DOI: 10.20419/2013.22.376
CC: 3650
UDK: 159.9:331.5
Psihološka obzo ja / Ho izons o Psychology, 22, 14–26 (2013)
© D uš o psihologo Slo enije, ISSN 2350-5141
Znans eni azisko alnoempi ični p ispe ek
*Naslo /Add ess: Johanna Ran anen, Depa men o Psychology, P.O. Box 35, 40014 Uni e si y o Jy äskylä, Finland. e-mail:
[email p o ec ed]
Članek je licenci an pod pogoji C ea i e Commons A ibu ion 4.0 In e na ional licence. (CC-BY licenca).
The a icle is licensed unde a C ea i e Commons A ibu ion 4.0 In e na ional License (CC-BY license).
The ole o pe sonali y and ole engagemen in
wo k- amily balance
Johanna Ran anen1*, Ulla Kinnunen2 and Lea Pulkkinen1
1Uni e si y o Jy äskylä, Finland
2Uni e si y o Tampe e, Finland
Abs ac : The ela ions be ween pe sonali y, ole engagemen , and a ou -dimensional ypology o wo k- amily balance (WFB)
we e examined wi hin a communi y-based sample (n = 213) de i ed om he Jy äskylä Longi udinal S udy o Pe sonali y
and Social De elopmen (JYLS). The ypology was o med based on bo h wo k- amily con lic (WFC) and en ichmen (WFE)
expe iences. The p o iles o pe sonali y and ole engagemen di e en ia ed he ou WFB ypes – Bene icial, Ha m ul, Ac i e,
and Passi e ypes. The Bene icial ype (low WFC, high WFE; 48.4%) was cha ac e ized by low neu o icism, high ag eeableness
and high conscien iousness. The opposi e was obse ed o he Ha m ul ype (high WFC, low WFE; 8.9%), which was also
cha ac e ized by low amily in es men . In u n, high ex a e sion and high wo k and amily in es men cha ac e ized he
Ac i e ype (high WFC, high WFE; 16.4%), whe eas low ex a e sion and openness o expe ience as well as low wo k in es men
cha ac e ized he Passi e ype (low WFC, low WFE; 26.3%). Thus, a he han jus being a unidimensional cons uc anging
om balance o imbalance, i is con i med ha WFB can also be seen as mani es ing i sel in mul iple ypes, which a e linked
o meaning ul di e ences in pe sonali y ai s and ole engagemen .
Keywo ds: amily wo k balance, ole engagemen , amily ela ions, pe sonali y
Vloga osebnos nih las nos i in ključenos i azlične loge p i
a no ežju med delom in d užino
Johanna Ran anen1, Ulla Kinnunen2 in Lea Pulkkinen1
1Uni e sza Jy äskyli, Finska
2Uni e za Tampe i, Finska
Po ze ek: P ek zo ca udeležence (n = 213) iz zdolžne š udije Jy äskylä Longi udinal S udy o Pe sonali y and Social
De elopmen (JYLS) smo p ouče ali po eza e med osebnos jo, ključenos jo azlične loge in š i i-dimenzionalno
ipologijo a no ežja med delom in d užino. Tipologija je bila zasno na na osno i izkušenj kon lik a in oboga i e med delom
in d užino. Š i je ipi ( j. ugodno a no ežje, škodlji o a no ežje, ak i no a no ežje in pasi no a no ežje) so se azliko ali
ako osebnos ih las nos ih ko ključenos i azlične loge. Za osebe z ugodnim a no ežjem (nizek kon lik , isoka
oboga i e ; 48,4 %) je bila značilna išja čus ena s abilnos , išja sp ejemlji os in išja es nos . Ra no ob ano je bilo
mogoče opazi i p i osebah s škodlji im a no ežjem ( isok kon lik , nizka oboga i e ; 8,9 %), za ka e ega pa je bila doda no
značilna nižja ključenos d užinsko ži ljenje. Visoka eks a e nos in isoka ključenos delo no logo e d užinsko
ži ljenje so bile značilne za osebe z ak i nim a no ežjem ( isok kon lik , isoka oboga i e ; 16.4 %). Po d ugi s ani pa so bile
nižja eks a e nos in odp os za izkušnje e hk a i nižja ključenos delo značilne za pasi no a no ežje (nizek kon lik ,
nizka oboga i e ; 26,3 %). Na podlagi ezul a o lahko zaključimo, da a no ežje med delom in d užino ni enodimenzionalni
kons uk , em eč se kaže p ek azličnih ipo a no ežja, za ka e e so značilne pomembne azlike osebnos nih las nos ih
in ključenos i azlične ži ljenjske loge.
Ključne besede: odnos med d užino in delom, kon lik i log, odnosi d užini, osebnos
15
Psychological iews on he concep o wo k- amily
balance (WFB) ha e been classi ied in o o e all
app aisals and he componen s app oach (G zywacz &
Ca lson, 2007). O e all app aisals e e o indi iduals’
gene al assessmen o hei en i e li e si ua ion (e.g.,
“All in all, how success ul do you eel in balancing you
wo k and pe sonal/ amily li e?”; Cla ke, Koch, & Hill,
2004), whe eas he componen s app oach iews WFB as
cons i u ing di e en measu able dimensions such as ime,
engagemen , and sa is ac ion balance (G eenhaus, Collins,
& Shaw, 2003) o wo k- amily con lic and en ichmen
(F one, 2003). Recen ly, howe e , a ypological app oach
o WFB has been sugges ed in which WFB is no seen
as a single s a e o con inuum anging om balance o
imbalance (c . F one, 2003; G eenhaus e al., 2003) bu
ins ead as mani es ing i sel in ou ypes o WFB ha a e
hypo hesized o di e om each o he in psychological
unc ioning and ole engagemen (Ran anen, Kinnunen,
Mauno, & Tillemann, 2011; Ran anen, Kinnunen,
Mauno, & Temen , 2013). The subjec i e well-being
di e ences be ween he ou ypes o WFB a e well
s udied (Deme ou i & Geu s, 2004; G zywacz, Bu le ,
& Almeida, 2008; Mauno, Ran anen, & Kinnunen, 2011;
Ran anen e al., 2013) bu he o he hypo hesis conce ning
ole engagemen as well as he pe sonali y di e ences
be ween hese ypes a e no . Hence, he aim o he p esen
s udy was o examine how he ypes o WFB di e om
each o he wi h ega d o he Big Fi e pe sonali y ai s as
well as wo k and amily ole engagemen .
Typological app oach o WFB
Wo k- amily in e ace e e s o a si ua ion whe e wo k
and amily domains in e ac , ha is a ec each o he .
