Work-Family Conflict and Job Satisfaction:
The Moderating Role of Instrumental and Emotional Co-worker Support
Master Thesis
MSc Human Resource Management
University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
Rianne Nijboer Skroef 32 8502 BR Joure Studentnumber: 2402246 E-mail: r.nijboer.2@student.rug.nl Supervisor:
Prof. dr. O. (Onne) Janssen
ABSTRACT
This study was designed to clarify the relationship between work-family conflict and job satisfaction, and to test the moderating role of co-worker support. On the basis of role theory, conversation of resource (COR) theory, and social support theory, it was hypothesized that work-family conflict was negatively related to job satisfaction, and that co-worker support would moderate this relationship in such a way that it would become less negative as co-worker support increased. Co-co-worker support was hereby separated into two components: instrumental and emotional co-worker support. In addition, it was hypothesized that instrumental co-worker support would be a stronger moderator than emotional co-worker support. Data were collected from 101 Dutch employees, by means of an online
questionnaire. Results suggest that work-family conflict was negatively related to job satisfaction, and that both instrumental and emotional co-worker support did not moderate this relationship. Implications of these results and directions for future research are discussed.
INTRODUCTION
One of the most studied concepts in the work-family literature is work–family conflict. Work–family conflict, also called work-family interference, is a type of inter-role conflict (Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, & Rosenthal, 1964) that occurs when the demands of work and family interfere. It is argued that work-family conflict is unavoidable in modern Western life (Mauno, Kinnunen, & Ruokolainen, 2006). This is not surprising, referring to the increased numbers of single-parent families, and the increased numbers of dual-income families as a result of the increase in women entering the workforce (Bond, Galinsky, & Swanberg, 1998; Gilbert, Hallett, & Eldridge, 1994).
A significant amount of research has shown the negative consequences that result from work-family conflicts, not only for the people themselves but for business and society as a whole (Calvo-Salguero, Martinez-de-Lecea, & Carrasco-Gonzalez, 2011). One of the most studied consequences of work-family conflict is job satisfaction. Job satisfaction
represents the degree of employees’ well-being (Spector, 1997). Therefore, a low level of job satisfaction may have serious consequences for employees. A low level of job satisfaction also predicts negative attitudes and behaviour in the work context, such as a higher level of absenteeism, and a lower level of organizational commitment (Judge, Thoresen, Bono, & Patton, 2001; Kinicki, McKee-Ryan, Schriesheim, & Carson, 2002). Referring to these negative consequences that may come with a low level of job satisfaction, an analysis of the factors that determine the level of job satisfaction is relevant to research. One of these factors is work-family conflict.
Greenhaus, & Connolly, 1983). Because of the inconsistent findings, it is important to investigate which factors could potentially buffer the negative effect of work-family conflict on job satisfaction.
In order to make the relationship between work-family conflict and job satisfaction more clear, the moderating effect of co-worker support will be taken into account.
Co-workers may form an important source of workplace support in case of work-family conflict, especially when the execution of tasks allow employees to interact with their co-workers (Parris, 2003). Previous studies focused mainly on the moderator role of supervisor support on the relationship between work-family conflict and job satisfaction (Hsu, 2011; Karatepe & Kilic, 2007). The results of these studies have shown that supervisor support significantly moderates the relationship between work-family conflict and job satisfaction, in such a way that this relationship becomes less negative as supervisor support increases. Hsu (2011) argued that “in addition to supervisor support, the support of co-workers as a possible moderator can be incorporated in future research”. Because of their greater presence relative to leaders in most organizations, it is likely that employees interact more frequently with their co-workers (Ferris & Mitchell, 1987). High-quality or frequent exchanges with co-workers can reduce an employee’s perceived work-family conflict, and reduce the negative effects of work-family conflict on job satisfaction. For example, co-workers can take time to listen to an employee’s work-family concerns, or provide missed materials to a colleague who missed a meeting due to family duties.
Two previous studies have already considered the moderating effect of co-worker support on the relationship between work-family conflict and job satisfaction. However, these studies have shown inconsistent results. Co-worker support was found to significantly
moderate the relationship between work-family conflict and job satisfaction in a study by Ng and Sorensen (2008), whereas O’Driscoll, Brough, and Kalliath (2004) did not found
question central in this study is as follows: “How is the relationship between work-family conflict and job satisfaction influenced by emotional and instrumental co-worker support?”
The relationships examined in this study have both theoretical and practical
significance. First, the work-family literature is lacking a clear and cohesive understanding of the relationship between work-family conflict and job satisfaction. Therefore, this study will first examine the direct relationship between work-family conflict and job satisfaction. Previous research has shown that job satisfaction is related to relevant job outcomes such as absenteeism, turnover rate, job performance, organizational commitment, customer
satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behavior (Judge et al., 2001; Kinicki et al., 2002). Referring to these important related job outcomes, it is important for practitioners to
understand which factors determine the level of job satisfaction. This knowledge can
facilitate and improve the creation of programs that are designed to increase job satisfaction. Second, in order to make the relationship between work-family conflict and job satisfaction more clear, this study will contribute to the existing literature by examining the moderating role of emotional and instrumental co-worker support. This knowledge could help
practitioners in reducing the negative effects of work-family conflict on job satisfaction, for example by stimulating support between co-workers.
In order to answer the research question, the article is organized in the following way. First, the theory section will discuss the key concepts of work-family conflict, job satisfaction and co-worker support. Besides, the hypotheses and the conceptual model will be introduced. Secondly, the method section will discuss the procedure, respondents, measures, and the preliminary data analysis. Thirdly, the results section will present the descriptive statistics, correlations, hypotheses tests, and the interaction plots. Finally, the discussion section will discuss the main findings, theoretical and practical implications, research limitations, and suggestions for future research.
