Work Role Commitment and Interference of Work with Family Among Asian and White Americans: A Self-Verification Perspective

Abstract

Based on a sample of 168 Asian Americans and 248 White Americans, we found that Asian Americans were more prone to experience interference of work with family life when they were highly committed to their work role compared to White Americans. This difference was more pronounced for Asian Americans with low self-esteem, whereas there were no differences between the ethnic groups for those with high self-esteem. In sum, we find that examining the level of commitment of Asian Americans to a work role is insufficient for understanding how their work interferes with family life. Our findings reflect that, for Asian Americans, their cultural values, traditions, and heritage also play a significant role, especially for those individuals with low self-esteem. The article also addresses practical implications and future directions for research.

Keywords

work interference with family role commitment self-esteem Asian Americans White Americans

Introduction

The critical issue of navigating the competing demands of work and family has generated an extensive body of research (e.g., Allen et al., 2015; Amstad et al., 2011; Masterson et al., 2021; Molina, 2021; Shockley et al., 2017). Most of this research, however, has focused on the work–family experiences of White Americans and Europeans (Shockley et al., 2017; Spector et al., 2004); investigations targeting employees in non-Western countries are limited, as are comparisons across countries (Shaffer et al., 2011; Spector et al., 2007). Attempts to understand the experiences of ethnically diverse individuals within a particular country have been scant. A case in point is the United States, an ethnically diverse and multicultural country, where researchers have only sporadically considered and compared the experiences of White Americans with other ethnic groups. In line with the theme of this special issue, we focus on understanding differences in the work–family interplay between Asian Americans and White Americans.

We define Asian Americans as those whose cultural heritage is from East Asia, the Philippines, Southeast Asia, or South Asia, who were born, raised in, or immigrated to the United States. This definition is consistent with existing studies that compare Asian Americans and other ethnic groups in the United States (e.g., Hsin & Xie, 2014; Kam et al., 2019). Despite subtle cultural variations within these different subgroups, universal cultural values still apply to Asian Americans as a whole. Existing studies of Asian Americans tend to consider these subgroups together and have identified similar patterns among them regarding their work ethic (e.g., Hsin & Xie, 2014; Kawahara et al., 2013). Although the experiences of those raised in the United States can differ from those of immigrants, their work values may not vary substantially. Research has shown that Asians who immigrated after the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act are, on average, highly educated (Lee & Zhou, 2017; Pew Research Center, 2012), and they impart a strong work ethic to the children they raise in the United States (Lee & Zhou, 2017).

According to a recent review on the work–family interface, a growing number of researchers have examined how the experiences of White Americans compare to those of African Americans and, in some cases, to Latinos; comparatively, very few have focused on Asian American experiences relative to those of White Americans (Perry-Jenkins & Gerstel, 2020). This lack of studies on Asian Americans’ work–family experiences may be attributed to the fact that they account for only 6% of the U.S. labor force (US Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2021). However, they do play a significant role in the U.S. economy, with 58% of Asian Americans working in management, professional, and related occupations—the highest-paying major occupational category—compared with 43% of White Americans (US Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2021). Their high achievement is consistent with the image of Asian Americans as the “model” minority. Along the same lines, the labor force participation rate for Asian Americans (62.7%) is comparable to that for White Americans (61.8%; US Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2021). However, does this commitment of Asian Americans to their work role and professional achievement come at a cost?

In this study, we examine whether Asian Americans who are more committed to their work role are more prone to work–family conflict than White Americans. Work–family conflict is defined as a form of inter-role conflict in which “the role pressures from the work and family domains are mutually incompatible,” such that “participation in the work (family) role is made more difficult by virtue of participation in the family (work) role” (e.g., Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985, p. 77). Although work–family conflict is bidirectional, we focus only on work interference with family (WIF) rather than family interference with work (FIW). One reason for focusing on WIF is that the family domain is more permeable than the work domain, resulting in greater levels of WIF than FIW (Frone, 2003). This may be especially true for Asian Americans who choose to focus more on their work, potentially out of a desire to pursue upward mobility and overcome the structural racism they face as members of a minority group (Lee & Zhou, 2014; Zhou & Lee, 2017). Therefore, it is likely that the time, effort, and energy they devote to their work role detract from what they can commit to their role within the family.