Depending on he quali y o his in e ac ion, wo k- amily
in e ace can be ei he nega i e o posi i e (Geu s &
Deme ou i, 2003). Acco dingly, he cons uc o wo k-
amily con lic (WFC) e e s o he nega i e in e ace
be ween wo k and amily domains, whe eas wo k- amily
en ichmen (WFE) e e s o he posi i e in e ace. Mo e
speci ically, WFC e e s o he pe cei ed di icul y o
ul illing simul aneous and/o con lic ing wo k and
amily demands due o insu iciency o ime- and ene gy-
ela ed indi idual esou ces (G eenhaus & Beu ell, 1985).
In con as , WFE e e s o he pe cei ed ease o ul illing
wo k and amily demands due o bene icial skills,
suppo , and esou ces ecei ed om pa icipa ing in he
o he (wo k o amily) domain (F one, 2003; G eenhaus
& Powell, 2006).
In wo k- amily in e ace esea ch, WFC and WFE
ha e ypically been seen as expe iences ha a e opposi e
and exclude each o he , as o example in F one’s (2003)
concep ualiza ion o WFB comp ised o high WFE and
low WFC. On he con a y, in he ypological app oach o
WFB adop ed in he p esen s udy, he di e en ypes o
WFB a e expec ed o exis as a combina ion o WFC and
WFE expe iences (Deme ou i & Geu s, 2004; G zywacz
e al., 2008; Ran anen e al., 2011). The main ene o
he ypological app oach o WFB is ha i is possible
o expe ience bo h WFC and WFE simul aneously wi h
a ying le els. Hence, WFC and WFE do no ope a e in
isola ion, bu ins ead hey wo k oge he o de ine he o al
expe ience and na u e o WFB (Ran anen e al., 2011).
Fo example, long weekly wo king hou s may p e en an
indi idual om pa icipa ing in amily du ies, hus gi ing
ise o an expe ience o WFC. Ne e heless, a he same
ime, he long weekly wo king hou s may p o ide he
desi ed inancial secu i y o he amily, he eby elici ing
an expe ience o WFE.
Acco dingly, he e a e ou WFB ypes hypo hesized
in his app oach, which a e as ollows: he Bene icial ype
consis ing o high WFE and low WFC (also named he
Posi i e in e ac ion o Balanced ype), he Ha m ul ype
consis ing o high WFC and low WFE (also named he
Nega i e in e ac ion o Imbalanced ype), he Ac i e ype
consis ing o high WFC and high WFE (also named he
Nega i e and posi i e in e ac ion o Blu ed ype), and he
Passi e ype consis ing o low WFC and low WFE (also
named he No in e ac ion o Segmen ed ype) (Deme ou i
& Geu s, 2004; G zywacz e al., 2008; Ran anen e al.,
2011). Based on he demands and esou ces app oach o
wo k- amily in e ace (Bakke & Geu s, 2004; Voydano ,
2005), i is assumed ha bene icial WFB esul s om
he low demands and high esou ces a ached o wo k
and amily oles, ha m ul WFB om high demands and
low esou ces, ac i e WFB om bo h high demands and
esou ces, and passi e WFB om bo h low demands and
esou ces (Ran anen e al., 2011).
Hence, he gains ecei ed om he pa icipa ion in
wo k and amily oles exceed he demands o hese oles
o indi iduals expe iencing bene icial WFB, whe eas he
opposi e happens o indi iduals expe iencing ha m ul
WFB. As a esul , in acco dance wi h he heo ies o ole
con lic (G eenhaus & Beu ell, 1985; Kahn, Wol e, Quinn,
Snoek, & Rosen hal, 1964) and ole enhancemen (Ba ne
& Hyde, 2001; Ma ks, 1977; Siebe , 1974), bene icial
WFB is expec ed o acili a e psychological unc ioning
and well-being, whe eas ha m ul WFB h ea ens i . This
is seen as he main di e en ia ing ac o be ween hese
wo ypes o WFB (Ran anen e al., 2011).
In ac i e WFB, due o high wo k- and amily- ela ed
esou ces coupled wi h high demands bo h WFE and
WFC a e expe ienced simul aneously (c . he ea lie
example conce ning long wo king hou s) and hus, high
WFC does no necessa ily impai one’s psychological
unc ioning and well-being i high WFE bu e s i . In
passi e WFB, on he o he hand, because low wo k- amily
esou ces a e coupled wi h low demands nei he WFE
no WFC a e expe ienced, and hus a s ong h ea o
psychological unc ioning and well-being is no p esen .
The main di e en ia ing ac o be ween hese ypes o
WFB is he e o e assumed o be some hing o he han
psychological well-being (Ran anen e al., 2011), namely
ole engagemen based on he heo y o ole balance by
Ma ks and MacDe mid (1996). Ma ks and MacDe mid
(1996) s a e ha ole balance e lec s a beha iou al and
J. Ran anen, U. Kinnunen and L. Pulkkinen
16
cogni i e-a ec i e pa e n o ac ing and eeling ac oss
oles wi h ei he high o low dedica ion. Thus, ac i e
WFB may e lec an indi idual o ien a ion o be highly
engaged in wo k and amily oles by choice (i.e., will o
succeed and achie e happiness in bo h li e sphe es) bu in
he p esence o high demands om hese oles, his high
dual in es men may be bo h ewa ding and o e loading.
Passi e WFB, in u n, may e lec low engagemen
in wo k and amily oles. The e o e, con lic ing ole
demands a e pe haps a oided, bu ewa ds ha enhance
ole pe o mances a e also no gained (Ran anen e al.,
2011).
The Big Fi e pe sonali y ai s, WFC
and WFE
Indi idual di e ences co e a b oad spec um o
ac o s ha desc ibe he way in which he beha iou
and pe o mance o human beings di e om each
o he (Hogan, Ha kness, & Lubinski, 2000). In he
occupa ional psychology li e a u e, i is common ha
many na ow pe sonali y ai s such as Type A beha iou ,
locus o con ol, sel -e icacy, o nega i e a ec i i y a e
s udied one by one in di e en s udies (Mäkikangas,
Feld , Kinnunen, & Mauno, 2013). Ins ead, in he p esen
s udy, he i e- ac o model o pe sonali y (FFM), o en
en i led he Big Fi e, was chosen as he amewo k o
in es iga ing he pe sonali y di e ences be ween he
WFB ypes. The FFM ep esen s a wo king consensus
on he desc ip i e s uc u e o pe sonali y ai s (Caspi
& Shine , 2006; Robe s & Wood, 2006) as i co e s
and o ganizes he lowe le el and na owe pe sonali y
ai s in o highes le el indi idual di e ences, ha is,
in o Big Fi e pe sonali y ai s: neu o icism ( s. emo ional
s abili y), ex a e sion, openness o expe ience (o in ellec ),
ag eeableness, and conscien iousness (e.g., Digman, 1997;
McC ae & Cos a, 2003).
