Sophie Crossfield, Gail Kinman & Fiona Jones

Transcription

1 Sophie Crossfield, Gail Kinman & Fiona Jones CROSSOVER OF OCCUPATIONAL STRESS IN DUAL-CAREER COUPLES The role of work demands and supports, job commitment and marital communication This study considers the source, nature and direction of crossover of occupational stressors and strains in a sample of 74 dual-career couples. It examines patterns and habits of discussion about work between partners and investigates the role of partner communication and job commitment in the crossover process. Contrary to previous research findings which suggest that the direction of crossover is predominantly from men to their female partners, positive relationships were found between women s work stressors and the anxiety and depression reported by their male partners. Only modest evidence of crossover from men to women was found. Work demands were linked to the crossover process for both men and women but, unlike the findings of previous studies, supportive features of the working environment failed to predict crossover between partners. The nature and frequency of marital communication about work was associated with crossover, as was job commitment and satisfaction. The implications of these findings for the psychological health and functioning of dual-career couples are discussed, and recommendations for future research that might further elucidate the crossover process are made. Keywords work stress; dual-career couples; crossover Cette étude porte sur l origine, la nature et la direction de l influence réciproque des sources de stress et des tensions liées au travail dans un échantillon de 74 couples à double carrière. Elle examine les modèles et les habitudes de discussion à propos du travail entre partenaires et enquête sur le rôle que peuvent avoir la communication entre les époux et le dévouement au travail dans le processus d influence réciproque. Au contraire de précédents résultats qui suggèrent que la direction de l influence est en général de l homme sur sa partenaire, cette étude met en évidence une relation positive entre le stress professionnel de la femme et l anxiété et la dépression rapportées par leur partenaire masculin. En comparaison l influence de l homme sur la femme est modeste. Les exigences du travail comptent pour beaucoup dans l interaction entre partenaires aussi bien pour les hommes que pour les femmes mais, contrairement aux résultats de précédentes études, l environnement professionnel ne semble pas jouer de rôle dans l interaction entre les époux. La nature et la fréquence de la communication entre les époux ainsi que le dévouement et la satisfaction au travail sont associés à l interaction entre les partenaires. Les implications de ces résultats pour la santé psychologique et le bon fonctionnement de Community, Work and Family Vol. 8, No. 2, May 2005, pp. 211/232 ISSN print/issn online 2005 Taylor & Francis Group Ltd DOI: /

2 212 COMMUNITY, WORK & FAMILY couples à double carrière sont discutées et des recommandations concernant les recherches futures permettant de progresser davantage dans la compréhension de l influence réciproque du stress professionnel entre époux sont avancées. Mots-cléfs le stress professionel; couples a double carriere; l influnce reciproque des source de stress Introduction Over recent decades, a body of research has accumulated to indicate that job stressors can have a negative impact on health. Several studies have reported that work stress may be linked to reduced levels of psychological well-being, not only for the individual worker, but also for his or her life partner. Various terms have been utilized to describe this phenomenon: negative spillover; carryover; contagion of stress; stress transmission; and stress transference (e.g. Bolger, DeLongis, Kessler, & Wethington, 1989; Jones & Fletcher, 1993; Piotrkowski, 1979; Westman & Etzion, 1995). In recent years, the term crossover has become more commonly used (Westman, 2002). Early studies of stress crossover focused on the relationship between the demands of a male worker s job and the resulting psychological strain for his wife or cohabiting partner. Jackson and Maslach (1982) investigated crossover of stress from police officers to their wives, and found that officers with high levels of stress were more likely to display anger, spend time away from home and be less involved in family life. Their wives demonstrated a corresponding increase in distress and dissatisfaction with their marital relationships. Similarly, Burke, Weir, and DuWors (1980) found that wives of correctional facility administrators reported less marital and life satisfaction and more psychosomatic problems and negative feelings when their husbands experienced greater occupational demands. Long and Voges (1987) also indicated that demands of prison officers jobs, in particular the violent nature of the work, adversely affected their wives psychological well-being. Although such research has established a link between an established a link between the occupational stressors and strains and the well-being of his partner, they provided little insight into the processes of crossover. A review of the literature does however highlight some potential mechanisms. It has been suggested that there is a direct crossover of stress from one partner to another, with the strain of one partner producing an empathetic reaction in the other as a result of the intimate nature of their relationship (e.g. Pavett, 1986; Riley & Eckenrode, 1986). Thus, one partner comes to share the feelings of the other, and to experience strains as if they were his or her own. Westman and Vinokur (1998) also propose a direct mechanism where the relationship between one partner s stressors and the other partner s strains may be attributable to common stressors experienced in a shared environment (such as financial difficulties) and negative life events (such as redundancy). Other researchers have suggested that crossover is a more indirect process, with variables such as social support and communication characteristics mediating the relationship between the one partner s stressors and the other partner s strains (Jones

