J Bus Psychol
DOI 10.1007/s10869-010-9207-0
Examining the Relationships Between Personality,
Coping Strategies, and Work–Family Conflict
Boris B. Baltes • Ludmila S. Zhdanova •
Malissa A. Clark
Ó Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this study was to examine the
processes through which personality characteristics may
influence work–family conflict (WFC). Specifically, the
mediating effects of selection, optimization, and compen-
sation (SOC) behavioral stress-coping strategies on the
relationship between personality characteristics and WFC
were tested.
Design/Methodology/Approach A snowball sampling
technique was used to recruit 289 working adults, who
completed online questionnaires. The proposed model was
tested using path analysis.
Findings Conscientiousness and agreeableness were
related to greater usage of work and family behavioral
coping strategies, and these behavioral strategies influ-
enced levels of experienced WFC. Negative affect was
found to have direct effects on work interference with
family (WIF) and family interference with work (FIW),
and emotional stability was found to have a direct effect on
WIF conflict.
Implications Findings suggest that different processes
underlie the influence of specific personality characteristics
on WFC. These findings can have implications for the
effectiveness of training programs and interventions aimed
at reducing work–family conflict levels of employees, in
that trainers and managers should take into account the
B. B. Baltes (&)
Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, USA
e-mail: b.baltes@wayne.edu
L. S. Zhdanova
Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, Canada
M. A. Clark
Auburn University, Auburn, AL, USA
strong influence of individual factors on a person’s choice
of coping strategies.
Originality/Value The examination of the processes
through which personality characteristics may influence
work–family conflict (WFC) has not received adequate
attention. This article advances work–family conflict
research by examining the mediating role of behavioral
strategies aimed to cope with competing demands of work
and family roles in the relationship between individual
difference variables and WFC.
Keywords Work–family conflict
Work–family
interference
Coping strategies
Personality
Stress
Work–family conflict (WFC) occurs when role, time, and
behavioral demands in one domain (e.g., work) are com-
peting or interfering with responsibilities in another
domain (e.g., family; Edwards and Rothbard 2000). Since
inter-role interference is an underlying foundation of a
conflict between the two domains, WFC can also be
referred to as work–family interference (WFI; Greenhaus
et al. 2006). Evidence suggests this conflict or interference
is directional, such that work responsibilities can interfere
with responsibilities in the family domain (WIF), and
family responsibilities can interfere with responsibilities in
the work domain (FIW; Frone et al. 1992). It has been
demonstrated that the conflict between work and family
domains (i.e., WIF and FIW) negatively affects important
individual level (e.g., depression, stress, and substance
abuse; Frone et al. 1992, 1997) and organizational level
outcomes (e.g., absenteeism, turnover; Eby et al. 2005).
Considering the negative influence that WFC can have
on individuals and organizations, researchers and practi-
tioners have begun identifying and examining factors that
123

contribute to WFC. Recent meta-analyses and independent
studies have identified various important antecedents of
WIF and FIW. Generally, antecedents are categorized as
work-related factors (e.g., job stressors and job involve-
ment), non-work-related factors (e.g., family stressors
and family involvement), and individual differences (e.g.,
affectivity and extraversion; Bruck and Allen 2003;
Grzywacz and Marks 2000).
To date, relatively little has been done to advance the
understanding of the processes through which individual
differences (e.g., personality characteristics) influence
WFC. Thus, the purpose of this study is to extend our
understanding of the influence of personality characteris-
tics on WFC. Theoretically, personality traits can have
direct, as well as indirect effects on WFC. Specifically,
personality traits are believed to influence cognitions and
perceptions of work and family situations, and thus have
the capacity to influence the extent to which one experi-
ences WFC (e.g., Eby et al. 2005). In addition, personality
traits are also theorized to affect behavioral choices, and
these behaviors, in turn, may increase or decrease the levels
of WFC (e.g., Wayne et al. 2004). The examination of
these potential mediating links between individual differ-
ence variables and WFC has not received adequate atten-
tion. Thus, this study attempts to fill this gap by testing the
potential mediating effects of stress coping behaviors
aimed at reducing levels of WIF and FIW on the rela-
tionship of personality characteristics with FIW and WIF.
In the next sections, we provide theoretical rationale for the
relationships depicted in Fig. 1.
Fig. 1 Proposed model of the
mediating effect of SOC
strategies on the relationship
between individual differences
and work–family conflict. Note:
Direct effects were estimated
for Negative Affectivity and
Emotional Stability. For figure
simplicity reasons, boxes are
used to group the variables into
relevant categories, and arrows
from a group of variables
indicate that direct effects were
estimated from every variable in
that group to every variable in
the affected group. Also,
variables within each box were
allowed to correlate
123
J Bus Psychol
Personality Variables and WFC
Personality refers to the stable mental structures and pro-
cesses that influence how people interpret and react,
emotionally and behaviorally, to their environment (James
and Mazerolle 2002). Thus, not surprisingly, researchers
have theorized that personality should also influence indi-
vidual reactions to the characteristics of work and family
domains. Furthermore, studies have empirically demon-
strated that personality traits indeed relate to perceptions of
WFC (e.g., Bruck and Allen 2003; Michel and Clark 2009).
Recently, researchers have called for a closer examination
of the relationship between personality traits and WFC
(e.g., Eby et al. 2005). In this study, we included person-
ality variables that have been identified as theoretically and
empirically important antecedents to WFC: negative
affectivity, locus of control, conscientiousness, emotional
stability, and agreeableness.
The two personality traits that have received the most
empirical attention in the WFC literature are negative
affectivity (NA) and locus of control. Trait NA is the
tendency to experience negative emotions such as anger,
guilt, and nervousness, as well as increased levels of sub-
jective stress (Watson 1988). These experiences generalize
across various domains, including work and family.
Researchers have linked negative affectivity to WFC based
on the argument that individuals high on NA have a ten-
dency to assess situations (e.g., home, work) in negative
terms; thus, they are more likely to experience negative
emotions towards conditions at work and at home
J Bus Psychol
(Eby et al. 2005). The results of several studies in the
work–family research arena lead to the conclusion that
individuals high on NA tend to report higher levels of WFC
(e.g., Bruck and Allen 2003).
Locus of control refers to the extent to which individuals
feel that outcomes result from internal factors (e.g., skill,
effort) or from external factors (e.g., chance; Rotter 1966).
This individual difference variable has been extensively
studied in relation to WIF and FIW. Not surprisingly,
studies reported that internal locus of control was related to
lower levels of various types of WFC, even after control-
ling for important demographic variables (e.g., Andreassi
and Thompson 2007; Noor 2002).
Recently, researchers began to link other personality
variables to WIF and FIW (e.g., Bruck and Allen 2003;
Grzywacz and Marks 2000). A few studies have consis-
tently linked higher levels of conscientiousness to lower
levels of different types of WIF and FIW (e.g., Bruck and
Allen 2003; Kinnunen et al. 2003; Wayne et al. 2004).
Higher levels of emotional stability have also been con-
sistently linked to lower levels of WFC (e.g., Bruck and
Allen 2003; Grzywacz and Marks 2000; Wayne et al.
2004); although, Kinnunen et al. (2003) did not find a
significant relationship between these variables. Results
regarding the direction of the relationship between agree-
ableness and WFC have been mixed. Specifically, two
studies reported agreeableness was negatively related to
WIF in particular (Kinnunen et al. 2003; Wayne et al.
2004). However, another study found a positive relation-
ship with WIF and FIW (Bruck and Allen 2003).
Thus, previous research has found preliminary evidence
for the importance of personality variables in experienced
levels of WIF and FIW. However, as mentioned previously,
the mechanisms through which personality characteristics
influence WFC has not received adequate attention. The
next section provides an overview of stress-coping strate-
gies as possible intervening variables in these relationships.
Stress Coping Strategies as Intervening Variables
Researchers have theorized that personality traits may affect
an individual’s perceived level of WFC, because these traits
influence other factors related to the WFC construct, such
as time management, energy levels, and choice of coping
mechanism (e.g., Wayne et al. 2004; Friede and Ryan 2005).
In other words, researchers have theorized that personality
should influence how individuals behave when faced with
the competing demands of work and family roles, and in turn
affect experienced levels of WFC.
Indeed, in the general stress literature, personality
has been found to differentiately influence the choice
of stress coping strategies, both emotion-focused and
problem-focused (e.g., Penley and Tomaka 2002). Emo-
tion-focused coping strategies aim at regulating emotions
or distress (e.g., humor, denial); while problem-focused
strategies aim at management of the problem that is
causing distress (e.g., working harder, seeking social sup-
port; Folkman and Lazarus 1980). It was reported in a
recent meta-analyses that individuals with high levels of
extroversion and conscientiousness and low on neuroticism
are more likely to rely on problem-focused strategies, while
those high in neuroticism tend to use emotion-focused
strategies (Connor-Smith and Flachsbart 2007). Another
study demonstrated that people with external locus of
control were more likely to report higher use of problem-
solving strategies than people with internal locus of control
(Strentz and Auerbach 1988).
Consequently, several researchers have hypothesized
that personality should relate in a similar manner to coping
with stressful work and family environments (e.g., Freund
and Baltes 2002; Wayne et al. 2004). Thus, when faced
with competing demands in multiple domains (i.e., work
and family), people with certain personality characteristics
might be more likely to choose effective strategies to cope
with these competing demands than people with other
personality characteristics, and in turn experience lower
levels of WFC.
Even though WFC researchers have theorized that the
effects of personality traits on WFC may be mediated by
the choice of coping strategies, these indirect and direct
effects have not been tested empirically. Thus, the main
goal of this article is to address this important limitation of
the current literature and test the meditating effects of
stress coping strategies on the relationship between per-
sonality and WFC. The present study examined the medi-
ating effects of stress-coping behavioral strategies outlined
by the Selection, Optimization, and Compensation (SOC)
model. The SOC model and its corresponding behavioral
strategies were chosen since prior research (e.g., Baltes and
Heydens-Gahir 2003; Young et al. 2007) has linked their
use to reduced levels of WFC. In the next section, we
provide a more detailed description of the SOC model.
The SOC Model
As mentioned previously, stress-coping researchers have
made a distinction between emotion-focused and problem-
focused coping strategies (e.g., Folkman and Lazarus
1980). Problem-focused strategies involve constructive
attempts to resolve the source of stress; whereas, emotion-
focused strategies involve regulating emotions that are
experienced as a result of stress.
The selection, optimization, and compensation (SOC)
model is essentially a model of problem-focused coping
123