The dis inc i e ea u e o neu o icism is he
empe amen al endency o expe ience nega i e a ec
and o iew he su ounding wo ld as psychosocially
dis essing and h ea ening (Caspi, Robe s, & Shine ,
2005; McC ae & Cos a, 2003). Ex a e sion con ains bo h
empe amen al and in e pe sonal dimensions: indi iduals
high in his ai a e sensi i e o posi i e emo ions and
po en ial ewa ds, and hey a e asse i e, ac i e, and
igo ous in hei ac ions and social ela ionships (Caspi
e al., 2005; McC ae & Cos a, 2003). Ag eeableness and
conscien iousness a e ega ded as ins umen al pe sonali y
ai s (McC ae & Cos a, 1991). Indi iduals high in
ag eeableness a e cha ac e ized as al uis ic, complian ,
and s aigh o wa d, which p omo es in e pe sonal
bonding and social success, and he cha ac e is ics o
conscien ious indi iduals – o de liness, du i ulness,
sel -discipline, and achie emen -s i ing – p omo e
e ec i eness in daily asks and success in wo k (Caspi e
al., 2005; McC ae & Cos a, 1991, 2003).
Openness o expe ience ( e e ed o as openness
he ea e ) di e s o some ex en om he o he Big Fi e
pe sonali y ai s and i is he leas unde s ood o hese
ai s (Caspi e al., 2005). Openness is cha ac e ized by a
deep scope o emo ional and in ellec ual awa eness and
by a need o enla ge and examine expe ience, which is
shown in he imagina i e, aes he ic, uncon en ional, and
cu ious na u e o open indi iduals (McC ae & Cos a,
1997, 2003). Openness seems o be “a double-edged
swo d” ha in ensi ies he magni ude o bo h he posi i e
and nega i e expe iences ha open indi iduals encoun e
(McC ae & Cos a, 1991, 1997).
Following Bolge and Zucke man’s (1995) amewo k
o s udying pe sonali y in he s ess p ocess, Ran anen,
Pulkkinen, and Kinnunen (2005) ha e p esen ed a
Pe sonali y-Con lic -Dis ess model in which he Big Fi e
pe sonali y ai s a e conside ed as an eceden o WFC in
addi ion o wo k and amily demands. La e , G an and
Langan-Fox (2007) p esen ed a simila model conce ning
gene al occupa ional s esso -s ain ela ionships. In bo h
o hese models, he Big Fi e pe sonali y ai s a e also
ega ded as possible mode a o s o he WFC/occupa ional
s esso -psychological s ain ela ionship, he pe spec i e
o which, howe e , is no he ocus o he p esen s udy.
Acco ding o Ran anen e al. (2005), neu o icism
is assumed o be a isk ac o p edisposing one o he
expe ience o WFC, and he o he Big Fi e ai s a e
assumed o be esou ce ac o s p e en ing one om he
expe ience o WFC. The a ionale behind his is ha
indi iduals high in neu o icism a e p one o iewing
demanding wo k- amily ci cums ances as an obs acle ha
canno be o e come o esol ed, bu which o e whelms
hem and causes s ess, ha is, high WFC. In con as ,
indi iduals high in ex a e sion, ag eeableness, and
conscien iousness a e likely o see a simila si ua ion
as a challenge in which hey can espond due o hei
pe sonal (i.e., ac i i y and igou ela ed o ex a e sion;
e ec i eness, o ganisa ional skills, and o de liness
ela ed o conscien iousness) and in e pe sonal (i.e.,
social ne wo ks and suppo ela ed o ex a e sion and
ag eeableness) esou ces. Hence, hese indi iduals a e less
likely o expe ience WFC because o hese pe sonali y-
ela ed esou ces. Indi iduals high in openness in u n
a e no assumed o di e om o he s in WFC (Ran anen
e al., 2005). A ecen and ex ensi e me a-analysis (N =
8,723) con i ms all hese assump ions: WFC is ela ed
mos s ongly o neu o icism (a posi i e associa ion) and
also o some ex en o ex a e sion, ag eeableness, and
conscien iousness (a nega i e associa ion), bu no o
openness (Michel, Cla k, & Ja amillo, 2011).
Conce ning WFE, i has also been p oposed wi hin
he Resou ce-Gain-De elopmen pe spec i e ha
pe sonal cha ac e is ics such as posi i e a ec i i y can
ac as an eceden s p omo ing wo k- amily acili a ion
(Wayne, G zywacz, Ca lson, & Kacma , 2007) and he
me a-analysis conduc ed by Michel, Cla k e al. (2011)
suppo s his p oposi ion. In pa icula , WFE is ela ed
Pe sonali y and wo k- amily balance
17
mos s ongly o ex a e sion and openness (a posi i e
associa ion), and also o some ex en o ag eeableness
and conscien iousness (a posi i e associa ion), bu no o
neu o icism.
In sum, i seems ha pe sonali y ai s e lec ing
psychosocial ma u i y, ha is, emo ional s abili y
( he opposi e o neu o icism), ag eeableness, and
conscien iousness a e ela ed o low WFC h ough he
ac ha hese ai s p omo e socializa ion and success in
adul hood oles (ca ee , job, ma iage) (Caspi e al., 2005;
Digman, 1997; Hogan & Robe s, 2004; Lodi-Smi h &
Robe s, 2007). Ex a e sion and openness in u n e lec
agency, sel - ul ilmen , and pe sonal g ow h (Digman,
1997). These wo ai s a e ela ed o high WFE p esumably
h ough he ac ha agency, sensi i i y o ewa ds, and
posi i e emo ions as well as sea ch o pe sonal g ow h
may os e he ecogni ion, acquisi ion, and ans e o
esou ces be ween wo k and amily domains, which hen
en ich each o he . The ques ion ha emains unanswe ed
is: how a e he Big Fi e ai s ela ed o he ypes o WFB,
which ep esen quali a i ely di e en combina ions o
WFC and WFE expe iences?
Role engagemen , WFC and WFE
In he p esen s udy, ole engagemen was app oached
om wo pe spec i es: 1) ac ual ime in es ed in wo k
and amily oles, and 2) pe sonal li e in es men di ec ed
owa ds wo k and amily oles. The amoun o ime ha an
indi idual spends on wo k and amily oles cap u es one
ex e nal beha iou al pa e n o ac ing ac oss oles wi h
ei he high o low engagemen assumed o be he main
di e en ia ing ac o be ween he Ac i e and Passi e
ypes (Ran anen e al., 2011). Pe sonal li e in es men ,
de ined as ac ions and hough s di ec ed owa ds cen al
li e domains (S audinge & Fleeson, 1996), in u n
cap u es he in e nal cogni i e-a ec i e pa e n o ac ing
and eeling ac oss he wo k and amily oles. Hence, hese
wo pe spec i es on ole engagemen complemen each
o he .
