Anticipated work-family conflict: effects of gender, self-efficacy, and family background.

Anticipated levels of 2 types of work-family conflict (WFC) were studied among 358 students from 2 universities. The study examined the contribution of gender, parental models of child care and housework, and self-efficacy to the variance in anticipated WFC. Findings demonstrated that the bidirectionality of the relations between work and family life also exists in anticipated conflicts. A number of gender-related differences emerged: Women anticipated higher levels of work interfering with family and family interfering with work and demonstrated lower efficacy in managing these conflicts than did men. Exposure to an egalitarian child care model correlated with lower anticipated levels of work interfering with family. Self-efficacy correlated negatively with both types of conflict. Implications for further research and career programs are discussed.

**********

Work and family play a major role in the lives of many Western adults who divide their time and energy between these two demanding spheres (Greenhaus & Powell, 2003). The plans of adolescents and young adults also manifest anticipated active participation in both work and family roles (Kerpelman & Schvaneveldt, 1999; Kulik, 1998; Peake & Harris, 2002). The 10 years after college graduation generally is the time for launching a career and building a dual-career family (Arnett, 2004; Barnett, Garies, James, & Steele, 2003). As a result, addressing work-family issues as part of students' career programs may potentially facilitate young adults' formulation of realistic future plans that combine dual roles (Barnett et al., 2003; Cinamon & Rich, 2004).

One common stress-related result of this role combination is the work-family conflict (WFC), which is a form of interrole conflict in which the pressures from work and family roles are incompatible (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). Cumulative empirical evidence points to the destructive behavioral and emotional effects of WFC on both the work and the family domains (for a review, see Frone, 2003). These negative effects may cause students to reduce their professional aspirations in favor of the family, or vice versa, in order to avoid the consequences of WFC (Cinamon & Rich, 2004; Kerpelman & Schvaneveldt, 1999).

Given the crucial role that expectations play in human behavior (Carvajal, Evans, Nash, & Getz, 2002), the study of students' anticipation of the possible appearance of WFC and the variables influencing these anticipations may be of theoretical and practical value. Such research may enhance understanding of the development of career and family plans and aspirations and may promote timely career interventions to minimize the harmful effects of WFC on the realization of family and career goals. Little research has, however, systematically examined young adults' expectations regarding the prevalence and type of WFC they might encounter (Barnett et al., 2003; Conlon, 2002).

Two Types of Conflict

Research (Frone, Yardley, & Markel, 1997) has shown two types of WFC among adult members of the work force, each type with its own unique domain-specific antecedents: work interfering with family and family interfering with work. The specific antecedents of the family-interfering-with-work conflict lie in the family domain and include stressors such as low levels of spousal support, the number of weekly hours devoted to family activities (Grzywacz & Marks, 2000), and the number and ages of children (Lewis & Cooper, 1998). The domain-specific antecedents of the work-interfering-with-family conflict lie in the work domain and include stressors such as the number of weekly hours devoted to work, flexibility of working hours, and work-role conflict (Barnas & Major, 2000; Carlson & Kacmar, 2000). Research has consistently demonstrated that work-interfering-with-family conflict surpasses family-interfering-with-work conflict among working adults with families (Frone, 2003). Thus, work usually has a more deleterious impact on family life than vice versa.

Some evidence suggests that young adults possess some degree of awareness regarding the influence of some of these variables on their ability to fulfill their career and family plans. For example, in comparison with young women planning traditional careers, their peers who were planning nontraditional, demanding careers reported plans to have fewer children (Baber & Mongham, 1988), held more feminist attitudes, and planned to share more of the household obligations with their husbands (Hallett & Gilbert, 1997). College seniors who expected to delay formation of a family reported lower career-marriage conflict in terms of expected global ability to manage career and relationship commitments (Barnett et al., 2003). Graduating senior medical students who expressed the wish for more family time reported that they limited their working hours by opting for medical specialties with regular work hours, such as family medicine (Lundgren & Barnett, 2000).

The few studies that previously focused on anticipated conflict (Barnett et al., 2003; Livingston, 1996) measured global perceptions of future conflict without considering its bidirectional aspects. The study of such bidirectional interferences from work to family and from family to work characterizes recent WFC research among adult employees (see Frone, 2003). The present study thus investigated whether the anticipated WFC of young adult students would resemble working parents' multidimensional evaluations of WFC.

