Research article · 2024 · Full text
International Journal of Agriculture Extension and Social DevelopmentPsychological well-being and work family conflict of married couples
Volume 7(5) · Pages 161–167 · DOI: 10.33545/26180723.2024.v7.i5c.611 ↗
Research areasWork-Family Balance Challenges
Abstract
Author-writtenFamily conflict and mental health: It has been hypothesized that important mediators of the relationship between work-family conflict and mental health are perceived stress and negative affect. In particular, stress was described as an experience of either short-term or long-term psychological or physical strain that results in adverse alterations in the person. The present was conducted in three districts of Haryana with a sample of 360 adults of age group 25- 35 years. Present study concluded that more than one fourth of rural and urban population are having moderate level of psychological wellbeing. More than one fourth of rural population is having moderate level of work family conflict, on the other hand 29% of urban population is having very high level of work family conflict. A significant difference is shown in mean score of mental health among districts. Significant difference is found in sociability and satisfaction according to area wise distribution. It also shows that there were statistically significant differences in sociability, satisfaction, efficiency, mental health and interpersonal relations. The results of the analysis reveal a significant mean difference in work-family conflict among the respondents across the aforementioned districts. This finding suggests that there are notable variations in the experiences of work-family conflict among individuals residing in Kurukshetra, Hisar, and Gurugram.
Summary
Source-checkedPlain-language reading of the full paper, prepared with AI and checked against the text. Each point links to the authors' own words.
Why it matters
- Perceived stress and negative affect are hypothesized to be key mediators in the relationship between work-family conflict and mental health. View evidence ↗
- Work-family conflict occurs when workplace demands exceed those of home life, potentially impacting the importance of both domains. View evidence ↗
The question
- The study aimed to assess the levels of work-family conflict and psychological well-being among married couples. View evidence ↗
- The research sought to investigate how work-family conflict impacts the psychological well-being of married couples. View evidence ↗
What they did
- The study was carried out in both rural and urban areas across the Hisar, Kurukshetra, and Gurugram districts of Haryana state. View evidence ↗
- Psychological well-being was measured using the Sisodia and Choudary (2012) scale, while work-family conflict was assessed via a developed questionnaire. View evidence ↗
- Data analysis was performed using frequencies, percentages, means, standard deviations, t-tests, and ANOVA. View evidence ↗
What they found
- Moderate psychological well-being was reported by 35% of rural and 28.8% of urban respondents. View evidence ↗
- Work-family conflict levels varied by area, with 29.6% of urban respondents reporting very high conflict compared to 20.5% of rural respondents. View evidence ↗
- Significant differences in sociability (t=3.81) and satisfaction (t=2.57) were found when comparing rural and urban respondents. View evidence ↗
- A significant difference in work-family conflict was observed among respondents from Kurukshetra, Hisar, and Gurugram (f=24.50). View evidence ↗
- Statistically significant differences were found between work-family conflict and all five aspects of psychological well-being, including mental health (t=37.3) and satisfaction (t=36.9). View evidence ↗
What it means
- The study concludes that experiences of work-family conflict vary notably depending on the district of residence. View evidence ↗
Visual summary
1 visualsIllustrations explain the paper; charts are replotted from the paper's own table values.
Rural Mean ± SD N= 180 and Urban Mean ± SD N= 180: Satisfaction vs Efficiency vs Sociability vs Mental Health vs Interpersonal Relations
Replotted from Table 7 (page 6) of the original paper. Every bar is the paper's own table value.