THEORY
Work-family conflict
increasingly acknowledge that work-family conflict consists of two distinct, though related, concepts. That is, the work role can interfere with the family role (WIF), or the family role can interfere with the work role (FIW) (Carlson, Kacmar, & Williams, 2000; Frone et al., 1992; Gutek, Searle, & Klepa, 1991). Family-to-work interference occurs when family responsibilities conflict with the work-related duties, while work-to-family interference occurs when the work-related responsibilities spill over to the family domain (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). Past research suggests that employees more often report work-to-family conflict than family-to-work conflict (Kinnunen, Vermulst, Gerris, & Makikangas, 2003; Kossek & Ozeki, 1998; Lambert, Hogan, & Barton, 2002). This study follows past research by primarily focusing on the work-to-family conflict.
Greenhaus and Beutell (1985) further argue that work-family conflict is the result of time-, strain- and behaviour-based conflict. Time-based conflict occurs when the amount of time used for one role makes it harder to perform the activities of the other role. Strain-based conflict refers to emotional exhaustion occurring when the physical and psychological fatigue hinders an individual from participating fully in both roles. Behaviour-based conflict refers to behaviours that are effective in one role but that are not functional in the other role.
Several researchers have investigated the consequences of work-family conflict with the use of employees from different countries and cultures. Most of these studies found that work-family conflict has harmful consequences for employees as well as for organizations. Specifically, research has shown that work-family conflict is related to reduced job
performance, organizational commitment, and job satisfaction, and increased turnover intentions (Beutell, 2010; Grandey, Cordeiro, & Crouter, 2005; Judge, Ilies, & Scott, 2006; Kinnunen, Feldt, Mauno, & Rantanen, 2010; Netemeyer, Brashear-Alejandro, & Bole, 2004).
Work-family conflict and job satisfaction
In the work-family literature, job satisfaction has probably been the most studied job-related outcome in relation to work-family conflict. Job satisfaction is defined as “a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job or various facets of it” (Locke, 1984). Although a lot of researchers have studied the relationship between work-family conflict and job satisfaction, these studies have produced inconsistent findings
with job satisfaction (Ayree et al., 1999). Although there are contradictory findings with respect to the effect of work-family conflict on job satisfaction, most researchers found a negative relationship between these two variables, such that an increase in work-family conflict reduced the level of job satisfaction (Anderson et al., 2002; Boles et al., 1996; Frye et al., 2004). This study will follow this majority, by suggesting that work-family conflict reduces job satisfaction. In order to explain the proposed negative relationship between work-family conflict and job satisfaction, this study will make use of the role theory, and the conservation of resource (COR) theory.
Traditionally, researchers have used the role theory to understand the effects of work-family conflict on employees’ affective and behavioral outcomes (Kahn et al., 1964).
According to role theory, inter-role conflict happens when individuals experience that it becomes difficult to perform both roles successfully due to conflicting demands on time, behavior, and energy, and that inter-role conflict experienced by individuals will result in an undesirable state (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985; Kahn et al., 1964). This study will focus on the inter-role conflict between the work and family role.
Grandey et al. (2005) suggest that among different roles, work and family roles are the two most important roles for most people. They argue that incompatibility between the work and family role may create tension and a negative attitude toward the job (especially when the job is seen as a threat to family roles), resulting in lower job satisfaction. As noted earlier, work-family conflict is defined as “a form of inter-role conflict in which the role pressures from work and family domains are mutually incompatible in some respect. That is,
roles of work and family is role ambiguity, defined as “uncertainty experienced about behavioural expectations” (Chiaburu & Harrison, 2008). Role ambiguity can arise when the required duties and responsibilities of the work and family role are unclear to the employee. Research indicates that strain in response to dealing with issues of unclear responsibility is strongly related to a feeling of worry, tension, and fatigue (strain-based conflict; Kahn et al., 1964). The role stressors create a negative emotional state, which leads to a decrease in the level of job satisfaction (Beehr & Glazer, 2005).
Second, previous research suggested that, in addition to role theory, work-family research could take the conservation of resource (COR) theory into account (Grandey & Cropanzano, 1999; Ford, Heinen, & Langkamer, 2007). The COR theory suggests that individuals strive to acquire and maintain valued resources and minimize any threats to them (Hobfoll, 1989). Resources could be defined as “the total capability an employee has to fulfill his or her centrally valued needs” (Hobfoll, 2002), and include objects, conditions, personal characteristics, and energies. According to COR theory, stress is a reaction to the threat of a loss of resources, an actual loss of resources, or the gained resource does not meet the expectations (Gao, Shi, Niu, & Wang, 2012). The loss of resources in one domain
(work/family) may lead to experiencing stress in the other domain (work/family). From a COR perspective a high level of job strain binds personal resources so that less time and energy remain for the family role, which might lead, in turn, to work-family conflicts and lower job satisfaction (Grandey & Cropanzano, 1999). For example, employees experiencing work-family conflict may come to believe that they cannot simultaneously perform the work role and the family role successfully. The consequence may be that they feel forced to invest more of their time and energy into the work role for fear of losing their job status (Grandey & Cropanzano, 1999). The COR theory suggests that inter-role conflict leads to stress because resources are lost in the process of handling both work and family roles. These resource losses lead to a negative “state of being,” which may include lower levels of job satisfaction (Grandey & Cropanzano, 1999). Also, individuals strive for achieving a balance between demands and resources by reducing demands or increasing resources to cope with existing demands. If the demands exceed the resources, over the long term well-being is decreased (Beutell, 2010). So, on the basis of COR theory, when work responsibilities spill over to the family domain, individuals’ resource losses may result in a decrease of job satisfaction.
reduces the level of satisfaction (Frone et al., 1992; Kopelman et al, 1983). Consequently, the following hypothesis is formulated:
Hypothesis 1: Work-family conflict is negatively related to job satisfaction.
Although the majority of previous research also found a negative relationship between work-family conflict and job satisfaction (Allen et al., 2000; Anderson et al., 2002; Boles et al., 1996; Frye et al, 2004), some research has produced contradictory findings with respect to the effect of work-family conflict on job satisfaction (Thompson & Blau, 1993; Ayree et al., 1999). Therefore, to explain the relationship between work-family conflict and job
satisfaction, more research is needed to investigate which factors can moderate the
relationship between work-family conflict and job satisfaction. This study will contribute to this need, by examining the moderating role of co-worker support.