strategies, as selecting goals and priorities, optimizing
those goals and priorities, and compensating for losses in
energy and resources are all focused on reducing stress
through direct actions (Baltes and Baltes 1990; Freund and
Baltes 2002; Wiese et al. 2000). The model is based on the
assumption that the coordinated use of behaviors can
(a) increase one’s resources to facilitate developmental
enhancement, (b) help maintain functioning in the face of
challenges and limited resources, and (c) help regulate
impending losses in resources (Baltes and Baltes 1990;
Freund and Baltes 2002). In sum, when faced with limited
resources, those who use SOC strategies adapt more suc-
cessfully. The three general categories of the behaviors
identified in the model are selection (elective and loss-
based), optimization, and compensation.
Selection (both elective and loss-based) is concerned with
the degree to which people identify and select goals, alter-
native contexts, outcomes, and goal structures. Behaviors
associated with the selection strategy provide a direction to
behavior. As a result, limited resources are allocated in a non-
random way based on an identified hierarchy of goals.
Elective selection occurs when goal selection is based pri-
marily on individual preferences or outside guidance (e.g.,
social norms). For example, a career-driven woman may
choose to focus on achieving a certain level of career success
before getting married and/or having children. Loss-based
selection occurs when a loss of some internal (e.g., activity
level, hearing) or external (e.g., loss of income) resource
forces individuals to change their goals. An example of this
strategy would be choosing to focus on close family and not
extended family (e.g., visits, presents, long-distance con-
versations) when one of the spouse’s income is lost.
Optimization involves an examination of the adequacy
of existing means, practices, and resources to achieve
goals, as well as necessary improvements of practices and
resources to achieve those goals. General examples of
optimization include practicing and learning of new skills,
and scheduling of time and energy. For example, a young
professional may model her supervisors’ successful strat-
egies for balancing a career and family.
Compensation strategies are aimed at gaining and
acquiring alternative means of achieving goals in situations
when resources are limited or lost or when faced with an
overload situation. Although both optimization and com-
pensation refer to the application of goal-relevant means,
they are different in that optimization refers to achieving
higher level functioning, whereas compensation refers to
counteracting losses. In the family domain, compensation
may involve hiring a nanny to help care for children at
home, or ordering food from a restaurant for dinner. In the
work domain, compensation may include hiring an assis-
tant to help with administrative duties, or obtaining a faster
computer.
123
J Bus Psychol
These strategies are theorized to work together as an
ensemble of life-management and problem-focused stress
coping strategies aimed to improve one’s functioning.
Thus, an overall SOC score should have the strongest
relationship with outcome variables. Indeed, these four
strategies are generally positively correlated (e.g., Freund
and Baltes 2002). Therefore, in this manuscript we will
focus on the SOC strategies as an ensemble. This model
has been used to explain successful adaptation during all
stages of human development and in various contexts (e.g.,
general, family, career; Baltes and Baltes 1990; Freund and
Baltes 2002; Wiese et al. 2000). In addition, Baltes and
Dickson (2001) proposed that the SOC model could pro-
vide a useful framework to explain how some individuals
cope with conflicting demands of work and family
domains. In order for SOC behaviors to be plausible
intervening mechanisms in the relationship between per-
sonality variables and WFC, there should be a relationship
between (1) personality variables and SOC behaviors, and
(2) between SOC behaviors and WFC. In the next sections,
we describe these links. In addition, we develop hypotheses
for the direct influence of some personality variables on
WFC, as well as the effects of personality variables on
WFC though SOC behaviors.
The Present Study
Personality and SOC
In the general stress coping literature, personality traits
have been found to relate to various coping strategies (e.g.,
Penley and Tomaka 2002; Somech and Drach-Zahavy
2007). For example, neuroticism, extraversion, and NA
have been found to negatively relate to problem-focused
coping. These relationships have been also tested in the
work and family domains. For example, Lee-Baggley et al.
(2005) reported that higher levels of neuroticism related to
the use of emotion-focused and not problem-focused
strategies in response to interpersonal family stress. Simi-
larly, Parkes (1986) reported that people low on neuroti-
cism tend to report higher levels of problem-focused
strategies when confronted with moderate levels of work
demands. Since SOC is a model of problem-focused coping
strategies, personality variables that influence problem-
focused coping are likely to influence one’s use of SOC
when dealing with competing work and family demands
(e.g., Freund and Baltes 2002; Wayne et al. 2004).
Trait NA has been demonstrated to relate to coping
strategies (e.g., Hooker et al. 1994). Studies generally report
a positive link between NA and emotion-focused coping, as
well as a negative link between NA and problem-focused
coping (e.g., Butt et al. 2002; Hooker et al. 1994). Pertinent
J Bus Psychol
to the current study, individuals with lower levels of NA
also tend to report higher usage of SOC strategies in both
the work and family domains (Pratt 2006). Thus, we expect
that individuals high on NA are less likely to report the use
of SOC behaviors in both domains.
Hypothesis 1 People with higher levels of trait NA report
lower levels of (a) work SOC behaviors and (b) family
SOC behaviors.
Locus of control influences individuals’ perceptions of
the extent to which their efforts and actions (including those
aimed at stress reduction) influence the outcome. People
with a belief that their actions can affect outcomes (i.e.,
internal locus of control) are more likely to initiate inter-
ventions when faced with stressful situations than those
with a belief that their actions will not affect the levels of
stress they experience (i.e., external locus of control).
Indeed, empirical evidence indicates that individuals with
internal locus of control are likely to use problem-focused
strategies, and people with external locus of control gen-
erally choose not to use any coping strategies (e.g., Rees
and Cooper 1992). Despite the pervasive evidence of the
relationship between locus of control and coping, Freund
and Baltes (1998) reported non-significant correlations
between locus of control and general SOC behaviors.
However, the sample in the study by Freund and Baltes
(1998) was comprised specifically of non-working elderly
people in Germany with ages ranging from 72 to 102; while
research that has linked internal locus of control to problem-
focused strategies has usually employed more traditional
samples with participants from diverse demographics.
Elderly people face problems and stressors that are different
from those faced by younger people with family and work
responsibilities. It is also possible that unique factors pre-
dict whether elderly people use coping strategies (e.g.,
Kahana et al. 2005). In addition, Freund and Baltes (1998)
measured the use of SOC strategies in relation to general
life management. Thus, considering the strong theoretical
and empirical connection of locus of control to problems-
focused strategies in the general working population, it is
important to examine the relationship between locus of
control and the use of SOC strategies in the work and family
domains. Consistent with the theoretical assumptions stated
previously, we expect that individuals with an internal locus
of control are more likely to utilize SOC strategies.
Hypothesis 2 People with internal locus of control report
higher levels of (a) work SOC behaviors and (b) family
SOC behaviors.
From an evolutionary perspective, agreeable individuals
are more capable of creating the social alliances that help
one to adapt and adjust to various situations (Caligiuri
2000). Thus, highly agreeable individuals should have
more opportunities to reach out to their social networks in
both the work and family domains. Indeed, some studies
have linked agreeableness to the choice of problem-
focused strategies, such as planning (e.g. Watson and
Hubbard 1996). In addition, Wayne et al. (2004) found that
agreeableness related positively to facilitation from the
family domain to the work domain. Surprisingly, two
studies that examined the relationship between agreeable-
ness and general SOC behaviors did not find it to be sig-
nificant at the bivariate level (Freund and Baltes 2002;
Wiese et al. 2000). The study by Freund and Baltes (2002)
included very diverse participants as young as 14 and as
old as 87, and they examined the use of general SOC
strategies only; whereas, Wiese et al. (2000) excluded
participants with children and did not provide information
on the relationships between overall SOC strategies and
personality. Thus, considering that these prior studies did
not examine the relationship between agreeableness and
overall SOC behaviors specifically in the work and family
context or with samples that are traditionally used in WFC
research, we believe it necessary to further examine this
relationship specifically in the context of coping with
WFC. Furthermore, based on the evolutionary perspective,
we propose that highly agreeable individuals are more
likely to use SOC strategies.
Hypothesis 3 People with higher levels of agreeableness
report higher levels of (a) work SOC behaviors and (b)
family SOC behaviors.
Conscientious individuals tend to be goal-oriented,
responsible, hardworking, efficient, organized, responsible,
and achievement-striving (McCrae and John 1992). The
definition of a goal-oriented individual implies that he/she
is more likely to set goals and adapt those goals to the
circumstances to deal with demands at work and home
(i.e., selection strategies). In addition, conscientious indi-
viduals have a preference for organization and efficiency,
and these qualities are part of such strategies as compen-
sation and optimization. Thus, it is not surprising that
several studies have found that the reported use of SOC
strategies was related to higher levels of conscientiousness
(Freund and Baltes 2002; Wiese et al. 2000). Accordingly,
we propose that conscientiousness is positively related to
the reported use of SOC strategies in both domains.
Hypothesis 4 People with higher levels of conscien-
tiousness report higher levels of a) work SOC behaviors
and b) family SOC behaviors.
McCrae and Costa (1986) argued that emotionally stable
individuals are more suited to deal with depression and
stress, including stressful circumstances resulting from
WFC. Indeed, out of all the personality factors, emotional
stability has been found to have one of the strongest
123