Gender Differences and WFC

Gender differences in work and family experiences have consistently emerged in work-family research (Lewis & Cooper, 1999). Many women in the West continue to be socialized into believing that being a wife and raising a family should be their paramount priorities and that financial independence and career advancement are secondary (Pines, 1989). Even women who have demanding careers invest more hours in home activities than do their male colleagues (Cinamon & Rich, 2002a; Izraeli, 1994).

On the basis of Greenhaus and Beutell's (1985) argument about the importance of role salience to the WFC, many scholars have hypothesized that women experience more WFC than men because of their typically greater responsibilities in the home and their assigning more importance to family roles. However, most recent research has indicated that men and women do not differ in their level of WFC (for a review, see Frone, 2003).

This lack of differences in WFC raises questions about gender differences in young adults' anticipated WFC. The period of emerging adulthood (ages 18-27 years) in Western societies generally offers a unique combination of more choices and fewer commitments relative to any other period during adulthood (Arnett, 2000). Therefore, emerging adults tend to engage in more active and extensive exploration of gender roles and expectations than do older adults. In the current study, I investigated gender differences in anticipated WFC among young adults and predicted that young women would anticipate higher levels of both types of WFC than would young men. This hypothesis derives from empirical studies of college seniors, which have indicated that more female than male students reported a lower ability to make firm career plans due to future family aspirations (Almquist & Angrist, 1993; Arnold, 1993; Novack & Novack, 1996).

Parental Sharing of Family Responsibilities and WFC

The family makes up the initial and major sphere for learning and becoming socialized for future work and family roles. Social-role theory (Eagly, 1987) suggests that the task of combining work and family may be less anxiety provoking for those who grow up in dual-career families. Indeed, Stephan and Corder (1985) found that adolescents from dual-career families were more likely to aspire to dual-career families themselves than were adolescents from traditional one-career families. Correspondingly, college seniors whose mothers had worked outside the home during the students' childhood expressed less concern about future conflicts between career and marriage than did college seniors with at-home mothers (Barnett et al., 2003).

Given the frequency of dual-career families in many Western societies (Hayghe, 1990), simple exposure to two working parents may not sufficiently explain variances in young adults' anticipated WFC. The fact that family-interfering-with-work conflict declines when spousal support increases (Grzywacz & Marks, 2000) suggests that the parents' extent of egalitarianism with regard to household responsibilities may constitute an important explicatory variable. The present study assessed the contribution of parents' sharing of family responsibilities to students' anticipated WFC, predicting that young adults who had been exposed to an egalitarian model of responsibility for the home and children would demonstrate lower levels of WFC compared with students who had been exposed to a less egalitarian model.

Self-Efficacy and WFC

Recently, Frone (2003) called for the examination of personality dispositions as antecedents of WFC. Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT; Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 1994) pinpointed self-efficacy as an important personal variable for understanding career development. Self-efficacy is a belief in one's ability to perform specific tasks. Such a belief helps determine individuals' willingness to initiate specific behaviors, as well as their persistence and emotional reactions when confronting barriers and conflicts (Bandura, 1986).

When extending SCCT (Lent et al., 1994) to the present context, self-efficacy may be expected to play an important role in career development. Research has indicated that academic self-efficacy emerged as a strong predictor of academic achievement and perseverance (Hackett, Betz, Casas, & Rocha-Singh, 1992). Adolescents' high self-efficacy in a specific occupation was found to correlate positively with their willingness to choose that occupation (Tang, Fouad, & Smith, 1999) and with their high career aspirations for that occupation (Nauta, Epperson, & Kahn, 1998). Low efficacy in certain occupations may contribute to individuals' premature elimination of those possible career options (Betz & Hackett, 1981). Likewise, parental self-efficacy correlated positively with good adaptation to the parental role (Ardelt & Eccles, 2001), and marital self-efficacy emerged as a predictor of marital satisfaction (Fincham, Harold, & Gano-Phillips, 2000). Accordingly, self-efficacy may be expected to play an important role in determining self-efficacy in one's ability to manage anticipated WFC. In the present study, I predicted a negative correlation between these two variables: Higher efficacy to manage WFC would be associated with lower expected conflict.

