A social-cognitive perspective on using family-friendly benefits

Journal of Vocational Behavior 65 (2004) 57–70

www.elsevier.com/locate/jvb

A social-cognitive perspective on usingfamily-friendly benefits

Adam Butler,* Michael Gasser, and Lona Smart

Department of Psychology, University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls, IA 50614-0505, USA

Received 7 April 2003

Available online 30 August 2003

Abstract

To help employees better manage competing life demands, many organizations offer family-

friendly benefits to their workers, including flexible scheduling, day care assistance, and leave of

absence. Although there is growing evidence of positive effects associated with these benefits,

little is known about factors related to their use. Using survey responses from 188 parents em-

ployed in a variety of occupations, we examined the use of a broad array of family-friendly ben-

efits from a social-cognitive perspective. More positive work outcome expectancies related to

higher rates of benefit use, and more positive family outcome expectancies and higher work–

family self-efficacy related to stronger intentions to use the benefits. In addition, gender mod-

erated the relationship between work outcome expectancies and benefit use intentions, such

that more positive work outcome expectancies were associated with stronger use intentions

for women, but work outcome expectancies were not related to men�s use intentions.� 2003 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Changes in demography, attitudes, and the workplace have increased the likeli-

hood that workers will experience some form of conflict between their work and fam-

ily life (Parasuraman & Greenhaus, 1997). Moreover, work–family conflict isassociated with a wide variety of negative consequences for individuals, their fami-

lies, and organizations (Allen, Herst, Bruck, & Sutton, 2000; Kossek & Ozeki,

1998, 1999). To help workers better manage work and family demands, many

* Corresponding author. Fax: 1-319-273-6188.

E-mail address: [email protected] (A. Butler).

0001-8791/$ - see front matter � 2003 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/S0001-8791(03)00097-6

mail to: [email protected]

58 A. Butler et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 65 (2004) 57–70

organizations offer family-friendly (F-F) benefits, such as flexible scheduling, tele-

commuting, daycare, and eldercare assistance (Lobel & Kossek, 1996; Frankel,

1998). Studies find that the use of F-F benefits is associated with increased commit-

ment (Thompson, Beauvais, & Lyness, 1999), increased job satisfaction (Allen,

2001), and reduced work–family conflict (Allen, 2001; Anderson, Coffey, & Byerly,2002; Hammer, Allen, & Grigsby, 1997; Marshall & Barnett, 1994; Thomas &

Ganster, 1995; Thompson et al., 1999).

Although organizations are encouraged to offer comprehensive benefit programs

to their workers (Hobson, Delunas, & Kesic, 2001; Kofodimos, 1995), researchers

find that the benefits are not often used (Judiesch & Lyness, 1999; Thompson

et al., 1999), and little is known about factors that promote their use. Thompson

et al. (1999) examined three dimensions of an organization�s work–family culture

and found that managerial support, but neither career consequences nor organiza-tional time demands, related to benefit use. In a similar study that disentangled fac-

tors in the Thompson et al. measure of managerial support, Allen found that both

supervisor support and family-supportiveness of the organization related to increased

benefit use (Allen, 2001). Combined, these studies suggest that supportive work envi-

ronments, both at the group and organization level, are associated with increased F-F

benefit use.

Although the Thompson et al. (1999) and Allen (2001) studies advanced under-

standing of environmental factors related to F-F benefit use, individual psychologi-cal factors predicting benefit use remain largely unknown. Such studies may be

theoretically useful for developing comprehensive models of work–family balance

strategies and practically useful for designing and implementing more effective ben-

efit programs. In the present study, we advanced the existing literature by examining

F-F benefit use from a social-cognitive framework. Social-cognitive theory distin-

guishes between two types of cognitions, outcome expectancies and self-efficacy be-

liefs, that influence behavior (Bandura, 1986). We define these two constructs below

and link them to research on F-F benefits, arguing that both are central to under-standing decisions regarding F-F benefit use.

Outcome expectancies are judgments regarding the probable consequences of en-

gaging in a behavior (Bandura, 1986). In the context of deciding whether or not to

use F-F benefits, it seems likely that individuals may consider potential outcomes in

both the work and family domains. There are numerous anecdotal reports that both

men and women are concerned about the effects that family intrusions may have on

work and family outcomes (Hall, 1990; Powell, 1997; Reid, 2000), yet there is little

research on this issue. In the only study examining relations with expected work out-comes, Thompson et al. (1999) did not find that anticipated career consequences re-

lated to the use of a F-F benefits array, though unreliability in the benefits use

measure may have contributed to the null result. Although there is research linking

family outcomes to mothers� decisions to return to work (e.g., Greenberger, Gold-

berg, Crawford, & Granger, 1988), we are not aware of any studies examining the

relationship between expected family outcomes and F-F benefit use. Nevertheless,

it seems reasonable to predict that family outcome expectancies would influence ben-

efit use decisions.