View source evidence ↗Figures & tables
From the original paper
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
Table 5
Table 6
Table 7
Table 8
Table 9Introduction
Family conflict and mental health: It has been hypothesized that important mediators of the relationship between workfamily conflict and mental health are perceived stress and negative affect. In particular, stress was described as an experience of either short-term or long-term psychological or physical strain that results in adverse alterations in the person. Stress is a response to an environment where there is a threat, an actual loss of resources, or an absence of an anticipated gain in resources, according to the COR (Conservation of Resources) model (1989). It follows that stress may arise for a person who loses these resources or who fears losing them. The COR model describes the consequences of stress for both intra-and inter-role stress, which in turn causes a negative "state of being" that includes physiological tension, sadness, anxiety, and unhappiness with one's work and life. Thus, it seems that stress has an indirect effect on mental health when it comes to work-family conflict. Voydanoff (2002) [7] , citing Bronfenbrenner's ecological systems theory, characterizes the work-family interface as a mesosystem made up of connections and activities between work and family, which are seen as microsystems made up of networks of in-person relationships. The phrase "work/non-work interface," as used by Geurts and Demerouti (2003) [4] , is more general and refers to a location where work and non-work interact, either positively or negatively. Non-work refers to activities and obligations that fall within the category of private life, whether or not they are related to family. Despite the complementarity of both definitions, I have opted to refer to this relationship as the "work-family interaction" because the relationship between pay labor and commitments in one's private lifeexcluding family-was outside the purview of this study. It is my belief that the work/non-work (or work-home) experiences of working adults without families should be investigated both qualitatively and quantitatively in their own right before applying the same theories and measures that were initially developed from the perspective of working adults with family to working adults without family (i.e., living alone). As a result, including single working adults in research samples without further thought (e.g., by conducting studies comparing single working adults with and without families) may undermine their unique experiences and obfuscate our understanding of the workfamily or work/non-work interface because it can be difficult to distinguish between effects attributable to family and those resulting from single living. Four additional factors can be used to better characterize the work-family interface: quantity, direction, quality, and context. The degree of separation vs integration between the work and family domains is referred to as the amount of the work-family interface. Work and family are viewed as comparatively autonomous and non-influential life domains in regard to each other in segmentation because there are strong physical, temporal, functional, and psychological boundaries between them (Edwards & Rothbard, 2000; Geurts & Demerouti, 2003; Staines, 1980) [3,4,6] . www.extensionjournal.com
The perspective that is used to study the work-family interface is referred to as the contextual. According to ecological systems theory, the microsystems of the workfamily interface are reflected in individual experiences in face-to-face connections between the domains of work and family (Bellavia & Frone, 2005; Bronfenbrenner, 1989; Voydanoff, 2002) [1,2,7] . The processes and connections that exist between work and family, as well as the mutual effects and shared experiences that exist between a person and their role partners, all contribute to the mesosystem of the workfamily interface. Exosystem, also impacts are the result of a person's involvement in the third life domain, where they are not directly involved in work-family interaction activities. The macrosystem impacts are the result of bigger social contexts, including subcultures or larger groups with specific norms and regulations, having an impact on the work-family interaction. Family demands also have effects on their affective states. Based on this perspective, we assumed that if more workfamily conflicts happened in women's daily lives, they might experience more negative affect, and such negative affective experiences would have a negative influence on their work behavior and well-being. Researchers have discovered a positive correlation between increased juggling of work and family duties and state-based negative affective experiences (such as tension, anxiety, concern, annoyance, guilt, discomfort, and aggravation). Families and work are regarded as the two most significant facets of adulthood. Family and work relationships are reciprocal. The various forms of work-family conflict make clear two things: (a) work-family conflict arises when demands from the workplace are greater than those from home life, and (b) work-family conflict can have an impact on the prominence of both work and family lives (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985) [5] . Work-family conflict arises when an employee's obligations in one domain are incompatible with those in another, resulting in an adverse effect on their performance (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985) [5] . This type of conflict can also arise between roles. For the present study following specific objectives are outlined: To assess work family conflict and psychological wellbeing of married couples. To study the impact of work family conflict on psychological well-being of married couples.