3 CROSSOVER IN DUAL-CAREER COUPLES 213 & Fletcher, 1993; Riley & Eckenrode, 1986). Although the research is limited, there is evidence that work commitment and involvement could also be implicated in the process of crossover (Hammer, Allen, & Grigsby, 1997). Social support has also been proposed as a central feature in crossover research. Westman (2001) indicates that research focuses almost exclusively on the recipient of social support, and has overlooked the impact on the provider. As personal resources are finite, she suggests that providing support to another might play an important part in the mechanisms of crossover */ especially if the donor is also experiencing pressure. The role of social support in the crossover process is also highlighted by Jones and Fletcher (1993), who found that the women in their sample perceived more sources of support amongst work colleagues, family and friends than the male respondents. It could be argued that the crossover of stress from men to women reported above is a result of men leaning heavily (and perhaps exclusively) on their life partner for emotional support, and off-loading stress */ to the detriment of the female partner s mental health. In Jones and Fletcher s study, the greatest evidence of crossover from men to women was found in a sub-group of men who perceived themselves to be in demanding jobs which provided limited organizational support. The process of communication is likely to be crucial both to social support and crossover of work stressors. Whilst little research has examined communication in relation to crossover, there is evidence that talking to partners about work is commonplace for both men and women (Campbell Clark, 2002; Jones & Fletcher, 1993) and the nature of the communication predicts both negative and positive outcomes. Campbell Clark (2002), for example, indicated that the degree to which partners were perceived to listen and understand were key factors in predicting positive outcomes of marital discussions. Furthermore, Westman and Vinokur (1998) have highlighted the role of negative social interaction (in the form of perceived undermining ) between partners in crossover process. Jones and Fletcher (1996) observed that women s moods were related to their perception of their partners communication patterns. Such findings suggest that more intensive study of the patterns, habits and styles of communication about work between life partners may further illuminate the process of stress crossover. One limitation of the early research into crossover is that studies tended to utilize samples from homogenous and male-dominated professions, for example: police officers; military personnel; prison officers and air traffic controllers (Beehr, Johnson, & Nieva, 1995; Burke et al., 1980; Jackson & Maslach, 1982; Long & Voges, 1987; Morrison & Clements, 1997; Repetti, 1989; Westman & Etzion, 1995). It could be argued that these are atypical occupations, being associated with specific types of stressors and strains for the worker. Furthermore, the majority of studies that investigate crossover are uni-directional in nature and have placed a strong focus on the male partner as the primary worker and transmitter of stress within the couple (e.g. Morrison & Clements, 1997; Rook, Dooley, & Catalano, 1991). In a recent review of crossover research by Westman (2002) only eight out of the 25 studies reviewed examined crossover of stress or strain by obtaining data from both spouses. Although some studies have found evidence for bi-directional crossover (e.g. Chan & Margolin, 1994; Westman & Etzion, 1995; Westman & Vinokur, 1998), stronger

4 214 COMMUNITY, WORK & FAMILY relationships between the male partner s job stressors and the female partner s strains are predominantly observed (e.g. Jones & Fletcher, 1993; Westman, Etzion, & Danon, 2001). A potential explanation for such findings is a general inequity in partner work status amongst the samples. It is questionable whether findings based on couples where a high proportion of female partners were home-makers (or in parttime or comparatively undemanding jobs) can be readily generalized to couples where the female partner has a professional career and comparable status to her male partner. The crossover process should be further investigated in couples where male and female partners have working roles of equivalent status, where they are likely to experience workplace stressors that are similiar in nature and degree. A range of workplace demands have been implicated in the crossover process including low levels of control and role stressors (Parasuraman, Greenhaus, & Granrose, 1992; Westman & Etzion, 1995). Jones and Fletcher (1993) found that crossover was primarily related to lack of support and problematic interpersonal relationships at work. Their research was based on the Demands/Supports/ Constraints model (Payne, 1979), which combines a wide range of occupational features. This model predicts that strain will be the result of the balance of these three factors. In this context, demands encompass workload, responsibility, role conflict and organizational change. Supports are the range of resources in the environment that include social and practical supports and the degree of autonomy a person has over his or her working life. Constraints are factors that actively restrict or prevent the employee from meeting demands; they include poor relationships at work and lack of control. Constraints are typically operationalized using the same items as supports, but representing extreme lack of support. The present study utilizes this model in order to investigate the role of work stressors in the crossover process. Demands, supports and constraints have typically been related to context-free measures of anxiety and depression in previous research into crossover (e.g. Jones & Fletcher, 1993, 1996). However, Warr (1990) has highlighted the utility of context-specific measures of well-being related to the workplace in order to investigate relationships between stressors and strains. As opposed to assessing more global mood, the present study utilizes a context-specific measure, as clearer distinctions can be made between an individual s well-being related to his or her own work, and that related to a partner s work. Aims of this study The aims of the current study were twofold. Firstly, to investigate the nature and direction of stress crossover in a sample of dual-career couples. This will be accomplished by examining inter-relationships between each individual s demands, supports and constraints and his or her work-related psychological well-being, and well-being in relation to a partner s work. Secondly, the study aimed to examine the roles of job commitment and inter-personal communication in the crossover process. It not only investigates overt communication between partners (e.g. talking about and discussing work), but also attempts a preliminary analysis of behaviour through which work-related negative affect may be expressed in the home.

