Skip to main content
Log in

Under pressure? Assessing the roles of skills and other personal resources for work-life strains

  • Published:
Review of Economics of the Household Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Many working parents struggle to balance the demands of their jobs and family roles. Although we might expect that additional resources would ease work-family constraints, theory and evidence regarding resources have been equivocal. This study uses data on working mothers and fathers—as well as their cohabiting partners/spouses—from the Household, Income, and Labour Dynamics in Australia survey to investigate how personal resources in the form of skills, cognitive abilities, and personality traits affect work-life strains. It considers these along with standard measures of economic, social, and personal resources, and estimates seemingly unrelated regression (SUR) models of work-life strains for employed mothers and fathers that account for correlations of the couple’s unobserved characteristics. The SUR estimates indicate that computer skills reduce work-life strains for mothers, that math skills reduce strains for fathers, and that the personality traits of extraversion, conscientiousness, and emotional stability reduce strains for both parents. However, the estimates also indicate that better performance on a symbol look-up task, which tests attention, visual scanning acuity, and motor speed, increases fathers’ work-life strains.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. More provocatively, some researchers reject that there is a relationship. Goodin et al. (2005) contend that a household’s “necessary” time demands consist of the market time required to earn enough income to reach the poverty standard and the non-market time required to produce a minimally socially acceptable level of household outputs. They maintain that all other time spent in paid or unpaid work is discretionary and leads to “time pressure illusion”.

  2. Where a function only has one argument, we use the symbols ′ and ″ to denote the first and second derivatives, respectively, of the function with respect to its argument.

  3. For the case of simple correlations, 0.8 has been suggested as the (somewhat arbitrary) threshold for the presence of severe multicollinearity (Studenmund 2010), while VIF scores of 5 (Studenmund 2010) or 10 (Wooldridge 2009) have been suggested.

  4. Results not shown here but are available upon request.

References

  • Allen, T., Herst, D., Bruck, C., & Sutton, M. (2000). Consequences associated with work-to-family conflict: a review and agenda for future research. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 278–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allen, T., Johnson, R., Saboe, K., Cho, E., Dumani, S., & Evans, S. (2012). Dispositional variables and work-family conflict: a meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80, 17–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, R. (1998). Toward a review and reconceptualization of the work/family literature. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 124, 125–182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berg, P., Kalleberg, A., & Appelbaum, E. (2003). Balancing work and family: the role of high-commitment environments. Industrial Relations, 42, 168–188.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cawley, J., Heckman, J., & Vytlacil, E. (2001). Three observations on wages and measured cognitive ability. Labour Economics, 8, 419–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Craig, L., & Sawrikar, P. (2008). Satisfaction with work-family balance for parents of early adolescents compared to parents of younger children. Journal of Family Studies, 14, 91–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodin, R., Rice, J. M., Bittman, M., & Saunders, P. (2005). The time pressure illusion: discretionary time vs. free time? Social Indicators Research, 73, 43–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenhaus, J., & Beutell, N. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Academy of Management Review, 10, 76–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grossbard-Shechtman, A. (1984). A theory of allocation of time in markets for labour and marriage. The Economic Journal, 94(376), 863–882.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grzywacz, J., & Bass, B. (2003). Work, family, and mental health: testing different models of work-family fit. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65, 248–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamermesh, D., & Lee, J. (2007). Stressed out on four continents: time crunch or yuppie kvetch?. Review of Economics and Statistics, 89, 374–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heckman, J., Stixrud, J., & Urzua, S. (2006). The effects of cognitive and noncognitive abilities on labor market outcomes and social behavior. Journal of Labor Economics, 24, 411–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hosking, A., & Western, M. (2008). The effects of non-standard employment on work-family conflict. Journal of Sociology, 44, 5–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huber, P. J. (1967). The behavior of maximum likelihood estimates under nonstandard conditions. In Lucien M. Le Cam and Jerzy Neyman (Eds), Proceedings of the Fifth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability. Vol. 1, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