A second reason is that Asian Americans expect their family members to receive recognition for their professional success from those outside the family (Berg & Jaya, 1993). That is, individuals perform work to honor their family (Kim et al., 1999) and, as a result, are less likely to permit their family role to interfere with work (Aycan, 2008; Lu et al., 2006). Moreover, Asian Americans’ views on family differ from those of White Americans in that the former emphasizes their extended family rather than merely the nuclear family (Dugsin, 2001; Ishii-Kuntz, 2000; Mercado, 2000); they also look to extended family members as a resource to help them to cope with work demands.

In this study, we draw on conservation of resource (COR) theory (Hobfoll, 1989) to clarify possible differences in the WIF experiences of Asian Americans and White Americans. A basic tenet of this theory is that individuals “strive to obtain, retain, foster, and protect those things they centrally value” (Hobfoll et al., 2018, p. 106). Individuals centrally value resources, defined as “objects, personal characteristics, conditions or energies that are valued in their own right or that. . . act as conduits to the achievement or protection of valued resources” (Hobfoll, 2001, p. 339). From this perspective, we conceptualize work role commitment, which refers to the level of attachment to, or desire to work in, a particular work role (Hackett et al., 2001), as a personal resource that has been associated with positive outcomes, such as organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and job performance (Cooper-Hakim & Viswesvaran, 2005). However, individuals do not have unlimited time, energy, and effort to invest in their work. In fact, a fundamental principle of work–family conflict is that resources such as time, effort, and energy in one domain (e.g., work) can deplete the availability of these resources in another domain (e.g., family) (ten Brummelhuis & Bakker, 2012). In other words, to protect their investment in and commitment to a work role, employees may reduce their investment in their family role, leading to WIF. This is consistent with the fourth principle of COR theory, which states that when individuals have overstretched or used up their resources, they become defensive or even irrational as a means of preserving the self. In our case, work role commitment is an asset in one domain (i.e., work), but because it exhausts the time, energy, and effort one is able to devote to other roles, it becomes a liability in another domain (i.e., family).

The transformation of work role commitment from an asset in the work domain to a liability in the family domain illustrates the influence of context on resources. COR theory recognizes that resources do not exist in a vacuum and sometimes have unintended consequences, especially within different ecological environments (Hobfoll, 2011). Hobfoll et al. (2018) refer to these contextual features as passageways or ecological conditions that may support or inhibit the generation and maintenance of resources. According to COR theory, culture plays an especially potent role in this process. Insofar as ethnicity, defined as the social group to which one belongs (Oxford Dictionaries, 2013), is a reflection of culture, we consider it an ecological condition that will moderate the relationship between work role commitment and WIF. That is, we anticipate that the relationship between work role commitment and WIF will be different for Asian Americans and White Americans.

Although COR theory includes the importance of context in determining whether a resource is an asset or a liability, the theory also specifies some key resources that are universally recognized as critical for managing stress, regardless of context (see Halbesleben et al., 2014, for a review). These personal resources include characteristics such as self-esteem (e.g., Xanthopoulou et al., 2009), defined as a self-view of one’s competence and worth (Gecas, 1982). Examining how self-esteem (or the lack thereof) affects individuals is particularly relevant to our study as, ironically, Asian Americans have been portrayed as high achieving and successful, yet they have the lowest self-esteem of the major ethnic groups (i.e., Whites, African Americans, and Latinos; Bankston & Zhou, 2002; Chen & Graham, 2018).