5 CROSSOVER IN DUAL-CAREER COUPLES 215 Method Participants Data was collected over a period of approximately 12 months, during 1999/2000. Participants were recruited via informal networks and through recruitment notices placed in various UK commercial organizations (mainly in the financial and IT sectors) in order to actively target couples who were both employed full-time and as far as possible of equal status. Questionnaires were circulated by mail to 150 married or cohabiting couples. Seventy-four couples returned completed questionnaires, representing a 49% response rate. Male partners ages ranged from 22 to 55 years, with a mean age of 36 years (SD/7.6). Female partners ages ranged from 21 to 60 years, with a mean age of 35 years (SD/6.9). Couples mean length of time together was 11 years (SD /7.6). The majority of participants described their work as either professional (54% of men, 55% of women) or managerial (30% of men, 27% of women). The remainder characterized their jobs as either non-manual/administrative or skilled manual. Analysis of the differential in job status between partners indicated that 53% of the sample consisted of equal status couples, 26% of couples had a higher status female partner, and the remaining 21% were couples with a higher status male partner. Twelve per cent of respondents described their work as the same as that of their partners, with eight per cent describing their jobs as very similar. Twenty-five per cent were broadly similar, 20% somewhat different and 35% very different. Seventy-three per cent of the men and 69% of the women were educated above secondary level (i.e. held undergraduate and/or postgraduate degrees, and/or professional qualifications). Forty-eight couples (65% of the sample) had no dependent children, whereas 12 (16%) had one child, 12 (16%) had two children and two (three per cent) had three children. For men, the mean length of time in their current jobs was seven years (SD/6.9), and for women, six years (SD/6.6). Procedure Each couple received two identical sets of questionnaires, marked male partner and female partner, together with an instruction sheet asking them to complete their questionnaires independently without consulting their partner. All questionnaires were anonymous, but number-coded in order to allow each couple s questionnaires to be matched. Measures Items measuring a range of job demands (20 items), supports/constraints (23 items) and satisfaction/commitment (five items) were adapted from Jones and Fletcher (1993). Separate principal components analyses with Varimax rotation were used to reduce the data in each of the above sections to form the following four scales (two scales representing job-related demands and two representing supports). 1. Workload demands. This scale comprised four items assessing workload, pace of work and time pressures, for example: In some jobs there is a great deal of pressure

6 216 COMMUNITY, WORK & FAMILY to get more and more work done. Please describe your situation, followed by a scale ranging from Extreme pressure (5) to No pressure (1). Higher scores represented higher perceived levels of workload demand (men, a /0.77; women, a /0.84). 2. Quality demands. Five items assessed the demands of maintaining standards (including personal standards and meeting the demands of others). For example: Some workers find it difficult to maintain the standards expected by their boss. Please describe your situation, followed by a response scale ranging from Extremely difficult (5) to Never difficult (1). Higher scores represented higher levels of quality demand (men, a/0.73; women, a /0.77). 3. Support from boss/supervisor. This scale consisted of three items that assessed perceptions of help and support from boss/supervisor and feedback about work. An example of the type of item included in this section is Some people get a great deal of help and support from their boss/supervisor. Please describe your situation, followed by a response scale ranging from Very supportive (5) to Never helps (1). Higher scores represented high levels of support (men, a /0.65; women, a /0.72). 4. Support from colleagues/co-workers. A six-item scale was constructed which assessed perceived support and cooperation from co-workers, degree of sociability and friendliness of colleagues, together with their perceived efficiency and competence. For example: Help and support can be forthcoming from co-workers. Please describe your situation, followed by a response scale ranging from Very supportive (5) to Never help (1). Higher scores represented higher levels of support (men, a /0.70; women, a/0.77). 5. Job commitment/satisfaction. Principal components analysis yielded one factor from the five items in this section. In order to increase the internal consistency, one item was omitted which left a four-item scale representing participants feelings about, and levels of commitment to, their current job situation. An example is thus: Some people are very happy with their job as a whole. Please describe your situation, followed by a response scale ranging from Fits very well (5) to Totally inappropriate (1). Higher scores represented higher levels of job commitment and satisfaction (men, a/0.78; women, a /0.86). 6. Communication about work. This section consisted of single items relating to the nature of couples discussions about work, and attitudes and perceptions relating to their own and their partners jobs. Individuals were asked to rate how often they discussed work with their partner on a five-point scale ranging from Every day to Never. Participants also estimated whether they more often discussed positive or negative events, or both types of event equally. A four-item index of perceived understanding and helpfulness of communication about work was also included. Two items assessed how well do you think your partner understands the issues you face at work? and how well do you understand the issues your partner faces at work? The response scale ranged from Completely (5) to Not at all (1). A further two items assessed how helpful individuals found it to discuss work with their partner and how helpful they thought that their partners found discussions with them. The response scale for these items ranged from Always helpful (5) to Never helpful (1) (men, a/0. 76; women, a/0.78).

