British Journal of Social Work (2015) 45, 2387–2405

doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcu079
Advance Access publication July 18, 2014

Work – Family Conflict and Family – Work

Conflict as Predictors of Psychological
Strain: Does Social Support Matter?

Downloaded from http://bjsw.oxfordjournals.org/ at Gadjah Mada University on June 10, 2016

Parveen Kalliath1,*, Thomas Kalliath2, and
Christopher Chan3

1
School of Allied Health, Australian Catholic University, Watson, ACT, 2602, Australia
2
Research School of Management, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia
3
School of Human Resource Management, Faculty of Liberal Arts and Professional Studies, York
University, 4700 Keele Street, Toronto, Ontario, M3J 1P3, Canada
*
Correspondence to Dr Parveen Kalliath, School of Allied Health, Australian Catholic
University, 223 Antill Street, Watson ACT 2602, Australia. E-mail: parveen.kalliath@acu.edu.au

Abstract
The aim of this study was to investigate the role of social support in moderating the impact
of three forms of work-to-family conflict and family-to-work conflict—time-based con-
flict, behaviour-based conflict and strain-based conflict on psychological strain experi-
ences of Australian social workers. Data were collected from members of a social work
professional body, using an online survey. Four hundred and thirty-nine responses were
used for analysis. Hierarchical multiple regression analysis was used to test the moderating
effects of social support on the relationship between work–family conflict and psycho-
logical strain. Of the eighteen models tested for moderator effects, only one model for
family support was significant. The models involving supervisor support and colleague
support showed no moderator effects. The findings suggest the need for social workers,
their workplaces and the social work professional body to better understand the nature
of work– family conflict experienced by social workers in order to identify other ways
for supporting them.

Keywords: Work-to-family conflict, family-to-work conflict, supervisor support, colleague

support, family support, psychological strain

Accepted: June 2014

# The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of

The British Association of Social Workers. All rights reserved.
2388 Parveen Kalliath et al.

Introduction
The challenges associated with balancing the demands from work and family
domains and the consequent experiences of conflict have been an area of
grave concern for individuals, families and organisations (Valcour, 2007).
Social work practitioners often encounter demanding work environments
that are fraught with increased focus on service accountability, cost contain-
ment, reduced professional autonomy, high work loads and staff shortages
(Hughes and Wearing, 2007; McDonald and Chenoweth, 2006; Kalliath
et al., 2012) which beg the need for supportive work and family systems.
A recent study by Kalliath et al. (2012) established that social workers in

Downloaded from http://bjsw.oxfordjournals.org/ at Gadjah Mada University on June 10, 2016

Australia experience work – family conflict which increases the strain they
experience. Without the availability of social supports, stressful work envir-
onments can adversely affect the health and psychological well-being of
social workers (Offer and Schneider, 2008). The empirical investigation
of the moderating effects of social support on the relationship between
work – family conflict factors and psychological strain becomes essential for
advancing understanding of this phenomenon.

Work–family conflict and its consequences

The notion of work – family conflict is often explained by role strain theory
(Goode, 1960) which argues that individuals are required to fulfil multiple
roles (e.g. work roles, family roles), with each role demanding its own time,
skills, knowledge and other expectations of the individual. Conflict occurs
when the individual is unable to meet the expectations of all roles and must
consequently let go of some these roles. Work – family conflict refers to:
. . . a form of inter-role conflict in which role pressures from work and family
domains are mutually incompatible in some respect. That is, participation in
the work (or family) role is made more difficult by virtue of participation in
the family (or work) role (Greenhaus and Beutell, 1985, p. 77).

Consistently with this definition, researchers have recognised the bi-

directional nature of conflict and argue that conflict can occur in both direc-
tions—from work-to-family (WFC) and from family-to-work (FWC)
(Carlson et al., 2000; Frone et al., 1992). Furthermore, researchers have recog-
nised that work – family conflict can manifest in three forms: time-based con-
flict, behaviour-based conflict and strain-based conflict, and each form of
conflict can be measured separately (Carlson et al., 2000). Time-based con-
flict occurs when individuals give priority to certain roles whether at work
or at home, and use most of their time fulfilling these roles leaving other
roles unmet. Behaviour-based conflict results from the inappropriate use of
behaviours in a domain (work or family) that may normally be appropriate
for use in the other domain (family or work). Strain-based conflict occurs
 Work-Family Conflict as Predictor of Psychological Strain 2389

when the individual experiences strain in one domain (work or family) which
impedes their capacity to participate fully in roles in the other domain.
Research examining WFC among varied employee groups have consistently
reported a significant association between WFC and increased psychological
strain. Kalliath et al. (2012) reported a significant association between WFC–
time, WFC–behaviour, WFC–strain and increased psychological strain
among Australian social workers. The same study also found that FWC–behav-
iour and FWC–strain were significantly associated with psychological strain.
Likewise, other studies have reported significant association between WFC
and psychological strain (see Grandey and Cropanzano, 1999; Major et al.,
2002; Gareis et al., 2009).

Downloaded from http://bjsw.oxfordjournals.org/ at Gadjah Mada University on June 10, 2016

While most of the literature in work – family interface has investigated the
direct effects of WFC on psychological strain (Allen et al., 2000; Eby et al.,
2005), few studies have investigated the moderating role of social support
in the relationship between work – family conflict and psychological strain
(Carlson and Perrewe, 1999; O’Driscoll et al., 2004). The moderating hypoth-
esis presupposes that individuals who receive support will cope better
with stressors at work and home than those who receive little or no support
(Wadsworth and Owen, 2007).