A me a-analysis by Michel, Ko ba, Mi chelson,
Cla k, and Bal es (2011) clea ly shows ha bo h wo k and
amily ime demands a e posi i ely ela ed o WFC bu
he e is no ye simila , ex ensi e analysis a ailable o
WFE. I seems, howe e , ha a leas weekly wo king
hou s a e un ela ed o WFE (Kinnunen, Feld , Geu s, &
Pulkkinen, 2006; Wayne, Musisca, & Fleeson, 2004). The
me a-analysis by Michel, Ko ba e al. (2011) also shows
ha psychological job in ol emen is posi i ely ela ed
o WFC, al hough no as s ongly as wo k ime demands.
In ega d o WFE, he indings show ha i is posi i ely
ela ed o job in ol emen and e o , bu nega i ely
ela ed o amily in ol emen and e o (A yee, S ini as,
& Tan, 2005; Wayne e al., 2004).
Taken oge he hese indings suppo he no ion ha
bo h ex e nal ( ime in es men ) and in e nal (pe sonal
li e in es men ) ole engagemen migh di e be ween
he ypes o WFB. Howe e , i seems possible ha he
ime in es men ac oss wo k and amily oles migh show
a di e en p o ile be ween hese ypes compa ed o he
pe sonal li e in es men , because wo k ime demands
ha e been linked only o WFC, whe eas psychological job
in ol emen has been linked o bo h WFC and WFE.
The p esen s udy
Al hough he e is knowledge on how pe sonali y ai s
and wo k and amily ole engagemen a e ela ed o WFC
and WFE independen ly, he unde s anding is lacking
how hese an eceden s a e ela ed o he o al expe ience
o WFB, ha is o he ypes o WFB de ined by he le el
and speci ic combina ion o WFC and WFE expe iences.
Ran anen e al. (2011) ha e assumed ha he main
di e en ia ing ac o be ween bene icial and ha m ul
WFB is psychological unc ioning, whe eas be ween
ac i e and passi e WFB i is ole engagemen . The Big Fi e
pe sonali y ai s can be o ganized u he in o wo highe -
o de me a ai s, namely he alpha ac o comp ising low
neu o icism, high ag eeableness and conscien iousness, and
he be a ac o comp ising high ex a e sion and openness
(Digman, 1997). The alpha ac o e lec s psychosocial
ma u i y, whe eas he be a ac o e lec s pe sonal g ow h
and sel - ul ilmen (Caspi e al., 2005; Digman, 1997;
Hogan & Robe s, 2004). We sugges ha concep ually
he alpha ac o e lec ing psychosocial ma u i y sha es
a simila i y wi h psychological unc ioning, because bo h
emphasize men al and social well-being and capabili y.
We also sugges ha he be a ac o e lec ing pe sonal
g ow h and sel - ul ilmen sha es a simila i y wi h ole
engagemen because bo h o hese concep s emphasize
ac i e and dedica ed o ien a ion owa ds li e.
Hence, we expec ed i s , he Bene icial ype o show
he mos , and he Ha m ul ype he leas pe sonali y ai s
ela ed o psychosocial ma u i y, and second, he Ac i e
ype o show he mos , and he Passi e ype he leas
pe sonali y ai s ela ed o pe sonal g ow h. Ou speci ic
hypo heses we e:
Hypo hesis 1: Neu o icism, ag eeableness, and
conscien iousness di e en ia e he Bene icial and
Ha m ul ypes o WFB: he o me shows lowe
neu o icism, highe ag eeableness and highe
conscien iousness han he la e .
Hypo hesis 2: Ex a e sion and openness di e en ia e he
Ac i e and Passi e ypes o WFB: he o me shows
highe ex a e sion and highe openness han he
la e .
We used longi udinal da a o in es iga e whe he
he ypes o WFB we e ela ed as hypo hesized abo e
o concu en pe sonali y as well as o he pe sonali y
assessmen s al eady made nine yea s ea lie . This long-
e m ela ionship was expec ed based on he s ong
ank-o de s abili y obse ed in pe sonali y ai s ac oss
adul hood (Ran anen, Me säpel o, Feld , Pulkkinen, &
Kokko, 2007; Robe s & DelVecchio, 2000).
J. Ran anen, U. Kinnunen and L. Pulkkinen
18
Finally, we s udied ole engagemen om he
pe spec i es o ac ual ime in es ed in wo k and amily
oles, and pe sonal li e in es men di ec ed owa ds wo k
and amily oles. Ou hi d hypo hesis was:
Hypo hesis 3: Time and pe sonal li e in es men
di e en ia es he Ac i e and Passi e ypes o WFB: he
o me shows highe ime and pe sonal li e in es men
in wo k and amily oles han he la e .
Me hod
Pa icipan s and p ocedu e
The da a o he p esen s udy we e ga he ed in
1992 and 2001 as pa o he ongoing Finnish Jy äskylä
Longi udinal S udy o Pe sonali y and Social De elopmen
(JYLS) s a ed in 1968 (Pulkkinen, 2006). The o iginal
sample consis ed o all 369 pupils (196 boys and 173 gi ls
bo n mos ly in 1959) in 12 u ban and subu ban, andomly
selec ed second-g ade school classes in he Ci y o
Jy äskylä in Cen al Finland. The sample in adul hood a
age 42 in 2001 has p o en o be ep esen a i e o he age
coho bo n in 1959 in Finland ega ding ma i al s a us,
numbe o child en, and employmen s a us (Pulkkinen,
2006). Those pa icipan s who a age 42 we e employed
and had a amily (spouse/pa ne and/o child en li ing a
home) we e included in he p esen s udy. These c i e ia
yielded 213 pa icipan s (106 men, 107 women). A age 33
in 1992, he da a abou pe sonali y ai s we e collec ed
h ough a mailed ques ionnai e, and a age 42 a mailed
li e si ua ion ques ionnai e was sen o he pa icipan s
ollowed by psychological in e iews wi h sel - epo
scales and pe sonali y ques ionnai es.
Measu es
Wo k- amily balance. WFC and WFE we e measu ed
a age 42 wi h a 14-i em composi e wo k- amily in e ace
scale wi h i ems de i ed om F one, Russell, and Coope
(1992); Ne emeye , Boles, and McMu ian (1996);
and Geu s e al. (2005). The cons uc alidi y o his
composi e scale has been epo ed by Kinnunen e al.