7 CROSSOVER IN DUAL-CAREER COUPLES Congruence of couple s perceptions. Each participant was asked to rate which partner they felt: (a) had the most demanding job; (b) received most support in their job; (c) worried most about their job; and (d) gained the most satisfaction from their job. Possible responses were Myself, My partner or About equal. Couples were then coded from 1 to 4 based on their level of agreement on these items. 8. Topics of discussion. In order to assess whether particular topics of discussion might be linked to the crossover process, a sub-sample of 43 couples completed questionnaires containing a supplementary section that consisted of items designed to assess the nature of their discussions about work. This section comprised a list of nine topics adapted from Jones and Fletcher (1993) and individuals were asked to rank the four topics of discussion about work most commonly broached by themselves and their partner. Choices consisted of: (a) relationships at work (e.g. managers in general, your own boss, your colleagues or subordinates); (b) aspects of work (e.g. the nature of the work itself and the use made of personal capabilities); and (c) feelings about the job (e.g. the extent to which work impinges on home life, feelings about the organization, level of satisfaction with the job and career plans/prospects). 9. Communication behaviour. In order to investigate whether specific communication behaviours are linked to the crossover process, the remaining 31 couples received and completed a supplementary section. The items included were developed specifically for this study from a series of interviews with working couples which were conducted to obtain information about communication behaviour when either or both partners are experiencing stress at work. A list of common behaviours was presented and each participant was asked to rate: (a) how typical that behaviour was of them when feeling stressed; and (b) how typical that behaviour was of their partner when he or she was experiencing stress at work. Some examples of behaviours included were Getting irritable and bad-tempered ; Talking about it a lot ; and Going quiet and talking less. Items were rated on a scale ranging from Very typical (5) to Never typical (1). 10. Psychological well-being. Warr s (1990) measure of job-related well-being was utilized to assess mood in relation to the individual participant s own job. The same measure was adapted to assess mood in relation to discussion about their partner s job. The questionnaire comprises 12 adjectives validated by previous research as measures of anxiety/contentment and depression/enthusiasm (Warr, 1990). Respondents are asked to indicate on a six-point scale how much of the time over the past few weeks their own job has made them feel, for example, tense, calm and worried (anxiety/contentment sub-scale) and depressed, optimistic and gloomy (depression/enthusiasm sub-scale). Higher scores represent greater contentment (less anxiety) and greater enthusiasm (less depression). An identical list of adjectives was used to assess how often over the last few weeks discussions about their partner s job had caused them to feel this way. From the anxiety/contentment scales, two scores were calculated: (a) in relation to one s own job; and (b) in relation to one s partner s job (own job: men, a /0.84, women, a/0.85; partner s job: men, a/0.81, women, a /0.80). Similarly, two separate depression/enthusiasm scores were calculated (own job: men, a /0.83, women, a/0.81; partner s job: men, a/0.75, women, a/0.75).

8 218 COMMUNITY, WORK & FAMILY Results Comparison between men and women in work-related features Table 1 shows the mean scores for men and women for aspects of their jobs: i.e. workload demands, quality demands, support from boss/supervisor and support from colleagues/co-workers. No significant gender differences were found on any of these aspects of work. No differences were also found between male and female participants in the 22 individual items included in these scales. This confirmed that the jobs of males and females were similar not only in status, but also in terms of the perceived characteristics of the work. Comparable levels of job commitment were also reported by males and females. Job-related psychological well-being Scores were computed for each participant s own job-related anxiety/contentment and depression/enthusiasm and for their anxiety/contentment and depression/ enthusiasm relating to discussions about his or her partner s job (higher scores on each scale indicate more positive psychological well-being). Mean scores for men and women are shown in table 1. No significant gender differences in well-being were found in relation to one s own job or discussion about partner s work. Relationships between work features and psychological well-being Correlations were computed between each participant s scores for workload and quality demands, supervisor and colleague support and commitment and their own TABLE 1 Mean scores for job characteristics (demands, interpersonal conflicts, supports and commitment) and psychological health for own and partner s job (N74 couples) men (n74) women (n74) Work variables Workload demands 3.56 (0.62) 3.64 (0.71) Quality demands 2.22 (0.55) 2.26 (0.55) Support from boss/supervisor 3.22 (0.86) 3.26 (0.87) Support from colleagues/co-workers 3.76 (0.52) 3.68 (0.58) Commitment 3.77 (0.87) 3.66 (0.93) Psychological health (related to own job) Anxiety (4.95) (5.43) Depression (5.00) (5.18) Psychological health (related to partner s job) Anxiety (5.17) (5.33) Depression (5.33) (4.25) Note: Standard deviations are shown in parentheses.