The moderating role of co-worker support
Co-worker support is defined as “the provision of desirable resources to a focal employee, including task-directed helping (Caplan et al, 1975), co-worker mentoring (Ensher, Thomas, & Murphy, 2001), and friendliness or positive affect” (Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006). Several researchers have already investigated the moderating effect of supervisory support on the relationship between work-family conflict and job satisfaction (Hsu, 2011; Karatepe & Kilic, 2007). The results of these studies have shown that supervisor support significantly moderates the relationship between work-family conflict and job satisfaction, in such a way that this relationship becomes less negative as supervisor support increases. The role of co-worker support has been underplayed in the extant work-family literature. Only a few
researchers have investigated co-worker support as the moderating variable (Ng & Sorensen, 2008; O’Driscoll et al., 2004). This is surprising, referring to the greater presence of co-workers relative to leaders in almost any organization, and thereby their more frequent interaction (Ferris & Mitchell, 1987).
Miller, 1994). Co-workers may even be in a better position than supervisors who may stand too far away from the daily challenges faced by their subordinates to offer support to co-workers experiencing work-family conflict. Given the increase in interdependent and team-based organizational structures (Ensign, 1998), co-workers have more possibilities to offer support to a colleague struggling to balance conflicting work and family demands. According to the direct effect hypothesis, co-worker support directly reduces the level of stressors and strains (Carlson & Perrewé, 1999). In other words, co-workers have a direct effect on the level of work-family conflict and the level of job satisfaction of their individual colleagues by providing them support. Thomas and Ganster (1995), for example, found that co-worker support had a direct effect on reducing work-family conflict. In addition, Blau (1981) found that co-worker support had a direct effect on job satisfaction. On the other hand, the
moderating or buffering hypothesis states an interaction effect whereby co-worker support reduces the impact of stressors on strains (Carlson & Perrewé, 1999). Applying this buffering hypothesis to the relationship between work-family conflict and job satisfaction, there should be a strong stressor-strain relationship between work-family conflict and job satisfaction when co-worker support is low and a weak stressor-strain relationship when co-worker support is high. This buffering approach will be examined during this research, because the moderating role of co-worker support has been underplayed in the work-family literature.
et al., 2000). Second, role ambiguity has been defined as “uncertainty experienced about behavioural expectations” (Chiaburu & Harrison, 2008). Co-workers can provide their colleagues information resources, and thus “reduce the tensions growing out of uncertainty and unpredictability in the actions of others” (Bales, 1950). To conclude, co-worker support received at the workplace helps in integrating work-family roles, which may reduce inter-role conflict and can lead to higher job satisfaction (Kamerman & Kahn, 1987).
The COR theory suggests that individuals strive to acquire and maintain valued resources and minimize any threats to them (Hobfoll, 1989), and that inter-role conflict leads to stress because resources are lost in the process of handling both work and family roles. These resource losses lead to a negative “state of being,” which may include lower levels of job satisfaction (Grandey & Cropanzano, 1999). From a COR perspective a high level of job strain, for example, binds personal resources so that less time and energy remain for the family role, which might lead, in turn, to work-family conflicts and lower job satisfaction (Grandey & Cropanzano, 1999). In previous work-family research, social support has been identified as one of the most important resources for dealing with stressors, because it can both protect and expand one’s pool of available resources (Hobfoll, 1998). Instrumental support at the workplace provides the resources that are needed to deal with existing job strain, and in addition reduces the impact of job strain on work-family conflicts (Grandey, Cordeiro, & Michael, 2007). Existing job strains might also be evaluated as less threatening if co-workers are perceived as supportive as a result of providing resources (Cohen & Wills, 1985). For example, if an individual perceives work-family conflict but experiences a fair amount of social support from co-workers, the resulting strain from experienced role conflict may not occur (Carlson & Perrewé, 1999). In turn, co-worker support may prevent a negative “state of being”, and in effect prevent lower levels of job satisfaction due to experiencing work-family conflict. Different researchers argue that social support received at the
workplace acts like a buffer and it reduces the negative influence of work-family conflict. For example, Beutell (2010) suggests that social support may help to reduce certain job demands like a difficult or demanding work schedule.
These studies have shown inconsistent results. The research carried out by Ng and Sorensen (2008) showed that perceived co-worker support significantly moderated the relationship between work-family conflict and job satisfaction, whereas O’Driscoll et al. (2004) did not found evidence for such a moderating role of support from co-workers.
The inconsistency of the results between the previous studies may be due to the
limitation that previous researchers have used a global measure of co-worker support, without considering its multidimensional nature. Due to the fact that researchers have not considered these two dimensions, there is no knowledge about how each dimension moderates the relationship between work-family conflict and job satisfaction. The two forms of co-worker support are emotional support and instrumental support (Adams et al, 1996; Lapierre & Allen, 2006). Emotional support is person-focused and refers to providing care, empathy, and love (Beehr et al., 2000). An example of co-worker emotional support is taking the time to listen to a colleague’s personal problems. It is argued that co-worker emotional support is related to decreased physiological strain and depression, as well as increased job
performance, organizational commitment, and work-group and family cohesion (Beehr et al., 2000; Ladd & Henry, 2000). Instrumental support is task-focused and refers to providing tangible help (Beehr et al., 2000). Examples of co-worker instrumental support are proving missed materials to a colleague who missed a meeting due to family duties, or taking over work of a colleague who leaves work to attend a sick child (Mesmer-Magnus & Viswesvaran, 2008).
Hypothesis 2: Instrumental co-worker support will moderate the relationship between work-family conflict and job satisfaction. Specifically, the relationship between work-work-family conflict and job satisfaction will become less negative as instrumental co-worker support increases.
Hypothesis 3: Emotional co-worker support will moderate the relationship between work-family conflict and job satisfaction. Specifically, the relationship between work-work-family conflict and job satisfaction will become less negative as emotional co-worker support increases.
Hypothesis 4: Instrumental co-worker support will more strongly moderate the relationship between work-family conflict and job satisfaction than will emotional co-worker support do.
Figure 1 visualizes the conceptual model explained in this paper.