A. Butler et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 65 (2004) 57–70 59

An important question is whether outcome expectancies influence benefit use de-

cisions similarly for all workers. In particular, we believe that work and family out-

come expectancies may differentially relate to benefit use decisions by men and

women. More specifically, women may be generally more attuned to issues surround-

ing F-F benefit use because they view them as more important than men do (Frone &Yardley, 1996). Also, because women may be more concerned with counteracting

stereotypes regarding work commitment (Foschi, 1992; Judiesch & Lyness, 1999),

expected work outcomes associated with F-F benefit use may be more salient to wo-

men than to men. Similarly, because women generally have greater involvement in

the family domain, the expected effects of F-F benefits on one�s family might be a

more important concern for women.

In addition to outcome expectancies, social-cognitive theory also posits that self-

efficacy beliefs influence an individual�s behavior. Self-efficacy is defined as an indi-vidual�s belief that he or she can perform competently in a particular domain (Ban-

dura, 1997). Although self-efficacy has been examined in the occupational stress

literature (e.g., Matsui & Onglatco, 1992; Schaubroeck, Lam, & Xie, 2000), there

are few studies of self-efficacy in the work–family context. Erdwins, Buffardi, Casper,

and O�Brien (2001) found that work self-efficacy related to reduced work–family

conflict, and Ozer (1995) found that work and family self-efficacy related to en-

hanced well-being in new mothers. Likewise, we believe that perceptions of one�sability to cope with work and family conflicts may directly bear on decisions touse F-F benefits.

1.1. Hypotheses

We predicted that expected work outcomes, expected family outcomes, and work–

family self-efficacy would predict benefit use. In addition to measuring actual use of

F-F benefits, we also examined intentions to use the benefits. Intentions are a prox-

imal predictor of action in the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991) and wereexamined in connection with the use of on-site daycare facilities (Rothausen, Gonz-

alez, Clarke, & O�Dell, 1998). We chose to examine intentions because previous stud-

ies found that actual benefit use is quite low (e.g., Judiesch & Lyness, 1999;

Thompson et al., 1999), and restricted variance in the benefit use measure may pre-

clude the discovery of important relationships. Moreover, intentions may be partic-

ularly relevant to the use of F-F benefits because work and family circumstances are

dynamic, such that an individual may not need F-F benefits now, but may anticipate

a need for them in the future.Two different life domains, work and family, are potentially affected by F-F ben-

efits, so we predicted that expected outcomes for both work and family would predict

decisions about benefit use. For work outcomes, we focused on those affecting an in-

dividual�s job, career, and general standing at work. For family outcomes, we fo-

cused on those affecting relationships with family members and friends, as well as

overall family functioning. Although Thompson et al. (1999) did not find a signifi-

cant relationship between career outcomes and benefit use, their study did not

include a measure of intentions to use the benefits. We are not aware of any


study examining the relationship between family outcomes and benefit use or use in-

tentions.

Hypothesis 1.More positive work outcome expectancies relate to greater F-F benefit

use and stronger use intentions.

Hypothesis 2. More positive family outcome expectancies relate to greater F-F

benefit use and stronger use intentions.

We also predicted, based on social-cognitive theory, that work–family self-efficacy

would predict decisions about benefit use. We defined work–family self-efficacy as

beliefs about one�s ability to competently manage conflicts between work and family.

Although we are not aware of any studies examining the relationship between work–family self-efficacy and F-F benefit use, individuals with higher levels of work–family

self-efficacy should feel that they can competently handle the demands of work and

family and may, therefore, perceive a reduced need for coping assistance.

Hypothesis 3. Higher levels of work–family self-efficacy relate to lower F-F benefit

use and weaker use intentions.

We believe it is possible that outcome expectancies may differentially predict ben-efit use and use intentions of men and women. Overall, research shows that F-F ben-

efits are more important to women than men (Frone & Yardley, 1996), which may

lead women to be more concerned with issues surrounding their use. Women may

also be more concerned with stereotypes regarding their commitment to work (Fo-

schi, 1992) and, because of their greater family involvement, in improving outcomes

for the family. Consequently, we believe women may pay more attention to out-

comes associated with F-F benefits and be more sensitive than men to conditions

which make benefit use more attractive.