9 CROSSOVER IN DUAL-CAREER COUPLES 219 job-related well-being. Table 2 presents the correlation coefficients for both men and women. With the exception of supervisor support for women, all job features were significantly correlated with individual s own job-related anxiety/contentment (in that higher levels of demand were associated with greater anxiety and lower contentment, and higher levels of support and commitment were related to lower anxiety and higher contentment). All job features were significantly correlated with work-related depression/enthusiasm for both men and women, with the exception of workload demands (i.e. quality demands were associated with higher levels of depression and lower levels of enthusiasm, and support and commitment were related to higher levels of enthusiasm and lower levels of depression). Relationships between work features and partner s psychological well-being In order to investigate relationships between one individual s job features and their partner s psychological well-being, correlations were computed between each individual s scores on the Demands, Supports and Constraints scales and their partner s well-being scores relating to discussions about the focal partner s job. As can be seen from table 3, limited evidence was found for associations between men s job features and their female partners strains. There were a greater number of significant relationships between women s job features and their male partners psychological distress than vice versa. For males, greater demands for quality at work were related to anxiety and depression in their female partners. For females, both quality and workload demands were associated with anxiety and depression in their male partners. Little evidence was found for any impact of work supports for men or women. Women s supervisor support was associated with their male partners depression (r/0.23), but this was only marginally significant (p/0.051). A similar relationship was found for men s perceived support from colleagues and their female partners anxiety (p B/0.05). Women s work commitment/satisfaction was also associated with their male partners psychological well-being in that commitment was negatively related to men s depression and positively related to enthusiasm. To examine crossover relationships between one partner s job features and the other partner s strain, it is necessary to control for strains associated with their own jobs. In order to accomplish this, a series of hierarchical multiple regression analyses were conducted for men and women separately to examine the predictors of anxiety and depression related to their partner s job. For example, in predicting an individual s job-related anxiety in relation to their partner s job, the job-related anxiety related to their own job was entered at the first step. This controlled for the possibility that anxiety about one s partner s job might merely be a reflection of an individual s general level of anxiety related to his or her own job. The partner s work stressors were entered at the second step. An initial series of analyses indicated that social support variables failed to make a significant contribution to the final models. Consequently, the regression equations were repeated omitting these variables. To test for the possibility that job commitment/satisfaction had an interactive effect, multiplicative interaction terms (commitment/satisfaction / workload demands and commitment/satisfaction / quality demands) were entered as a final step (see tables 4 and 5).

10 TABLE 2 Correlations between individuals total scores for Demands, Supports and Commitment and their own job-related psychological well-being men (n74) women (n74) workload quality supervisor colleague commitment workload quality supervisor colleague commitment demand demand support support demand demand support support Anxiety/contentment 0.54*** 0.46*** 0.35** 0.41*** 0.34** 0.37** 0.55*** ** 0.48*** Depression/enthusiasm ** 0.29* 0.41*** 0.53*** *** 0.43*** 0.34** 0.61*** *pb0.05, **pb0.01, ***pb COMMUNITY, WORK & FAMILY TABLE 3 Crossover effects: correlations between scores for work characteristics (Demands (D), Interpersonal Conflicts (IC), Supports (S) and Commitment (C) and partner s psychological well-being (N74 couples) men (n74) women (n74) Workload demand quality demand supervisor support colleague support commitment workload demand quality demand supervisor support colleague support commitment Partner s anxiety/contentment * * *** 0.23* Partner s depression/enthusiasm * * 0.31** ** *pb0.05, **pb0.01, ***pb0.001.

11 CROSSOVER IN DUAL-CAREER COUPLES 221 For men, after controlling for depression relating to their own jobs, their female partners job demands and commitment/satisfaction accounted for an additional 13% of the variance. A significant interaction effect was also observed between women s quality demands and commitment/satisfaction that accounted for another 12% of the variance in male depression. A similar pattern was found for male anxiety, though here the interaction effect is significant for females workload demands. Both interactions take a similar form and as an example the latter interaction is plotted in figure 1. This indicates that a combination of low demands and high commitment/ satisfaction on the part of their female partners may actually have a positive effect leading to lower levels of depression and higher levels of enthusiasm for males. For women, only eight per cent of the variance in their depression and anxiety related to TABLE 4 job Summary of hierarchical regression analysis predicting male strain relating to partner s Predicting male depression/enthusiasm (relating to partners jobs) from female partners work features B SE B b Step 1 Depression/enthusiasm relating to men s own jobs * Step 2 Partners workload demands Partners quality demands ** Commitment/satisfaction ** Step 3 Commitment/satisfaction quality demands ** Note: R 2 for Step 10.06; DR for Step 2; DR for Step 3 (Step 1 and Step 2, pb0.05, Step 3, pb0.01). Predicting male anxiety/contentment (relating to partners jobs) from female partners work features B SE B b Step 1 Anxiety/contentment relating to male s own job Step 2 Partners workload demands ** Partners quality demands ** Commitment/satisfaction *** Step 3 Commitment/satisfaction workload demands ** Note: R 2 for Step 10.03; DR for Step 2; DR for Step 3 (Step 2 and Step 3, pb0.01).