(2006). I measu es WFC wi h eigh i ems, which co e
con lic s a ising om wo k o amily (e.g., “How o en
does you job o ca ee in e e e wi h you esponsibili ies
a home, such as cooking, shopping, child ca e, ya d wo k,
o epai s?”) and om amily o wo k (e.g., “How o en
does i happen ha amily ela ed s ain in e e es wi h
you abili y o pe o m job- ela ed du ies?”). WFE was
measu ed wi h six i ems, which co e en ichmen om
wo k o amily (e.g., “How o en does i happen ha you
come home chee ully a e a success ul day a wo k,
posi i ely a ec ing he a mosphe e a home?”) and om
amily o wo k (e.g., “How o en does i happen ha you
manage you ime a wo k mo e e icien ly because a
home you ha e o do ha as well?”). The esponse scale
anged om 1 (ne e ) o 5 ( e y o en), and he C onbach’s
alpha was .83 o WFC, and .72 o WFE.
Pe sonali y ai s. Neu o icism, ex a e sion,
openness, ag eeableness, and conscien iousness we e
measu ed a ages 33 and 42 wi h a 60-i em sho ened
e sion o he Big Fi e pe sonali y in en o y (Pul e ,
Allik, Pulkkinen, & Hämäläinen, 1995), which is an
au ho ized Finnish adap a ion o Cos a and McC ae’s
(1985) NEO Pe sonali y In en o y (NEO-PI). In he
sho e sion, eigh i ems a e subs i u ed o i ems in
he Ame ican o iginal, due o di e ences in cul u e and
socie y. Each pe sonali y ai – neu o icism (e.g., “When
I’m unde a g ea deal o s ess, some imes I eel like I’m
going o pieces”), ex a e sion (e.g., “I am a chee ul,
high-spi i ed pe son”, “I am a e y ac i e pe son”),
openness (e.g., “I am in igued by he pa e ns I ind in
a and na u e”, “I ha e a lo o in ellec ual cu iosi y”),
ag eeableness (e.g., “I would a he coope a e wi h o he s
han compe e wi h hem”), and conscien iousness (e.g.,
“I ha e a clea se o goals and wo k owa ds hem in an
o de ly ashion”) – was measu ed wi h 12 i ems wi h a
esponse scale om 1 (s ongly disag ee) o 5 (s ongly
ag ee). The in e nal consis ency o hese ai s has been
p o en o be sa is ac o y in JYLS ( he C onbach’s alphas
anging be ween .74 and .86; o mo e de ail see Ran anen
e al., 2007).
Role engagemen . Time in es ed in wo k and amily
oles we e ob ained a age 42 wi h ou ques ions: “How
many hou s pe week do you wo k, on a e age, including
paid wo k, o e ime hou s, and wo k done a home?”,
“How many hou s pe week, on a e age, do you use in
ca ing o you child en and you home, such as cooking,
cleaning, home epai s, e c.?”, “Do you hink ha you ha e
enough ime o you own ha you can use in he way you
like?”, and “Do you eel ha you mus con inuously gi e
up you ime o o he s a home o a wo k?” Pa icipan s
epo ed he numbe o hou s o he i s wo ques ions
and e alua ed he la e wo ques ions using a scale om
1 (no a all) o 4 (a lo ). Pe sonal li e in es men s a age
42, ha is, he deg ee o ac ion and hough owa ds wo k
and amily, we e bo h assessed wi h one i em (e.g., “Tasks
ela ed o you p o ession o wo k. How much do you
hink abou i o do some hing abou i ?”) wi h a esponse
scale om 1 (cu en ly hink/do no hing) o 5 (cu en ly
hink/do e y much) (S audinge & Fleeson, 1996).
Da a analyses
The WFB ypes we e o med by dicho omizing he
a e aged sum sco es o he WFC and WFE a iables (scale
om 1 o 5) in o wo g oups using 2.5 as he cu -o poin ,
and hen he dicho omized WFC and WFE a iables we e
c oss- abula ed o ob ain Bene icial, Ha m ul, Ac i e,
and Passi e ypes. This cu -o poin was chosen because
WFC is gene ally epo ed acco ding o a p opo ion o
he popula ion expe iencing con lic a leas “some imes,”
which is a scale midpoin (Bella ia & F one, 2005). This
way he WFB ypes a e ancho ed in he esponse scale
Pe sonali y and wo k- amily balance

19
ins ead o , o example, mean o median spli s o he
a iable mean sco es, which a e sample speci ic and hinde
he compa ison o esul s be ween di e en samples.
The di e ences be ween he WFB ypes in he s udy
a iables we e examined h ough a gene al linea model
p o ile analysis wi h co a ia es (i.e., applica ion o
MANCOVA). Each g oup o a iables (pe sonali y ai s
a ages 33 and 42, ime in es men a age 42, and pe sonal
li e in es men a age 42) we e se as dependen a iables,
one a iable g oup a a ime and wi hin one ime-poin a
a ime (a age 33 o 42). The WFB ype a iable was se as
a be ween subjec ac o along wi h gende (1 = woman,
2 = man), occupa ional le el (1 = blue-colla wo ke , 2 =
lowe whi e-colla wo ke , 3 = uppe whi e-colla wo ke ),
ma i al s a us (1 = ma ied o cohabi ing, 2 = li ing
wi hou pa ne ), and numbe o child en ( ange 0-5) as
co a ia es. These demog aphic ea u es we e conside ed
as co a ia es because hey a e salien ac o s in ela ion
o wo k- amily in e ace (Bella ia & F one, 2005). The
pai wise compa isons in each a iable be ween he ou
WFB ypes we e based on he pa ame e es ima es o he
p o ile analysis model.
The Shapi o-Wilk es s o no mali y showed ha o
he pe sonali y ai a iables all excep neu o icism a
ages 33 and 42 and ag eeableness a age 33 we e no mally
dis ibu ed (p > .05 o all), whe eas ime and pe sonal
li e in es men a iables comp ised o one ques ion/i em
a age 42 we e no (p < .05 o all). Ocula inspec ion
showed ha he e we e some ou lie s in hese a iables
no mee ing he assump ion o no mali y, and he e o e,
he a iables we e no malized o each WFB ype
sepa a ely o a oid p oducing un eliabili y in he p o ile
analysis esul s. A e ha he da a we e impu ed using
he Expec a ion Maximiza ion (EM) algo i hm including
all s udy a iables, as he e we e missing da a bo h
because some pa icipan s had chosen no o pa icipa e in
da a collec ion a age 33, o did no answe all sel - epo
ques ions a age 42. The pe cen ages o missing alues in
he s udy a iables (Table 1) we e gene ally be ween 0%
(e.g., weekly wo king hou s a age 42) and 7% (pe sonali y
ai s a age 42). The la ges missing da a ela ed o age 33,
when 20% o he pa icipan s in he p esen s udy had no
e u ned he mailed Big Fi e pe sonali y in en o y. The
missing alue analysis showed ha he missing da a in
he s udy a iables we e comple ely andom and did no
indica e selec i i y [χ2 (567) = 617.18, p = .071], acco ding
o Li le’s MCAR es (Li le, 1988).