Hypothesis 4. The positive relationship between work outcome expectancies and

F-F benefit use and use intentions are stronger for women than for men.

Hypothesis 5. The positive relationship between family outcome expectancies and

F-F benefit use and use intentions are stronger for women than for men.

2. Method

2.1. Participants

The participants in this study were 188 parents or other family members of college

students at a Midwestern university. Undergraduate students provided the question-

naire to a parent or other close family member who was employed full-time with at

least one child under the age of 18 living at home. In the first round of data collec-


tion, 240 questionnaires were distributed and 146 were returned, a response rate of

61%. A second round of data collection was completed approximately two months

later in which 96 questionnaires were distributed and 51 were returned, a response

rate of 54%. The overall response rate was 59%. Seven returned questionnaires were

discarded due to extensive missing data, and two were discarded because the partic-ipants did not indicate having any children, leaving a usable sample of 188.

The participants were 116 (62%) women and 72 (38%) men, and the average age of

participants was 40.6 (SD ¼ 8:25). Caucasians made up 98% of the sample, and 88%

percent of participants were married or living with a partner. Of the married or co-

habiting participants, 78% reported that their partner worked full or part-time. Man-

agement positions were held by 23% of respondents, and smaller percentages were

employed in the service industry (18%), education (15%), healthcare (11%), indus-

trial (6%), information technology (6%), agricultural (3%), and other (19%) fields.

2.2. Procedure

The participants received a packet of study materials consisting of an informed

consent form, instructions for completing the study, and a questionnaire on work

and family. To protect their privacy and to increase the uniformity of conditions un-

der which the questionnaire was completed, participants were instructed to complete

the questionnaire in a private room with the door closed, to seal the completed ques-tionnaire in a provided envelope, and to sign their name across the envelope�s seal.Participants returned the sealed envelope to the student who gave it to them or

mailed it directly to the researcher; only three surveys were returned by mail.

2.3. Measures

2.3.1. Demographics

Participants responded to a number of demographic questions, including theirgender, marital status, number of children, and age of youngest child. These factors

served as controls in the analysis.

2.3.2. Work–family conflict

Scales of four items each were used to measure work-to-family and family-to-

work conflict. The scales were used by Gutek, Searle, and Klepa (1991), and came

from a larger scale developed by Kopelman, Greenhaus, and Connolly (1983).

The response scale was from (1) never/very rarely to (5) very often. These factors alsoserved as controls in the analysis.

2.3.3. Family-friendly benefits

A list of F-F benefits was derived from a survey conducted by the US Office of

Personnel Management (1998). Benefits which were not likely to be relevant to

our sample (e.g., fare subsidies) and which were federally mandated for some em-

ployers (e.g., Family and Medical Leave Act) were not included in our survey.

The eleven benefits included were leave of absence, flexible scheduling, telecommut-


ing/work from home, on-site daycare, daycare/eldercare referral services, eldercare

assistance, part-time work, job sharing, compressed work week, sick leave for family

care/bereavement, and employee assistance benefit. Participants indicated how often

they used each of the benefits on a scale from (1) never to (5) very often. A not avail-able response option was also included in case the organization did not offer the ben-efit. In addition to measuring actual F-F benefit use, we also measured intentions to

use the benefits. Participants indicated how likely they would be to use the benefits in

the future if those benefits were available on a response scale from (1) very unlikely to(5) very likely.

2.3.4. Social-cognitive factors

We developed measures of work outcome expectancies, family outcome expectan-

cies, and work–family self-efficacy. Both outcome expectancy measures followed aconditional structure (e.g.,‘‘if I do this, that will happen’’) which characterized other

published outcome expectancy measures (e.g., Betz & Voyten, 1997; Smith & Fouad,

1999). The work outcome expectancies consisted of four items that tapped undefined

general outcomes at work, as well as more specific outcomes such as pay and career

progress measured in prior studies of F-F benefit use (Judiesch & Lyness, 1999;

Thompson et al., 1999). Sample items include, ‘‘Using F-F programs would harm

my status at work,’’ and ‘‘Using F-F programs would hurt my career progress.’’

The family outcome expectancies measure consisted of four items that tapped unde-fined general family outcomes, as well as specific outcomes such as children�s life qual-ity and relationship quality identified in prior studies (Bridges & Etaugh, 1996).