Moderating effects of social support

The moderating effects of social support are often explained by Hobfoll’s
(1989) conservation of resource (COR) theory. COR theory posits that
there is a tendency for individuals to build and conserve resources that they
consider essential to their survival. These resources may be family, work col-
leagues, friends, energy, money, self-esteem and anything else that may be es-
sential to them (Hobfoll, 2002). In the context of COR theory, social support
can be perceived as a resource that the individual can use to protect their
existing resources and for obtaining new ones. Psychological strain can
occur when resources which the individual considers essential for coping
are either depleted, lost or there is a threat of loss (Grandey and Cropanzano,
1999). In these circumstances, the individual may, for example, choose to
invest more resources (e.g. energy) in work roles because of the fear
of losing their job, thus taking away resources intended for family roles
(e.g. spending time with children).
Studies that have examined the moderating effects of social supports have
yielded inconsistent results, which are partly explained by the lack of a con-
sistent conceptual understanding of the term social support (Hupcey, 1998;
Kirrane and Buckley, 2004). The most well-known definition of social
support by Cobb (1976, p. 300) defines social support as ‘the individual
belief that one is cared for and loved, esteemed and valued, and belongs
to a network of communication and mutual obligations’. Hobfoll and
Stokes (1988, p. 499) later defined social support as ‘social interactions or
2390 Parveen Kalliath et al.

relationships that provide individuals with actual assistance or with a feeling

of attachment to a person or group that is perceived as caring or loving’. Some
researchers argue that these definitions are rather broad and too general, and
they fail to capture the multifaceted nature of the construct (Vaux, 1988;
Hupcey, 1998). Hupcey (1998), for example, argues that, when considering
social support, it is equally important to consider the provider’s perception
of the support that is required by the individual and their reasons for provid-
ing it. If incongruence in perceptions of the type of support required exists
between the provider and the recipient, the recipient may be left dissatisfied
and may even perceive that the support is unavailable to them. Other
researchers argue that the timing and the type of support needed are just as

Downloaded from http://bjsw.oxfordjournals.org/ at Gadjah Mada University on June 10, 2016

important to consider (Neergard et al., 2005). There are also views in the lit-
erature that the individual’s perception and experiences of the required
support are just as important as the type of support (Cohen et al., 2000).
The moderating effects of social support can therefore occur only when indi-
viduals perceive that support is available to them and proceed to mobilise it.
Some studies have found support for the moderating role of social support in a
stressor–strain relationship (e.g. Aryee et al., 1999; Viswesvaran et al., 1999). For
instance, Aryee et al. (1999), in their Hong Kong-based study with working
adults, reported that support from the spouse moderated the relationship
between parental overload and FWC. However, the same study found no
support for the moderating effects of spousal support in the relationship
between work overload and WFC. Viswesvaran et al.’s (1999) meta-analysis
of sixty-eight studies examined the role of colleague support, supervisor
support and family support in the work stressor (e.g. work overload, role ambi-
guity) and strain relationship and found that support originating from work and
family domains significantly moderated the relationship between work stressors
and strain. Further, in a study of government employees in the USA, Carlson
and Perrewe (1999) found that support in the workplace and in the family was
useful for coping with WFC. Additionally, in a New Zealand study of employees
in twenty-three organisations, O’Driscoll et al. (2004) found that colleague
support moderated the relationship between WFC and psychological strain.
Some studies have found no support for the moderating role of social
support (e.g. Frone et al., 1994; Haar, 2004; Seiger and Wiese, 2009). For
example, in New Zealand, Haar’s (2004) study of 100 government employees
found no evidence for the moderating effects of work-based supports on turn-
over intentions. Likewise, Seiger and Wiese (2009) found no evidence that
supervisor and colleague support moderates the relationship between job
strain and WFC, nor that family support moderates the relationship
between family strain and FWC. Frone et al. (1994) also reported no signifi-
cant moderating effects of work-based support on the relationship between
work demands and WFC or family support on the relationship between
family demands and FWC.
Although the literature on the moderating effects of social support report
mixed findings, COR theory argues that social support is a key resource which
 Work-Family Conflict as Predictor of Psychological Strain 2391

individuals can draw upon when their existing resources are depleted, lost or
if a threat of loss exists. Social support can be instrumental in providing indi-
viduals with assistance or with information when they are faced with increas-
ing work – family demands or other stressors. Based on these understandings,
we hypothesised that:

Hypothesis 1: Work –family conflict (WFC – time, WFC – behaviour and

WFC – strain) and supervisor support will interact such that:
(a) The relationship between WFC (time, behaviour, strain) and psychologic-
al strain is weaker when supervisor support is higher.

Downloaded from http://bjsw.oxfordjournals.org/ at Gadjah Mada University on June 10, 2016

(b) The relationship between FWC (time, behaviour, strain) and psychologic-
al strain is weaker when supervisor support is higher.
Hypothesis 2: Work –family conflict (WFC – time, WFC – behaviour and
WFC – strain) and colleague support will interact such that:
(a) The relationship between WFC (time, behaviour, strain) and psychologic-
al strain is weaker when colleague support is higher.
(b) The relationship between FWC (time, behaviour, strain) and psychologic-
al strain is weaker when colleague support is higher.
Hypothesis 3: Work –family conflict (WFC – time, WFC – behaviour and
WFC – strain) and family support will interact such that:
(a) The relationship between WFC (time, behaviour, strain) and psychologic-
al strain is weaker when family support is higher.
(b) The relationship between FWC (time, behaviour, strain) and psychologic-
al strain is weaker when family support is higher.

Method
Sample

Data for the study were collected from members of a professional social work
body after ethics approval was granted. Prior to completing the survey, an
introductory page that highlighted the purpose of the study, ethical approval,
assurance that an individual respondent could not be identified in any way
was provided. An internet-based survey was sent to approximately 2,000
social workers, yielding usable data from 439 respondents, which represented
a response rate of 22 percent. The majority of the respondents (81.1 percent,
n ¼ 356) were females within the age range of twenty-three to sixty-nine
years (M ¼ 44.06 years, SD ¼ 10.07 years). These figures compare favour-
ably with the demographic characteristics of the larger social work workforce
where more than 80 percent of social work professionals are females between
the ages of thirty and sixty years (Healy and Lonne, 2010).
2392 Parveen Kalliath et al.