SCCT also implies that gender-based socialization experiences influence self-efficacy beliefs, which, in turn, affect people's career-related decisions (e.g., higher self-efficacy leads to less conflict and stress). In light of the socialization of girls and women in Western societies to pursue a career and invest in the family simultaneously, the current study also examined gender differences in the efficacy of managing WFC. I predicted that, as a result of dual messages women receive and the acute responsibility and heavy demands stemming from these messages, women would demonstrate lower levels of efficacy in managing both types of conflict.

In sum, the goals of the current study were (a) to investigate whether the multidimensional conceptualization of WFC that exists for adults would manifest itself in young adults' anticipated WFC and whether young adults would resemble working adults with families in anticipating higher levels of work-interfering-with-family conflict than family-interfering-with-work conflict; (b) to assess gender differences in levels of anticipated WFC, expecting female students to anticipate higher levels of both types of conflict compared with male students; (c) to study the contribution of exposure to egalitarian models to anticipated WFC, predicting that participants who were exposed to egalitarian models would anticipate lower levels of WFC; and (d) to examine the relations between self-efficacy and anticipated WFC, predicting negative correlations between them and lower levels of efficacy among women.

Method

Participants

Data were collected from 358 unmarried students (145 men, 213 women) without children who attended two universities in central Israel. Ages ranged from 19 to 28 years (M = 26.5, SD = 2.30 years), and the sample consisted of 82% Jews, 9% Moslems, and 9% Christians. Of the participants, 85% were born in Israel, 6% were born in Europe, and 9% were born in the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Participants attended either the Faculty of the Humanities (60%) or the Faculty of Sciences (40%). The majority of the participants (n = 341) were studying for their baccalaureate degree; 17 were studying for their master's degree. Distribution according to year of study was 23% in the 1st year, 31% in the 2nd, and 46% in the 3rd or 4th year. The sample was divided evenly according to residence: 50% lived with their parents and 50% lived away from home. As typical for Israeli students, 60% worked in student jobs or work-study positions for a significant number of hours in addition to their academic studies (M = 19.14 hours per week, SD = 7.40), and 40% did not work at all. No significant differences emerged on any of the study variables between those who worked and those who did not. All participants grew up in families in which both mother and father worked.

No significant differences emerged between students from the two universities regarding the above variables, nor did significant differences emerge between students from the two faculties regarding the above variables, with one exception: Whereas 66% of the students from the Faculty of Humanities held student jobs, only 54% of the students in the Faculty of Science worked during their studies, [chi square](1) = 5.40, p < .05, [mu] = .12.

Instruments

Demographic questionnaire. Data were collected on gender, age, religion, marital status, number of children, degree and year of study, employment status and type (a student job versus career-oriented position), residential status, and parents' occupational status during late childhood and adolescence.

Anticipated WFC. Cinamon and Rich's (2002b) adaptation to Hebrew of Gutek, Searles, and Klepa's (1991) Work-Family Conflict Questionnaire was converted into future tense to measure participants' anticipated work-interfering-with-family and family-interfering-with-work conflict. The introduction of the questionnaire encouraged participants to consider the relations between work and family after they had established a family, become parents, and begun to work in their chosen occupation. Participants were asked to rate their views regarding the possible relations between work and family using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5).

The tense-modified questionnaire consisted of 14 randomly presented items, 7 assessing anticipated work-interfering-with-family conflict (e.g., "My work will take up time that I will want to invest in my family"), and 7 assessing family-interfering-with-work conflict (e.g., "My family's demands and personal problems will interfere with my work"). The score for each subscale comprised the mean of its 7 items. Cronbach's alphas were .78 for the work-interfering-with-family conflict in the original scale and also in the current version and .81 for the family-interfering-with-work conflict in the original scale and .80 in the current version. The correlation between the two subscales demonstrated their relative independence: r = .53, p < .01.

Self-efficacy for the management of WFC. Eight items were developed for the purpose of this study. The items invited participants to rate their confidence in being able to handle future work and family conflicts along a 10-point scale ranging from not at all confident (0) to very confident (9). Four items assessed self-efficacy in one's ability to manage work-interfering-with-family conflict (e.g., "Succeeding in your family role although faced with many difficulties in your work"), and 4 items assessed self-efficacy in one's ability to manage family-interfering-with-work conflict (e.g., "Investing in your job even when under heavy pressure due to family responsibilities").