Sample items include, ‘‘Using F-F programs would improve relationships with my

family and friends,’’ and ‘‘Using F-F programs would improve life for my children.’’

We also developed a five item measure of perceived self-efficacy to cope with work–

family conflicts by simply modifying the object of focus in items from self-efficacy

scales used in other studies (Jones, 1986; Wanberg & Banas, 2000). Sample items in-

clude, ‘‘Handling the conflicting demands of work and family is well within my abil-ities,’’ and ‘‘My past experiences increase my confidence that I will be able to handle

conflicting demands of work and family.’’ The response scale for all of the social-cog-

nitive measures was from (1) strongly disagree to (5) strongly agree.To determine whether distinct processes, as we theorized, drove responses to the

social-cognitive items, we conducted a factor analysis with promax rotation. We ex-

amined a scree plot that showed three factors with eigenvalues above or near two,

followed by several factors with eigenvalues less than one. As expected, we extracted

three factors and found that items that were intended to capture a similar underlyingcognitive process loaded on the same factor. A table of the factor analysis results is

available by request.

3. Results

Descriptive statistics, scale reliability estimates, and the correlation matrix are pre-

sented in Table 1. All hypotheses were tested using hierarchical multiple regression.

Table 1

Descriptive statistics, reliability estimates, and correlation matrix for all variables

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1. Gender — — —

2. Marital status — — .12 —

3. Number of children 1.75 1.05 .00 ).01 —

4. Age of youngest child 10.62 5.70 ).17 .04 ).25* —

5. F-F benefit availability 4.26 2.55 ).06 ).04 ).02 ).09 —

6. Work to family

conflict

2.93 0.75 .01 .04 .03 .04 .02 .74

7. Family to work

conflict

1.90 0.53 ).14 ).04 ).01 .10 .13 .38 .65

8. Intention to use F-F

benefits

2.61 0.83 ).24* .07 .03 ).19* .12 .08 .16* .80

9. Use of F-F benefits 1.93 0.85 .12 .04 ).04 ).16 ).07 ).13 ).03 .29* .82

10. Work outcome

expectancies

3.56 0.78 ).08 .05 .04 ).05 .07 ).22 ).03 .12 .26* .81

11. Family outcome

expectancies

3.32 0.81 ).03 ).02 .07 ).17* .02 .19 .22* .30* .05 .06 .83

12. Work–family 3.70 0.65 .11 ).07 .07 ).05 ).05 ).35 ).31* ).28* ).03 .20* ).22* .79

A.Butler

etal./JournalofVocatio

nalBehavio

r65(2004)5
self-efficacy
Note. Non-demographic measures were rated on a 5-point scale, where a rating of 5 indicated m e of the construct. Cronbach�s a reliability coefficients

are on the diagonal. Correlations greater than .15 are significant at �p < :05. F-F¼ family-friendly.

7–70

63

*

*

*

*

or


At step 1, demographics, work-to-family and family-to-work conflict, and family-

friendly (F-F) benefit availability were entered as control factors. At step 2, the so-

cial-cognitive predictors were entered, and at step 3, hypothesized interaction terms

were entered. All continuously measured predictors were centered prior to running

the analyses (Aiken & West, 1991), and significant interactions were explored usingprocedures described by Cohen and Cohen (1983). The power of moderated regres-

sion to detect interactions is low, resulting in a high Type II error rate (Aiken &

West, 1991; Cronbach, 1987; Zedeck, 1971). One remedy to this problem is to accept

a higher Type I error rate (McClelland & Judd, 1993), so we selected an a level of .10

to test the significance of the interactions.

Complete regression results for benefit use and use intentions are presented in

Tables 2 and 3, respectively. As a group, the control factors did not account for a

significant amount of variance in benefit use (R2 ¼ :07; p ¼ :10), but they were relatedto intentions to use the benefits (R2 ¼ :16; p < :001). Participants with younger chil-

dren reported using the benefits more (b ¼ �:17; p < :05) and also reported stronger

use intentions (b ¼ �:26; p < :001). Women also reported stronger use intentions

(M ¼ 2:77; SD ¼ 0:79) than men (M ¼ 2:34; SD ¼ 0:84, b ¼ �:28; p < :001). Partici-pants with lower levels of work-to-family conflict were somewhat more likely to re-

port using the benefits (b ¼ �:15; p ¼ :06), and participants with higher levels of

family-to-work conflict were somewhat more likely to report stronger use intentions