Asian Americans compare themselves against other high-achieving Asians—rather than against Whites, Blacks, or Latinos. These comparisons often lead Asian Americans to doubt their own ability, which undermines their self-esteem (Chen & Graham, 2018; Zhou & Lee, 2015, 2017). Although Asian Americans generally have lower self-esteem, compared with other ethnic groups, there are likely within-group differences such that some Asian Americans have higher self-esteem than others. COR theory considers self-esteem as a key resource for combating stress caused by unfavorable ecological conditions (Haines et al., 2013)—in our case stress stemming from cultural pressures and expectations. Thus, insofar that self-esteem is a key resource to withstand such pressures, we suggest that those Asian Americans who have high self-esteem will not experience more WIF when their work role commitment is high, relative to White Americans. Therefore, we expect that high self-esteem will diminish the differences between the two ethnic groups in this regard.

We offer contributions to the literature on Asian Americans and the work–family interface in four important ways. First, we contribute to Asian American literature in that we examine whether the commitment of Asian Americans to work makes them more prone to WIF than White Americans. This expands the existing literature, which seldom addresses the work–family conflict of Asian Americans. Second, we move beyond the singular focus in the work–family literature on role commitment and demonstrate that ethnicity, such as being an Asian American, and personal resources, such as self-esteem, are also important yet complex inputs to work–family conflict. This theoretically grounded approach goes beyond existing work–family research (Hobfoll, 1989; Vaziri et al., 2021) that identifies various resources and ecological conditions, such as work role commitment and cultural differences, and yet does not examine the relative importance of each of these factors. Third, although scholars have studied the causes and consequences of Asian Americans’ self-esteem (e.g., Claudat et al., 2016; Park et al., 2021), there has not been sufficient research on its role as a resource to alleviate WIF due to heightened work role commitment. Our research thus contributes to the literature on Asian Americans by identifying important personal resources that buffer the stress that members of this group experience from a heightened work role commitment due to their cultural heritage. Fourth, this work addresses a general lack of understanding of Asian Americans’ work experiences (Jun & Wu, 2021). Much of the research sampling Asian American children, youth, and college students has focused on the domain of education (Lee & Zhou, 2020). We thus contribute to the overall understanding of the work experiences of Asian Americans.

Theory and Hypotheses

Theoretical Foundation

Given that work and family are individuals’ primary domains, researchers have examined the effects of commitment to roles associated with these domains on work–family conflict. Much of this research has been based on identity theory, which posits that individuals behave in accordance with their role identity (Stryker & Serpe, 1994) and, the more salient a role identity, or the more committed individuals are to a particular role identity, the more likely they will devote time, energy, and effort to that role (e.g., Lobel, 1991; Rothbard & Edwards, 2003; Wayne et al., 2006). As such, the commitment they make allows them to achieve or obtain positive outcomes associated with that role, such as career success. This perspective, however, does not explain why commitment to one role (i.e., work) will have negative consequences for role enactment in another domain (i.e., family). To clarify these unintended consequences of negative spillover, such that a high level of commitment to a work role negatively influences the time, energy, and effort one can devote to the family role, we draw on COR theory (Hobfoll et al., 2018). This motivational theory of stress explicitly recognizes the importance of environmental contexts in the experience of stress as well as the possibility that a resource in one context (e.g., work) may not be a resource in another context (e.g., family). Thus, while the personal resource of work role commitment allows individuals to achieve valuable outcomes within the work domain, we contend that it will have negative spillover effects on the family domain. This is consistent with the scarcity perspective (e.g., Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985), which states that resources such as time and energy are finite, and the more that an individual commits to a particular role, the more likely they are to reduce or withhold time and energy they need for roles in other domains. In line with this is strong empirical evidence that work role commitment is a potent contributor to WIF (e.g., Chen et al., 2020; Creed et al., 2010; Kreiner et al., 2006; Settles, 2004). Thus, we do not hypothesize this relationship, focusing instead on clarifying the interactive effects of ethnicity and self-esteem on the association of work role commitment with WIF.