Most of the respondents (69.7 percent, n ¼ 306) were in a partnered relation-

ship, married or cohabitating; 13.7 percent (n ¼ 60) were single, 15.7 percent
(n ¼ 69) were separated, divorced or widowed; and 0.9 percent (n ¼ 4) did
not indicate their marital status. Fifty-four percent (n ¼ 239) had no children
and, among those with children (46.6 percent, n ¼ 181), the majority had
fewer than four children; of these, 12.1 percent (n ¼ 53) had one child and
29.1 percent (n ¼ 128) had two or three children. Most children were of
school age with a mean age of 13.86 years (SD ¼ 6.2 years).
The majority of the respondents (77.4 percent, n ¼ 340) held a Bachelor of
Social Work (BSW) qualification, while 10 percent (n ¼ 44) reported having a
Master of Social Work, 10.8 percent (n ¼ 47) had other postgraduate

Downloaded from http://bjsw.oxfordjournals.org/ at Gadjah Mada University on June 10, 2016

qualifications and 1.8 percent (n ¼ 8) had a Ph.D. Seventy-one percent (n ¼
312) were in full-time employment, with 25 percent working more than forty
hours per week, which again compares favourably with the employment
figures reported for the larger social work workforce with 71.7 percent
employed full-time (Healy and Lonne, 2010). Most (66.3 percent, n ¼ 291)
were in direct social work practice, 14 percent (n ¼ 62) were in supervisory
positions such as team leaders, 10.7 percent (n ¼ 47) were managers and 5.9
percent (n ¼ 26) were in tertiary education. Outside of their work hours, the
respondents on average spent twenty-nine hours weekly (SD ¼ 17.7 hours)
in domestic work and care of children and 6.96 hours (SD ¼ 5.34 hours) in self-
care or hobbies. An average of 5.87 hours (SD ¼ 4.17 hours) was spent in travel
to and from work. The majority (58.5 percent, n ¼ 257) were employed in large
cities, with 31.7 percent (n ¼ 139) working in regional areas and 9.8 percent
(n ¼ 43) working in remote or rural areas.

Measures
Work-to-family conflict and family-to-work conflict

Nine items were used to measure WFC and another nine items were used to
measure FWC (Carlson et al., 2000). Example items for each form of conflict
are: ‘My work keeps me from my family activities more than I would like’
(WFC – time); ‘I have to miss work activities due to the amount of time I
must spend on family responsibilities’ (FWC – time); ‘The problem solving
behaviours I use in my job are not effective in resolving problems at home’
(WFC – behaviour); ‘The behaviours that work for me at home do not seem
to be effective at work’ (FWC – behaviour); ‘I am often so emotionally
drained when I get home from work that it prevents me from contributing
to my family life’ (WFC – strain); ‘Tension and anxiety from my family life
often weakens my ability to do my job’ (FWC – strain). A five-point Likert
scale, which ranged from 1 ¼ strongly disagree to 5 ¼ strongly agree, was
used for measuring the responses to each item. Higher scores on the scale
represented higher levels of conflict. The psychometric properties for the
 Work-Family Conflict as Predictor of Psychological Strain 2393

scale reported in previous research are reliable, with internal consistency for
all three forms of conflict in the range of 0.78 to 0.87 (Tetrick and Buffardi,
2006). The internal consistency of the scale in the present study ranged
from 0.84 to 0.93.

Psychological strain

The General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12; Goldberg and Williams, 1991)

was used for measuring psychological strain. Although this scale was originally
designed as a unidimensional measure, more recent factor-analytic studies

Downloaded from http://bjsw.oxfordjournals.org/ at Gadjah Mada University on June 10, 2016

have reported the measure to be two-dimensional (e.g. Ip and Martin, 2006;
Kalliath et al., 2004) with two distinct factors, namely Anxiety/Depression
and Social Dysfunction. For the purpose of this study, the Anxiety/Depression
subscale was used because this subscale was shown to be the more robust of the
two (Kalliath et al., 2004). For purposes of clarity, we will refer to the measure
as ‘psychological strain’ and not by its full name of ‘psychological strain—
anxiety/depression’. An example item of this scale included: ‘In the past
four weeks have you felt that you could not overcome your difficulties?’
Responses to each item were measured on a six-point scale where 0 ¼ never
and 5 ¼ all the time. Higher scores represented higher levels of experienced
psychological strain. The GHQ-12 scale is shown to have an internal consist-
ency of 0.81 for psychological strain (Ip and Martin, 2006). In the present
study, the internal consistency for the scale was 0.89.

Supervisor, colleague and family support

These were measured using the Caplan et al. (1980) support scale. Although the
original scale contained four items in each of the following five areas of support,
namely an individual’s immediate supervisor, colleagues at work, wife or
husband, friends and relatives, for the purpose of the present study, only
items pertaining to supervisor, colleagues and family members are used. An
example item included ‘My supervisor/colleague/family members are
willing to listen to my personal problems’. Responses to the items were
measured on a five-point scale which ranged from 1 ¼ strongly disagree to
5 ¼ strongly agree, with higher scores indicating a higher level of support.
The internal consistency for this scale reported in the literature is 0.83 and
0.84 (Jennings, 2007). In the present study, the internal consistency was 0.92
for supervisor support, 0.91 for colleague support and 0.90 for family support.