Development of the current 8-item measure began with the formulation of 14 items based on Cinamon and Rich's (2002b) Hebrew adaptation of Gutek et al.'s (1991) Work-Family Conflict Questionnaire. Two pilot studies, conducted for the sole purpose of developing the Cinamon and Rich (2002b) scale, eliminated 6 items from the original pool of 14. After the first pilot study (N = 220), 2 items with double loading on the two efficacy factors were excluded. After the second pilot study (N = 104), another 4 items were excluded to increase the differentiation between the subscales and to shorten the scale. Varimax factor analysis of the data from this second study revealed two distinct factors with the expected items. Table 1 presents principal component analysis with varimax rotation of 8 items. The correlation between the two final 4-item subscales was r = .50, p < .05. Cronbach's alphas for the final subscales were both .86.

Parental sharing of family responsibilities. This measure consisted of two items relating to parental models during the respondent's late childhood and adolescence: a question pertaining to parents' sharing of housework and a question pertaining to parents' sharing of child care. Participants could choose one of three responses: (a) Most of the work was done by my mother, (b) most of the work was done by my father, and (c) the work was divided equally between my parents. Inasmuch as none of the participants chose Response b ("most of the work was done by my father"), the two items on this scale represented two models: traditional and egalitarian.

Procedure

Participants on both campuses completed the questionnaires individually and voluntarily during their lesson breaks. There were no time limits, and no incentives were offered. They were approached by three research assistants who explained the purposes of the study and asked if they would be willing to invest 10 to 15 minutes in completing the questionnaires. Approximately 75% of the students who were approached consented to participate. Entry to the study required that students meet the criterion of 30 hours per week or less of work to eliminate the possibility that they had already begun to occupy adult work roles. Thus, 27 participants who worked more than 30 hours per week were excluded from the original pool of 385 who completed the questionnaires.

Results

The first goal of this study was to explore whether young adults differed in their anticipations of the two types of WFC and whether young adults also anticipated higher levels of work-interfering-with-family conflict than family-interfering-with-work conflict, as found in samples involving working adults. The Pearson correlation between the work-interfering-with-family and family-interfering-with-work dimensions of anticipated WFC was .53, p < .01, indicating that only 28% of the variance of one conflict was associated with the other. This finding suggests that the two types of conflict differ with regard to the examination of anticipated conflict. A paired-sample t test revealed that the difference between the two types of conflict was significant. In contrast with consistent prior research outcomes involving working adults, the university students demonstrated significantly higher levels of anticipated family-interfering-with-work conflict (M = 2.51, SD = .71) than anticipated work-interfering-with-family conflict (M = 2.43, SD = .73), t(356) = -2.40, p < .01.

To examine gender differences in levels of anticipated WFC (second study goal) and to investigate anticipations regarding WFC differences in relation to exposure to egalitarian and traditional models of child care and housework (the third goal of the study), I conducted multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVAs). Significant minor differences emerged for gender, F(2, 348) = 2.50, p < .05, [mu] = .014, and for child care sharing, F(2, 348) = 3.70, p < .05, [mu] = .023. No significant differences emerged in anticipated WFC between the two groups who reported different housework models among their parents. Table 2 presents means, standard deviations, and F values from MANOVAs for both types of conflict according to gender and to parents' models of sharing child care. As seen in Table 2, the female participants expected higher levels of both types of conflict than did the male participants, in line with the hypothesis.

As expected in the third hypothesis, participants exposed to an egalitarian model of sharing child care anticipated significantly lower levels of work-interfering-with-family conflict compared with those who were exposed to a traditional model.

The fourth hypothesis of this study predicted that a self-efficacious belief in one's ability to manage future WFC would correlate negatively with anticipated WFC. Indeed, negative correlations emerged for both types of conflict: between anticipated level of work-interfering-with-family conflict and self-efficacy in one's ability to manage that conflict (r = -.38, p < .001) and between anticipated level of family-interfering-with-work conflict and self-efficacy in one's ability to manage that conflict (r = -.33, p < .001).