(b ¼ :13; p ¼ :08).The addition of the three social-cognitive factors to the model containing the con-

trol variables significantly increased the variance explained in benefit use

(DR2 ¼ :08; p < :01) and use intentions (DR2 ¼ :10, p < :001). More positive work

outcome expectancies were related to more benefit use (b ¼ :28; p < :001), but they

Table 2

Moderated regression results for use of family-friendly programs

Predictor Standardized regression coefficients

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3

Gender (G) .09 .13 .13

Marital status .05 .01 .01

Age of youngest child ).17� ).16� ).16�

Number of children ).07 ).07 ).07Work to family conflict ).15 ).12 ).11Family to work conflict .07 .03 .03

Family-friendly benefit availability ).08 ).08 ).08Work outcome expectancies (WO) .28�� .33��

Family outcome expectancies (FO) ).01 .02

Work–family self-efficacy ).14 ).14G�WO ).07G�FO ).03R2 .07 .14�� .15��

DR2 .08�� <.01

* p < :05.** p < :01.

Table 3

Moderated regression results for intention to use family-friendly programs

Predictor Standardized regression coefficients

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3

Gender (G) ).28�� ).24�� ).24��

Marital status .12 .09 .10

Age of youngest child ).26�� ).22�� ).21��

Number of children ).04 ).03 ).03Work to family conflict .03 ).03 ).02Family to work conflict .13 .04 .04

Family-friendly benefit availability .06 .06 .06

Work outcome expectancies (WO) .11 .23��

Family outcome expectancies (FO) .19�� .28��

Work–family self-efficacy ).23�� ).24��

G�WO ).16��

G�FO ).12R2 .16�� .25�� .28��

DR2 .10�� .03�

* p < :05.** p < :01.*** p < :10.


were not related to benefit use intentions (b ¼ :11; p ¼ :10), lending partial support

for Hypothesis 1. Family outcome expectancies were not related to benefit use

(b ¼ �:02; p ¼ :85), but more positive family outcome expectancies were related to

stronger use intentions (b ¼ :19; p < :01), lending partial support for Hypothesis 2.

Consistent with Hypothesis 3, we found that higher levels of work–family self-effi-

cacy were marginally related to less benefit use (b ¼ �:14; p ¼ :08) and were related

to weaker use intentions (b ¼ �:23; p < :01).The addition of the interactions between gender and work outcome expectancies

and gender and family outcome expectancies did not increase the variance explained

in F-F benefit use (DR2 ¼ :004; p ¼ :69), but did increase the variance explained in

intentions to use the benefits (DR2 ¼ :03; p < :05). For intentions to use F-F benefits,

only the interaction between sex and work outcome expectancies was significant

(b ¼ �:16; p ¼ :06), after adjusting alpha as explained above. Consistent with Hy-

pothesis 4, analyses of simple slopes revealed that more positive work outcome ex-

pectancies were related to stronger use intentions by women, b ¼ :23; p < :05, butnot men, b ¼ �:02; p ¼ :85. Thus, Hypothesis 4 was partially supported, but Hy-pothesis 5 was not supported.

4. Discussion

We used a social-cognitive framework to advance the literature on family-friendly

(F-F) benefit use in several unique ways. We found that more positive work outcome

expectancies related to increased benefit use, and more positive family outcome


expectancies and higher levels of work–family self-efficacy related to stronger use

intentions. Importantly, we also found that gender moderated the relationship be-

tween work outcome expectancies and use intentions, such that anticipated positive

work outcomes related to stronger use intentions for women, but were not related to

the intentions of men. The addition of social-cognitive factors to our models contain-ing demographic factors, work–family conflict, and benefit availability doubled the

variance explained in benefit use and increased by one and a half times the variance

explained in intentions to use the benefits. This is strong evidence of the utility of the

social-cognitive framework for increased understanding of F-F benefit use.

Much of the existing research on F-F benefit use focused on environmental pre-

dictors, such as organizational culture (Allen, 2001; Thompson et al., 1999). How-

ever, little was known about individual psychological factors which predicted

benefit use, a void partially filled by the present study. Numerous anecdotal reportssuggested that workers were apprehensive about using F-F benefits, fearing that

their career progress would be harmed if it appeared that family was a priority over

work (Hall, 1990; Powell, 1997). Stated another way, these reports suggested that de-

cisions to use F-F benefits were influenced by the anticipated work outcomes that

would follow. Our finding that more negative work outcome expectancies were asso-

ciated with less benefit use provides empirical support for these reports.