Data analysis
The factor structure of the scales was tested via confirmatory factor analysis
using AMOS (Version 20). First, an eleven-factor structure that included
2394 Parveen Kalliath et al.

psychological strain as a two-factor structure was tested and the results indi-
cated a good fit (Normed x2 ¼ 1.85; NFI ¼ 0.90; TLI ¼ 0.94; CFI ¼ 0.95;
RMSEA ¼ 0.04, with factor loadings from 0.62 to 0.94). Second, a ten-factor
structure that included psychological strain as a one-factor structure was
tested and the results showed a poor fit (Normed x2 ¼ 3.11; NFI ¼ 0.82;
TLI ¼ 0.85; CFI ¼ 0.87; RMSEA ¼ 0.07, with factor loadings from 0.40 to
0.93). Therefore, the eleven-factor solution was used.
Demographic characteristics of gender (coded as 1 ¼ Female; 2 ¼ Male),
age (in years), relational status (coded as 1 ¼ Living alone; 2 ¼ Living with
a partner), dependents (coded as 1 ¼ Yes; 2 ¼ No), years of service (in
years), family income (coded as 1 ¼ , $40,000; 2 ¼ $40,001 –$60,000;

Downloaded from http://bjsw.oxfordjournals.org/ at Gadjah Mada University on June 10, 2016

3 ¼ $60,001 – $80,000; 4 ¼ $80,001 – $100,000; 5 ¼ . $100,000) and employ-
ment classification (coded as 1 ¼ Full-time; 2 ¼ Part-time) were included
as control variables in the analysis. These demographic variables are
frequently included in work – family research as control variables for
reasons that people’s experiences of work and family can vary based on
these characteristics.
Bivariate correlations among research variables were tested using Pear-
son’s coefficient of correlations. The means of the predictors and moderators
were centred before regression analyses were conducted. Hypotheses were
tested using hierarchical regression analyses recommended by Frazier et al.
(2004). The control variables were entered in the first step to determine
how much variance in psychological strain could be explained by these demo-
graphic variables. In the second step, the centred main predictors were
included. The WFC predictors (WFC – time, WFC – behaviour and WFC –
strain) were analysed separately from the FWC predictors (FWC – time,
FWC – behaviour and FWC – strain). Also, only one social support variable
was included at a time in this second step. In the third and final step, three
interaction effects (created by multiplying each of the three centred predic-
tors with each centred moderator, e.g. WFC – time X supervisor support,
WFC – behaviour X supervisor support and WFC – strain X supervisor
support) were entered. Follow-up analyses involving simple slope analyses
were conducted if the moderators at Step 3 were significant.

Results

Means, standard deviations and bivariate correlations are presented in

Table 1. Bivariate correlations show that there are significant associations
between the three forms of WFC and FWC with psychological strain and
these are in the expected direction suggesting that an increase in the three
forms of WFC and FWC is associated with a corresponding increase in psy-
chological strain.
 Work-Family Conflict as Predictor of Psychological Strain 2395
Table 1 Means, standard deviations, bivariate correlations and Cronbach’s alphas of research variables

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1. WFC – Time 2.85 1.00 0.86

2. WFC – Behaviour 2.49 0.89 0.29*** 0.84
3. WFC – Strain 2.99 1.06 0.52*** 0.44*** 0.90
4. FWC – Time 2.16 0.95 0.26*** 0.18*** 0.10* 0.93
5. FWC – Behaviour 2.31 0.93 0.26*** 0.55*** 0.42*** 0.36*** 0.93
6. FWC – Strain 1.96 0.88 0.24*** 0.31*** 0.29*** 0.53*** 0.49*** 0.86
7. Psychological Strain –Anxiety/Depression 2.17 0.93 0.34*** 0.27*** 0.47*** 0.13** 0.33*** 0.33*** 0.89
8. Supervisor support 3.46 1.03 –0.25*** –0.14** –0.21*** – 0.09 –0.08 –0.05 –0.15** 0.92
9. Colleague support 3.72 0.84 –0.06 –0.15** –0.19*** 0.08 –0.13** 0.02 –0.12** 0.28*** 0.91
10. Family support 3.78 0.87 –0.03 –0.35*** –0.22*** – 0.14** –0.33*** –0.21** –0.13** 0.00 0.17*** 0.90

N ¼ 439. *p , 0.05; **p , 0.01; ***p , 0.001. The Cronbach’s alphas are presented diagonally in bold.

Downloaded from http://bjsw.oxfordjournals.org/ at Gadjah Mada University on June 10, 2016

2396 Parveen Kalliath et al.

Table 2 Regression analyses of psychological strain with supervisor support as a moderator

Psychological strain

Step 1 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Gender 0.01 –0.01 –0.00

Age –0.02 –0.02 –0.01
Relational status 0.00 0.04 0.04
Dependents –0.06 0.01 0.01
Years of service –0.05 –0.02 –0.04
Family income –0.04 –0.01 –0.01
Employment classification –0.14* 0.01 0.00
Step 2

Downloaded from http://bjsw.oxfordjournals.org/ at Gadjah Mada University on June 10, 2016

WFC– Time 0.12* 0.14**
WFC– Behaviour 0.02 0.01
WFC– Strain 0.31*** 0.29***
FWC– Time –0.06 –0.07
FWC– Behaviour 0.08 0.09
FWC– Strain 0.21*** 0.21***
Supervisor support –0.04 –0.04
Step 3
WFC– Time × Supervisor support 0.02
WFC– Behaviour × Supervisor support 0.03
WFC– Strain × Supervisor support –0.08
FWC– Time × Supervisor support 0.06
FWC– Behaviour × Supervisor support –0.01
FWC– Strain × Supervisor support 0.10
R2 0.03 0.29 0.31
Adjusted R 2 0.01 0.27 0.28
F 1.84 11.78*** 8.97***

N ¼ 439. *p , 0.05; **p , 0.01; ***p , 0.001.