A MANOVA revealed significant gender differences with regard to participants' self-efficacy, F(2, 354) = 4.71, p < .01, [[mu].sup.2] = .03. Univariate analyses for the subscales demonstrated significant gender differences only in the ability to manage family-interfering-with-work conflict, F(1, 354) = 6.30, p < .01, [[mu].sup.2] = .02. As expected, male participants reported significantly higher levels of self-efficacy in their ability to manage family-interfering-with-work conflict (M = 6.50, SD = 1.58) than did female participants (M = 6.00, SD = 1.52).

Linear regression analysis was conducted to examine the contribution of the three main variables of the study (gender, exposure to parental models of sharing family responsibilities, and self-efficacy in one's ability to manage WFC) to the explanation of the variance between the two types of conflict. The categorical variables of gender and parenting models in child care were changed to dummy variables and were entered in the first step. The internal self-efficacy variables were entered in the second step. Table 3 presents a linear regression analysis predicting anticipated work-interfering-with-family conflict, and Table 4 presents a linear regression analysis predicting anticipated family-interfering-with-work conflict.

The three main variables of the current study explained 17% of the variance in anticipating work-interfering-with-family conflict, with parental models of child care contributing 3% of the variance and self-efficacy in one's ability to manage this conflict contributing 14% of the variance. High levels of efficacy in the ability to manage work-interfering-with-family conflict correlated negatively with anticipated levels of this conflict.

The model of anticipating work-interfering-with-family conflict explained 12% of the variance; this was the only significant contribution of both types of self-efficacy. Higher efficacy in the ability to manage the work-interfering-with-family conflict and to manage the family-interfering-with-work conflict predicted the participants' anticipation of less family-interfering-with-work conflict.

Discussion

Many young adults in industrialized societies are spending the years between their late teens and late twenties (ages 18-28) in self-focused exploration as they experiment with different possibilities in their career and relationships (Arnett, 2000). The current study focused on young adults' anticipations regarding conflicts between the two major life roles: work and family. Such conflicts make up one of the most common outcomes of combining these two life roles (Frone, 2003). The present study extended the theoretical models and prior empirical studies on the bidirectional nature of relations between work and family among working adults with families to the examination of young adults who have not yet committed to adult work and family roles. Results demonstrated that university students, like previously studied adults, differentiated between the two types of conflict--family interfering with work and work interfering with family. The moderate correlation between these two types of conflict, and the fact that different variables predicted each conflict, indicated that the young adults' anticipated WFC reveals the same multidimensional structure that is shown by working adults' WFC.

Anticipated conflict is not a global variable. Barnett et al. (2003), in their recent and rare study on college seniors' concerns about career-marriage conflicts, assumed that bidirectional relations might not be clear to young adults as they anticipated their own ability to manage the demands of work and family; therefore, they measured global concern. The current study suggests that young adults do understand the multidimensional nature of role combination, thereby calling for a replication of Barnett et al.'s study while differentiating between the two directions of conflict. In addition, young adults' clear anticipation of diverse interferences between the domains underscores the need for further research into the unique outcomes of each anticipated conflict at this age, following customary modes of inquiry in research on WFC (Frone, 2003).

Contrary to the relation between the work-interfering-with-family and family-interfering-with-work conflicts among adult employees, young people reported expectations that their family life would interfere in their work life more than vice versa. This finding can be explained by the fact that often their own experiences as student workers have already provided young people with a preconception about the world of work. Most of the current participants (60%) worked an average of 19.4 hours per week while being enrolled in studies. In contrast, their lack of personal experience of parenthood has probably rendered it more difficult for them to imagine how they would handle the parenting role. This lack of parenting experience may have led them to anticipate interference from the family domain into the work domain, showing a need for counseling programs to help prepare these young people for possible difficulties arising from the family domain.

Findings demonstrated weak gender differences. Young women anticipated higher levels of both types of conflict and reported a lower self-efficacy in their ability to handle family-interfering-with-work conflict. Inasmuch as the eta-squared value was not high for either of these findings, there is a need for further research on gender issues. Although outcomes of prior research on gender differences in WFC among adult employees have been inconsistent, most recent studies have indicated that men and women do not differ in their level of WFC (for a review, see Frone, 2003). These findings emphasize the need for more exploration into within-gender differences. Within-gender variations may be as critical as between-gender differences in explaining anticipations of WFC. Gender identity does not exist separately from other identity issues; rather, it is part of a complex psychological and social process whereby men and women adopt varying degrees of traditionally masculine and feminine roles and responsibilities (Anderson & Leslie, 1991). Thus, individual variations within gender can provide valuable information beyond the mere knowledge of gender, thereby explaining differences among persons regarding WFC (Cinamon & Rich, 2002a).