  • Kifle, T., Kler, P., & Shankar, S. (2014). The power of the pram: do young children determine female job satisfaction. Applied Economics Letters, 21, 289–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laurijssen, I., & Glorieux, I. (2013). Balancing work and family: a panel analysis of the impact of part-time work on the experience of time pressure. Social Indicators Research, 112, 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Losoncz, I. (2011). Persistent work-family strain among Australian mothers. Family Matters, 86, 79–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, N., & Barnett, R. (1993). Work-family strains and gains among two-earner couples. Journal of Community Psychology, 21, 64–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, J., & Aletraris, L. (2007). Work-family conflict, children, and hour mismatches in Australia. Journal of Family Issues, 28, 749–772.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosen, S In: In O. Ashenfelter, R. Layard, (eds.) 1986). The theory of equalizing differences. Handbook of labor economics. vol I. (pp. 641–692). Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, N., & Ichii, R. (2015). Exploring a family, work, and community model of work-family gains and strains. Community, Work and Family, 18, 79–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Studenmund, A. H. (2010). Using econometrics: a practical guide. 6th edn. Boston, MA: Pearson.

  • Summerfield, M., Bevitt, A., Freidin, S., Hahn, M., La, N., Macalalad, N., O’Shea, M., Watson, N., Wilkins, R., & Wooden., M. (2017). HILDA user manual – release 16. Melbourne: Melbourne Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, H. (1980). A heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroskedasticity. Econometrica, 48, 817–830.

  • Wooden, M. (2003). Balancing work and family at the start of the 21st century: evidence from wave 1 of the HILDA survey. Unpublished paper, Melbourne Institute.

  • Wooden, M. (2013). The measurement of cognitive ability in wave 12 of the HILDA survey. Working Paper No. 44/13, Melbourne Institute. Melbourne, VIC: University of Melbourne.

  • Wooldridge, J. M. (2009). Introductory econometrics. 4th edn. Mason, OH: The South-Western CENGAGE Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zellner, A. (1962). An efficient method of estimating seemingly unrelated regressions and tests for aggregation bias. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 57, 348–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This paper uses the confidentialized unit record file from the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) Survey. The HILDA Project was initiated and is funded by the Commonwealth Department of Family, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and is managed by the Melbourne Institute: Applied Economic & Social Research. The findings and views reported in this paper are those of the authors only. The paper’s analysis data were extracted using PanelWhiz, a Stata add-on package written by John Haisken-DeNew. The authors thank Art Goldsmith, Chris Handy, John Haisken-DeNew, and participants at several conferences and workshops for helpful comments and suggestions. The initial work on this paper was undertaken while Blunch was a visiting researcher at the Melbourne Institute; funding from the Institute and the University of Melbourne Faculty of Business and Economics is gratefully acknowledged. Blunch also gratefully acknowledges financial support from Washington and Lee University’s Lenfest Summer Research Grant.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Niels-Hugo Blunch.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Appendices

Appendix 1. Derivation of model of time stress comparative static results

Consider a single-adult household with a separable preference function defined over a household-produced good, Z, and time spent in leisure or rest, L, U(Z) + V(L), where U′ > 0, V′ > 0, U′ < 0, and V″ < 0. The household-produced good requires inputs of time, t(A)Z, and expenditures, b(A)Z, which both depend on the person’s cognitive ability, A, such that cognitive ability makes these inputs less costly, t′ < 0 and b′ < 0. The person faces a budget constraint w(A)H + N ≥ b(A)Z, where H denotes hours of market labor, N denotes unearned income, and w(A) is the hourly wage, which also depends on cognitive ability such that w′ > 0. The person also faces a time constraint, K ≥ H + L + t(A)Z, where K is the total amount of time. The person chooses market hours, leisure, and the amount of the household-produced good to

$$\begin{array}{l}\mathop {\max }\limits_{H,L,Z}{\cal{L}} = U\left( Z \right) + V\left( L \right) + {{\upmu }}\left[ {w\left( A \right)H + N - b\left( A \right)Z} \right]\\ \qquad\qquad\qquad+ {\uplambda}\left[ {K - H-L - t\left( A \right)Z} \right]\end{array}$$
(4)

where µ and λ are Lagrangian multipliers.