In testing Hypotheses 1a and 1b, supervisor support was not found to be a

moderator of the relationship between WFC (time, behaviour, strain), FWC
(time, behaviour, strain) and psychological strain – anxiety/depression. Thus,
Hypotheses 1a and 1b were not supported (see Table 2).
Likewise, a test of Hypotheses 2a and 2b showed that colleague support did
not moderate the relationship between WFC (time, behaviour, strain), FWC
(time, behaviour, strain) and psychological strain (see Table 3). Thus,
Hypotheses 2a and 2b were not supported.
Hypothesis 3a was not supported either, as family support did not
moderate the relationship between WFC (time, behaviour, strain) and
psychological strain (see Table 4). However, Hypothesis 3b was partially
supported as family support moderated the relationship between FWC –
strain and psychological strain (b ¼ – 0.21, p , 0.001). Figure 1 confirms
that higher levels of family support moderated the negative effects of
FWC – strain on psychological strain. However, family support did not
moderate the relationship between FWC – time, FWC – behaviour and
psychological strain.
 Work-Family Conflict as Predictor of Psychological Strain 2397

Table 3 Regression analyses of psychological strain with colleague support as a moderator

Psychological strain

Step 1 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Gender 0.01 –0.01 –0.01

Age –0.02 –0.01 –0.01
Relational status 0.00 0.04 0.05
Dependents –0.05 0.00 –0.00
Years of service –0.04 –0.02 –0.03
Family income –0.14** –0.01 –0.02
Employment classification 0.00 –0.01
Step 2

Downloaded from http://bjsw.oxfordjournals.org/ at Gadjah Mada University on June 10, 2016

WFC –Time 0.13* 0.14*
WFC –Behaviour 0.02 0.05
WFC –Strain 0.30*** 0.28***
FWC –Time –0.05 –0.05
FWC –Behaviour 0.07 0.05
FWC –Strain 0.21*** 0.22***
Colleague support –0.07 –0.07
Step 3
WFC –Time × Colleague support 0.06
WFC –Behaviour × Colleague support 0.09
WFC –Strain × Colleague support 0.03
FWC –Time × Colleague support 0.05
FWC –Behaviour × Colleague support –0.09
FWC –Strain × Colleague support –0.07
R2 0.03 0.29 0.31
Adjusted R 2 0.39 0.27 0.27***
F 1.84 11.90 8.88***

N ¼ 439. * p , 0.05; **p , 0.01; ***p , 0.001.

Discussion
The literature with respect to the moderating effects of social support in the
relationship between WFC and FWC and psychological strain has presented
mixed findings. Some studies have found support for the moderating role of
social support in a stressor – strain relationship (e.g. Aryee et al., 1999; Vis-
wesvaran et al., 1999), while others have not (e.g. Haar, 2004; Seiger and
Wiese, 2009). Our motivation for undertaking this investigation was to test
the moderating role of social supports in the relationship between WFC,
FWC and psychological strain in a large sample, and to assess the moderating
effects of social supports in the context of social work profession, which is at
the forefront of human services delivery. While our findings for the direct
effects of WFC (time and strain) and FWC (strain) on psychological strain
showed a consistent pattern, the findings for the moderation effects following
a test of eighteen interaction terms showed that only one interaction term was
significant. Overall, the findings of our study provide evidence that super-
visor support, colleague support and family support have no significant
consequence on the relationship between three forms of WFC, FWC and
2398 Parveen Kalliath et al.

Table 4 Regression analyses of psychological strain with family support as a moderator

Psychological strain – anxiety/depression

Step 1 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Gender 0.01 –0.01 –0.01

Age – 0.02 –0.01 0.00
Relational status 0.00 0.04 0.04
Dependents – 0.06 0.00 0.00
Years of service – 0.05 –0.02 –0.04
Family income – 0.04 –0.01 –0.01
Employment classification – 0.14** 0.00 0.02
Step 2

Downloaded from http://bjsw.oxfordjournals.org/ at Gadjah Mada University on June 10, 2016

WFC– Time 0.13* 0.14
WFC– Behaviour 0.02 –0.01
WFC– Strain 0.31*** 0.31***
FWC– Time –0.06 –0.06
FWC– Behaviour 0.08 0.09
FWC– Strain 0.21*** 0.19***
Family support –0.01 –0.01
Step 3
WFC– Time × Family support 0.04
WFC– Behaviour × Family support –0.03
WFC– Strain × Family support 0.03
FWC– Time × Family support 0.07
FWC– Behaviour × Family support 0.10
FWC– Strain × Family support –0.21***
R2 0.03 0.29 0.32
Adjusted R 2 0.01 0.26 0.28
F 1.84 11.68 9.17

N ¼ 439. *p , 0.05; **p , 0.01; ***p , 0.001.

Figure 1 Interaction effects of FWC –strain and family support on psychological strain –anxiety/
depression
 Work-Family Conflict as Predictor of Psychological Strain 2399

psychological strain. These findings lend further support to some findings in

the literature that social supports do not buffer the impact of WFC and FWC
on psychological strain (Carlson and Perrewe, 1999; Seiger and Wiese, 2000;
Haar, 2004).
It is, however, important to note that the significant interaction term high-
lights the importance of family support in the relationship between FWC –
strain and psychological strain. In other words, higher levels of family
support buffer the impact of FWC – strain on psychological strain. These find-
ings point to the importance of nurturing positive family relationships where
individuals can feel supported and cared for. In contemporary society, as
people spend more time at work, there is the danger that traditional family