Howe e , o ensu e he ep esen a i eness o he
sample, p o ile analyses we e pe o med wi h impu ed
da a om all pa icipan s. The ob ained esul s we e
compa ed o analyses pe o med wi h o iginal da a ha
excluded pa icipan s wi h missing alues in each analysis.
A e impu a ion, he s udy a iables we e s anda dized
due o di e ences in esponse scales in o de o p oduce
a compa able ep esen a ion o he WFB ype p o iles
wi hin and be ween each a iable g oup.
Resul s
Desc ip i e analyses
The co ela ion be ween WFC (M = 2.12, SD = 0.60)
and WFE (M = 2.84, SD = 0.60) scales was e y small
and no signi ican ( = .04, p = .612), indica ing ha hese
expe iences a e independen o each o he and ha he
ypology o WFC and WFE expe iences is plausible. When
hese wo scales we e dicho omized using he 2.5 cu -o
poin , 75% o he pa icipan s (n = 159) we e classi ied as
no expe iencing WFC and 25% (n = 54) as expe iencing
i a leas some imes. Acco dingly, 35% o he pa icipan s
(n = 75) we e classi ied as no expe iencing WFE and 65%
(n = 138) as expe iencing his a leas some imes. The ou
ypes o WFB we e o med based on hese classi ica ions
and hal o he pa icipan s (48.4%, n = 103) belonged o
he Bene icial ype, 8.9% (n = 19) belonged o he Ha m ul
ype, 16.4% (n = 35) belonged o he Ac i e ype, and
26.3% (n = 56) belonged o he Passi e ype.
The desc ip i e s a is ics o co a ia es and s udy
a iables (be o e no malizing and impu a ion) wi hin
each WFB ype and o he whole sample a e gi en in
Table 1. The examina ion o co a ia es showed, i s , ha
in compa ison o he sample dis ibu ion he e we e mo e
women han men in he Bene icial ype, whe eas he e we e
mo e men han women in he Ha m ul ype [χ2 (3) = 10.36, p
= .016]. Second, he e we e mo e blue-colla wo ke s and
ewe uppe whi e-colla wo ke s in he Passi e ype han
in he o he ypes, and he e we e mo e uppe whi e-colla
wo ke s in he Ha m ul ype han in o he ypes [χ2 (6) =
18.29, p = .006]. Thi d, pa icipan s in he Ac i e balance
ype had mo e child en han pa icipan s in he Passi e
and Bene icial ypes [F (3) = 4.72, p = .003].
P o ile analyses
Rega ding pe sonali y ai s, he Bene icial and
Ha m ul ypes di e ed om each o he he mos (Table 2;
Figu e 1). The pa icipan s in he o me ype epo ed less
neu o icism (β = -1.09, p = .000, η = .10) and openness (β =
-0.50, p = .036, η = .03), and mo e ex a e sion (β = 0.59, p
=.042, η = .02), ag eeableness (β = 0.72, p =.004, η = .04),
and conscien iousness (β = 0.66, p =.009, η = .03) han
he pa icipan s in he la e ype, o whom he p o ile
was he opposi e. Conce ning neu o icism, ag eeableness,
and conscien iousness hese esul s ully suppo ou
Hypo hesis 1. The Ac i e ype pa icipan s di e ed om
o he ypes in neu o icism and ex a e sion, epo ing
mo e neu o icism han he Bene icial ype pa icipan s (β
= 0.76, p =.000, η = .08) and mo e ex a e sion han he
Ha m ul (β = 0.56, p =.042, η = .02) and Passi e (β = 0.52,
p =.017, η = .03) ype pa icipan s. This inding ha he
Ac i e ype epo ed mo e ex a e sion han he Passi e
ype pa ially suppo s ou Hypo hesis 2. In addi ion, he
Passi e ype pa icipan s di e ed om o he ypes in all
pe sonali y ai s. In neu o icism, hey we e highe han
J. Ran anen, U. Kinnunen and L. Pulkkinen
20
he Bene icial ype pa icipan s (β = 0.46, p =.003, η =
.04), bu lowe han he Ha m ul ype pa icipan s (β =
-0.63, p =.011, η = .03). In ex a e sion (β = -0.54, p =.001,
η = .04) and conscien iousness (β = -0.45, p =.007, η =
.04), hey we e lowe han he Bene icial ype pa icipan s.
Compa ed o he Ha m ul ype pa icipan s, hey we e
lowe in openness (β = -0.70, p =.006, η = .04), bu highe
in ag eeableness (β = 0.56, p =.035, η = .02).
O he 14 signi ican di e ences be ween he WFB
ypes in pe sonali y ai s a age 42, eigh we e also
de ec ed nine yea s ea lie (Table 2). The mos consis en
we e he di e ences be ween he Bene icial and Ha m ul
ypes showing almos he same pe sonali y p o iles a ages
33 and 42, and he p o iles o he Ac i e and Bene icial
ypes also showed high esemblance be ween ages 33 and
42 (as can also be concluded om he ela i e o de o
means o each ai be ween ypes in Table 1). Al eady
a age 33, he Bene icial ype pa icipan s we e lowe in
neu o icism (β = -0.85, p =.000, η = .06) and openness
(β = -0.72, p =.003, η = .04), and highe in ex a e sion
(β = 0.56, p =.028, η = .02), ag eeableness (β = 0.60, p
=.014, η = .03) and conscien iousness (β = 0.77, p =.002,
η = .05) han he Ha m ul ype pa icipan s. The Ac i e
ype pa icipan s di e ed om o he ypes by epo ing
mo e neu o icism han he Bene icial ype pa icipan s
(β = 0.51, p =.005, η = .04) and mo e conscien iousness
han he Ha m ul ype pa icipan s (β = 0.68, p =.017, η =
.03). Finally, he Passi e ype pa icipan s we e lowe han
he Ha m ul ype pa icipan s in neu o icism (β = -0.57, p
=.022, η = .03) and openness (β = -0.88, p =.001, η = .06).