FIGURE 1
Conceptual model in which instrumental and emotional co-worker support moderate the relationship between work-family conflict and job satisfaction
Work-family conflict Job satisfaction
METHOD
Procedure
Data for this study were obtained from February to May 2014, by means of an online questionnaire. The questionnaire started with an introduction in which the content and the academic purpose of the research were explained. The introduction was followed by 21 statements regarding the following concepts: work-family conflict, instrumental co-worker support, emotional co-worker support, and job satisfaction. Participants were requested to indicate their personal level of agreement or disagreement with the statements by responding to them on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (“totally disagree”) to 7 (“fully agree"). The items, originally constructed in English, were first translated into Dutch and then, by another person, back-translated into English to preserve the accuracy of the meaning of the statements. The statements were followed by 11 general questions, requesting information about the
respondent’s gender, age, marital status, (amount of) children living at home, level of
education, working hours, main breadwinner, sector, organizational tenure, years of working in current workgroup, and function. The average time needed to fill in the questionnaire was 10 minutes.
Respondents
Around 150 individuals from diverse Dutch companies were approached by e-mail, to arouse their interest for this research. Of the 114 individuals who started the questionnaire, 101 completed it. Of the 101 respondents, 38.6% were men and 61.4% were women. The age of the respondents ranged from 22 to 62 years, with an average of 37.81 years (SD = 12.72). In terms of education, 59.4% of the respondents had at least higher vocational education, and 38.4% had intermediate vocational education. In terms of marital status, 51.5% of the
respondents were married, 38.8% were living together, 6.9% were in a relationship, 3% were divorced, and 14.9% were single. Of the 101 respondents, 53 respondents (52.5%) had
Measures
The complete scales, used for measurement of the concepts, can be found in the appendix. Work-family conflict was measured using a five-item scale developed by Netemeyer, Boles, and McMurrian (1996). Specific items include: “The demands of my correctional work interfere with my family life” and “The amount of time my job takes up makes it difficult to fulfill family responsibilities”. The five items were measured on a seven-point scale ranging from 1 for “strongly disagree” to 7 for “strongly agree”. This measure was found to be reliable (α = .88).
Job satisfaction was measured using a three-item scale developed by Cammann, Fichman, Jenkins, and Klesh (1983). A sample item includes: “All in all, I am satisfied with my job”. The three items were measured on a seven-point scale ranging from 1 for “strongly disagree” to 7 for “strongly agree”. This measure was found to be reliable (α = .94).
Co-worker support was measured using the scale developed by Settoon and Mossholder (2002). As this measure assesses co-worker support in general, its items were adapted to measure co-worker support in relation to work-family conflict. Five items were used to measure instrumental support. A sample item includes: “My co-workers go out of their way to help me with work-family related problems”. The five items were measured on a seven-point scale ranging from 1 for “strongly disagree” to 7 for “strongly agree”. This measure was found to be reliable (α = .87). Eight items were used to measure emotional support. A sample item includes: “My co-workers take time to listen to my work-family concerns”. The eight items were measured on a seven-point scale ranging from 1 for “strongly disagree” to 7 for “strongly agree”. This measure was found to be reliable (α = 0.90).
Data analysis
The statistical analysis started with the discussion of the descriptive statistics and
correlations. The means, standard deviations and intercorrelations for all non-standardized variables are presented. The hypotheses tests started with a linear regression analysis to examine the proposed negative relationship between work-family conflict and job satisfaction. The moderated analysis procedure outlined by Andrew F. Hayes (2013) was adopted to test the proposed moderation effects. First, the moderating role of instrumental co-worker support was tested, followed by the moderating role of emotional co-co-worker support. The statistical analysis ended with the interaction plots.
RESULTS
Descriptive statistics and correlations
The means, standard deviations, and correlations among all study variables and control variables are presented in Table 1. Referring to the control variables, work-family conflict is significantly and positively correlated with working hours (r = .34, p < .01). Instrumental co-worker support is significantly and negatively correlated with workgroup tenure (r = -.33, p < .01), as well as with function tenure (r = -.38, p < .01). Emotional co-worker support is significantly and negatively correlated with workgroup tenure (r = -.24, p < .05), function tenure (r = -.37, p < .01), as well as with working hours (r = -.22, p < .05). Referring to the study variables, emotional co-worker support is significantly and positively correlated with instrumental co-worker support (r = .59, p < .01). Job satisfaction is significantly and
negatively correlated with work-family conflict (r = -.29, p < .01). Moreover, job satisfaction is significantly and positively correlated with instrumental co-worker support (r = .24, p < .05), as well as with emotional co-worker support (r = .22, p < .05).
TABLE 1
Means, Standard Deviations and Correlations
Hypotheses tests
Hypothesis 1 predicted that work-family conflict is negatively related to job satisfaction. To test the proposed hypothesis, a linear regression analysis was conducted. The control
variables (gender, workgroup tenure, function tenure, working hours, instrumental co-worker support, and emotional co-worker support) and the independent variable (work-family
conflict) were entered. As shown in Table 2, a negative relationship between work-family conflict and job satisfaction was found (B = -.34, p < .05). This demonstrates that a higher level of work-family conflict indeed leads to a significant lower level of job satisfaction. These results provide support for Hypothesis 1. None of the control variables were found to be significant related to job satisfaction.
TABLE 2
Results of Linear Regression Analysis testing the relationship between Work-Family Conflict (WFC) and Job Satisfaction (JS)
Job satisfaction Predictor B SE t p Control variables Gender -.05 .16 -.33 .745 Current workgroup -.17 .17 -1.00 .321 Current function .13 .18 .70 .485 Working hours .08 .17 .45 .651
Instrumental co-worker support .16 .17 .96 .341
Emotional co-worker support .18 .17 1.08 .283
Study variables
WFC -.34* .14 -2.45 .016
R² .14
F 2.17*
Note: N = 101. B = unstandardized regression coefficient; SE = standard error. * p < 0.05
co-worker support and job satisfaction was not significant (B = .12, p = n.s.).