It is important to note that the association between work outcome expectancies

and benefit use in the present study differs from results reported by Thompson etal. (1999) who did not find any relationship between anticipated career consequences

and F–F benefit use. The inconsistent results across the two studies may be due to

differences in how the criterion and predictor were measured, as well as to sample

differences. With regard to the criterion, the Thompson et al. (1999) benefit use mea-

sure used a categorical response scale (i.e., used/not used), whereas the response scale

for our benefit use scale was continuous. In addition, the reliability of the Thompson

et al. benefit use measure fell below commonly accepted levels, whereas our measure

showed acceptable levels of reliability. With regard to the predictor, although bothour work outcomes scale and the Thompson et al. scale included items focusing

on career progress, the Thompson et al. scale generally had a greater focus on social

outcomes such as coworker feelings. Finally, our sample was restricted to parents,

whereas the Thompson et al. sample was not. Individually or in combination, these

differences may explain why we found a relationship between expected work out-

comes and benefit use that Thompson et al. did not find.

We also found that expected positive outcomes for the family related to increased

benefit use intentions. Interestingly, although expected family outcomes predicteduse intentions, they mattered very little when determining actual benefit use. It is

possible that the stronger relationship between expected family outcomes and inten-

tions reflects participant�s beliefs about commitment to the family. However, socially

desirable responding may also explain the disjunction in the relationship between

family outcome expectancies and intentions versus use. That is, both reports of in-

creased future benefit use and expected positive family outcomes associated with

benefit use may be driven by a desire to project to others that family is important

and a priority. Nevertheless, given that intentions are a predictor of action (Ajzen,


1991), organizations would do well to tout the positive outcomes for one�s family as-

sociated with using F-F benefits.

An interesting finding in the present study was that gender moderated the rela-

tionship between work outcome expectancies and intentions to use F-F benefits.

Whereas women had greater intentions to use the benefits if they expected positivework outcomes, the intentions of men were unrelated to their work outcome expec-

tancies. This suggests that women may be more attuned or sensitive to the effect of F-

F benefits on their work outcomes and that such considerations influence more

prominently their intentions to use the benefits. It may simply be that women value

F-F benefits more and thus pay more attention to issues surrounding their use

(Frone & Yardley, 1996). Alternatively, women may perceive that they are held to

a different standard than men and may, therefore, pay more attention to incentives

or disincentives associated with overt attempts to balance work and family (Foschi,1992). Importantly, we did not find that gender moderated the relationship between

work outcome expectancies and actual benefit use, and future research is necessary

to determine why gender moderation occurred when the criterion was intentions but

not when it was actual use. Gender also did not moderate the relationship between

family outcome expectancies and benefit use or intentions which may indicate that

family outcomes are an equally important consideration for both men and women.

To our knowledge, this was also the first study to investigate the relationship be-

tween work–family self-efficacy and F-F benefit use. Our results indicated that if aparticipant felt well equipped to handle the demands of work and family, then he

or she intended to use the benefits less often and was somewhat less likely to actually

use the benefits. It is possible that the stronger relationship between work–family

self-efficacy and use intentions may be due to the cognitive nature of both variables,

and that this relationship is somewhat weakened when the criterion is actual behav-

ior. Nevertheless, the findings of the present study illustrate the importance of work–

family self-efficacy to understanding F-F benefit use, and more research is needed to

identify factors that affect work–family self-efficacy as well as factors that mightmoderate its relationship with benefit use.

That the availability of F-F benefits was not related to either benefit use or use

intentions in the present study is not consistent with previous findings of a positive

relationship between benefit availability and benefit use (Allen, 2001; Thompson et

al., 1999). In both of these prior studies, the response scale for the benefit use items

was ordinal, so it was not possible to know how much the benefits were used. In con-

trast, we used an interval response scale that reflected the frequency of benefit use.

Our results indicate that merely offering F-F benefits will not be enough to compelemployees to frequently use them (Kofodimos, 1995; Lobel & Kossek, 1996). In ad-

dition to offering benefits, our results suggest that organizations should improve em-

ployee perceptions about work outcomes that are likely to follow from benefit use.

The results of our study have several implications for future research. First, our

finding that the social-cognitive factors differentially predicted F-F benefit use and

use intentions deserves more scrutiny. Although the cross-sectional design of our

study does not permit a test of the application of the theory of planned behavior

(Ajzen, 1991) to F-F benefit use, a longitudinal study would improve understanding


of the relationships among the social-cognitive predictors, intentions, and benefit

use. Second, future research could integrate the social-cognitive perspective we tested

with the organizational culture perspective (cf., Allen, 2001; Behson, 2002; Thomp-

son et al., 1999). It may be the case that the expectancies we studied are more prox-

imal predictors of benefit use, and they might mediate the relationships found forsupportive organizational cultures.