Methodology
The study was conducted in rural and urban area of Hisar, Kurukshetra and Gurugram district of Haryana state. List of blocks in Hisar, Kurukshetra and Gurugram district was prepared. From this list, one block, from each district was selected at random Hisar (Mandi Adampur), Kurukshetra (Thanesar) and Gurugram (Chandu Budhera). Urban sample was selected from Hisar, Kurukshetra and Gurugram city. A list of adults in the age group of 25-35 years was prepared from the selected areas. A sample of 360 adults were taken randomly from the selected districts. Equal number of sample i.e. 120 from each district was taken at random. Out of 120 adults, 60 (30 males and 30 females)from urban area and 60(30 males and 30 females) from rural area was selected randomly. Psychological well-being scale developed by D.S. Sisodia and Pooja Choudary (2012) [8] was used to study psychological well-being of married couples and work family conflict was assessed by a developed questionnaire. Frequency, Percentage, means, standard deviation, t-test and ANOVA were used to evaluate the data.
Results
Results
Levels of psychological well-being among married couples
Levels of psychological well-being among married couples
District wise frequency distribution of different levels of psychological well-being
Table 3 showcases district-wise frequency distributions of respondents' level of psychological well-being. Results in rural and urban areas of Kurukshetra, Hissar, and Gurugram districts show that 33.3%, 35%, and 38.4% of rural respondents have moderate levels of psychological wellbeing, respectively. In the same area, 18.3% of rural respondents had high level while 11.6% and 5.2% were in very low and very high categories, respectively. Urban respondents from Kurukshetra had 35% of high-level psychological well-being, followed by 31.6% low, 15% moderate, 5.2% very high, and 6.6% very low. Hisar district showed 23.3% of rural and 8.3% of urban respondents with high psychological well-being. 18.3% of rural and 20% of urban respondents had low well-being, while 15% of rural and 33.3% of urban respondents reported very high wellbeing. 8.4% of rural and 6.6% of urban respondents had very low psychological well-being. In Gurugram district, 21.6% of rural and 13.3% of urban respondents had low well-being, 16.6% of rural and 0% of urban respondents had very low well-being, 11.7% of rural and 43.4% of urban respondents reported very high well-being, and 11.7% of rural and 31.6% of urban respondents had high psychological well-being. ANOVA is a statistical test to measure differences between two or more groups. Table 6 contains mean differences in psychological well-being among three districts. These differences were determined for satisfaction, efficiency, sociability, mental health, and interpersonal relations. The ANOVA results indicate a significant difference in mental health between the districts (f=6.21*). Statistically nonsignificant differences were found in other aspects of psychological well-being (f=0.20 for satisfaction, f=0.75 for interpersonal relations, f=1.52 for efficiency, and f=0.30 for sociability). In Table 8, we provide a detailed analysis of the mean differences in psychological work-family conflict among respondents across three districts, namely Kurukshetra, Hisar, and Gurugram. These mean differences were obtained by conducting an ANOVA test to compare the levels of work-family conflict and its impact on life satisfaction. The results of the analysis reveal a significant (f=24.50*) mean difference in work-family conflict among the respondents across the aforementioned districts. This finding suggests that there are notable variations in the experiences of work-family conflict among individuals residing in Kurukshetra, Hisar, and Gurugram. 9 shows that there were statistically significant differences in sociability (t=33.3*), satisfaction (t=36.9*), efficiency (t=33.9*), mental health (t=37.3*) and interpersonal relations (t=34.4*).
Conclusion
Present study concluded that more than one fourth of rural and urban population are having moderate level of psychological wellbeing. More than one fourth of rural population is having moderate level of work family conflict, on the other hand 29% of urban population is having very high level of work family conflict. A significant difference is shown in mean score of mental health among districts. Significant difference is found in sociability and satisfaction according to area wise distribution. It also shows that there were statistically significant differences in sociability (t=33.3*), satisfaction (t=36.9*), efficiency (t=33.9*), mental health (t=37.3*) and interpersonal relations (t=34.4*). The results of the analysis reveal a significant (f=24.50*) mean difference in work-family conflict among the respondents across the aforementioned districts. This finding suggests that there are notable variations in the experiences of work-family conflict among individuals residing in Kurukshetra, Hisar, and Gurugram.