12 222 COMMUNITY, WORK & FAMILY TABLE 5 job Summary of hierarchical regression analysis predicting female strain relating to partner s Predicting female depression/enthusiasm (relating to partners job) from male partners work features B SE B b Step 1 Depression/enthusiasm relating to females own jobs Step 2 Partners workload demands * Partners quality demands Commitment/satisfaction * Step 3 Commitment/satisfaction workload demands * Note: R 2 for Step 10.01; DR for Step 2; DR for Step 3 (Step 3, pb0.05). Predicting female anxiety/contentment (relating to partners job) from male partners work features B SE B b Step 1 Anxiety/contentment relating to males own job ** Step 2 Partners workload demands Partners quality demands Commitment/satisfaction Note: R 2 for Step 10.11; DR for Step 2 (Step 1, pb0.01). their partners job was predicted by their male partners work-related stressors and commitment/satisfaction. For depression only, a further six per cent is added by the interaction of job commitment/satisfaction and workload demands. Although undoubtedly weaker, this interaction takes a similar form to that described above: i.e. there is a positive impact on women s psychological health when their male partners have a combination of low job demands and high commitment/enthusiasm for their work. To summarize, these analyses suggest that an individual s psychological well-being relating to their partner s job is significantly associated with their partner s job demands and job commitment/satisfaction. A combination of partner s job commitment/satisfaction and work demands is related to higher depression and anxiety for men, but only to depression in women. For men, the multiple regression

13 CROSSOVER IN DUAL-CAREER COUPLES Male depression/enthusiasm related to partner's work low commitment/satisfaction high commitment /satisfaction 22 Low demand Female quality demands High demand FIGURE 1 Interaction between and quality demands predicting male depression. models account for a larger amount of the variance, providing stronger evidence for crossover from women to men than vice versa. The role of communication: frequency of work discussion The majority of the sample (72% of women and 81% of men) indicated that discussions about work took place every day or almost every day (as opposed to at times, rarely or never ). In 65% of couples, both partners agreed that they discussed work daily or almost every day. These couples were compared with those for whom one or both considered they discussed work less frequently. In order to examine whether frequency of discussions were linked to individual s own psychological well-being related to their own jobs or those of their partners, separate ANOVAs were conducted for men and women (see table 6). As can be seen, for men only, depression related to their own job and anxiety related to their partner s job is greater in couples who discuss work every day or almost every day. However, when men and women are entered in the same ANOVA to test for an interaction between gender and frequency of discussion, there is no significant effect. This is perhaps due to lack of power as groups are small. The possibility that frequency of discussion had either a moderating or mediating relationship between one individual s work stressors or job commitment and their partner s psychological well-being was examined in a series of multiple regression analyses. No evidence for interactions was found. The role of communication: perceptions of own job and partner s job Comparisons were made between male and female scores for perceptions of understanding and helpfulness of communication about work. There were no significant differences found within couples (men s mean /3.57 [SD:0.70]; women s mean /3.44 [SD:0.72], F /1.41(73,1)n.s.). A median split was used to separate

14 224 COMMUNITY, WORK & FAMILY TABLE 6 Anxiety and depression scores for men and women in couples who discuss work frequently with those who do not couples who agree they discuss work every day or almost every day mean (SD) n48 couples who discuss work less frequently mean (SD) n26 sig. F Men Anxiety related to own job (4.74) (5.26) Depression related to own job (5.20) (4.29) 3.98* Anxiety related to partner s job (5.05) (5.06) 4.44* Depression related to partner s job (4.73) (4.56) Women Anxiety related to own job (5.79) (4.50) Depression related to own job (5.26) (5.11) Anxiety related to partner s job (5.09) (5.67) Depression related to partner s job (4.31) (4.17) *pb0.05. the sample into two groups. Individuals who scored above the median on this index were compared with those who scored below. Separate analyses were conducted for men and women. The results, displayed in table 7, indicate that women who rate their communications with their partners as low in understanding and helpfulness reported higher levels of anxiety and depression related to their own job and greater anxiety related to their partner s job. No such pattern was found for men. When both men and women were entered into the same ANOVA to test for an interaction effect between gender and communication, there was a significant interaction for anxiety about own job only (F(1,1) /7.66, p B/0.01). The possibility that perceptions of understanding and helpfulness of communication had either a moderating or mediating relationship between one individual s work stressors and the other partner s psychological well-being was examined in a series of multiple regression analyses. No significant effects were found. In summary, although the effect is not robust, the analyses of discussion and communication about work between couples provide some evidence to suggest that for men, frequent discussion is related to reduced well-being and higher levels of anxiety about their partners jobs, whereas the quality of the communication makes little difference. On the other hand, for women, frequency of discussion about work makes little difference, but the perception that communication with their partner is based on mutual understanding and helpfulness is related to higher levels of female psychological well-being. Topics of discussion Of the 43 couples who completed questionnaires on the type of discussions they had about work, 47% of men and 51% of women indicated that work discussions were