In ime in es men ac oss wo k and amily oles,
he Ac i e ype di e ed mos om o he ypes (Table
2; Figu e 1). Pa icipan s in his ype epo ed mo e
weekly wo king hou s (β = 0.71, p =.000, η = .07; β =
Table 1. Desc ip i e s a is ics o wo k- amily balance ypes: demog aphic co a ia es and s udy a iables
Bene icial ype
% o M (SD)
Ha m ul ype
% o M (SD)
Ac i e ype
% o M (SD)
Passi e ype
% o M (SD)
Whole sample
% o M (SD)
Co a ia es
Gende 1 (n = 213) 60%/40% 26%/74% 49%/51% 41%/59% 50%/50%
Occupa ional le el2 (n = 213) 24%/47%/29% 26%/21%/53% 28%/29%/43% 43%/43%/14% 30%/40%/30%
Ma i al s a us3 (n = 213) 83%/17% 80%/21% 89%/11% 82/18% 84%/16%
Numbe o child en (n = 213) 1.55 (0.99) 1.63 (1.26) 2.17 (1.04) 1.30 (1.21) 1.60 (1.11)
S udy a iables
Neu o icism, age 42 (n = 199) 2.13 (0.52) 2.69 (0.79) 2.53 (0.64) 2.47 (0.67) 2.33 (0.63)
Neu o icism, age 33 (n = 170) 2.52 (0.63) 2.92 (0.72) 2.70 (0.57) 2.74 (0.65) 2.64 (0.65)
Ex a e sion, age 42 (n = 199) 3.45 (0.53) 3.18 (0.51) 3.50 (0.50) 3.10 (0.57) 3.34 (0.56)
Ex a e sion, age 33 (n = 170) 3.28 (0.53) 2.99 (0.45) 3.28 (0.59) 3.15 (0.50) 3.21 (0.53)
Openness, age 42 (n = 199) 3.36 (0.58) 3.57 (0.64) 3.36 (0.51) 3.15 (0.65) 3.32 (0.60)
Openness, age 33 (n = 170) 3.22 (0.49) 3.58 (0.54) 3.32 (0.61) 3.14 (0.60) 3.25 (0.55)
Ag eeableness, age 42 (n = 199) 3.74 (0.52) 3.37 (0.47) 3.57 (0.57) 3.59 (0.49) 3.64 (0.52)
Ag eeableness, age 33 (n = 170) 3.64 (0.50) 3.27 (0.52) 3.49 (0.67) 3.48 (0.44) 3.54 (0.53)
Conscien iousness, age 42 (n = 199) 3.84 (0.48) 3.46 (0.47) 3.65 (0.61) 3.57 (0.53) 3.71 (0.53)
Conscien iousness, age 33 (n = 170) 3.65 (0.51) 3.27 (0.53) 3.69 (0.48) 3.44 (0.54) 3.56 (0.53)
Weekly wo king hou s, age 42
(n = 213)
40.11 (8.84) 47.27 (11.15) 48.67 (20.39) 40.63 (7.85) 42.29 (11.95)
Weekly domes ic wo k hou s, age 42
(n = 203)
13.79 (9.13) 13.22 (12.51) 18.38 (15.74) 10.45 (7.37) 13.52 (10.63)
Su iciency o own ime, age 42
(n = 210)
3.12 (0.76) 2.06 (0.73) 2.49 (0.82) 3.25 (0.84) 2.96 (0.87)
Gi ing up ime o o he s, age 42
(n = 208)
1.72 (0.99) 1.89 (1.13) 2.50 (1.19) 1.85 (1.04) 1.90 (1.08)
Wo k in es men , age 42 (n = 211) 4.02 (0.86) 4.26 (0.73) 4.26 (0.70) 3.75 (0.91) 4.01 (0.85)
Family in es men , age 42 (n = 208) 4.36 (0.63) 3.79 (0.86) 4.46 (0.70) 4.21 (0.63) 4.28 (0.68)
1 women/men
2 blue-colla wo ke s/lowe whi e-colla wo ke s/uppe whi e-colla wo ke s
3 ma ied o cohabi a ing/li ing wi hou pa ne
Pe sonali y and wo k- amily balance
21
Table 2. Resul s o p o ile analyses
P o ile
Pe sonali y ai s
Age 42
Wilks’ λ = .75,
F(12, 534.73) = 5.17,
p = .000, η = .09
Age 33
Wilks’ λ = .83,
F(12, 534.73) = 3.33,
p = .000, η = .06
Neu o icism 1 < 2,3,4; 4 < 2 1,4 < 2; 1 < 3
Ex a e sion 1,3 > 2,4 1 > 2
Openness 1,4 < 2 1,4 < 2
Ag eeableness 1,4a > 2 1 > 2
Conscien iousness 1 > 2, 4 1,3 > 2
Time in es men
Age 42
Wilks’ λ = .78, F(9, 494.20) = 6.00, p = .000, η = .08
Weekly wo king hou s 1,4 < 2a,3
Weekly domes ic wo k hou s 1,4 < 3
Su iciency o own ime 2 < 1,3a,4; 3 < 1,4
Gi ing up ime o o he s 1,4 < 3
Pe sonal li e in es men
Age 42
Wilks’ λ = .94, F(3, 205) = 4.55, p = .004, η = .06
Wo k in es men 3 > 4
Family in es men 1,3,4 > 2
No e. 1 = Bene icial ype, 2 = Ha m ul ype, 3 = Ac i e ype, 4 = Passi e ype. Wo k- amily balance ype di e ences a he le el o
p < .05 in single a iables a e based on pa ame e es ima es o he p o ile analysis (i.e., MANCOVA) models.
F- alues a e epo ed based on impu ed da a (n = 213) and Box’s es s show equali y o co a iance ma ices (p > .05) be ween he
ypes in pe sonali y ai s and pe sonal li e in es men analyses, bu no in ime in es men analysis (p < .05). Le ene’s es s show
equali y o e o a iances be ween he ypes in all o he a iables (p > .05) excep in weekly wo king and domes ic wo k hou s
(p < .05).
a Signi ican di e ence ound only in impu ed da a.