Our results also have clear implications for human resource practices in organiza-

tions. Our finding that F-F benefit availability was not related to benefit use suggests

that organizations need to do more to encourage use of these benefits. In particular,

our results suggest that organizations should make the positive outcomes associated

with F-F benefit use more salient to employees if they want to increase benefit use. In

addition, given that the only demographic factor in our study related to benefit use

was age of youngest child and that demography is dynamic, our results highlight theneed for organizations to consider factors other than demography when implement-

ing comprehensive F-F benefit programs.

There are several limitations to this study that should be addressed in future

research. As with prior research (e.g., Thompson et al., 1999), the actual rate of

F-F benefit use in this study was low. Studies conducted in organizations where em-

ployees have access to and use a broad array of benefits may permit more conclusions

to be drawn about factors predicting benefit use. Because our sample primarily con-

sisted of the parents of college age children, very few of the participants had youngchildren who were not yet in school and many of the participants held professional

positions. Future studies should be conducted using more variable samples. Finally,

our definitions andmeasures of work and family outcome expectancies were relatively

broad, and it may be worthwhile for future studies to examine more specific work

(e.g., responsibility, power, etc.) and family (e.g., leisure time, children�s health, etc.)outcomes. Indeed, it seems likely that a factorial model could be developed as the basis

for a comprehensive measure of these constructs. Despite these limitations, the results

of the present study have practical implications for HR practices in organizations andprovide a sound basis for future studies on this insufficiently researched topic.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by a grant from the College of Social and Behavioral

Sciences at the University of Northern Iowa. Portions of this paper were presented at

the 2002 Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial/Organizational Psychology(Toronto).

References

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,

50, 179–211.


Allen, T. D. (2001). Family-supportive work environments: The role of organizational perceptions.

Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 414–435.

Allen, T. D., Herst, D. E., Bruck, C. S., & Sutton, M. (2000). Consequences associated with work-to-

family conflict: A review and agenda for future research. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5,

278–308.

Anderson, S. E., Coffey, B. S., & Byerly, R. T. (2002). Formal organizational initiatives and informal

workplace practices: Links to work–family conflict and job related outcomes. Journal of Management,

28, 787–810.

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

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.

Behson, S. J. (2002). Which dominates? The relative importance of work–family organizational support

and general organizational context on employee outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 53–72.

Betz, N. E., & Voyten, K. K. (1997). Efficacy and outcome expectations influence career exploration and

decidedness. Career Development Quarterly, 46, 179–189.

Bridges, J. S., & Etaugh, C. (1996). Black and white college women�s maternal employment outcome

expectations and their desired timing of maternal employment. Sex Roles, 35, 543–562.

Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analyses for the behavioral sciences

(2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Cronbach, L. (1987). Statistical tests for moderator variables: Flaws in analyses recently reported.

Psychological Bulletin, 102, 414–417.

Erdwins, C. J., Buffardi, L. C., Casper, W. J., & O�Brien, A. S. (2001). The relationship of women�s rolestrain to social support, role satisfaction, and self-efficacy. Family Relations: Interdisciplinary Journal

of Applied Family Studies, 50, 230–238.

Foschi, M. (1992). Gender and double standards for competence. In C. L. Ridgeway (Ed.), Gender,

interaction and inequality (pp. 181–207). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Frankel, M. (1998). Creating the family-friendly workplace: Barriers and solutions. In S. Klarreich (Ed.),

Handbook of organizational health psychology: Programs to make the workplace healthier (pp. 79–100).

Madison, CT: Psychosocial Press.

Frone, M. R., & Yardley, J. K. (1996). Workplace family-supportive benefits: Predictors of employed

parents� importance ratings. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 69, 351–366.

Greenberger, E., Goldberg, W. A., Crawford, T. J., & Granger, J. (1988). Beliefs about the consequences

of maternal employment for children. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 12, 35–59.

Gutek, B. A., Searle, S., & Klepa, L. (1991). Rational versus gender role explanations for work–family

conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 560–568.

Hall, D. T. (1990). Promoting work/family balance: An organization-change approach. Organizational

Dynamics, 18, 5–18.

Hammer, L. B., Allen, E., & Grigsby, T. D. (1997). Work–family conflict in dual-earner couples: Within

individual and crossover effects of work and family. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50, 185–203.