TABLE 3
Results of Regression Analysis testing the model in which Instrumental Co-worker Support (ICS) moderates the relationship between
Work-Family Conflict (WFC) and Job Satisfaction (JS) Job satisfaction Predictor B SE t p Control variables Gender -.06 .16 -.36 .720 Current workgroup -.22 .18 -1.22 .226 Current function .14 .18 .75 .457 Working hours .08 .17 .50 .621
Emotional co-worker support .18 .17 1.07 .287
Study variables WFC -.31* .15 -2.12 .036 ICS .12 .17 .72 .476 Interaction WFC*ICS .11 .12 .90 .370 R² .15 F 2.02
Relationship between WFC and JS at low, middle, and high values of ICS
ICS Effect SE 95% confidence
Interval**
Low (M - 1 SD) -.42* .16 -.741, -.097
Middle -.31* .15 -.595, -.020
High (M + 1 SD) -.20 .22 -.623, .233
Note: N = 101. B = unstandardized regression coefficient; SE = standard error. * p < 0.05, ** Based on 1000 bootstrap samples
Hypothesis 3 predicted that emotional co-worker support will moderate the relationship between work-family conflict and job satisfaction, such that this relationship will become less negative as emotional co-worker support increases. As the results reported in Table 4 show, work-family conflict and emotional co-worker support were not found to interact
Finally, Hypothesis 4 predicted that instrumental co-worker support will stronger moderate the relationship between work-family conflict and job satisfaction than will emotional co-worker support. From the above mentioned results, it has been made clear that both instrumental co-worker support and emotional co-worker support did not significantly
moderate the relationship between work-family conflict and job satisfaction. Therefore, these results did not provide support for Hypothesis 4.
TABLE 4
Results of Regression Analysis testing the model in which Emotional Co-worker Support (ECS) moderates the relationship between Work-Family Conflict (WFC) and Job Satisfaction (JS)
Job satisfaction Predictor B SE t p Control variables Gender -.05 .16 -.29 .771 Current workgroup -.20 .18 -1.12 .265 Current function .13 .18 .73 .471 Working hours .11 .17 .63 .532
Instrumental co-worker support .14 .17 .86 .392
Study variables WFC -.34* .14 -2.44 .017 ECS .17 .17 1.01 .316 Interaction WFC*ECS .12 .13 .88 .383 R² .15 F 2.01
Relationship between WFC and JS at low, middle, and high values of ECS
ECS Effect SE 95% confidence
Interval**
Low (M - 1 SD) -.46* .19 -.830, -.081
Middle -.34* .14 -.615, -.063
High (M + 1 SD) -.22 .20 -.612, .169
Note: N = 101. B = unstandardized regression coefficient; SE = standard error. * p < 0.05, ** Based on 1000 bootstrap samples
in which work-family conflict is high and instrumental co-worker support is low, the level of job satisfaction decreases more in comparison to the situation in which work-family conflict and instrumental co-worker support are both high. This interaction effect is supportive of Hypothesis 2 predicting that the relationship between work-family conflict and job
satisfaction will become less negative as instrumental co-worker support increases. However, the differences are too small to be able to talk about a significant moderating effect.
Similarly, as depicted in Figure 3, high work-family conflict only marginally
decreases the level of job satisfaction in the situation in which emotional co-worker support is high. In the situation in which work-family conflict is high and emotional co-worker support is low, the level of job satisfaction decreases more in comparison to the situation in which work-family conflict and emotional co-worker support are both high. This interaction effect is supportive of Hypothesis 3 predicting that the relationship between work-family conflict and job satisfaction will become less negative as emotional co-worker support increases. However, as in the case of instrumental co-worker support, the differences are too small to be able to talk about a significant moderating effect.
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 3
Interaction effects of Work-Family Conflict on Job Satisfaction for Low and High Levels of Emotional Co-worker Support
DISCUSSION
The goal of this study was to advance understanding of the relationship between work-family conflict and job satisfaction. Although a lot of researchers have studied the relationship between work-family and job satisfaction, different studies have produced inconsistent findings (Amstad et al., 2011). Because of the inconsistent findings, I examined co-worker support as a potential moderator in the relationship between work-family conflict and job satisfaction. More specifically, this study tested whether two forms of co-worker support, namely instrumental and emotional co-worker support, moderated the relationship between work-family conflict and job satisfaction. The results of this research are discussed below.
Findings
incompatibility between the work role and family role may create tension and a negative attitude toward the job, resulting in lower job satisfaction (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985; Kahn et al., 1964). Further, on the basis of COR theory, when work responsibilities spill over to family settings, individuals’ resource losses may result in a decrease of job satisfaction (Hobfoll, 1989; Grandey & Cropanzano, 1999).
Secondly, the results indicate that both instrumental co-worker support and emotional co-worker support did not moderate the relationship between work-family conflict and job satisfaction. The results of this study therefore suggest that greater instrumental and
emotional co-worker support does not weaken the negative relationship between work-family conflict and job satisfaction. Besides, the results did not provide support for the assumption that instrumental co-worker support would more strongly moderate the relationship between work-family conflict and job satisfaction than emotional co-worker support. A possible explanation for the lack of support for the moderating role of co-worker support may be that employees see accepting support from co-workers as a form of incompetence (Ng &
Sorensen, 2008). Because workers are generally regarded as equal, support from co-workers in dealing with the demands of work and family may suggest a lack of ability or independence (Peeters, Buunk, & Schaufeli, 1995). This perceived threat to self-esteem may hinder the expected buffering effect of co-worker support in the negative relationship
between work-family conflict and job satisfaction. Future research is needed to determine if this speculative explanation is correct.
