level of perception of children relationship quality, F(1, 569) =
4.16, p < .05, partial eta squared = .01, with females (M = 8,71) scoring higher
than male workers (M = 8,45). Concerning parent involvement with children, as
expected there was significant differences found between male and female
workers, F(1, 569) = 9.88, p < .05, partial eta squared = .02, with females (M =
3.41) scoring higher than male workers (M = 2.88). As hypothesized, couple
support was found to have significant differences among female and male workers,
F(1, 569) = 7.64, p < .05, partial eta squared = .01, with females (M = 3.38) scoring
higher than male workers (M = 3.03). All the other variables were found to have
no significant differences among men and women workers.
Conclusion
In summary, almost all the hypothesized relationships among variables in the path
analysis were found to be supported for both models, except for the relationship
between perceptions on couple relationship quality on work-family conflicts and
family life satisfaction on work-family enrichment both for female worker model.
Male workers were found to relate higher couple relationship quality with lesser
work-family conflict, but female workers were not found to have significant
relationship. Furthermore, male workers were found to relate increased
perceptions on family life satisfaction to work-family enrichment and female
workers were not found to have significant relationship. Additionally, both male
and female workers were not found to have significant relationship between family
life satisfaction and work-family conflicts. Also, although higher stress was found to
relate to decreased work-family enrichment perceptions, it was not significant
enough for both the model. Finally, it was interesting to note that, overall, the
male model was slightly better than that for the female model for the
hypothesized path analysis of the general model.
Unmasking the Antecedents of Work-Family Conflict and Work-
Family Enrichment: Empirical Evidences among Spanish Families
during Covid-19
Marc Grau-Grau, Rejina Mary Selvam, Rita Cavallotti
ICWF 2021 – Track “remote work”
July 7, 2021
Spanish families living through COVID-19
Project financed by Santander Universities