Academic journal article Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict

The Impact of Dual-Earner Couples' Beliefs about Career Priority on the Support Exchange [Right Arrow] Well Being Relationship

Academic journal article Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict

The Impact of Dual-Earner Couples' Beliefs about Career Priority on the Support Exchange [Right Arrow] Well Being Relationship

Article excerpt

INTRODUCTION

The burgeoning number of dual-earner couples in the workforce (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2006) today has changed organizational and family life (Archer & Llyod, 2002; Bond, Thompson, Galinsky & Prottas, 2002) resulting in increasing research attention on the dynamics of dual-earner relationships (Byron, 2005; Litzky, Becker & Parasuraman, 1998; Purohit, 2000) especially in terms of partner support (Livingston & Judge, 2008; Neff & Karney, 2005; Walen & Lachman, 2000). Partner support has been examined as a resource assisting individuals in dealing with intense, and often conflicting, work and non-work role demands (Eby, Casper, Lockwood, Bordeaux & Brinley, 2005; Friedman & Greenhaus, 2000; Litzky, Purohit & Weer, 2008). The present study furthers partner support research by examining the impact of support provision differentials and magnitude on individuals' marital conflict and quality of life. This study also contributes to existing research by examining whether individuals' normative beliefs about the career priorities of dual-earner couples influence the relationship between partner support and well being.

PARTNER SUPPORT IN DUAL-EARNER RELATIONSHIPS

Researchers have examined different aspects of partner support including types of partner support (Bird & Schnurman-Cook, 2005; Parasuraman, Purohit, Godshalk & Beutell, 1996), functions of partner support (Carlson & Perrewe, 1999; Grzywacz & Marks, 2000), sources of support (Beauregard, 2007; Friedman & Greenhaus, 2000; Neff & Karney, 2005), and predictors of partner support (Litzky et al., 2008; Purohit, 2000). Despite what we know, research examining partner support has disproportionately focused on support receivers rather than on support providers (Eby et al., 2005; Granrose, Parasuraman & Greenhaus, 1992; Purohit, 2000). With a unidirectional focus on support recipients, we know almost nothing about support providers' support perceptions (Purohit, 2000; Shumaker & Brownell, 1984). A related research gap stems from the fact that in most partner support research data is typically collected from only one partner despite the fact that partner support is widely acknowledged as a dyadic exchange phenomenon (Crossfield, Kinman, & Jones, 2005; Eby et al., 2005; Granrose et al., 1992; Greenhaus & Parasuraman, 1994). Consequently, researchers have emphasized that to understand truly the interpersonal nature of partner support it is imperative for future research in this area to study both partners in the support process, and to assess support as a continuous exchange progression (Eby et al., 2005; Parasuraman & Greenhaus 1992, 1993; Purohit, 2000).

Previous research also indicated that there are systematic differences in the magnitude and types of support partners provide and receive (Cinamon & Rich, 2002; Neff & Karney, 2005; Reevy & Maslach, 2001). It is important to examine support differentials within partners, in addition to the magnitude of support exchanged, as support differentials may mitigate the beneficial effects of support exchanges (Byron 2005; Granrose et al., 1992; Pearlin & McCall, 1990). Scant research exists examining the role and implications of support differentials, as facets of support exchange, despite the well-documented theoretical importance of support differentials (Eby et al., 2005; Granrose et al., 1992; Greenhaus & Parasuraman, 1999; Shumaker & Brownell, 1984).

Additionally, men and women experience different work and non-work outcomes resulting primarily from different socialization contexts (Archer & Llyod, 2002; Loscocco, 1997; Sekaran 1985). The disparate findings regarding differential work and non-work outcomes for men and women have frequently been attributed to the dissimilarities in their normative beliefs stemming from early gender-role socialization (Eby et al., 2005; Litzky et al. …

Search by... Author
Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed

Oops!

An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.