Theoretical implications
The findings of this study contribute to the work-family literature by extending prior findings in several ways. First, the work-family literature is lacking a clear and cohesive
understanding of the relationship between work-family conflict and job satisfaction (Amstad et al., 2011). As such, the present research contributes to eliminate the ambiguity by
providing empirical evidence for a negative relationship between work-family conflict and job satisfaction. This is an important theoretical contribution, because the findings indicate that the level of work-family conflict is one of the factors that may predict the level of job satisfaction.
conflict and job satisfaction of their individual colleague’s by providing them support. Consistent with previous research (Blau, 1981), this study found that both instrumental and emotional co-worker support significantly and positively correlated with job satisfaction. However, no significant correlation was found between co-worker support and work-family conflict. This is in contrast with previous research. Thomas and Ganster (1995), for example, found that co-worker support had a direct effect on reducing work-family conflict. On the other hand, the moderating hypothesis states an interaction effect whereby co-worker support reduces the negative effects of work-family conflict on job satisfaction. Whereas previous research (Ng & Sorensen, 2008) suggested the moderating effect of coworker support on the relationship between work-family conflict and job satisfaction, the moderating role of both instrumental and emotional coworker support was not supported in this study. Therefore, it is not possible to conclude that instrumental co-worker support is a stronger moderator in the relationship between work-family conflict and job satisfaction than emotional co-worker support. These findings are important, because it makes clear that more research is needed to investigate which factors moderate the effects of work-family conflict on job satisfaction.
Practical implications
The findings of the current study may have certain implications for organizations as well as for employees. The results of this study indicated that work-family conflict is negatively related to job satisfaction. Job dissatisfaction has been observed to predict negative organizational outcomes, such as a higher level of absenteeism, and a lower level of
organizational commitment (Judge, Thoresen, Bono, & Patton, 2001; Kinicki, McKee-Ryan, Schriesheim, & Carson, 2002). Therefore, it may be argued that organizations are wise to find ways to assist their employees in dealing with the demands of work and family (Mesmer-Magnus & Viswesvaran, 2008). This is even more important, as the current study suggests that support from co-workers is not sufficient to reduce the negative impact of work-family conflict on job satisfaction. Two possible ways will be explained, namely providing family-friendly policies and benefits, and promoting family-family-friendly work environments/cultures.
Second, organizations may promote family-friendly work environments/cultures. A family-friendly work culture is “one where the assumptions, values, and beliefs held by members within the organization support work-family balance” (Thompson et al., 1999). Previous research suggests that the perceptions of employees of a family-friendly culture are important to minimize work-family conflict (Mesmer-Magnus & Viswesvaran, 2005;
Premeaux, Adkins, & Mossholder, 2007; Shockley & Allen, 2007) and may determine whether employees make use of the family-friendly policies and benefits available in their organization (Thompson et al., 1999). Moreover, some studies have suggested that a family-friendly working environment might be even more important than family-family-friendly policies and benefits, because these are often ineffective if the working climate does not support them (Allen, 2001; Anderson, Coffrey, & Byerly, 2002).
An important aspect of family-friendly work environments/cultures includes the perceived managerial support (Mesmer-Magnus & Viswesvaran, 2008). Previous research suggested that supervisor family-facilitative support is one of the most important factors that influence the work-family conflict of employees (Warren and Johnson, 1995). Most
importantly, supervisor facilitative support is critical to the effectiveness of family-friendly policies, because most of these policies are subject to the discretion of supervisors (Flye, Agars, & Kottke, 2003). In order to make managers’ behaviour and attitudes more family responsive, they should be provided with training on how to behave and think in a family-supportive way. The training may include providing managers with information about family-friendly measures and behavior, and about the beneficial effects of a family-friendly environment in addition to family-friendly policies (Mauno et al., 2006).
Limitations
The present study contains a few limitations that must be addressed. The first limitation is concerned with the fact that data were gathered at one point in time. Therefore, it is not possible to determine whether the level of work-family conflict can explain changes in the level of job satisfaction over time. Due to the fact that job satisfaction is a sufficiently stable attitude, the effect of work-family conflict on job satisfaction needs to be studied over a longer period of time to allow the change to happen.
the family life is more or less important. It is therefore possible for the results to differ for a more culturally diverse sample.
The third limitation is concerned with the fact that the current study is limited to the scope of the moderators and outcomes examined. Only the moderating role of co-worker support has been examined. As both instrumental and emotional co-worker support have not been found to significantly moderate the relationship between work-family conflict and job satisfaction, other possible moderators could be incorporated in future research. Moreover, the current study only examined the level of job satisfaction as a direct effect of work-family conflict. Future studies could incorporate more work-related outcomes of work-family conflict.
Future research
The present study suggests some interesting directions for future research. First, it is
recommended that future researchers perform a longitudinal study to examine the effects of work-family conflict on job satisfaction over time, thus measuring the same individuals over time to permit analysis of changes in the level of job satisfaction with increased levels of work-family conflict.
Secondly, only Dutch employees participated in this study. More research is needed to determine whether the effects in the present study can be generalized to other countries and cultures. Therefore, future researchers should investigate the relationships examined in this study by a more culturally diverse sample in different countries.
Fourthly, previous researchers already found that supervisor support significantly moderates the relationship between work-family conflict and job satisfaction, in such a way that this relationship becomes less negative as supervisor support increases (Hsu, 2011; Karatepe & Kilic, 2007). It is likely that supervisor support affects the level of co-worker support within workgroups as well, as supervisors have a great deal of influence on
workgroup culture and cohesion (Dupre & Day, 2007) and help set the norms for treatment of work-family conflict within the workgroup (Mesmer-Magnus & Glew, 2012). Future research is needed to investigate whether and how co-worker support and supervisor support
simultaneously operate to moderate the relationship between work-family conflict and job satisfaction.
Lastly, future research can focus on exploring the relationship of work-family conflict with other work-related outcomes, such as organizational commitment, job performance, and other related variables.
REFERENCES
Adams, G. A., King, L. A., & King, D. W. (1996). Relationships of job and family
involvement, family social support, and work-family conflict with job and life satisfaction.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 411–420.
Allen, T. D. (2001). Family-supportive work environments: The role of organization perceptions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 414-435.
Allen, T. D., Herst, D. E. L., Bruck, C.S. & Sutton, M. (2000). Consequences associated with work-to-family conflict: a review and agenda for future research. Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, 5(2), 278–308.
Amstad, F. T., Meier, L. L., Fasel, U., Elfering, A. & Semmer, N. K. (2011). A meta analysis of work–family conflict and various outcomes with a special emphasis on cross-domain versus matching-domain relations. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 16(2), 151– 169.