Downloaded from http://bjsw.oxfordjournals.org/ at Gadjah Mada University on June 10, 2016

roles for providing emotional and instrumental support can become eroded
(Kossek et al., 2012). Offer and Schneider (2008) argue that the family
remains an integrative entity that can shield people from stressors of daily
life and provide workers with much-needed break.
A number of family support practices can be implemented to alleviate the
psychological strain experienced by social workers. In conjunction with the
professional association of social workers, the various government and non-
government organisations that hire the social workers should develop clear
policies that recognise the important role played by family members in
their lives. Thus, days of leave for urgent family matters, parental leave and
sick child leave could be part of the family-supportive policies. However,
simply having family-supportive policies may not be sufficient. In a
meta-analytic study involving 115 samples comprising 72,507 employees,
Kossek et al. (2011) found that it was more important for supervisors to
enact specific behaviours that are supportive of employees’ ability to
balance work and family than for them to enact general socially supportive
behaviours. An implication is that supervisors need to recognise that, apart
from work commitments, most social workers have commitments to their
families as well, and may benefit from family-supportive supervisors (Muse
and Pichler, 2011). Some level of work scheduling flexibility and financial
support for childcare could be considered. Also, a face-to-face or online
forum for social workers and their family members to brainstorm and share
ideas about family – work strategies that work for them can be encouraged.
The predominant non-significant moderation findings raise an important
question for consideration: How is it that social workers do not find supervisor
support and colleague support a bulwark against the impact of work – family
conflict on psychological strain? While scholars argue that social support
can be an important coping mechanism that can reduce the negative effects
of stressors (Ayman and Antani, 2008), others argue that such effects can
only occur in the context of a positive work culture which values employees
performing equally well in both their work and family roles (Kossek et al.,
2012). Employees must feel that their organisation cares about work –
family issues and provides them with the necessary resources to manage
these issues responsibly.
2400 Parveen Kalliath et al.

For social workers, the demanding work environment partly driven by neo-
liberal policies and managerialism may have heightened the tensions that can
exist between organisational priorities and professional responsibilities that a
social worker may consider important (Beddoe, 2010; Egan, 2012). Some
Australian studies that have examined contemporary managerial framework
of social service agencies confirm that the increased focus on administrative
functions at the expense of reflective and caring supervision has negatively
affected the delivery of quality supervision (Wright, 2000; Clare, 2001;
Gibbs, 2001). The phenomenon of an administratively driven supervision is
not limited to Australia alone. Hojer (2009) reported the predominance of
administratively dominated supervision within managerial-driven social

Downloaded from http://bjsw.oxfordjournals.org/ at Gadjah Mada University on June 10, 2016

work agencies in England, South Africa and Sweden as well. Social
workers may not feel comfortable in discussing their work or family concerns
with their supervisors or work colleagues in a competitive work environment
that is infused with increased accountability, budget cuts and staff shortages
(Healy, 2004). Future studies could directly test the empirical link between
work environment/culture, social support and psychological strain experi-
ences of social workers.
It is noteworthy that the pattern of significant direct effects of WFC (strain)
and FWC (strain) on psychological strain found in the present study was con-
sistent across all the models tested. These findings suggest that excessive
work and family pressures leave social workers emotionally and psychologic-
ally exhausted to be able to participate meaningfully in work/family roles
which consequently results in higher levels of experienced psychological
strain– anxiety/depression. Other empirical studies have reported support
for the significant association between WFC and psychological strain, al-
though not all have used identical measures. For example, a meta-analysis
of fourteen studies by Allen et al. (2000) reported a positive association
between WFC and psychological strain. These findings suggest that work
pressures spill over into the family domain and adversely affect participation
at home, which consequently contributes to increased psychological strain.
Similarly, a study by Franche et al. (2006) of health care employees reports
that FWC has a direct positive impact on psychological strain, implying
that family pressures spill over into the work domain and adversely affect
participation at work.

Limitations

We acknowledge certain limitations to the study. First, the focus of the study
was limited to WFC and FWC as antecedents, and supervisor, colleague and
family support as moderators of psychological strain experienced by social
workers. There may be other variables not included in the study that could
influence psychological strain experienced by social workers. A second limi-
tation is the use of self-report data which can result in common method
 Work-Family Conflict as Predictor of Psychological Strain 2401

variance. This limitation is often acknowledged in studies that adopt survey

methodology, but there is no strong evidence to suggest that self-report
methods inflate the relationships investigated (Crampton and Wagner,
1994). Third, the study was limited to the membership of a social work profes-
sional body, hence it may be difficult to generalise the findings to all social
workers or to other occupational groups. Finally, some scholars argue that
longitudinal designs permit researchers to capture the dynamic nature of
relationships between focal constructs (Maxwell and Cole, 2007). Future
studies using longitudinal designs can uncover the dynamic nature of the
moderating effects of social supports in the relationships between work –
family conflict, family – work conflict and psychological strain.

Downloaded from http://bjsw.oxfordjournals.org/ at Gadjah Mada University on June 10, 2016

Conclusion

This study investigated the role of social supports as moderators of the rela-
tionship between work-to-family conflict, family-to-work conflict and psy-
chological strain. The findings provide evidence that social supports do not
play a vital role in moderating the relationship between WFC, FWC and psy-
chological strain experienced by social workers. This primary finding while
contributing to a significant but neglected arena of research on social
workers raises several important issues for further research. First, the evi-
dence supporting direct effects confirm that excessive work and family pres-
sures result in higher levels of psychological strain experienced by social
workers. Social workers, social service organisations and the social work pro-
fessional body must therefore understand the nature of WFC and FWC
experienced by social workers in order to develop appropriate strategies
that will assist them in managing the adverse impact of work – family conflict
on psychological well-being. We have discussed several practical measures
that could be considered for promoting family-supportive policies and prac-
tices to reduce the impact of work – family conflict and to enhance the well-
being of social workers. Second, given the predominant non-significant
moderation findings, it is important to further explore the factors that may
contribute to the effectiveness of supervisor and colleague support in redu-
cing the negative impact of work –family conflict and psychological strain.
One plausible avenue to explore would be to address the following research
question in future social work research: Is there an increasing focus on admin-
istrative functions in social work agencies and organisations employing social
workers at the expense of caring supervisory support and collegial relation-
ships among social workers? Finally, it is noteworthy that the present study
employed a measure to tap general supportive supervisory behaviours in
its relationship with work – family conflict and psychological strain experi-
enced by social workers. Recent studies of social support in relation to
work – family conflict report that it is more beneficial to the employees
when supervisors demonstrate specific behaviours that support employees’
2402 Parveen Kalliath et al.

ability to balance work and family rather than them demonstrating more
general supportive behaviours (Hammer et al., 2011; Kossek et al., 2011).
The findings of the present study must therefore be tested through future
studies that employ measures to tap specific supervisor work – family
support behaviours in relation to work – family conflict and psychological
strain experiences of social workers.