15 CROSSOVER IN DUAL-CAREER COUPLES 225 TABLE 7 Anxiety and depression scores for men and women in couples who rate communications high on understanding and helpfulness with those who rate low individuals who rate communications highly for understanding and helpfulness mean (SD) (n46) couples who rate communications low for understanding and helpfulness mean (SD) (n28) sig. F Men Anxiety related to (4.85) (5.15) own job Depression related to own job (4.57) (5.47) Anxiety related to partner s job (4.93) (5.65) Depression related to partner s job (4.62) (4.76) Women Anxiety related to own job (5.28) (4.94) 10.01** Depression related to own job (4.10) (5.35) 15.37*** Anxiety related to partner s job (5.08) (5.36) 4.08* Depression related to partner s job (4.30) (3.90) 5.9* predominantly about negative issues. Forty-two per cent of men and women perceived discussions as being equally balanced between positive and negative issues, and just 11% of men and seven per cent of women reported that their communication about work is primarily positive in nature. Participants were asked to nominate which four topics of the list of possible work issues they most frequently raised when discussing work with their partner, and those that are raised most frequently by their partner. These are shown in table 8. As can be seen, issues with colleagues, subordinates and line managers, the nature of the work and levels of satisfaction with the job are the topics most commonly discussed with partners. Communication behaviour under stress Data relating to communication and behaviour patterns when experiencing stress at work was available for 31 couples. Comparisons between men and women indicated significant differences in two specific behaviours. In general, women were more likely to use more outwardly focused behaviours than men: i.e. they talk about it a lot when they are stressed (men s mean/2.4 [SD: 1.1]; women s mean/3.4 [SD: 1.2]; t//3.35, df/46, p B/0. 01), and tend to become tearful and emotional (men s mean/1.9 [SD: 1.2]; women s mean/2.8 [SD: 1.5]; t//2.40, df/46, p B/ 0.05). Although gender differences in other behaviours were not statistically significant, the overall pattern of responses was interesting. Behaviours that men reported engaging in more frequently than women were: going quiet ; withdrawing from others ; becoming irritable and losing interest in other things */ all of which could suggest a more inwardly focused response to stress.

16 226 COMMUNITY, WORK & FAMILY TABLE 8 Topics of discussion about work between partners Issues individuals most often raise with their partner Issues with colleagues/subordinates 47% Issues relating to the nature of the work 45% Issues with own boss 41% Level of satisfaction with the job 41% Issues individuals consider that their partners most often raise Issues relating to the nature of the work 48% Issues with own boss 43% Career plans/prospects 39% Participants responses to the questions examining perceived changes in their partners behaviour under stress were similarly analysed. Significant gender differences were found in two behaviours. Women perceived their partners as more likely to go quiet when stressed (men s mean /2.5 [SD: 1.3]; women s mean /3.4 [SD: 1.2]; t / /2.55, df /46, p B/0.05) and (reflecting the self-report results) men perceived their partners as more likely to become tearful and emotional under stress (men s mean /2.8 [SD: 1.2]; women s mean /1.7 [SD: 0.9]; t /3.65, df /46, p B/0.01). Additionally, men perceived their partners as more likely to alter their eating habits when experiencing stress at work (men s mean /2.8 [SD: 1.1]; women s mean/2.0 [SD: 1.1]; t/2.45, df/46, p B/0.05). In order to assess levels of agreement between partners in their perceptions of behaviour changes under stress, self-report ratings for each individual s own behaviour changes were compared with their partners perceptions. These comparisons revealed disagreements in perceptions of two behaviours. Men rated themselves less highly than their female partners rated them on the tendency to talk a lot about the stress they experienced (men s mean /2.4 [SD: 1.1]; women s mean /3.0 [SD: 1.3]; t / /2.9, df /23, p B/0.05). When women s self-reports were compared with their partners perceptions of their behaviour, women rated themselves more highly than their partners rated them on the tendency to become quiet and talk less when stressed (men s mean/ 2.5 [SD: 1.3]; women s mean/3.1 [SD: 1.1]; t/2.7, df/23, p B/0.05). In summary, analysis of the data suggests a tendency for both men and women to view women as reacting to work stressors in a way that is more outwardly focused and expressive, and for men to become more inwardly focused and withdrawn. However, there were some disagreements between males and females in ratings on specific behaviours. Discussion Previous research on crossover has tended to focus on the impact of men s job stressors on their female partners. This study examined the nature and direction of crossover in professional couples where partners are more evenly matched in terms of job status. Findings suggest male and female participants experience similar levels of