positive relationships with stress coping (e.g., McCrae and
Costa 1986). In addition, emotional stability has been
found to relate positively to the overall use of SOC strat-
egies (Freund and Baltes 1998, 2002). However, no studies
have looked at these relationships specifically within the
family and work domains. Considering that emotional
stability has been shown theoretically and empirically to
relate to stress coping across various domains, it is essential
to include this personality trait in order to understand the
relative importance of various factors in their influences on
the choice of specific behavioral strategies aimed to reduce
WFC. Thus, we propose that emotionally stable individuals
are more likely to report higher levels of all SOC behaviors
in both domains.
Hypothesis 5 People with higher levels of emotional
stability report higher levels of (a) work SOC behaviors
and (b) family SOC behaviors.
SOC and WFC
The SOC theory specifies that when faced with resource
limitations, those individuals who use SOC strategies are
more likely to deal effectively with these demanding and
stressful situations. According to resource drain theory,
time, attention, and energy are finite (Edwards and Roth-
bard 2000); thus, when individuals are faced with demands
in both work and family domains, SOC strategies could
help individuals to more successfully manage the demands
of both work and family (Wiese et al. 2000).
Several quantitative studies have demonstrated the link
between SOC strategies, job/family stressors, and WFC.
For example, Baltes and Heydens-Gahir (2003) demon-
strated that individuals who use SOC behavioral strategies
in the work and/or family domain tend to experience lower
amounts of job and family stressors, and in turn lower
levels of WIF and FIW conflict. Another study also dem-
onstrated that SOC strategies related to lower levels of
family stressors (e.g., parental demands, marital tensions)
and job stressors (e.g., role overload, role ambiguity;
Young et al. 2007). Wiese et al. (2000) demonstrated that
use of SOC strategies at work is associated with positive
psychological outcomes, such as emotional balance and job
satisfaction, in that domain.
A recent qualitative study (Clark et al. 2009) also pro-
vided support for the argument that people rely on SOC
strategies to deal with work and family stressors. More
specifically, in semi-structured phone interviews partici-
pants were asked to identify strategies they have used that
were successful or unsuccessful in reducing job/family
stress. The strategies provided by participants were con-
sistent with the examples of specific SOC strategies
123
J Bus Psychol
presented in prior articles (e.g., Baltes and Dickson 2001;
Baltes and Heydens-Gahir 2003). Thus, we propose the
following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 6a People who report higher level of work
SOC strategies experience lower levels of WIF.
Hypothesis 6b People who report higher level of family
SOC strategies experience lower levels of FIW.
SOC as a Potential Mediator
As mentioned previously, the theoretical link between
personality and WFC is twofold. First, researchers have
proposed that some personality traits relate to reduced
levels of perceived WFC (e.g., conscientiousness), whereas
others relate to increased levels of perceived WFC (e.g.,
neuroticism), because these traits influence other factors
related to the WFC construct, such as choice of coping
mechanism (e.g., Freund and Baltes 2002; Wayne et al.
2004). In other words, personality traits influence choice of
behavioral coping strategies, and the use of these strategies
should lead to decreased levels of WFC (Wayne et al.
2004). Consistent with this theorization, we propose that
SOC will mediate the relationship of NA, locus of control,
agreeableness, conscientiousness, and emotional stability
with WIF/FIW. Specifically, we are expecting the effects
of the individual difference variables on WIF (FIW) to be
channeled through SOC behaviors.
Hypothesis 7a Work SOC strategies mediate the effects
of NA, locus of control, agreeableness, conscientiousness,
and emotional stability on WIF.
Hypothesis 7b Family SOC strategies mediate the effects
of NA, locus of control, agreeableness, conscientiousness,
and emotional stability on FIW.
Second, some personality variables, emotional stability
and NA in particular, have been theorized and empirically
demonstrated to have a direct effect on perceptions and
interpretations of work and family circumstances as
stressful or not (e.g., Brief et al. 1993; Friede and Ryan
2005; Michel and Clark 2009). In other words, individuals
with high negative affect and low emotional stability have
a tendency to interpret competing demands of work and
family responsibilities as more stressful than those with
low negative affect and high emotional stability. Thus, we
expect that these personality variables have direct effects
on WIF and FIW, even after the use of SOC strategies is
taken into account.
Hypothesis 8a NA and emotional stability directly relate
to WIF, even after considering the effects of work SOC
behaviors on WIF.
J Bus Psychol
Hypothesis 8b NA and emotional stability directly relate
to FIW, even after considering the effects of work SOC
behaviors on FIW.
Method
Participants
Participants were 289 working adults living in a major
Midwestern metropolitan area. The sample only included
individuals who worked at least 20 h per week and had a
significant other and/or child. The average age of the
sample was 37.64 (SD = 11.46), the average number of
hours worked was 39.69 (SD = 12.42), 73% were married,
and 81% were parents. The sample was 61% females, and
racial composition was 5% Arabic/Middle Eastern, 10%
Asian, 28% Black, 4% Hispanic, 1% Multi-racial, and 47%
White. In this study, a snowball sampling technique was
utilized (Heckathorn 1997). More specifically, an adver-
tisement (with the information about the study and a link to
a survey on a secure internet site) posted at a large urban
Midwestern university notified undergraduate psychology
students about an opportunity to earn extra-credit. They
relayed information about the study to their friends,
acquaintances, and family members who fit the criteria for
participation in the study in exchange for extra- credit.
These recruited individuals contacted the study coordinator
and were provided with a link to the on-line survey. The
questionnaires were presented in random order and took
approximately 40 min to complete. All participants were
guaranteed confidentiality.
Measures
Negative Affectivity
Trait negative affectivity was measured with the 60-item
Positive and Negative Affect Schedule-Expanded Form
(PANAS-X; Watson and Clark 1994). For the purpose of
this study only scores on the 30 items assessing negative
affectivity (NA) were utilized. Participants were instructed
to ‘‘indicate to what extent you tend to feel this way in
general, that is, on the average’’ on a 5-point scale ranging
from 1 ‘‘very slightly or not at all’’ to 5 ‘‘extremely’’.
Locus of Control
Locus of control was measured with an abbreviated version
(i.e., 11 items) of the Rotter’s I-E Scale short version
proposed by Valecha and Ostrom (1974). Rotter’s I-E scale
and its abbreviated version are among the most commonly
used measures of the locus of control construct (Lefcourt
1991). High scores indicate an external locus of control,
and low scores indicate an internal locus.
Emotional Stability, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness
Thirty items from the IPIP instrument (Goldberg 1999)
were used to measure emotional stability, agreeableness,
and conscientiousness. Participants were instructed to rate
how accurately the statements describe them on a 5-point
scale from 1 ‘‘very inaccurate’’ to 5 ‘‘very accurate.’’
SOC
In this study, SOC strategies were assessed with the long
version (48 items) of the SOC questionnaire developed by
Baltes et al. (1999).
The authors have intended this measure to be domain-
general and/or domain-specific (Baltes et al. 1999). This
scale has been utilized across variety of domains, including
general life, work, career, family, and partnership (Baltes
and Heydens-Gahir 2003; Freund and Baltes 1998, 2002;
Wiese et al. 2000). Domain specificity of SOC question-
naire is traditionally manipulated by changing instructions,
while items are kept identical.
In this study, the questionnaire was adapted to work life
and family life; that is, participants completed the SOC
questionnaire twice referring to different parts of their lives
(i.e., work and family). As a result, scores were computed
separately for family and work. The format of each item in
the SOC measure consists of two response options. The
first option reflects a typical SOC behavior (e.g., I con-
centrate my energy on a few things), and the second option
reflects a non-SOC behavior (e.g., I divide my energy
among many things). The participants selected the behavior
that is most similar to them in the particular context (i.e.,
work or family). Sample items for each dimension and
domain are provided in Appendix. The items for work and
family domains were presented in random order. Next,
participants indicated the degree of similarity between
themselves and the behavior they selected on a 4-point
scale ranging from 1 ‘‘a little’’ to 4 ‘‘exactly’’. However,
the choice of non-SOC behavior resulted in score of 0,
regardless of the provided degree of similarity. Thus, the
participants’ score on a SOC item may range from 0 (non-
SOC behavior selected) to 4 (participant selected SOC
behavior and indicated that the behavior described them
‘‘Exactly’’). To compute overall scores for work SOC and
family SOC, scores on the four components of SOC in each
domain were averaged. Test–retest reliability has been
shown to be satisfactory for work SOC and family SOC
(0.70 and 0.80, respectively; Wiese et al. 2000).
123