The influence of parental provisions for sharing family responsibilities is especially intriguing and coincides with a large body of literature (Barnett et al., 2003; Kerpelman & Schvaneveldt, 1999). The fact that only models of sharing child care influenced levels of anticipated work-interfering-with-family conflict, whereas parents' models of sharing housework showed no influence, may be explained by the fact that all the participants came from dual-career or dual-earner families who could afford to hire household help.

The current study's findings may contribute to designing career programs aimed at helping young adults merge work and family roles. Higher levels of family-interfering-with-work conflict and low efficacy in one's ability to manage that conflict highlight the need to prepare young people to reduce this type of conflict and to increase their self-efficacy. A proactive approach to career interventions, focusing on how to handle future conflict (for a review, see Cinamon & Rich, 2004), can be very useful. The participants' awareness of both types of conflict accentuates the importance of exploring, together with young adults themselves, the antecedents of these conflicts in the work and the family domains. Clients can be helped to consider children's ages, the number of children, and the flexibility of working hours when planning their career and family. The impact of self-efficacy on anticipated WFC implies that counseling programs should aim at increasing young adults' self-efficacy in their ability to combine these roles. Special attention should be given to women, particularly those exposed to traditional parental models of sharing child care. Self-efficacy can be enhanced via Bandura's (1986) sources of efficacy: past experiences in managing other roles (such as being a student, a sibling, a volunteer in the community) and exposure to other role models who combine these roles effectively.

The present outcomes must be accompanied by a word of caution related to this study's sample and methodology. First, the young adult participants were all Israelis, and most were Jewish. All Israeli Jewish teenagers serve 2 to 3 years of mandatory military service, enlisting at age 18. Therefore, the average age of Israeli Jewish university students is higher than in other Western countries. Furthermore, familism, defined as family being central to the life of the individual and society, is a major characteristic of Israeli society (Fogiel-Bijaui, 1999). This familism manifests itself, for example, in lower divorce rates and lower mobility of Israelis away from their nuclear families than in other Western countries. Therefore, the Israeli young adults in the present study may differ in their basic philosophy of family and work life compared with societies, such as the United States, that have been predominantly studied in previous research.

With regard to methodological issues, as in many previous studies on WFC, all measures in this study were based on self-report. Parents were not asked to evaluate the egalitarianism of their housework and child-rearing responsibilities. Information gathered from parents might increase the reliability of the findings.

References

Almquist, E. M., & Angrist, S. S. (1993). Families, careers, and contingencies. In K. Hulbert & D. Schuster (Eds.), Women's lives through time: Educated women of the twentieth century (pp. 145-167). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Anderson, E. A., & Leslie, L. A. (1991). Coping with employment and family stress: Employment arrangement and gender differences. Sex Roles, 24, 223-231.

Ardelt, M., & Eccles, J. S. (2001). Effects of mothers' parental efficacy beliefs and promotive parenting strategies on inner-city youth. Journal of Family Issues, 22, 944-972.

Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55, 469-480.

Arnett, J. J. (2004). Emerging adulthood: The winding road from the late teens through the twenties. New York: Oxford University Press.

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

Baber, K. M., & Mongham, P. (1988). College women's career and motherhood expectations: New options, old dilemmas. Sex Roles, 19, 189-203.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Barnas, K. H., & Major, D. A. (2000). Contributors to stress resistance: Testing a model of women's work-family conflict. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 24, 170-178.

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

Betz, N. E., & Hackett, G. (1981). The relationship of career-related self-efficacy expectations to perceived career options in college women and men. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 28, 399-410.

Carlson, D. S., & Kacmar, K. M. (2000). Work-family conflict in the organization: Do life roles values make a difference? Journal of Management, 26, 1031-1054.