Hobson, C. J., Delunas, L., & Kesic, D. (2001). Compelling evidence of the need for corporate work/life

balance initiatives: Results of a national survey of stressful life events. Journal of Employment

Counseling, 38, 38–44.

Jones, G. R. (1986). Socialization tactics, self-efficacy, and newcomers� adjustments to organizations.

Academy of Management Journal, 29, 262–279.

Judiesch, M. K., & Lyness, K. S. (1999). Left behind? The impact of leaves of absence on managers� careersuccess. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 641–651.

Kofodimos, J. (1995). Balancing act: How managers can integrate successful careers and fulfilling personal

lives. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kopelman, R. E., Greenhaus, J. H., & Connolly, T. F. (1983). A model of work, family, and interrole

conflict: A construct validation study. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 32, 198–

215.

Kossek, E. E., & Ozeki, C. (1998). Work–family conflict, policies, and the job–life satisfaction relationship:

A review and directions for organizational behavior–human resources research. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 83, 139–149.


Kossek, E. E., & Ozeki, C. (1999). Bridging the work–family policy and productivity gap: A literature

review. Community, Work, and Family, 2, 7–32.

Lobel, S. A., & Kossek, E. E. (1996). Human resource strategies to support diversity in work and personal

lifestyles: Beyond the ‘‘family-friendly’’ organization. In E. E. Kossek & S. A. Lobel (Eds.), Managing

diversity: Human resource strategies for transforming the workplace (pp. 221–244). Oxford, UK:

Blackwell.

Marshall, N. L., & Barnett, R. C. (1994). Family-friendly workplaces, work–family interface, and worker

health. In G. P. Keita, & J. J. Hurrell (Eds.), Job stress in a changing workforce: Investigating gender,

diversity, and family issues (pp. 253–264). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Matsui, T., & Onglatco, M. L. (1992). Career self-efficacy as a moderator of the relation between

occupational stress and strain. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 41, 79–88.

McClelland, G. H., & Judd, C. M. (1993). Statistical difficulties of detecting interactions and moderator

effects. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 376–390.

Ozer, E. M. (1995). The impact of childcare responsibility and self-efficacy on the psychological health of

professional working mothers. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 19, 315–335.

Parasuraman, S., & Greenhaus, J. H. (1997). The changing world of work and family. In S. Parasuraman

& J. Greenhaus (Eds.), Integrating work and family: Challenges and choices for a changing world (pp. 3–

14). Westport, CT: Quorum Books.

Powell, G. N. (1997). The sex difference in employee inclinations regarding work–family benefits: Why

does it exist, should we care, and what should be done about it (if anything)?. In S. Parasuraman & J.

H. Greenhaus (Eds.), Integrating work and family: Challenges and choices for a changing world (pp.

167–174). Westport CT: Quorum Books.

Reid, T. R. (2000). Expecting more than a baby; wife urges British leader to take paternity leave. The

Washington Post, p. A1.

Rothausen, T. J., Gonzalez, J. A., Clarke, N. E., & O�Dell, L. L. (1998). Family-friendly backlash—fact or

fiction? The case of organizations� on-site child care centers. Personnel Psychology, 51, 685–706.

Schaubroeck, J., Lam, S., & Xie, J. L. (2000). Collective efficacy versus self-efficacy in coping responses to

stressors and control: A cross-cultural study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 512–525.

Smith, P. L., & Fouad, N. A. (1999). Subject-matter specificity of self-efficacy, outcome expectancies,

interests and goals: Implications for the social-cognitive model. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 46,

461–471.

Thomas, L. T., & Ganster, D. C. (1995). Impact of family-supportive work variables on work–family

conflict and strain: A control perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 6–15.

Thompson, C. A., Beauvais, L. L., & Lyness, K. S. (1999). When work–family benefits are not enough:

The influence of work–family culture on benefit utilization, organizational attachment, and work–

family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 392–415.

US Office of Personnel Management (1998). A review of federal family-friendly workplace arrangements

[WWWdocument]. Available: URL http://www.opm.gov/wrkfam/html/report.htm.

Wanberg, C. R., & Banas, J. T. (2000). Predictors and outcomes of openness to changes in a reorganizing

workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 132–142.

Zedeck, S. (1971). Problems with the use of ‘‘moderator’’ variables. Psychological Bulletin, 76, 295–310.

http://www.opm.gov/wrkfam/html/report.htm

A social-cognitive perspective on using family-friendly benefits

Documents

Transcript of A social-cognitive perspective on using family-friendly benefits