WIF and FIW Conflict
WIF and FIW conflict were measured with a scale devel-
oped by Carlson et al. (2000) that measured the six fol-
lowing dimensions: (1) time-based work interference with
family, (2) time-based family interference with work, (3)
strain-based work interference with family, (4) strain-based
family interference with work, (5) behavior-based work
interference with family, and (6) behavior-based family
interference with work. Each dimension was measured by
three items (18 items total) with a response scale ranging
from 1 ‘‘strongly disagree’’ to 5 ‘‘strongly agree’’. Items for
both domains were presented in random order.
Control Variables
Two important variables (hours worked and gender) that
have been identified as important to consider when exam-
ining the nomological network surrounding WFC were
included as control variables. Research shows that the
number of hours worked per week is positively related to
experienced levels of WFC (e.g., Baltes and Heydens-
Gahir 2003). In addition, hours worked per week can lead
to an increased need for the use of various strategies (e.g.,
SOC behaviors) to reduce WFC. In regards to gender, some
studies have found that women perceive more WFC (e.g.,
Frone et al. 1992), while other studies have reported low/no
direct effect of gender on perceived levels of WFC (e.g.,
Somech and Drach-Zahavy 2007). Considering the perva-
sive empirical evidence that gender and hours worked per
week relate to WFC and coping strategies, it is important to
include these variables as controls. Both variables were
assessed with single items.
Statistical Analyses
Structural equation modeling and LISREL 8.8 (Jöreskog
and Sörbom 2004) were used to test the theoretical model
depicted in Fig. 1. Given the large number of variables and
the sample size of the data set, a path analysis framework
was used. The model was tested using a partial covariance
matrix with variance due to the control variables having
been removed (Fletcher et al. 2006). While path analysis
was used measurement error was dealt with when feasible.
Specifically, where it was possible (i.e., when a scale score
was used as an indicator) reliability information was used
for each construct to set measurement parameters. In set-
ting the measurement parameters, the factor loadings were
set equal to the square root of the reliabilities (i.e., coef-
ficient alphas), whereas the error variances were set equal
to the variance of the measure multiplied by the value
(1 - reliability; Loehlin 1998). With respect to the error
123
J Bus Psychol
terms of the latent constructs: (1) the error terms of the
exogenous constructs were allowed to correlate; (2) the
error terms of the Work and Family SOC constructs were
allowed to correlate; and (3) the error terms of the WIF and
FIW constructs were allowed to correlate. Good fit was
indicated by a non-significant chi-square, an RMSEA of
0.08 or below, and values above 0.90 for the NNFI and CFI
(Hoyle 1995).
Results
Table 1 presents means, standard deviations, reliability
coefficients, and intercorrelations for the study variables.
At the bivariate level, all individual difference variables
related significantly and in the hypothesized direction to
reported use of SOC behaviors in both domains. Higher
levels of reported use of work and family SOC strategies
were related to lower levels of WIF and FIW, with stronger
relationships observed for domain-congruent strategies and
interference. Also as expected, work and family SOC
behaviors were positively correlated.
A good fit was obtained for the hypothesized model: v2
(6, N = 289) = 4.97, n.s., NNFI = 0.99, CFI = 0.99, and
RMSEA = 0.01. Generally, this model indicates that when
considered simultaneously, individual level variables dif-
ferentially predict the use of SOC strategies (see Fig. 2).
Specifically, hypotheses 1a, 2a, 3a, and 4a were supported,
indicating that locus of control, NA agreeableness, and
conscientiousness predicted one’s use of work SOC strat-
egies. Hypotheses 3b, 4b, and 5b were also supported
indicating that people with higher levels of conscientious-
ness, agreeableness, and emotional stability reported
greater use of family SOC strategies. Locus of control and
NA did not relate to family SOC strategies; thus there was
no support for hypotheses 1b and 2b, respectively. Though
significant at the bivariate level, when entered into the full
model emotional stability was no longer an important
predictor of work SOC strategies, providing a lack of
support for the hypothesis 5a. All together, individual
difference variables explained 24% (i.e., R-square of 0.24)
of the variance in work SOC and 27% (i.e., R-square of
0.27) of the variance in family SOC. In addition, the model
as a whole explained 22% (i.e., R-square of 0.22) of the
variance in WIF and 34% (i.e., R-square of 0.34) of the
variance in FIW.
Pathways between work SOC and WIF and family SOC
and FIW were significant. Specifically, people who repor-
ted higher levels of work SOC behaviors experienced lower
levels of WIF, but not FIW. Similarly, higher levels of
reported family SOC related to lower levels of FIW, but
nor WIF. Thus, hypotheses 6a and 6b were supported. In
J Bus Psychol