The optimal values of H and Z satisfy the following first-order conditions:

$$\frac{{\partial {\cal{L}}}}{{\partial H}} = {{\upmu }}w\left( A \right)-{\uplambda} = 0$$
(5a)
$$\frac{{\partial {\cal{L}}}}{{\partial L}} = V^{\prime}\left( L \right) - {\uplambda} = 0$$
(5b)
$$\frac{{\partial {\cal{L}}}}{{\partial Z}} = U^{\prime}\left( Z \right) - {{\upmu }}b\left( A \right)-{\uplambda}t\left( A \right) = 0$$
(5c)
$$\frac{{\partial {\cal{L}}}}{{\partial {\upmu}}} = w\left( A \right)H + N - b\left( A \right)Z = 0$$
(5d)
$$\frac{{\partial {\cal{L}}}}{{\partial {\uplambda}}} = K - H-L - t\left( A \right)Z = 0.$$
(5e)

To obtain derivatives with respect to A, differentiate the conditions 5a–5e to obtain:

$$w\left( A \right)\frac{{\partial {\upmu}}}{{\partial A}}-\frac{{\partial {\uplambda}}}{{\partial A}} + \upmu w^{\prime} = 0$$
(6a)
$$V^{\prime\prime}\frac{{\partial L}}{{\partial A}} - \frac{{\partial {\uplambda}}}{{\partial A}} = 0$$
(6b)
$$U^{\prime\prime}\frac{{\partial Z}}{{\partial A}} - b\left( A \right)\frac{{\partial {\upmu}}}{{\partial A}}-t\left( A \right)\frac{{\partial {\uplambda}}}{{\partial A}} - \upmu b^{\prime}-{\uplambda}t^{\prime} = 0$$
(6c)
$$w\left( A \right)\frac{{\partial H}}{{\partial A}} - b\left( A \right)\frac{{\partial Z}}{{\partial A}} + Hw^{\prime} - Zb^{\prime} = 0$$
(6d)
$$- \frac{{\partial H}}{{\partial A}} - \frac{{\partial L}}{{\partial A}} - t\left( A \right)\frac{{\partial Z}}{{\partial A}} - Zt^{\prime} = 0.$$
(6e)

The system 6a–6e consists of five equations and five unknown partial derivatives \(\left(\frac{{\partial H}}{{\partial A}},\frac{{\partial L}}{{\partial A}},\frac{{\partial Z}}{{\partial A}},\frac{{\partial {\upmu}}}{{\partial A}}\,{\mathrm{and}}\,\frac{{\partial {\uplambda}}}{{\partial A}}\right)\).

Solving for \(\frac{{\partial {\uplambda}}}{{\partial A}}\)

$$\begin{array}{*{20}{c}}\frac{{\partial {\uplambda}}}{{\partial A}} = V^{\prime\prime} \left\{ U^{\prime\prime}\,w\left( A \right)\,\left[ w^{\prime}H-Z\left( w\left( A \right)t^{\prime} + b^{\prime} \right) \right] \right. \\ {\left. { + \left[ {w\left( A \right)t\left( A \right) + b\left( A \right)} \right]\left[ {\upmu bw^{\prime} - w\left( A \right)\left( {{{\upmu }}b^{\prime} + {\uplambda}t^{\prime}} \right)} \right]} \right\}} \\ {/\left\{ U^{\prime\prime} w\left( A \right)^2 + V^{\prime\prime} \left[ {w\left( A \right)t\left( A \right) + b\left( A \right)} \right]^2 \right\}} \end{array}.$$
(7)

The denominator is negative. The first term in braces in the numerator (first line) is negative, and the second term in braces in the numerator (second line) is positive, so the effect of cognitive ability on time pressure is ambiguous.

Solving for \(\frac{{\partial Z}}{{\partial A}}\)

$$\begin{array}{*{20}{c}} \frac{{\partial Z}}{{\partial A}} = {\left\{ {V^{\prime\prime}\left[ {w^{\prime}H-Z\,\left( {w\left( A \right)\,t^{\prime} + b^{\prime}} \right)} \right]} \right.\left[ {w\left( A \right)t\left( A \right) + b\left( A \right)} \right]} \\ { - w\left( A \right)\left. {\left[ {\upmu bw^{\prime} - w\left( A \right)\left( {{{\upmu }}b^{\prime} + {\uplambda}t^{\prime}} \right)} \right]} \right\}} \\ {/\left\{ U^{\prime\prime} w\left( A \right)^2 +\, V^{\prime\prime} \left[ {w\left( A \right)t\left( A \right) + b\left( A \right)} \right]^2 \right\}} \end{array}.$$
(8)

The numerator and denominator are both negative, so \(\frac{{\partial Z}}{{\partial A}}\) > 0.