Carvajal, S. C., Evans, R. I., Nash, S. G., & Getz, J. G. (2002). Global positive expectation of the self and adolescents' substance use avoidance: Testing a social influence mediation model. Journal of Personality, 70, 421-442.

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

Cinamon, R. G., & Rich, Y. (2002b). Profiles of attribution of importance to life roles: Implications for the work-family conflict. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 49, 212-220.

Cinamon, R. G., & Rich, Y. (2004). A model counseling intervention program to prepare adolescents for coping with work-family conflict. In E. Frydenberg (Ed.), Thriving, surviving, or going under: Coping with everyday lives (pp. 227-254). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publication.

Conlon, A. L. (2002). Anticipated work-family conflict and life style expectations of female and male undergraduate and graduate students. Dissertation Abstracts, 63(6), 2144A.

Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Fincham, F. D., Harold, G. T., & Gano-Phillips, S. (2000). The longitudinal association between attributions and marital satisfaction: Direction of effects and role of efficacy expectations. Journal of Family Psychology, 14, 267-285.

Fogiel-Bijaui, S. (1999). Families in Israel. In D. N. Izraeli, A. Friedman, H. Dahan-Kalev, S. Fogiel-Bijaui, H. Herzog, M. Hasan, et al. (Eds.), Sex gender politics: Women in Israel. Tel Aviv, Israel: Hakibbutz Hameuchad.

Frone, M. R. (2003). Work-family balance. In J. C. Quick & L. E. Tetrick (Eds.), Handbook of occupational health psychology (pp. 143-162). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

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.

Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Source of conflict between work and family roles. Academy Management Review, 10, 77-88.

Greenhaus, J. H., & Powell, G. N. (2003). When work and family collide: Deciding between competing role demands. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 90, 291-303.

Grzywacz, J. G., & Marks, N. F. (2000). Family, work, work-family spillover, and problem-drinking during midlife. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 336-348.

Gutek, B. A., Searles, S., & Klepa, L. (1991). Rational versus gender role expectations for work family conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 566-568.

Hackett, G., Betz, N. E., Casas, J. M., & Rocha-Singh, I. A. (1992). Gender, ethnicity, and social cognitive factors predicting the academic achievement of students in engineering. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 39, 527-538.

Hallett, M. B., & Gilbert, L. A. (1997). Variables differentiating university women considering role-sharing and conventional dual-career marriage. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50, 308-322.

Hayghe, H. V. (1990, March). Family members in the work force. Monthly Labor Review, 14-19.

Izraeli, D. N. (1994). Money matters: Spousal income and family/work relations among physician couples in Israel. The Sociological Quarterly, 35, 69-84.

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

Kulik, L. (1998). Inter- and intra-gender differences in life orientations and work attitudes in Israel: A comparative analysis. International Journal for the Advancement of Counseling, 20, 95-111.

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

Lewis, S. N., & Cooper, C. L. (1998). Stress in dual earner families. In B. A. Gutek, A. Stomberg, & L. Larwood (Eds.), Women and work (Vol. 3, pp. 139-168). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Lewis, S. N., & Cooper, C. L. (1999). The work-family research agenda in changing context. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 4, 382-393.

Livingston, M. (1996). The importance of being feminine: Gender, sex role, occupational and marital role commitment, and their relationship to anticipated work-family conflict. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 11, 179-193.

Lundgren, L., & Barnett, R. C. (2000). Reduced-hours careers in medicine: A strategy for the professional, community and family. Community, Work and Family, 3, 65-79.

Nauta, M. M., Epperson, D. L., & Kahn, J. H. (1998). A multiple-group analysis of predictors of higher level career aspirations among women in mathematics, science, and engineering majors. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 45, 483-496.

Novack, L. L., & Novack, D. R. (1996). Being female in the eighties and nineties: Conflicts between new opportunities and traditional expectations among White, middle-class, heterosexual college women. Sex Roles, 35, 57-78.

Peake, A., & Harris, K. L. (2002). Young adults' attitudes toward multiple role planning: The influence of gender, career traditionality, and marriage plans. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 60, 405-421.

Pines, A. M. (1989). The juggler working women. Tel Aviv, Israel: Am Oved.

Stephan, C. W., & Corder, J. (1985). The effects of dual-career families on adolescents' sex-role attitudes, work and family plans, and choices of important others. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 47, 921-929.