To understand whether Asian Americans who are committed to their work role are more prone to WIF than their White American counterparts, we consider how ethnicity as an ecological condition (Hobfoll, 2011) explains these cross-cultural differences. According to Hobfoll (2011), ecological conditions or caravan passageways are the environmental conditions that either support and foster the resources of individuals or detract and undermine their resource reservoirs (Hobfoll, 2012). In other words, whereas a resource-generating ecological condition can create a positive context in which individuals protect and gain resources, a resource-demanding ecology can create a negative context in which individuals must utilize their resources to meet the demands of their environment.

According to the literature, Asian Americans generally have a narrow success frame that they use to interpret and make sense of their lives, and this, in turn, influences their expectations and trajectories (Lee & Zhou, 2014). For Asian Americans, success means graduating from an elite university, pursuing an advanced degree, and holding a job in a field such as medicine, law, or engineering (Lee & Zhou, 2020). If an individual does not fit the narrow parameters of this framework, they see themselves as ethnic outliers. Moreover, even if an Asian American is already high achieving, they tend to measure their achievements against an exceptionally high standard of someone they may know who has achieved more (Lee & Zhou, 2014; Yoo et al., 2015). This narrow success frame is a resource-demanding ecological condition that drives Asian Americans—more than their White American counterparts—to work hard and achieve so that they do not feel like ethnic outliers.

According to COR theory, individuals who lack resources have limited reserve capacity to manage stress and are thus more vulnerable to negative outcomes (Hobfoll, 2012). In the context of this study, we suggest that, while all Asian Americans operate under the similar ecological condition of a narrow framework for success, their self-esteem determines whether this condition plays a role in the relationship between their work role commitment and WIF. COR theory posits that those who have a greater reserve of resources are less vulnerable to resource loss (Hobfoll et al., 2018). Individual characteristics can be resources (Grandey & Cropanzano, 1999), and the theory holds that several of these—including self-esteem—are key or universal resources. Differences in the level of resources can affect how individuals, regardless of their cultural heritage, react to stress, and in this case, such differences can affect whether those with high work role commitment are more prone to WIF. We propose that self-esteem can serve as a personal resource that buffers the relationship between work role commitment and WIF. Individuals with high self-esteem have a reserve of self-worth and confidence (Cast & Burke, 2002; Grandey & Cropanzano, 1999; Hsieh, 2004; Rashid et al., 2012) from which they can draw when faced with problematic situations. Thus, both Asian Americans and White Americans with high self-esteem may be better able to manage the challenges arising as a result of their work role commitment so that it will not interfere with their family life and create conflict (Grandey & Cropanzano, 1999). Consequently, we anticipate that, similar to their White American counterparts, Asian Americans with high work role commitment are less prone to WIF when their self-esteem is high. We present our model in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Association of work role commitment, ethnicity, and self-esteem with work interference with family.

Comparison Between Asian and White Americans on the Work Role Commitment–WIF Relationship

Extant research points to the value that Asian Americans place on work. The motivation to work hard and to pursue a job and financial security stems from their desire to make a better life for their family (Sy et al., 2017). Asian Americans tend to see themselves embedded in a network of social connections that includes extended family members and other groups (Spector et al., 2007), and they value family recognition through achievement (Kim et al., 1999). In fulfilling the desire for this family recognition, Asian Americans emphasize exceptional school and work performance. A study on adolescent development shows that Asian American students outperformed White American students by significantly large margins, even after controlling for social class, family structure, and the parent’s place of birth (Steinberg, 1996). However, White Americans are less “utilitarian” and tend to pursue self-fulfillment through expressions of their individualism, such as advancement in organizations and careers (Bellah et al., 1985). When work and family conflict, there is an expectation among White Americans to side with their family. For example, in a study comparing Asian American and White American women scientists and engineers, Greenman (2011) found that White Americans were more likely to leave the labor market in response to parenthood. In addition to valuing work over family, Asian Americans have ongoing exposure to a narrow framework for success that can cause them to internalize societal expectations (Luthar et al., 2021).