Figures and tables from the paper
| Sr. No. | Districts Psychological well- being | Area | — |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rural (n= 180) f (%) | Urban (n=180) f (%) | ||
| 1 | Very Low | 22(12.2) | 48(26.6) |
| 2 | Low | 44(24.4) | 33(18.3) |
| 3 | Moderate | 63(35.0) | 52(28.8) |
| 4 | High | 32(17.7) | 36(20.0) |
| 5 | Very High | 19(10.7) | 11(06.3) |
Table text extracted from the original PDF; superscript letters are shown inline. The original table image is below.
View original table image
| Sr. No. | Area Psychological well- being | Rural (n=180) f (%) | Urban (n=180) f (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Satisfaction | ||
| Low | 69(38.3) | 54(29.3) | |
| Moderate | 64(35.5) | 108(60.0) | |
| High | 47(26.1) | 18(10.7) | |
| 2 | Efficiency | ||
| Low | 34(19.0) | 73(40.5) | |
| Moderate | 42(23.3) | 56(31.1) | |
| High | 104(57.7) | 73(40.5) | |
| 3 | Sociability | ||
| Low | 65(36.1) | 12(06.7) | |
| Moderate | 78(43.3) | 27(15.0) | |
| High | 37(20.6) | 141(78.3) | |
| 4 | Mental Health | ||
| Low | 62(34.4) | 70(39.0) | |
| Moderate | 53(29.4) | 86(47.7) | |
| High | 65(36.1) | 24(13.3) | |
| 5 | Interpersonal Relations | ||
| Low | 12(06.6) | 57(31.6) | |
| Moderate | 86(47.7) | 62(34.4) | |
| High | 82(45.7) | 61(33.8) |
Table text extracted from the original PDF; superscript letters are shown inline. The original table image is below.
View original table image
| Sr. No. | Districts Work Family conflict Scale | Area | — |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rural (n= 180) f(%) | Urban (n=180) f(%) | ||
| 1 | Very Low | 33(18.3) | 08(04.4) |
| 2 | Low | 34(18.8) | 39(21.6) |
| 3 | Moderate | 47(26.1) | 35(19.4) |
| 4 | High | 29(16.1) | 45(25.0) |
| 5 | Very High | 37(20.5) | 53(29.6) |
Table text extracted from the original PDF; superscript letters are shown inline. The original table image is below.
View original table image
| Sr. No. | Area Psychological well- being | Rural Mean ± SD N= 180 | Urban Mean ± SD N= 180 | T value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Satisfaction | 30.12±12.47 | 28.45±14.45 | 2.57* |
| 2 | Efficiency | 32.57±13.09 | 32.76±13.32 | 0.13 |
| 3 | Sociability | 37.91±13.16 | 32.25±14.95 | 3.81* |
| 4 | Mental Health | 31.39±12.16 | 31.71±12.72 | 0.24 |
| 5 | Interpersonal Relations | 34.35±13.25 | 36.28±12.46 | 1.42 |
Table text extracted from the original PDF; superscript letters are shown inline. The original table image is below.
View original table image
References
6 in the original paper- Bronfenbrenner U. Ecological systems theory. Annals of Child Development. 1989;6:187-249.
- Edwards JR, Rothbard NP. Mechanisms linking work and family: Clarifying the relationship between work and family constructs. Academy of Management Review. 2000;25:178-199.
- Geurts SAE, Demerouti E. Work/non-work interface: A review of theories and findings. In: Schabracq MJ, Winnubst JAM, Cooper CL, editors. The handbook of work and health psychology. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; 2003. p. 279-312.
- Greenhaus JH, Beutell NJ. Sources of conflict between work and family roles. The Academy of Management Review. 1985;10(1):76-88. Available from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/258214 (Accessed 10/11/2015).
- Staines GL. Spillover versus compensation: A review of the literature on the relationship between work and nonwork. Human Relations. 1980;33:111-129.
- Voydanoff P. Linkages between the work-family interface and work, family, and individual outcomes: An integrative model. Journal of Family Issues. 2002;23:138-164.