Figu e 1. P o iles o pe sonali y, ime in es men , and pe sonal li e in es men o each wo k- amily balance ype
a age 42 based on s anda dized sco es in MANCOVA models wi h impu ed da a (n = 213). N = Neu o icism, E =
Ex a e sion, O = Openness, A = Ag eeableness, C = Conscien iousness, WH = Wo king hou s, DWH = Domes ic
wo king hou s, SOT = Su iciency o own ime, GUTFO = Gi ing up ime o o he s, WI = Wo k in es men , FI =
Family in es men
J. Ran anen, U. Kinnunen and L. Pulkkinen
-1,2
-1
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
N E O A C WH DWH SOT GUTFO WI FI
Bene icial ype (n = 103, 48.4%)
Ha m ul ype (n = 19, 8.9%)
Ac i e ype (n = 35, 16.4%)
Passi e ype (n = 56, 26.3%)
22
0.79, p =.000, η = .07), domes ic wo k hou s (β = 0.36, p
=.040, η = .02; β = 0.46, p =.020, η = .03), gi ing up ime
o o he s (β = 0.67, p =.001, η = .05; β = 0.48, p =.029,
η = .02), and less ime o jus hemsel es (β = 0.63, p
=.000, η = .06; β = 0.68, p =.001, η = .05) han pa icipan s
in he Bene icial and Passi e ypes. These di e ences
ound be ween he Ac i e and Passi e ypes suppo ou
Hypo hesis 3. In addi ion, he Ha m ul ype pa icipan s
epo ed mo e weekly wo king hou s (β = 0.47, p =.049,
η = .02; β = 0.55, p =.031, η = .02) and less ime o jus
hemsel es (β = -1.23, p =.000, η = .13; β = -1.28, p =.000,
η = .12) han he Bene icial and Passi e ype pa icipan s.
The Ha m ul ype pa icipan s also had less ime o jus
hemsel es (β = -0.60, p =.021, η = .03) han he Ac i e
ype pa icipan s.
In pe sonal li e in es men s, he Ac i e ype pa icipan s
showed mo e wo k in es men (β = 0.51, p =.021, η =
.03) han he Passi e ype pa icipan s (Table 2; Figu e 1)
suppo ing ou Hypo hesis 3. In addi ion, he Ha m ul ype
di e ed mos om o he ypes in ela ion o pe sonal li e
in es men owa ds amily. The pa icipan s in his ype
in es ed leas in hei amily, di e ing signi ican ly om
he Bene icial (β = -0.83, p =.001, η = .05), Ac i e (β =
-0.91, p =.001, η = .05) and Passi e (β = -0.64, p =.016,
η = .03) ype pa icipan s. Finally, as shown in Table 2,
he impu ed and non-impu ed da a p oduced highly simila
esul s.
Discussion
The p esen s udy lends suppo o he s ill less amilia
ypological app oach o WFB by showing ha WFC and
WFE a e independen cons uc s ha can be expe ienced
in mul iple combina ions – Bene icial, Ha m ul, Ac i e,
and Passi e ypes – which di e meaning ully om
each o he . While he subjec i e well-being di e ences
be ween hese ypes a e known (Deme ou i & Geu s,
2004; G zywacz e al., 2008; Mauno e al., 2011; Ran anen
e al., 2013), he p esen s udy p oduced new knowledge
abou he di e ences be ween hese ypes in pe sonali y
and ole engagemen .
P e alence o WFB
The p e alence a es o he WFB ypes ound in he
p esen s udy closely esemble hose ound in he clus e
analysis o Deme ou i and Geu s (2004), who also had
an occupa ionally he e ogeneous Eu opean (Du ch)
sample like ou s. This gi es suppo o he plausibili y
o hese ypes and he ypological app oach o WFB. In
compa ison, oughly 48% o he pa icipan s in he p esen
s udy belonged o he Bene icial ype, whe eas 41% o
hem belonged o he co esponding Posi i e home-wo k
in e ac ion and Posi i e wo k-home in e ac ion clus e s
ound in he s udy by Deme ou i and Geu s (2004).
Acco dingly, 9% we e in he Ha m ul ype e sus 10%
in he Nega i e in e ac ion clus e , 16% in he Ac i e
ype e sus 17% in he Posi i e and nega i e in e ac ion
clus e , and 26% in he Passi e ype e sus 32% in he No
in e ac ion clus e .
On he o he hand, in he US s udy by G zywacz e al.
(2008) only 9% o he pa icipan s belonged o he mos
a ou able Balanced ype ha co esponds wi h he p esen
Bene icial ype (48%). This huge di e ence may e lec a
u e cul u a l e e c – Fi nl a n d i s a m o e wo k- a m i ly ie n d ly
coun y han he USA – o a me hodological di e ence
be ween he s udies, o a combina ion o bo h. G zywacz
e al. (2008) used a median spli o o m he ou ypes o
WFB using WFC and WFE a iables, whe eas we used
a scale midpoin , ancho ed in he esponse scale, which
enhances he compa ison o esul s be ween di e en
samples.
Pe sonali y ai s and WFB
Based on he p esen esul s, he no ion ha
psychosocial ma u i y, ha is, low neu o icism and high
ag eeableness and conscien iousness, is likely o p omo e
good socializa ion and success in adul hood oles (Caspi
e al., 2005; Digman, 1997; Hogan & Robe s, 2004) can
be ex ended o also conce n achie ing an ideal balance
be ween wo k and amily li e. Low neu o icism was
ela ed o a speci ic combina ion o high WFE and low
WFC, ha is, he Bene icial ype in he p esen s udy,
whe eas in p e ious s udies examining he independen
associa ions be ween he Big Fi e pe sonali y ai s and
WFC o WFE, neu o icism has been ela ed o WFC only
(a posi i e ela ion; me a-analysis by Michel, Cla k e al.,
2011). High ag eeableness and conscien iousness we e
also ela ed o his ype, which is in acco d wi h s udies
showing a nega i e associa ion be ween WFC, and a
posi i e associa ion be ween WFE and hese wo ai s
(Michel, Cla k e al., 2011).
The p esen esul s also showed ha high agency in
e ms o ex a e sion was ela ed o he Bene icial and
Ac i e ypes o WFB e lec ing a posi i e and ac i e wo k-
amily in e ace. This inding suppo s he no ion ha
pe sonal g ow h may p omo e an indi idual’s adjus men
(Digman, 1997), and he iew ha ex a e sion mos ly
de ines he expe ience o WFE (Michel, Cla k e al., 2011)
a he han bo h WFE and WFC (G zywacz & Ma ks,
2000). The p esen esul s conce ning openness, he o he
cons i uen o pe sonal g ow h (Digman, 1997), showed,
in u n, ha i an indi idual’s in es men s in wo k a e
high, hen high openness coupled wi h a pe sonali y
showing low psychosocial ma u i y may no p omo e
adjus men , bu ins ead lead o he de imen al balance
be ween wo k and amily oles seen in he Ha m ul ype.
This inding is opposi e o cumula i e indings showing
ha openness is ela ed only o WFE (a posi i e ela ion;
Michel, Cla k e al., 2011). Due o his con adic ion in
esul s, he ole o openness in ela ion o WFB should
be examined mo e ho oughly be o e u he conclusions
can be d awn. Gende , o example, may al e he ela ion
be ween openness and WFC: ea lie indings using he
same JYLS da a a age 36 showed ha openness was
Pe sonali y and wo k- amily balance