According to COR theory (Hobfoll, 2011; Hobfoll et al., 2018), ethnicity or cultural heritage is an ecological condition that explains why individuals experience stress differently. In a highly demanding ecology, one is less likely to gain more resources but instead will consume more resources to prevent stress. As described above, the high value Asian Americans place on work and their narrow success frame set exceptionally high demands on themselves. Within this demanding ecology, when they are committed to their work roles, Asian Americans are more likely than their White American counterparts to work hard as a means to avoid the stressful experience of feeling like an ethnic outlier. As a result, they are left with fewer resources to engage in family roles, which leads to WIF. Yang et al. (2000) found that, compared to Americans, Chinese employees experience greater work demands, which causes them to have more work–family conflict. Thus, we propose:

Hypothesis 1: The positive relationship between work role commitment and WIF is stronger for Asian Americans than White Americans.

Self-Esteem as a Personal Resource to Buffer the Work Role Commitment–WIF Relationship

Although COR (Hobfoll, 2011) theory recognizes that some ecological conditions, such as ethnicity or cultural heritage, can generate differences in how individuals experience stress, it also acknowledges that there are some key personal resources that can mitigate the differences attributed to ecological factors. Self-esteem is one such key resource (Halbesleben et al., 2014), and we argue that it will negate the differences between Asian Americans and White Americans when it comes to the relationship between work role commitment and WIF. Indeed, the effect of social support on reducing one’s level of stress hinges on the ability of that support to promote a positive sense of self and confidence that one can overcome stressful circumstances (Cohen & Wills, 1985; Hobfoll, 1989; Pearlin et al., 1981). This implies that an individual’s level of self-esteem determines whether a demanding or supporting ecological condition plays a role in their sense of well-being. In general, Asian Americans may increase their work role commitment to avoid both stress and becoming an ethnic outlier who fails to fit into their narrow success frame. Asian Americans who have high self-esteem—that is, perceive themselves as worthwhile and competent—may be more able to resist the pressure to fit into that narrow success frame because, regardless of how others perceive them, they have a positive self-image and may even feel superior to others (Neff, 2011). When individuals are unable to validate themselves by adapting to others’ expectations, self-esteem can buffer or protect them from the distress associated with the lack of conformity (Cast & Burke, 2002).

Studies have shown that ethnic minority women with high self-esteem are less likely to develop an eating pathology when they experience demanding ecological conditions such as discrimination and employment challenges (Miller et al., 2011). Similarly, Asian international students with high self-esteem are more likely than those with low self-esteem to think about short- and long-term consequences of possible solutions to discrimination rather than devoting cognitive resources to dwell on how they are negatively affected by discrimination. In short, students with high self-esteem may utilize their psychological resources constructively to protect themselves from discrimination. Thus, Wei et al. (2008) have found that Asian American students with high self-esteem are less likely to demonstrate depressive symptoms when they perceive the demanding ecological condition of discrimination. Those with high self-esteem are also more likely to buffer the negative psychological consequences of acculturative stress, which is the internal conflict due to cultural differences between the culture of origin and the host culture (Claudat et al., 2016). In contrast, individuals with low self-esteem have a lower self-evaluation and therefore tend to need external approval. Consequently, they are more susceptible to external pressures (Greenhaus & Powell, 2003), such as the pressure to follow cultural norms and values.

In sum, although Asian Americans may generally be more prone to WIF when they are committed to their work role, this does not mean that all Asian Americans are equally susceptible to heightened levels of work role commitment. The work–family literature identifies self-esteem as one of the key personal resources that helps individuals mitigate stress and reduce work–family conflict (Rashid et al., 2012). Individuals with high self-esteem have a reserve of self-worth and confidence in facing difficulties (Grandey & Cropanzano, 1999); consequently, they are more capable of coping with the conflicting demands of work and family roles. Although Asian American college students have better academic outcomes than White, Black, and Latino college students, they also have the lowest self-esteem compared to students from those groups (Massey et al., 2003). However, given the high within-group variation among Asian Americans, we propose that those with high self-esteem are less susceptible to the heightened work role commitment and thus are not more likely than White Americans to experience WIF. We therefore propose:

Hypothesis 2: The positive relationship between work role commitment and WIF depends jointly on an individual’s ethnic group and self-esteem, such that there are differences between Asian Americans and White Americans only at low levels of self-esteem, and there are no differences when self-esteem is high.