17 CROSSOVER IN DUAL-CAREER COUPLES 227 work demands, supports and constraints and a comparable degree of job satisfaction and commitment. Furthermore, no significant gender differences were found in levels of job-related depression/enthusiasm and anxiety/contentment. In accordance with previous research, this study finds evidence of bi-directional crossover of stressors from one partner s job to the other. Unlike Jones and Fletcher (1993) and Westman et al. (2001), however, strong evidence for crossover from women to men was found: i.e. women s work accounted for greater proportions of variance in male partners strain than vice versa. Although a novel finding in the context of research into crossover, this is consistent with several studies reporting that females employment status can have negative effects on their male partners wellbeing (e.g. Galambos & Walters, 1992; Higgins & Duxbury, 1992; Parasuraman et al., 1992). This research differs from the present study, however, as it focuses on variables such as the female partner s employment status and working hours rather than the actual stressors of her work. The use of the Demands/Supports/Constraints model of occupational stress has facilitated the investigation of specific elements of an individual s job that may be related to the greatest strain for their partner. Unlike Jones and Fletcher (1993) who reported that supports and interpersonal conflicts predicted crossover from men to their female partners, the current study found that work demands were the job characteristics most clearly related to crossover of stress for both men and women. For men, the quality demands inherent in maintaining personal standards and meeting the demands of others were the factors that were most strongly implicated in crossover of stress to their female partners. For women, workload demands, as well as demands for quality, were associated with anxiety and depression in their male partners. One explanation for the different pattern of crossover found in the present study compared to previous research may lie in the specific measures of demands, supports, job commitment and job-related mood used here. It is possible that the operationalization of different job characteristics and indicators of distress will result in observations of different patterns of crossover. Westman and Etzion (1995) found evidence for bi-directional crossover of burnout in 101 male army officers and their working wives after controlling for spouses own job stressors and coping resources. Although female partners had similar educational qualifications, they were not of equal employment status as their male partners (described as being in traditional women s jobs), and reported significantly lower levels of work stress and control. Perhaps a more plausible explanation for the current findings, may lie in the job status and personal qualities of the women considered here. Such explanations have been used to explain crossover from men to women, for example: in explaining their findings of male to female crossover in a sample of Vietnam veterans, Westman and Vinokur (1998, p. 477) tentatively suggested that women may be more sensitive and empathetic towards their male partners than vice versa. They indicate that women may be marital shock absorbers, taking on the men s stress and protecting them. Accordingly, women are more likely to be influenced by the emotional states of their spouses. A similarly tentative explanation for the current findings might be that the majority of women in the current sample hold positions of influence within maledominated industries such as the financial and information technology sectors. Unlike Westman and Etzion s participants, these women are not in traditionally female

18 228 COMMUNITY, WORK & FAMILY jobs, but are the equals of their partners in professional status and earning power, in the commitment to their jobs, and also in the work-related demands they face. Such women may not necessarily demonstrate stereotypically feminine supportive and nurturing behaviours towards their male partners to the same extent as might be expected in single income male earner households, or those where the male partner s work role may be seen to exert a more dominant influence. We might also speculate that, in order to achieve comparable career status within male-dominated environments, it is necessary for women to show greater levels of resourcefulness, independence and self-sufficiency than men in similar positions. Thus, the present findings might indicate that the female partners in the current study are atypical in terms of their reduced vulnerability to being influenced by their life partners moods and feelings. Social support failed to predict the crossover of stress for either female or male participants. Previous research highlights this factor as an important mediator of crossover of work/home conflict between marital partners (Westman et al., 2001) and the bi-directional crossover of burnout between spouses (Westman & Etzion, 1995). This inconsistency might be attributable to the manner in which support was measured in the present study. Perceptions of support from supervisors and colleagues were assessed; this may not be adequate to reflect the breadth of supportive features experienced by an individual. Future research into the mechanisms of crossover could examine the impact of different forms of social support. The respective roles of work and partner support could be investigated, as could perceptions of support from family in relation to work and work in relation to family. Furthermore, differentiation could be made between the different forms that social support from partners can take, such as instrumental, network, esteem and emotional (Wills, 1985). This would appear to be particularly appropriate as the findings of the current study suggest that an aspect of emotional support (i.e. perceived understanding and helpfulness of discussions about work) was related to psychological well-being in female participants. In accordance with Hammer et al. (1997), job commitment and satisfaction appeared to play a role in the crossover process: the relationship observed between females job commitment and their male partners well-being was particularly strong. A bi-directional interaction was also found between job demands and job commitment, such that a combination of low demand and high commitment in one partner was related to higher levels of psychological well-being in the other. This explained additional variance in depression and anxiety (in relation to partners jobs) in men but only anxiety in women. It is likely that high levels of job commitment and satisfaction are positively related to psychological well-being which, in the face of low levels of demand, results in lower levels of stress for individual workers and less strain for their partners. That this relationship is stronger for females than males warrants further investigation. It could be argued, however, that men are more likely to reap the psychological benefits of their wives low work demand as it might result in higher levels of marital support for them. The use of Warr s (1990) job-related mood questionnaire to measure affect was advantageous in that it provided a means by which to focus on well-being directly attributable to work, without the necessity of controlling for anxiety and depression attributed to events outside this domain. The use of this measure to examine the way