Anderson, S. E., Coffey, B. S., & Byerly, R. T. (2002). Formal organizational initiatives and informal workplace practices: Links to work-family conflict and job-related outcomes.
Journal of Management, 28, 787–810.
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
Psychology, 22(8), 727-740.
Ayree, S., Luk, V., Leung, A. & Lo, S. (1999). Role stressors, interrole conflict, and well-being: the moderating influence of spousal support and coping behaviors among employed parents in Hong Kong. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54(2), 259–278.
Becker, T. E. (2005). Potential Problems in the Statistical Control of Variables in
Organizational Research: A Qualitative Analysis With Recommendations. Organizational
Research Methods, 8:274.
Beehr, T. A., & Glazer, S. (2005). Organizational role stress. In J. Barling, E. K. Kelloway, & M. R. Frone (Eds.), Handbook of work stress, 7–34.
Beehr, T. A., Jex, S. M., Stacy, B. A., & Murray, M. A. (2000). Work stressors and coworker support as predictors of individual strain and job performance. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 21, 391–405.
Beutell, N. J. (2010). Work schedule, work schedule control and satisfaction in relation to work family conflict, work-family synergy, and domain satisfaction. Career Development
International, 15(5), 501-518.
Blau, G. (1981). An empirical investigation of job stress, service length and job strain.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 27, 279-302.
Boles, J. S. & Babin, B. J. (1996). On the front lines: stress, conflict, and the customer service provider. Journal of Business Research, 37(1), 41-50.
Bond, J. T., Galinsky, E., & Swanberg, J. E. (1998). The 1997 national study of the changing workplace. New York: Families and Work Institute.
Calvo-Salguero, A., Martinez-de-Lecea, J. M. S., & Carrasco-Gonzalez, A. M. (2011). Work-Family and Work-Family-Work Conflict: Does Intrinsic-Extrinsic Satisfaction Mediate the
Prediction of General Job Satisfaction? Journal of Psychology, 145(5), 435-461.
Cammann, C., Fischman, M., Jenkins, D., & Klesh, J. (1983). Assessing the attitudes and perceptions of organizational members. New York: Wiley.
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.
Carlson, D. S., & Perrewé, P. L. (1999). The Role of Social Support in the Stressor-Strain Relationship: An Examination of Work-Family Conflict. Journal of Management, 25(4), 513-540.
Chiaburu, D. S., & Harrison, D. A. (2008). Do Peers Make the Place? Conceptual Synthesis and Meta-Analysis of Coworker Effects on Perceptions, Attitudes, OCBs, and Performance.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(5), 1082-1103.
Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, Social Support, and the Buffering Hypothesis.
Psychological Bulletin, 98, 310-357.
Dolan, S. L., Ameringen, M. R., & Arsenault, A. (1992). Personality, social support and workers’ stress. Industrial Relations, 47, 125–139.
Dupre, K. E., & Day, A. L. (2007). The effects of supportive management and job quality on the turnover intentions and health of military personnel. Human Resource Management, 46, 185-201.
Ensher, E. A., Thomas, C., & Murphy, S. E. (2001). Comparison of traditional, step-ahead, and peer mentoring on protégés’ support, satisfaction, and perceptions of career success: A social exchange perspective. Journal of Business and Psychology, 15, 419-438.
Ensign, P. C. (1998). Interdependence, coordination, and structure in complex organizations: Implications for organizational design. Mid-Atlantic Journal of Business, 34, 5–22.
Ferris, G. R., & Mitchell, T. R. (1987). The components of social influence and their importance for human resources research. Research in personnel and human resources
Flye, L. B., Agars, M. D., & Kottke, J. L. (2003). Organizational approaches to work-family conflict: Testing an integrative model. Society for Industrial Organizational Psychology, Orlando, FL.
Ford, M. T., Heinen, B. A., & Langkamer, K. L. (2007). Work and family satisfaction and conflict: A meta-analysis of cross-domain relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 57– 80.
Frone, M. R. R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M. L. (1992). Antecedents and outcomes of work-family conflict: testing a model of the work-work-family interface. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(1), 723-729.
Frone, M. R., Yardley, J. K., & Markel, K. S. (1997). Developing and testing an integrative model of the work-family interface. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50, 145–167.
Frye, N. K., & Breaugh, J. A. (2004). Family-friendly policies, supervisor support, work-family conflict, work-family-work conflict, and satisfaction: a test of a conceptual model. Journal
of Business and Psychology, 19(2), 197-220.
Gao, Y., Shi, J., Niu, Q., & Wang, L. (2012). Work-Family Conflict and Job Satisfaction: Emotional Intelligence as a Moderator. Stress and Health, 42(2), 28-37.
Gilbert, L. A., Hallett, M., & Eldridge, N. S. (1994). Gender and dual-career families: Implications and applications for the career counseling of women. Career counseling for
women, Contemporary topics in vocational psychology, 135–164.
Grandey, A. A., Cordeiro, B.L. & Crouter, A. C. (2005). A longitudinal and multi-source test of the work-family conflict and job satisfaction relationship. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 78(3), 305-323.
Grandey, A. A., Cordeiro, B.L., & Michael, J. H. (2007). Work-family supportiveness organizational perceptions: Important for the well-being of male blue-collar hourly workers?
Grandey, A. A., & Cropanzano, R. (1999). The conservation of resource model applied to work–family conflict and strain. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 350–370.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles.
Academy of Management Review, 10, 76–88.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Parasuraman, S. (1986). A work-nonwork interactive perspective of stress and its consequences. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 8, 37–60.
Gutek, B., Searle, S., & Klepa, L. (1991). Rational versus gender role-explanations for work-family conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 560–568.
Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress.
American Psychologist, 44, 513–524.
Hobfoll, S. E. (1998). Stress, Culture and Community: The Psychology and Philosophy of Stress. New York: Plenum.
Hobfoll, S. E. (2002). Social and psychological resources and adaptation. Review of General
Psychology, 6, 307–324.
Hsu, Y. R. (2011). Work-family conflict and job satisfaction in stressful working
environments. The moderating roles of perceived supervisor support and internal locus of control. International Journal of Manpower, 32(2), 233-248.