Table 1 Means, standard deviations, intercorrelations, and reliability coefficients for the study variables
Variables Means SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 14 15 16 17

1 Locus of control 3.96 2.29 0.63

2 Negative affect 2.11 0.76 0.22 0.96
3 Agreeableness 3.71 0.62 -0.21 -0.40 0.84
4 Conscientiousness 3.48 0.55 -0.27 -0.39 0.43 0.84
5 Emotional stability 3.2 0.65 -0.13 -0.46 0.22 0.23 0.83
6 SOC-W 1.14 0.74 -0.31 -0.36 0.32 0.43 0.15 0.95
7 SOC-F 1.36 0.74 -0.26 -0.35 0.36 0.47 0.24 0.78 0.95
8 WIF 2.63 0.79 0.04 0.27 -0.13 -0.19 -0.32 -0.33 -0.31 0.85
9 FIW 2.35 0.82 0.15 0.43 -0.21 -0.31 -0.27 -0.28 -0.45 0.60 0.86
10 Gender 1.62 0.49 0.05 0.06 0.18 0.03 -0.12 -0.03 -0.06 0.06 -0.02 –
11 Hours worked 39.69 12.42 -0.16 -0.07 -0.08 0.01 0.02 0.16 0.19 0.02 -0.01 -0.36 –
Notes: N = 289. SOC selection, optimization, and compensation, W work, F family, WIF work interfering with family, FIW family interfering
with work; Gender 1 = Male, 2 = Female; High scores on Locus of Control variable indicate an external locus of control.; Correlations [ 0.11
are significant at p \ 0.05, Correlations [ 0.15 are significant at p \ 0.01, Correlations [ 0.17 are significant at p \ 0.001; Reliability coef-
ficients are presented on a diagonal

Fig. 2 Structural model with standardized path coefficients. Notes: For parsimony purposes only significant pathways are shown in a figure. The
bolded arrows indicate significant indirect effects of individual difference variables on WIF and FIW

sum, there were 4 non-significant pathways in the current
model that were originally hypothesized to be significant.
Three of these were effects of personality variables on SOC
behaviors (i.e., locus of control and negative affectivity and
family SOC, and emotional stability and work SOC) while
one was the direct effect of emotional stability on FIW
conflict.
We then examined the direct effects of the personality
variables on WIF (FIW) and their indirect effects through
SOC to test for potential mediation. Hypotheses 7a and 7b

