Download Personality and work-family conflict PDF

TitlePersonality and work-family conflict
LanguageEnglish
File Size512.8 KB
Total Pages159
Table of Contents
                            Personality and Work-Family Conflict: The Mediational Role of Coping Styles
	Scholar Commons Citation
tmp.1298578324.pdf.OmYd0
                        
Document Text Contents
Page 1

University of South Florida University of South Florida

Scholar Commons Scholar Commons

Graduate Theses and Dissertations Graduate School

3-13-2009

Personality and Work-Family Conflict: The Mediational Role of Personality and Work-Family Conflict: The Mediational Role of

Coping Styles Coping Styles

Rebecca H. Bryant
University of South Florida

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd

Part of the American Studies Commons

Scholar Commons Citation Scholar Commons Citation
Bryant, Rebecca H., "Personality and Work-Family Conflict: The Mediational Role of Coping Styles" (2009).
Graduate Theses and Dissertations.
https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/1879

This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at Scholar Commons. It has
been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Scholar
Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]

http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/
http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/
https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/
https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd
https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/grad
https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd?utm_source=scholarcommons.usf.edu%2Fetd%2F1879&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages
http://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/439?utm_source=scholarcommons.usf.edu%2Fetd%2F1879&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages
mailto:[email protected]

Page 79

67

cognitive restructuring (2b) and negatively relate to rumination (2c) and to escape (2d). In

terms of coping with work stressors, conscientiousness significantly related to problem

solving (r = .22, p < .01) and to rumination (r = -.17, p < .05) but not to positive cognitive

restructuring (r = -.03) or to escape (r = .08). On the other hand, for coping with family

stressors, only rumination was significantly related to conscientiousness (r = -.18, p <

.05). The multiple regression results for rumination, presented in Table 10, provide

support for a relationship between conscientiousness and rumination for work (β = -.18, p

< .05) and for family (β = -.18, p < .01) stressors after controlling for gender.

Hypothesis 2 was also examined using self- and average-ratings of

conscientiousness. The results were similar, with a couple of noteworthy differences.

Consistent with the significant other-ratings, rumination for work and for family stressors

were negatively related to self- and to average-ratings of conscientiousness, both with

and without control variables (see Tables 38 and 39 for regression results). Additionally,

self- and average-ratings of conscientiousness were significantly related to problem

solving for work stressors. However, unlike the significant other-ratings, problem solving

for family stressors significantly related to self- and to average-ratings of

conscientiousness (r = .39, p < .01 and r = .30, p < .01, respectively). Additionally, self-

ratings (though not average-ratings) of conscientiousness significantly related to positive

cognitive restructuring (r = .14, p < .05) and to escape (r = -.16, p < .05) for family

stressors. Thus, limited support was found for Hypothesis 2, though results differed by

coping style, rating source, and coping style context. Specifically Hypothesis 2a was

supported for coping with work stressors (both rating sources of conscientiousness) and

for coping with family stressors (self- and average-ratings of personality only);

Page 80

68

Hypothesis 2c was fully supported; and Hypotheses 2b and 2d were largely unsupported,

though self-ratings of conscientiousness related to coping with family stressors for both

coping styles. Additionally, though not hypothesized, significant other-ratings of

conscientiousness negatively related to instrumental support seeking for family stressors

(r = -.19, p < .01), while self-ratings of conscientiousness positively related to

instrumental support seeking for work stressors (r = .19, p < .01) and to emotional

support seeking for family stressors (r = .14, p < .05).

Hypothesis 3 predicted that extraversion would positively relate to problem

solving (3a), to support seeking (3b), and to positive cognitive restructuring (3c) and

negatively relate to rumination (3d). Regression results for Hypothesis 3 are presented in

Table 11. Hypotheses 3a was supported; extraversion was significantly related to problem

solving for work (r = .15, p < .05) and for family stressors (r = .20, p < .01).

Additionally, extraversion was significantly related to instrumental support seeking for

work stressors (r = .18, p < .05) and to emotional support seeking for family stressors (r =

.16, p < .05) but not to emotional support seeking for work stressors (r = .10) or to

instrumental support seeking for family stressors (r = .13). While the relationship

between instrumental support seeking for work and extraversion remained significant

after controlling for gender (β = .16, p < .05), the relationship between emotional support

seeking for family and extraversion did not (β = .12). Extraversion was also significantly

related to positive cognitive restructuring for family stressors (r = .24, p < .01), but there

was no support for the relationship between extraversion and positive cognitive

restructuring for work (r = .12), rumination for work (r = -.09, β = -.11), or rumination

Page 158

146

Appendix F: (Continued)



Table 44. Mediated Regression of WIF on Rumination for Work Stressors and

Neuroticism (Self-Report)

Dependent Variable: WIF
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3
Control Variable

Work Time .37** .37** .37**
Independent Variable

Neuroticism .22** .15
Mediator

Rumination (work) .12
∆ in R2 -- .05 .01
Overall R2 .14 .19 .20
Adjusted R2 .14 .18 .19
Overall F 32.60** 23.36** 16.49**
*p<.05; **p<.01




Table 45. Mediated Regression of WIF on Rumination for Work Stressors and

Neuroticism (Average of Self- and Significant Other-Report)

Dependent Variable: WIF
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3
Control Variable

Work Time .37** .38** .38**
Independent Variable

Neuroticism .27** .22**
Mediator

Rumination (work) .09
∆ in R2 -- .07 .01
Overall R2 .14 .21 .22
Adjusted R2 .14 .20 .20
Overall F 32.60** 26.70** 18.37**
*p<.05; **p<.01

Similer Documents