Judge, T. A., Ilies, R. & Scott, B. A. (2006). Work-family conflict and emotions: effects at work and at home. Personnel Psychology, 59(4), 779-814.
Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E. & Patton, G. K. (2001). The job satisfaction-job performance relationship: a quantitative and qualitative review. Psychological Bulletin, 127(3), 376-407.
Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R., Snoek, J. D., & Rosenthal, R. A. (1964).
Organizational stress. New York, NY: Wiley.
Karatepe, O. M., & Kilic, H. (2007). Relationships of supervisor support and conflicts in the work-family interface with the selected job outcomes of frontline employees. Tourism
management, 28, 238-252.
Kinicki, A. J., McKee-Ryan, R. M., Schriesheim, C. A. & Carson, K. P. (2002). Assessing the construct validity of the job descriptive index: a review and meta-analysis. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 87(1), 14-32.
Kinnunen, U., Feldt, T., Mauno, S. & Rantanen, J. (2010). Interface between work and family: a longitudinal individual and crossover perspective. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 83(1), 119-137.
Kinnunen, U., Vermulst, A., Gerris, J. & Makikangas, A. (2003). Work-family conflict and its relations to well-being: the role of personality as a moderating factor. Personality and
Individual Differences, 35, 1669-1683.
Kopelman, R., Greenhaus, J., & Connolly, T. (1983). A model of work, family and interrole conflict: A construct validation study. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 32, 198–215.
Kossek, E. E., & Ozeki, C. (1998). Bridging the work–family policy and productivity gap: A literature review. Community Work and Family, 2, 7–32.
Ladd, D., & Henry, R. A. (2000). Helping coworkers and helping the organization: the role of support perceptions, exchange ideology, and conscientiousness. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 30, 2028–2049.
Lambert, E. G., Hogan, N. L., & Barton, S. M. (2002). The impact of work-family conflict on correctional staff job satisfaction: An exploratory study. American Journal of Criminal
Lapierre, L. M., & Allen, T. D. (2006). Work-supportive family, family-supportive supervision, use of organizational benefits, and problem-focused coping: Implications for work-family conflict and employee well-being. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11, 169–181.
Locke, E. A. (1984). Job satisfaction. Social Psychology and Organizational Behavior, New York: Wiley.
Mauno, S., Kinnunen, U., & Ruokolainen, M. (2006). Exploring work- and organization-based resources as moderators between work-family conflict, well-being, and job attitudes.
Applied Psychology, 20(3), 210-233.
Mesmer-Magnus, J., & Glew, D. J. (2012). Workplace Predictors of Family-Facilitative Coworker Support. Journal of Workplace Behavioral Health, 27, 289-310.
Mesmer-Magnus, J., & Viswesvaran, C. (2005). Convergence between measures of work-to-family and work-to-family-to-work conflict: A meta-analytic examination. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 67, 215-232.
Mesmer-Magnus, J., & Viswesvaran, C. (2008). The role of the coworker in reducing work-family conflict: A review and directions for future research. Pratiques Psychologiques, 15, 213-224.
Moore, J. E. (2000). Why is this happening? A causal attribution approach to work exhaustion consequences. Academy of Management Review, 5, 335–349.
Morgeson, F. P. & Humphrey, S. E. (2006). The Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ): Developing and validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the nature of work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1321-1339.
Netemeyer, R. G., Brashear-Alejandro, T. & Bole, J. S. (2004). A cross-national model of job related outcomes of work role and family role variables: a retail sales context. Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, 32(1), 49-60.
Ng, T. W. H., & Sorenson, K. L. (2008). Toward a Further Understanding of the
Relationships Between Perceptions of Support and Work Attitudes: A Meta-Analysis. Group
& Organization Management, 33(3), 243-268.
O’Driscoll, M. P., Brough, P. & Kalliath, T. J. (2004). Work/family conflict, psychological wellbeing, satisfaction and social support: a longitudinal study in New Zealand. Equality,
Diversity, and Inclusion: An International Journal, 23(1), 36-56.
Parasuraman, S., Greenhaus, J. H., & Granrose, C. S. (1992). Role stressors, social support, and well-being among two-career couples. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 339– 356.
Parasuraman, S., Purohit, Y. S., Godshalk, V. M., & Beutell, N. J. (1996). Work and family variables, entrepreneurial career success, and psychological well-being. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 48, 275–300.
Parris, M. A. (2003). Work teams: Perceptions of a readymade support system? Employee
Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 15, 71–83.
Peeters, M. C. W., Buunk, B. P., & Schaufeli, W. B. (1995). Social interactions and feelings of inferiority among correctional officers: A daily event-recording approach. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 25, 1025-1089.
Premeaux, S. F., Adkins, C. L., Mossholder, K. W. (2007). Balancing work and family: A field study of multi-dimensional, multi-role work-family conflict. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 28, 705-727.
Settoon, R. P., & Mossholder, K. W. (2002). Relationship Quality and Relationship Context as Antecedents of Person- and Task-Focused Interpersonal Citizenship Behavior. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 87(2), 255-267.
Sharma, R. D., & Jyoti, J. (2009). Job satisfaction of university teachers: an empirical study.
Journal of Services Research, 9(2), 51-80.
Shockley, K. M., Allen, T. D. (2007). When flexibility helps: Another look at the availability of flexible work arrangements and work-family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 71, 479-493.
Spector, P. E. (1997). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes and consequences.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Thomas, L. T., & Ganster, C. D. (1995). Impact of family-supportive work variables on work-family conflict and strain: A control perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 6–15.
Thompson, C. A., Beauvais, L. L., & Lyness, K. S. (1999). When work-family benefits are not enough: The influence of work-family culture on benefit utilization, organizational attachment, and work-family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 392–415.
Thompson, C. A., & Blau, G. (1993). Moving beyond traditional predictors of job
involvement: exploring the impact of work-family conflict and overload. Journal of Social
Behavior and Personality, 8(4): 635–646.
Warren, J. A., & Johnson, P. J. (1995). The impact of workplace support on work-family role strain. Family Relations, 44, 163-169.