Methods

Data Collection and Samples

To test our hypotheses, we collected data from two different ethnic groups in the United States. For the White American group, we distributed online surveys to alumni from a large Midwestern university and received a total of 253 completed surveys. We contacted Asian American alumni by mail and email, and we received 126 responses to these surveys. We also collected online survey data from Asian American employees on the West Coast of the United States through an Asian American employee network; of these, we received 95 responses. We were not able to calculate the response rate for any of these samples. The alumni databases needed to be updated, resulting in many emails that bounced back or went undelivered. Since the Asian American employee network had representatives from different companies forward the surveys to their colleagues, it was not possible to track the number of surveys sent out versus the number received in this group. Participation in the survey was completely voluntary. The resulting combined sample consisted of 416 (Asian American = 168, White American = 248) observations after removing missing data, observations with impossible responses on study variables, and responses from participants indicating that they are part of a different ethnic group or not employed.

Participants in the Asian American sample held various professional roles such as IT specialist, marketing manager, lawyer, etc. Their mean tenure with their company was 6 years. Sixty two percent were female. Their ages ranged from 21 to 65 years, with a mean age of 35. Approximately 64% of the Asian American participants were married, and the majority had no children (63%). About 59% were raised in the United States . Of those raised elsewhere (see Table 1), 55% were from mainland China, Macau, Hong Kong, and Taiwan, and the rest were from other countries, including Thailand, the Philippines, India, and Malaysia.

Table 1.

Breakdown per Country/Region of Asian Americans Raised Abroad.

Country	Number of participants
Brazil	2
Burma	1
China	11
Hong Kong	14
India	8
Indonesia	1
Japan	2
Kore	1
Macau	3
Malaysia	4
Philippines	5
Singapore	1
Taiwan	10
Thailand	3
United Kingdom	1
Pakistan	2

Participants in the White American sample were from various industries and diverse professions, such as accountants, engineering managers, teachers, HR managers, etc. On average, their tenure with the company was 5 years. Of the White American participants, 42% were female. Ages in this group ranged from 23 to 49 years, with a mean age of 35. Most White American participants were married (62%), and the majority had no children (59%). Only four White American participants indicated that they had been raised abroad.

To check for differences between the Asian American and White American groups in terms of demographics, we compared the means of basic demographic variables across the two. There were no significant differences other than that the Asian American sample consisted of slightly more female respondents (62% vs. 42%). We performed the same tests to determine whether the samples collected through the university alumni database and the Asian American employee network were comparable. There were no significant demographic differences, except for slightly more female participants from the Asian American employee network (62% vs. 47%).

Measures

We measured all variables using multiple-item, validated scales. Unless otherwise indicated, responses were made on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 5 (“strongly agree”).

We assessed WIF using Grzywacz and Marks’ (2000) four-item, 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (“never “) to 5 (“all of the time”). A sample item was, “Your job makes you feel too tired to do the things that need attention at home.” Using Amatea et al.’s (1986) 5-item scale, we measured work role commitment. A sample item was, “I expect to make as many sacrifices as are necessary in order to advance in my work/career.” We measured self-esteem with the 10-item scale from Rosenberg (1965). A sample item was, “I take a positive attitude toward myself.” Ethnicity was a dummy variable coded 0 for White American and 1 for Asian American. We controlled for variables that are central to understanding work–family interface dynamics: gender (0 = male, 1 = female), marital status (0 = married, 1 = single), presence of children (0 = none, 1 = has children), family and work time commitment (measured as hours on average per day), and whether respondents were raised in or outside the United States (0 = raised outside the United States, 1 = raised in the United States).