123
 J Bus Psychol

were partially supported: SOC mediated the relationship
between some individual difference variables and WFC
and not others. Specifically, agreeableness and conscien-
tiousness had significant indirect effects on WIF (b =
-0.04, t = -2.22, p \ 0.01 and, b = -0.07, t = -3.17,
p \ 0.001, respectively), indicating that their influence
on WIF conflict was mediated by SOC behaviors. By
decomposing the total indirect effects to see what per-
centage of the indirect effect went through work SOC and
which percentage went through family SOC one saw that
the majority of both were through work SOC (64% of the
indirect effect for agreeableness and 67% of the indirect
effect for conscientiousness). Also, consistent with the
results from the work domain, agreeableness and consci-
entiousness (b = -0.06, t = -2.49, p \ 0.01, and b =
-0.10 t = -3.60, p \ 0.001, respectively) had significant
indirect effects on FIW conflict. In this case the primary
mediating variable was family SOC as indicated by the
indirect effect decomposition (i.e., 93% of the indirect
effect for agreeableness and 92% of the indirect effect for
conscientiousness). Finally, emotional stability had a sig-
nificant indirect effect (b = -0.06, t = -2.28, p \ 0.01)
on FIW. Decomposing the indirect effect indicated that
99% of this indirect effect was through family SOC.
Hypothesis 8a was supported. Specifically, both NA and
emotional stability each had a significant direct effect on
WIF, in such that higher levels of NA and lower levels of
emotional stability predicted higher levels of WIF. These
two personality traits did not have indirect effects on WIF,
indicating that their influences on WIF were not mediated
by work SOC. Hypothesis 8b was partially supported, since
only NA had a significant direct effect on FIW conflict.
However, NA did not have a significant indirect effect on
FIW, indicating that family SOC did not mediate the effects
of NA on FIW.
It should be pointed out that the model was run again
without the non-significant pathways included and all the
results (in terms of overall fit, pathway estimates, and
variance explained) were virtually unchanged. However,
since such model modification should be accompanied by
cross-validation on a new sample, we only present and
discuss results from the original model and analysis.
As mentioned previously, the SOC strategies are theo-
rized to work as an ensemble. More specifically, while the
dimensions of SOC do work together as an ensemble, and
thus, the overall score should have the strongest relationship
with outcome variables, it is possible the exact nature of the
relationships between each SOC dimension and the out-
come of interest may differ. Thus, for the exploratory pur-
poses, we have included and examined the bivariate
correlations of specific facets of SOC with WIF and FIW
(Table 2). Consistent with previous research, facets of SOC
behaviors in both domains were moderately (work) and
strongly (family) related to each other at the bivariate level
(0.46–0.80); with stronger correlations observed for corre-
sponding strategies across domains (e.g., Freund and Baltes
1998; Wiese et al. 2000). All the SOC strategies were found
to significantly relate to both WIF and FIW in the expected
direction. Family optimization and compensation strategies
had the strongest relationships with FIW, followed by
family selection strategies. Elective selection strategies at
work were least effective in reducing WIF and FIW.
Discussion
The general purpose of this study was to extend our
understanding of the mechanisms through which person-
ality variables influence WFC. Researchers have theorized
that some personality variables influence the way people

Table 2 Means, standard deviations, intercorrelations, and reliability coefficients for SOC facets, WIF, and FIW
Variables Means SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1 ES-W 1.18 0.75 0.81

2 LBS-W 1.38 0.84 0.66 0.77
3 O-W 1.63 0.93 0.62 0.75 0.85
4 C-W 1.45 0.89 0.51 0.69 0.76 0.85
5 ES-F 1.11 0.76 0.65 0.56 0.56 0.46 0.83
6 LBS-F 1.35 0.82 0.56 0.75 0.68 0.64 0.62 0.78
7 O-F 1.56 0.93 0.55 0.68 0.80 0.67 0.58 0.74 0.83
8 C-F 1.43 0.88 0.46 0.64 0.67 0.72 0.52 0.71 0.78 0.86
9 WIF 2.63 0.79 -0.19 -0.29 -0.28 -0.29 -0.23 -0.24 -0.29 -0.30 0.85
10 FIW 2.35 0.82 -0.19 -0.31 -0.36 -0.27 -0.32 -0.36 -0.45 -0.40 0.60 0.86
Notes: N = 289. ES elective selection, LBS loss-based selection, O optimization, C compensation, W work, F family, WIF work interfering with
family, FIW family interfering with work; Correlations [ 0.11 are significant at p \ 0.05, Correlations [ 0.15 are significant at p \ 0.01,
Correlations [ 0.17 are significant at p \ 0.001. Reliability coefficients are presented on a diagonal

123
J Bus Psychol
perceive, interpret, and react to different environmental
characteristics. As such, people with certain personality
traits might perceive participating in two roles (i.e., work
and family) as stressful and as a result experience higher
levels of WFC (Friede and Ryan 2005). Another potential
explanation specifies that personality characteristics influ-
ence the choice of behavioral strategies aimed at dealing
with WFC; in turn, these behavioral strategies influence the
amount of WFC people experience. Thus, a specific pur-
pose of this study was to assess the mediating role of
behavioral strategies aimed at coping with the competing
demands of work and family roles in the relationship
between individual difference variables and WFC. To test
this proposition we have examined personality character-
istics that have been identified as important predictors of
WFC, as well as life management coping strategies (i.e.,
SOC) that have been demonstrated to be effective in low-
ering WIF and FIW conflict (Baltes and Heydens-Gahir
2003; Young et al. 2007).
It should first be pointed out that the personality vari-
ables used in the current study were related, for the most
part, with the coping strategies examined. This is not sur-
prising, but does provide more evidence that personality
variables predict what type of coping strategies an indi-
vidual may use.
With respect to the mediation hypothesis, in general the
results provide preliminary evidence that some personality
characteristics indeed influence experienced levels of WFC
through the choice of behavioral coping strategies. For
example, consistent with previous research, conscien-
tiousness and agreeableness were significantly related to
WIF and FIW at the bivariate level. However, when con-
sidered in conjunction with our proposed mediators, these
personality characteristics no longer had direct effects on
FIW and WIF conflict; rather, the effects of conscien-
tiousness and agreeableness on WFC were mediated
through SOC strategies.
In the work domain, negative affect and emotional sta-
bility had significant direct effects on experienced levels of
WIF conflict, even in the presence of mediators. While
negative affect related to the choice of SOC strategies,
there was no indirect effect on WIF conflict. These results
are consistent with recent research that has found trait NA
to have a direct effect on such outcomes as perceptions of
WFC and job satisfaction because of general tendency for
high trait NA individuals to perceive demanding circum-
stances as stressful (Michel and Clark 2009).
Thus, it appears that different processes underlie the
influence of specific personality characteristics on WFC.
Conscientiousness has been found to strongly relate to the
outcomes that require action, such as job and academic
performance (e.g., Barrick and Mount 1991). Thus, it is
possible that these individuals, when faced with a loss of
resources that results from participating in two roles (i.e.,
work and family) are less likely to emotionally reflect on
this stressful environment and more likely to actively cope
with WFC. Agreeable individuals are characterized by
kindness, likeability, trust, friendliness, and helpfulness, as
well as are more likely to have greater social networks in
both work and family that allow them to rely on strategies
like optimization and compensation in both domains
(McCrae and John 1992). For example, colleagues may be
more likely to offer or agree to help with certain tasks (i.e.,
compensation) or share information about a more efficient
way to accomplish tasks (i.e., optimization) to an agreeable
coworker. In a similar manner, a neighbor may be more
likely to agree to watch children for an agreeable
individual.
However, it appears that some personality characteris-
tics, while influencing behaviors to some extent, have a
greater influence on the way people feel and interpret their
environment (e.g., Brief et al. 1993). For example, people
high on NA and low on emotional stability tend to expe-
rience feelings of anger, distress, subjective stress, and fear
(e.g., Watson 1988). These individuals also tend to per-
ceive stressful situations as threatening and difficult. These
tendencies might potentially explain why these personality
traits had a direct effect on perceptions of WIF.
Limitations and Future Research
One main limitation of this study is our reliance on cross-
sectional data to make our conclusions about the relation-
ships between personality traits, SOC behaviors, and WFC.
With the exception of a study by Wiese et al. (2000) that
examined the ability of SOC measures to predict family,
career, and general life functioning using longitudinal
analysis, the majority of studies using the SOC model have
relied on cross-sectional data. Thus, future research should
examine how personality traits influence both coping
behaviors as well as perceptions relating to WFC using
longitudinal data.
Although this study provides preliminary evidence of
the mediating effect of behavioral coping strategies on the
relationship between personality variables and WFC, future
research may want to consider how other factors (e.g.,
environmental characteristics) influence these relation-
ships. There has been a call for identifying meaningful
situational influences on the relationships between per-
sonality and work outcomes (e.g., Stewart and Barrick
2004). For example, under certain environmental condi-
tions, the influence of personality traits on perceptions and
behavioral choices can be stronger or weaker (Pfeffer
1998). It is possible that in situations with low resources,
personality becomes a stronger predictor of stress-coping
123