Unlike the analysis by Hamermesh and Lee, the sign of ∂λ/∂N is unambiguously negative.

To obtain derivatives with respect to N, differentiate the conditions 5a–5e to obtain:

$$w\left( A \right)\frac{{\partial {\upmu}}}{{\partial N}}-\frac{{\partial {\uplambda}}}{{\partial N}} = 0$$
(9a)
$$V^{\prime\prime}\frac{{\partial L}}{{\partial N}} - \frac{{\partial {\uplambda}}}{{\partial N}} = 0$$
(9b)
$$U^{\prime\prime}\frac{{\partial Z}}{{\partial N}} - b\left( A \right)\frac{{\partial {\upmu}}}{{\partial N}}-t\left( A \right)\frac{{\partial {\uplambda}}}{{\partial N}} = 0$$
(9c)
$$w\left( A \right)\frac{{\partial H}}{{\partial N}} - b\left( A \right)\frac{{\partial Z}}{{\partial N}} + 1 = 0$$
(9d)
$$- \frac{{\partial H}}{{\partial N}} - \frac{{\partial L}}{{\partial N}} - t\left( A \right)\frac{{\partial Z}}{{\partial N}} = 0.$$
(9e)

Solving for \(\frac{{\partial {\uplambda}}}{{\partial N}}\)

$$\frac{{\partial {\uplambda}}}{{\partial N}} = \left( {U^{\prime\prime}V^{\prime\prime}w\left( A \right)} \right)/\left\{ {U^{\prime\prime}w\left( A \right)^2 + V^{\prime\prime}\left[ {w\left( A \right)t\left( A \right) + b\left( A \right)} \right]^2} \right\} < 0.$$
(10)

Appendix 2. Items in the work-family, work-parenting gains and strains scale

The SCQ of the HILDA survey asked parents who were engaged in paid work,

The following statements are about combining work with family responsibilities. Please indicate…how strongly you agree or disagree with each.

  1. (1)

    Having both work and family responsibilities makes me a more well-rounded person

  2. (2)

    Having both work and family responsibilities gives my life more variety

  3. (3)

    Managing work and family responsibilities as well as I do makes me feel competent

  4. (4)

    Because of my family responsibilities, I have to turn down work activities or opportunities that I would prefer to take on

  5. (5)

    Having both work and family responsibilities challenges me to be the best I can be

  6. (6)

    Because of my family responsibilities, the time I spend working is less enjoyable and more pressured

  7. (7)

    Because of the requirements of my job, I miss out on home or family activities that I would prefer to participate in

  8. (8)

    Because of the requirements of my job, my family time is less enjoyable and more pressured

  9. (9)

    Working makes me feel good about myself, which is good for my children

  10. (10)

    My work has a positive effect on my children

  11. (11)

    Working helps me to better appreciate the time I spend with my children

  12. (12)

    The fact that I am working makes me a better parent

  13. (13)

    I worry about what goes on with my children while I’m at work

  14. (14)

    Working leaves me with too little time or energy to be the kind of parent I want to be

  15. (15)

    Working causes me to miss out on some of the rewarding aspects of being a parent

  16. (16)

    Thinking about the children interferes with my performance at work

Possible responses ranged from 1 = Strongly Disagree to 7 = Strongly Agree.

Appendix 3. Additional results: adding partner’s characteristics

Table 3 Work-life SUR model coefficient estimates for spouse’s or partner’s characteristics, by gender

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Blunch, NH., Ribar, D.C. & Western, M. Under pressure? Assessing the roles of skills and other personal resources for work-life strains. Rev Econ Household 18, 883–906 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11150-019-09477-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11150-019-09477-8

Keywords

JEL Classification

Navigation