Tang, M., Fouad, N. A., & Smith, P. L. (1999). Asian Americans' career choices: A path model to examine factors influencing their career choices. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 142-157.

Rachel Gali Cinamon, Constantiner School of Education, Tel Aviv University, Israel. The author thanks Dee B. Ankonina for her editorial contribution. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Rachel Gali Cinamon, Constantiner School of Education, Tel Aviv University, Ramat Aviv 69978, Israel (e-mail: [e-mail]).

TABLE 1 Principal Component Analysis of Self-Efficacy for Work-Family
Conflict Management Scale: Varimax With Kaiser Normalization

                                                   Factor
                                    Self-Efficacy to   Self-Efficacy to
                                    Manage             Manage
                                    W [right arrow] F  F [right arrow] W
Item                                Conflict           Conflict

1. Attend to your family            .70                .13
   obligations without it
   affecting your ability to
   complete pressing tasks at
   work.
2. Fulfill all your work            .12                .78
   responsibilities despite going
   through having a trying and
   demanding period in your family
   life.
3. Fulfill your family role         .82                .26
   effectively after a long and
   demanding day at work.
4. Invest in your job even when     .28                .80
   under heavy pressure due to
   family responsibilities.
5. Succeed in your family role      .89                .24
   although there are many
   difficulties in your work.
6. Succeed in your role at work     .30                .83
   although there are many
   difficulties in your family.
7. Invest in your family role even  .84                .26
   when under heavy pressure due
   to work responsibilities.
8. Focus and invest in work tasks   .20                .86
   even though family issues are
   disruptive.

Note. W [right arrow] F Conflict = work-interfering-with-family
conflict; F [right arrow] W Conflict = family-interfering-with-work
conflict.

TABLE 2 Means, Standard Deviations, and F Values of Two Types of
Anticipated Conflict According to Gender and Parental Sharing of Child
Care

Source and Dependent Variable   M     SD    F (2, 376)  [[mu].sup.2]

Gender
Work-interfering-with-family                3.99*       .01
  (W [right arrow] F) conflict
    Men                         2.26  0.07
    Women                       2.45  0.06
Family-interfering-with-work                3.97*       .01
  (F [right arrow] W) conflict
    Men                         2.38  0.07
    Women                       2.57  0.05

Sharing Child Care
Work-interfering-with-family                7.16**      .02
  (W [right arrow] F) conflict
    Egalitarian                 2.23  0.07
    Traditional                 2.48  0.06
Family-interfering-with-work                1.36        .00
  (F [right arrow] W) conflict
    Egalitarian                 2.42  0.07
    Traditional                 2.53  0.06

*p [less than or equal to].05. **p [less than or equal to] .01.

TABLE 3 Linear Regression Predicting W [right arrow] F Conflict
(N = 358)

Variable                                         B     SE B  [beta]

Step 1
  Gender                                          .09  .08    .07
  Child-care-sharing model                        .25  .08    .16**
Step 2
  Gender                                          .10  .07    .07
  Child-care-sharing model                        .22  .07    .14**
  Efficacy to manage W [right arrow] F conflict  -.17  .03   -.36**
  Efficacy to manage F [right arrow] W conflict  -.00  .03   -.01

Note. W [right arrow] F Conflict = work-interfering-with-family
conflict; F [right arrow] W Conflict = family-interfering-with-work
conflict. [R.sup.2] = .03 for Step 1 and S[R.sup.2] = .14 for Step 2.
**p < .01.

TABLE 4 Linear Regression Predicting Anticipated F [right arrow] W
Conflict (N = 358)

Variable                                         B     SE B  [beta]

Step 1
  Gender                                          .09  .07    .07
  Child-care-sharing model                        .09  .08    .06
Step 2
  Gender                                          .05  .07    .03
  Child-care-sharing model                        .07  .07    .05
  Efficacy to manage W [right arrow] F conflict  -.06  .03   -.12*
  Efficacy to manage F [right arrow] W conflict  -.13  .03   -.27**

Note. W [right arrow] F Conflict = work-interfering-with-family
conflict; F [right arrow] W Conflict = family-interfering-with-work
conflict. [R.sup.2] = .00 for Step 1 and S[R.sup.2] = .12 for Step 2.
*p < .05. **p < .01.