References

Downloaded from http://bjsw.oxfordjournals.org/ at Gadjah Mada University on June 10, 2016

Allen, T. D., Herst, D. E. L., Bruck, C. S. and Sutton, M. (2000) ‘Consequences associated
with work-to-family conflict: A review and agenda for future research’, Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 5, pp. 278 – 308.
Aryee, S., Luk, V., Leung, A. and Lo, S. (1999) ‘Role stressors, inter/role conflict, and well-
being: The moderating influence of spousal support and coping behaviors among
employed parents in Hong Kong’, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54(2), pp. 259– 78.
Ayman, R. and Antani, A. (2008) ‘Social support and work family conflict’, in K. Korabik,
D. S. Lero and D. L. Whitehead (eds), Handbook of Work– Family Integration, London,
Academic Press, pp. 287 – 304.
Beddoe, L. (2010) ‘Surveillance or reflection: Professional supervision in the risk society’,
British Journal of Social Work, 40(4), pp. 1279 – 96.
Caplan, R. D., Cobb, S., French, J. R. P., Van Harrison, R. and Pinneau, S. R. (1980) Job
Demands and Worker Health, Ann Arbor, MI, University of Michigan, Institute of
Social Research.
Carlson, D. S. and Perrewe, P. L. (1999) ‘The role of social support in the stressor – strain
relationship: An examination of work – family conflict’, Journal of Management,
25(4), pp. 513 – 40.
Carlson, D. S., Kacmar, K. M. and Williams, L. (2000) ‘Construction and initial validation
of a multidimensional measure of work – family conflict’, Journal of Vocational Behav-
ior, 56(2), pp. 249– 76.
Clare, M. (2001) ‘Operationalising professional supervision in this age of accountabilities’,
Australian Social Work, 54(2), pp. 69 – 79.
Cobb, S. (1976) ‘Social support as a moderator of life stress’, Psychosomatic Medicine,
38(5), pp. 300 – 14.
Cohen, S., Gottlieb, B. H. and Underwood, L. G. (2000) ‘Social relationships and health’, in
S. Cohen, L. G. Underwood and B. H. Gottlieb (eds), Social Support Measurement and
Intervention: A Guide for Health and Social Scientists, New York, Oxford University
Press, pp. 3 – 25.
Crampton, S. M. and Wagner, J. A. (1994) ‘Percept – percept inflation in microorganiza-
tional research: An investigation of prevalence and effect’, Journal of Applied Psych-
ology, 79(1), pp. 67 – 76.
Eby, L., Casper, W., Lockwood, A., Bordeaux, C. and Brinley, A. (2005) ‘Work and family
research in IO/OB: Content analysis and review of the literature (1980– 2002)’, Journal
of Vocational Behavior, 66, pp. 124– 97.
Egan, R. (2012) ‘Australian social work supervision practice in 2007’, Australian Social
Work, 65(2), pp. 171 – 84.
Franche, R. L., Williams, A., Ibrahim, S., Grace, S. L., Mustard, C., Minore, B. and Stewart,
D. E. (2006) ‘Path analysis of work conditions and work – family spillover as modifiable
 Work-Family Conflict as Predictor of Psychological Strain 2403

workplace factors associated with depressive symptomatology’, Stress and Health,

22(2), pp. 91 – 103.
Frazier, P., Tix, A. and Baron, K. (2004) ‘Testing moderator and mediator effects in coun-
seling psychology research’, Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51(1), pp. 115 – 34.
Frone, M. R., Barnes, G. M. and Farrell, M. P. (1994) ‘Relationship of work– family conflict
to substance use among employed mothers: The role of negative affect’, Journal of Mar-
riage and Family, 56(4), pp. 1019 –30.
Frone, M. R., Russell, M. and Cooper, M. L. (1992) ‘Antecedents and outcomes of work –
family conflict: Testing a model of the work – family interface’, Journal of Applied
Psychology, 77, pp. 65 – 78.
Gareis, K. C., Barrett, R. C., Ertel, K. A. and Berkman, L. F. (2009) ‘Work– family enrich-
ment and conflict: Additive effects, buffering or balance?’, Journal of Marriage and

Downloaded from http://bjsw.oxfordjournals.org/ at Gadjah Mada University on June 10, 2016

Family, 71(3), pp. 696 – 707.
Gibbs, J. A. (2001) ‘Maintaining front-line workers in child protection: A case for refocus-
sing supervision’, Child Abuse Review, 10(5), pp. 323– 35.
Goldberg, D. and Williams, P. (1991) A User’s Guide to the General Health Questionnaire,
Windsor, NFER-Nelson.
Goode, W. J. (1960) ‘A theory of role strain’, American Sociological Review, 25(4),
pp. 483 – 96.
Grandey, A. A. and Cropanzano, R. (1999) ‘The conservation of resources model applied
to work – family conflict and strain’, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54(2), pp. 350 – 70.
Greenhaus, J. and Beutell, N. (1985) ‘Sources of conflict between work and family roles’,
Academy of Management Review, 10(1), pp. 76 – 88.
Haar, J. M. (2004) ‘Work– family conflict and turnover intention: Exploring moderation
effects of perceived work – family support’, New Zealand Journal of Psychology,
33(1), pp. 35 – 9.
Hammer, L. B., Kossek, E. E., Bodner, T., Anger, K. and Zimmerman, K. (2011) ‘Clarifying
work –family intervention processes: The roles of work – family conflict and family sup-
portive supervisor behaviors’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, pp. 134 – 50.
Healy, K. (2004) ‘Social workers in the new human services market place: Trends, chal-
lenges, and responses’, Australian Social Work, 57(2), pp. 103 – 14.
Healy, K. and Lonne, B. (2010) The Social Work and Human Services Workforce: Report
from a National Study of Education, Training and Workforce Needs, Strawberry Hills,
NSW, Australian Learning and Teaching Council, available online at www.aasw.asn.
au/document/item/400.
Hobfoll, S. (1989) ‘Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress’,
American Psychologist, 44(3), pp. 513 – 24.
Hobfoll, S. (2002) ‘Social and psychological resources and adaptation’, Review of General
Psychology, 6, pp. 307 – 24.
Hobfoll, S. E. and Stokes, J. P. (1988) ‘The process and mechanics of social support’, in
S. W. Duck, D. F. Hay, S. E. Hobfoll, B. Ickes and B. Montgomery (eds), The Handbook
of Research in Personal Relationships, London, UK, Wiley, pp. 499 – 500.
Hojer, S. (2009) ‘Supervision reviewed: Reflections on two different social work models in
England and Sweden’, European Journal of Social Work, 12(1), pp. 71 – 85.
Hughes, M. and Wearing, M. (2007) Organisations and Management in Social Work,
London, Sage.
Hupcey, J. (1998) ‘Clarifying the social support theory-research linkage’, Journal of
Advanced Nursing, 27(6), pp. 1231 – 41.
2404 Parveen Kalliath et al.