strategies, and the relationship between stress coping
strategies and experienced levels of WFC is stronger as
well. Thus, future studies should examine the relationships
between personality, SOC strategies, and WFC under cir-
cumstances with different levels of demands on and/or
supplies of resources.
A further important direction for future research
involves examination of the role of work and family
stressors in these relationships. As it has been mentioned
previously, personality may influence one’s appraisal of
whether or not certain circumstances are stressful or not.
According to this proposition, when confronted with spe-
cific job (family) stressors some individuals would interpret
these stressors as detrimental to their well-being (i.e.,
experience stress and WFC), while others would not
interpret these stressors as detrimental (e.g., Wayne et al.
2004). These differences in the interpretation and appraisal
of stressors might influence the choice and effectiveness of
coping strategies. Thus, future studies should include
measures of relevant job/family stressors in order to
examine the interactive effects of personality and job/
family stressors on choice and effectiveness of SOC
behaviors.
Another limitation of the present study was that partic-
ipants were not asked to provide any information about
their job or occupations. Researchers have suggested that
occupations partially constrain how individuals manage
their work and family roles (e.g., Kossek et al. 2005).
Indeed, Dierdorff and Ellington (2008) found that occu-
pation accounted for a significant proportion of the vari-
ance in reported levels of WFC, and that individuals
working in occupations requiring a great deal of interde-
pendence and responsibility for others reported greater
WFC. We also were not able to assess what percentage of
the sample were full- or part-time students in addition to
working. Being a student might introduce additional
competing demands, and thus potentially affect the choice
of coping strategies. Thus, future research should examine
Table 3 Sample items from the SOC questionnaire
Target behavior
Elective selection
I concentrate my efforts on a few things
Loss-based selection
When things don’t go as well as they used to, I keep trying
other ways until I can achieve the same result I used to
Compensation
When something in my life isn’t working as well
as it used to, I ask others for advice
Optimization
I keep working on what I have planned until I succeed
123
J Bus Psychol
the extent to which personality interacts with occupation,
as well as student status, in predicting use of SOC behav-
iors as well as levels of perceived WFC. Similarly, future
studies should examine to what extent specific subgroups,
such as single parents or married couples with grown
children, experience different pressures, and thus, poten-
tially experience the meditational process differently.
General Conclusions
This study makes an important contribution to the WFC
literature by examining the mediating effects of behavioral
stress-coping strategies on the link between personality
characteristics and WFC. Results indicate that conscien-
tiousness and agreeableness are related to greater usage of
work and family behavioral coping strategies, and that
these behavioral strategies influence levels of experienced
WFC. Negative affect was found to have direct effects on
WIF and FIW, and emotional stability was found to have a
direct effect on WIF conflict.
Understanding how individual factors influence SOC
strategies and WFC has important practical implications.
This study has implications for the effectiveness of
training programs and interventions aimed at reducing
WFC levels of employees. When creating these programs,
trainers and managers should take into account the strong
influence of individual factors on a person’s choice of
coping strategies. For example, trainers and managers
could focus additional attention on helping individuals
with high levels of negative affectivity and low levels of
emotional stability to manage competing demands of work
and family roles.
Appendix
See Table 3.
Alternative/distracter behavior
I divide my energy among many things
When things don’t go as well as they used to, I accept it
When something in my life isn’t working as well as it used to, I decide
what to do about it myself, without involving other people
When I do not succeed right away at what I want to do, I don’t try other
possibilities for very long
J Bus Psychol
References
Andreassi, J. K., & Thompson, C. A. (2007). Dispositional and
situational sources of control: Relative impact on work–family
conflict and positive spillover. Journal of Managerial Psychol-
ogy, 22, 722–740. doi:10.1108/02683940710837697.
Baltes, P. B., & Baltes, M. M. (Eds.). (1990). Successful aging:
Perspectives from the behavioral sciences. Cambridge, MA:
Cambridge University Press.
Baltes, P. B., Baltes, M. M., Freund, A. M., & Lang, F. R. (1999). The
measurement of selection, optimization, and compensation
(SOC) by self-report: Technical report 1999. Berlin: Max
Planck Institute for Human Development.
Baltes, B. B., & Dickson, M. W. (2001). Using life-span models
in industrial-organizational psychology: The theory of selective
optimization with compensation. Applied Developmental
Science, 5, 51–63. doi:10.1207/S1532480XADS0501_5.
Baltes, B. B., & Heydens-Gahir, H. (2003). Reduction of work–family
conflict through the use of selection, optimization, and compen-
sation behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 1005–1018.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.6.1005.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality
dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel
Psychology, 41, 1–26. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00688.x.
Brief, A. P., Butcher, A. H., George, J. M., & Link, K. E. (1993).
Integrating top-down and bottom-up theories of subjective well-
being: The case of health. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 64, 646–653. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.64.4.646.
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. doi:10.1016/S0001-8791(02)00040-4.
Butt, Z. A., Strauss, M. E., Smyth, K. A., & Rose-Rego, S. A. (2002).
Negative affectivity and emotion-focused coping in spouse care-
givers of persons with Alzheimer’s disease. Journal of Applied
Gerontology, 21, 471–483. doi:10.1177/073346402237633.
Caligiuri, P. M. (2000). The big five personality characteristics as
predictors of expatriate’s desire to terminate the assignment and
supervisor-rated performance. Personnel Psychology, 53, 67–88.
doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2000.tb00194.x.
Carlson, D. S., Kacmar, K. M., & Williams, L. J. (2000). Construction
and initial validation of a multidimensional measure of work–
family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 56, 249–276.
doi:10.1006/jvbe.1999.1713.
Clark, M. A., Bal, A., Zhdanova, L., & Baltes, B. B. (2009, April). A
qualitative analysis of strategies for coping with work–family
stressors. Interactive poster presented at the annual meeting of
the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, New
Orleans, LA.
Connor-Smith, J. K., & Flachsbart, C. S. (2007). Relations between
personality and coping: A metaanalysis. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 6, 1080–1107. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.
93.6.1080.
Dierdorff, E. C., & Ellington, J. K. (2008). It’s the nature of the work:
Examining behavior-based sources of work–family conflict
across occupations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93,
883–892. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.4.883.
Eby, L. T., Casper, W. J., Lockwood, A., Bordeaux, C., & Brinley, A.
(2005). Work and family research in IO/OB: Content analysis
and review of the literature (1980–2002). Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 66, 124–197. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2003.11.003.
Edwards, J. R., & Rothbard, N. P. (2000). Mechanisms linking work
and family: Clarifying the relationship between work and family
constructs. Academy of Management Review, 25, 178–199. doi:
10.2307/259269.
Fletcher, T. D., Selgrade, K. A., & Germano, L. M. (2006, May). On
the use of partial covariances in structural equation modeling.
Paper presented at the 21st Annual Conference of the Society for
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Dallas, TX.
Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1980). An analysis of coping in a
middle-aged community sample. Journal of Health and Social
Behavior, 21, 219–239.
Freund, A. M., & Baltes, P. B. (1998). Selection, optimization and
compensation as strategies of life management: Correlations
with subjective indications of successful aging. Psychology and
Aging, 13, 531–543. doi:10.1037/0882-7974.13.4.531.
Freund, A. M., & Baltes, P. B. (2002). Life-management strategies of
selection, optimization, and compensation: Measurement by self-
report and construct validity. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 82, 642–662. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.82.4.642.
Friede, A., & Ryan, A. M. (2005). The importance of the individual:
How self-evaluations influence the work–family interface. In E.
E. Kossek & S. Lambert (Eds.), Work and life integration:
Organizational, cultural, and individual perspectives. New
Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M. L. (1992). Antecedents and
outcomes of work–family conflict: Testing a model of the work–
family interface. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 65–78. doi:
10.1037/0021-9010.77.1.65.
Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M. L. (1997). Relation of work–
family conflict to health outcomes: A four-year longitudinal
study of employed parents. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 70, 325–335.
Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public-domain, person-
ality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several five-
factor models. In I. Mervielde, I. Deary, F. De Fruyt, & F.
Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality psychology in Europe (Vol. 7,
pp. 7–28). Tilburg, The Netherlands: Tilburg University Press.
Greenhaus, J. H., Allen, T. D., & Spector, P. E. (2006). Health
consequences of work–family conflict: The dark side of the
work–family interface. In P. L. Perrewe & D. C. Ganster (Eds.),
Research in occupational stress and well-being (Vol. 5,
pp. 61–98). Amsterdam: JAI Press/Elsevier.
Grzywacz, J. G., & Marks, N. F. (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. doi:
10.1037/1076-8998.5.1.111.
Heckathorn, D. D. (1997). Respondent-driven sampling: A new
approach to the study of hidden populations. Social Problems,
44, 174–199. doi:10.1525/sp.1997.44.2.03x0221m.
Hooker, K., Frazier, L. D., & Monahan, D. J. (1994). Personality and
coping among caregivers of spouses with dementia. The
Gerontologist, 34, 386–392.
Hoyle, R. H. (1995). Structural equation modeling. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
James, L. R., & Mazerolle, M. D. (2002). Personality in work
organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Jöreskog, K., & Sörbom, D. (2004). LISREL 8.8: User’s reference
guide. Chicago: Scientific Software International.
Kahana, E., Kahana, B., & Zhang, J. (2005). Motivational antecedents
of preventive proactivity in late life: Linking future orientation
and exercise. Motivation & Emotion, 29, 438–459. doi:10.1007/
s11031-006-9012-2.
Kinnunen, U., Vermulst, A., Gerris, J., & Makikangas, A. (2003). Work–
family conflict and its relation to well-being: The role of personality
as a moderating factor. Personality and Individual Differences, 35,
1669–1683. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00389-6.
Kossek, E. E., Lautsch, B. A., & Eaton, S. C. (2005). Flexibility
enactment theory: Implications of flexibility types, control and
123