Results

Table 2 presents means, standard deviations, correlations, and reliabilities for all the variables. To test the hypothesized interaction effects, we used ordinary least squares regression. All independent variables were centered, except for the dummy coded variables (i.e., marital status, gender, ethnicity, country raised, and children), in order to ease the interpretation of the results (Aiken & West, 1991). The results from the hierarchical moderated regression are in Table 3.

Table 2.

Means, Standard Deviations, Internal Consistency Reliabilities, and Correlations.

Variable	Mean	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1. WIF	2.89	0.79	(.87)
2. Work role commitment	3.37	0.70	.12*	(.75)
3. Self–esteem	4.15	0.67	−.26***	.09	(.89)
4. Ethnicity^a	0.40	0.49	.06	−.01	−.04	—
5. Gender^a	0.50	0.50	.12*	−.13**	−.06	.20***	—
6. Children^a	0.40	0.49	−.01	−.04	.14**	−.04	−.11*	—
7. Work time	6.62	1.81	.26***	.15**	.02	−.22***	−.21***	.01	—
8. Family time	2.57	2.60	−.14**	−.02	.26***	−.01	.04	.18***	−.01	—
9. Marital status^a	0.37	0.48	−.01	.06	−.01	−.02	.01	−.47***	−.01	−.25***
10. Country raised^a	0.83	0.38	.08	−.09	−.01	−.52***	−.01	−.07	.15**	.06	.12*

Note. N = 416. Reliability coefficients are in parentheses on the diagonal. WIF = work interference with family.

Ethnicity (1 = Asian American; 0 = White American), Children (1 = yes, 0 = no), Gender (1 = female; 0 = male), Marital status (1 = single; 0 = married), and Country raised (1 = raised in the U.S.; 0 = raised outside the U.S.).

p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

Table 3.

Regression Analysis for Work Interference with Family (WIF).

Variable	WIF
	Model 1		Model 2		Model 3		Model 4
	b	SE	b	SE	B	SE	b	SE
Intercept	2.42***	.13	2.40***	.13	2.40***	.13	2.41***	.13
Controls
Children^a	.10	.08	.10	.08	.09	.08	.08	.08
Marital status^a	−.05	.08	−.05	.08	−.05	.08	−.06	.08
Gender^a	.25***	.07	.26***	.07	.26***	.07	.26***	.07
Work time	.12***	.02	.12***	.02	.13***	.02	.13***	.02
Family time	−.03*	.01	−.03*	.01	−.03*	.01	−.03*	.01
Country raised^a	.28*	.11	.30**	.11	.30**	.11	.30**	.11
Main effects
Work role commitment	.15**	.05	.05	.07	.05	.07	.05	.07
Ethnicity^a	.23**	.09	.24**	.09	.25**	.09	.26**	.09
Self-esteem	−.29***	.06	−.29***	.05	−.32***	.08	−.31***	.08
Two-way interaction effects
Work role commitment × ethnicity			.23*	.10	.23*	.10	.24*	.10
Work role commitment × self-esteem					−.04	.07	.12	.11
Ethnicity × self-esteem					.05	.11	.03	.11
Three-way interaction effects
Work role commitment × ethnicity × self-esteem							–.31*	.15
F	11.47***		10.95***		9.14***		8.85***
R ²	.20		.21		.21		.22
ΔR²			.01*		.00		.01*

Note. N = 416. Coefficients reported are unstandardized regression coefficients (b). SE = standard error.