Ip, W. Y. and Martin, C. R. (2006) ‘Psychometric properties of the 12 item General Health
Questionnaire (GHQ-12) in Chinese women during pregnancy and in the postnatal
period’, Psychology, Health, and Medicine, 11(1), pp. 60 – 9.
Jennings, B. M. (2007) ‘Stress, locus of control, social support, and psychological symptoms
among head nurses’, Research in Nursing and Health, 13(6), pp. 393 – 401.
Kalliath, P., Hughes, M. and Newcombe, P. (2012) ‘When work and family are in conflict:
Impact on psychological strain experienced by social workers in Australia’, Australian
Social Work, 65(3), pp. 355– 71.
Kalliath, T., Brough, P. and O’Driscoll, M. P. (2004) ‘A confirmatory factor analysis of the
General Health Questionnaire-12’, Stress and Health, 20(1), pp. 11 – 20.
Kirrane, M. and Buckley, F. (2004) ‘The influence of support relationships on work –family
conflict: Differentiating emotional from instrumental’, Equal Opportunities Inter-

Downloaded from http://bjsw.oxfordjournals.org/ at Gadjah Mada University on June 10, 2016

national, 23(1/2), pp. 78 – 96.
Kossek, E., Kalliath, T. and Kalliath, P. (2012) ‘Achieving employee wellbeing in a chan-
ging work environment: An expert commentary on current scholarship’, International
Journal of Manpower, 33(7), pp. 738– 53.
Kossek, E., Pichler, S., Bodner, T. and Hammer, L. (2011) ‘Workplace social support and
work – family conflict: A meta-analysis clarifying the influence of general and work –
family specific supervisor and organizational support’, Personnel Psychology, 64,
pp. 289– 313.
Major, V. S., Klein, K. J. and Ehrhart, M. G. (2002) ‘Work time, work interference with
family and psychological distress’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), pp. 427 – 36.
Maxwell, S. E. and Cole, D. A. (2007) ‘Bias in cross-sectional analyses of longitudinal me-
diation’, Psychological Methods, 12(1), pp. 23 – 44.
McDonald, C. and Chenoweth, L. (2006) ‘Workfare OZ-Style: Welfare reform and social
work in Australia’, Journal of Policy Practice, 5(2/3), pp. 109 – 28.
Muse, L. A. and Pichler, S. (2011) ‘A comparison of types of support for lower-skill
workers: Evidence for the importance of family supportive supervisors’, Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 79(3), pp. 653 – 66.
Neergard, H., Shaw, E. and Carter, S. (2005) ‘The impact of gender, social capital, and net-
works on business ownership: A research agenda’, Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior
and Research, 11(5), pp. 338 – 57.
O’Driscoll, M. P., Brough, P. and Kalliath, T. J. (2004) ‘Work/family conflict, psychological
well-being, satisfaction and social support: A longitudinal study in New Zealand’, Equal
Opportunities International, 23(1/2), pp. 36 – 56.
Offer, S. and Schneider, B. (2008) ‘The emotional dimensions of family time and their
implications for work– family balance’, in K. Korabik, D. S. Lero and D.
L. Whitehead (eds), Handbook of Work– Family Integration, London, Academic
Press, pp. 177 – 90.
Seiger, C. P. and Wiese, B. S. (2009) ‘Social supports from work and family domains as an
antecedent or moderator of work – family conflict’, Journal of Vocational Behavior,
75(1), pp. 26 – 37.
Tetrick, L. E. and Buffardi, L. C. (2006) ‘Measurement issues in research on work-home
interface’, in F. Jones, R. J. Burke and M. Westman (eds), Work-life Balance: A Psycho-
logical Perspective, New York, Psychology Press.
Valcour, M. (2007) ‘Work-based resources as moderators of the relationship between
hours and satisfaction with work – family balance’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 6,
pp. 1512– 23.
Vaux, A. (1988) Social Support: Theory, Research, and Intervention, New York, Praeger.
 Work-Family Conflict as Predictor of Psychological Strain 2405

Viswesvaran, C., Sanchez, J. I. and Fisher, J. (1999) ‘The role of social support in the process
of work stress: A meta-analysis’, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54(2), pp. 314 – 34.
Wadsworth, L. L. and Owen, B. P. (2007) ‘The effects of social support on work – family en-
hancement and work – family conflict in the public sector’, Public Administration
Review, 67(1), pp. 75 – 86.
Wright, F. (2000) ‘Supervision in the welfare market place’, paper presented at ‘Supervi-
sion: From rhetoric to reality’, Auckland College of Education, New Zealand.

Downloaded from http://bjsw.oxfordjournals.org/ at Gadjah Mada University on June 10, 2016