boundary management for work–family effectiveness. In E.
E. Kossek & S. J. Lambert (Eds.), Work and life integration:
Organizational, cultural, and individual perspectives. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lee-Baggley, D., Preece, M., & DeLongis, A. (2005). Individual
differences in coping across time: Role of the Big 5 Personality
Dimensions. Journal of Personality, 73, 1141–1180. doi:10.1111/
j.1467-6494.2005.00345.x.
Lefcourt, H. M. (1991). Locus of control. In J. P. Robinson,
P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of
personality and social psychological attitudes (Vol. 1,
pp. 413–499). San Diego, CA: Academic Press, Inc.
Loehlin, J. C. (1998). Latent variable models: An introduction to
factor, path, and structural analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1986). Personality, coping, and coping
effectiveness in an adult sample. Journal of Personality, 54,
385–405. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1986.tb00401.x.
McCrae, R. R., & John, O. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor
model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 60, 175–215.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1992.tb00970.x.
Michel, J. S., & Clark, M. A. (2009). Has it been affect all along? A
test of work-to-family and family-to-work models of conflict,
enrichment, and satisfaction. Personality and Individual Differ-
ences, 47, 163–168. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2009.02.015.
Noor, N. M. (2002). Work–family conflict, locus of control, and women’s
well-being: Tests of alternative pathways. Journal of Social
Psychology, 142, 645–662. doi:10.1080/00224540209603924.
Parkes, K. R. (1986). Coping in stressful episodes: The role of
individual differences, environmental factors and situational
characteristics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
51, 1277–1292. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1277.
Pratt, A. K. (2006). Role of cognitive ability and personality factors in
coping with work-family conflict. Doctoral dissertation, Wayne
State University, 2006. Dissertation Abstracts International,
AAT 3211006.
Penley, J. A., & Tomaka, J. (2002). Associations among the Big Five,
emotional responses, and coping with acute stress. Personality
and Individual Differences, 32, 1215–1228. doi:10.1016/S0191-
8869(01)00087-3.
Pfeffer, J. (1998). Understanding organizations: Concepts and con-
troversies. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The
handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 733–777). New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Rees, D. W., & Cooper, C. L. (1992). The occupational stress
indicator locus of control scale: Should this be regarded as a state
rather than trait measure? Work and Stress, 6, 45–48. doi:
10.1080/02678379208257038.
123
J Bus Psychol
Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus
external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs,
80, 1–28.
Somech, A., & Drach-Zahavy, A. (2007). Strategies for coping with
work–family conflict: The distinctive relationships of gender role
ideology. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12, 1–19.
doi:10.1037/1076-8998.12.1.1.
Stewart, G. L., & Barrick, M. R. (2004). Four lessons learned from
the person-situation debate: A review and research agenda. In
D. B. Smith & B. Schneider (Eds.), Personality and organiza-
tions. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Strentz, T., & Auerbach, S. M. (1988). Adjustment to the stress of
simulated captivity: Effects of emotion-focused vs. problem-
focused preparation on hostages differing in locus of control.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 652–660. doi:
10.1037/0022-3514.55.4.652.
Valecha, G. K., & Ostrom, T. M. (1974). An abbreviated measure of
internal–external locus of control. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 38, 369–376.
Watson, D. (1988). Intraindividual and interindividual analyses of
positive and negative affect: Their relation to health complaints,
perceived stress, and daily activities. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 54(6), 1020–1030. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.
54.6.1020.
Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1994). The PANAS-X: Manual for the
positive and negative affect schedule-expanded form. Cedar
Rapids: University of Iowa.
Watson, D., & Hubbard, B. (1996). Adaptational style and disposi-
tional structure: Coping in the context of the five factor model.
Journal of Personality, 64, 735–774. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.
1996.tb00943.x.
Wayne, J. H., 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. doi:10.1016/S0001-8791
(03)00035-6.
Wiese, B. S., Freund, A. M., & Baltes, P. B. (2000). Selection,
optimization, and compensation: An action-related approach to
work and partnership. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 57,
273–300. doi:10.1006/jvbe.2000.1752.
Young, L. M., Baltes, B. B., & Pratt, A. K. (2007). Using selection,
optimization, and compensation to reduce job/family stressors:
Effective when it matters. Journal of Business and Psychology,
21(4), 511–540. doi:10.1007/s10869-007-9039-8.