Marital status (1 = single; 0 = married), Gender (1 = female; 0 = male), Children (1 = yes, 0 = no), Ethnicity (1 = Asian American; 0 = White American), and Country raised (1 = raised in the United States; 0 = raised outside the United States).

p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

We first tested the effect of the control variables and all the relevant main effects on the dependent variable (i.e., Model 1). Results show that being a woman (b = .25; SE = .07; p < .001), working longer hours (b = .12; SE = .02; p < .001), being an Asian American (b = .23; SE = .09; p < .01), and having been raised in the United States (b = .28; SE = .11; p < .05) relate to higher WIF, whereas devoting more time to the family (b = −.03; SE = .01; p < .05) and having high self-esteem (b = −.29; SE = .06; p < .001) relate to lower WIF. As expected, the relationship between work role commitment and WIF was positive and significant (b = .15; SE = .05; p < .01).

In Hypothesis 1, we predicted that the positive relationship between work role commitment and WIF is stronger for Asian Americans than White Americans. This interaction effect was significant (Model 2) (b = .23; SE = .10; p < .05). In addition, the change in R² from the previous regression model (Model 1) was also significant. After plotting this interaction (Figure 2) and calculating simple slopes (Aiken & West, 1991), we see that work role commitment has a stronger positive relationship with WIF for Asian Americans (simple slope = .28; SE = .08; p < .001) than for White Americans (simple slope = .05; SE = .07; p > .05). These findings support Hypothesis 1.

Figure 2.

Interaction effect of ethnic group on the relationship between work role commitment and WIF.

In Hypothesis 2, we predicted that self-esteem and ethnicity interact to influence the relationship between work role commitment and WIF. This three-way interaction was significant (b = −.31; SE = .15; p < .05; Model 4). The change in R² from the previous regression model (Model 3) was also significant. As shown in Figure 3, for individuals with high self-esteem, it does not matter whether they are Asian or White Americans with regard to the relationship between work role commitment and WIF (difference between slopes = .03; SE = .14; p > .05). However, for individuals with low self-esteem, the relationship between work role commitment and WIF differs depending on whether one is Asian American or White (difference between slopes = .44; SE = .14; p < .01). These findings support Hypothesis 2. Furthermore, it is worth noting that under conditions of low self-esteem, the relationship between work role commitment and WIF is positive and significant only for Asian Americans (simple slope = .41; SE = .11; p < .001) and not for White Americans (simple slope = −.04; SE = .10; p > .05). On the other hand, those with high self-esteem do not experience higher WIF when their work role commitment is high, regardless of their ethnic group. This demonstrates the importance of considering the factors of ethnicity and self-esteem together and not merely in isolation.¹

Figure 3.

Joint interaction effect of self-esteem and ethnic group on the relationship between work role commitment and WIF.

Discussion

We drew on COR theory to examine whether Asian Americans’ commitment to their work role makes them more prone to WIF than their White American counterparts. Moreover, we also examined whether self-esteem serves as a personal resource that buffers the relationship between work role commitment and WIF—thus mitigating differences between Asian Americans and White Americans. Our results suggest that when Asian Americans have low self-esteem, they are more prone than White Americans to experience WIF when their work role commitment is high. However, when employees have high self-esteem, there are no differences between the two ethnic groups.

Theoretical Implications

Our findings have several implications for the work–family and Asian American literatures. First, we expand the work–family literature that has mainly focused on White Americans by examining how Asian Americans—the fastest-growing ethnic group in the United States (Budiman & Ruiz, 2021)—manage the work–family interface. Our research highlights the distinct experiences of Asian American employees. In particular, we found that Asian Americans with low self-esteem have lower levels of personal resources and may not effectively balance their work and family roles. Consequently, for Asian Americans with low self-esteem, their commitment to their work role has a stronger association with WIF than that of their White American counterparts or their Asian American counterparts with high levels of self-esteem. For Asian Americans, self-esteem is a valuable personal resource that enables them to keep work from intruding upon their family life, even though their narrow success frame heightens their work role commitment and thus reduces the time and energy they have available to devote to family.

Second, our focus on the interplay among role commitment, ethnicity, and self-esteem has important implications for work–family research that has traditionally focused solely on role-based personal characteristics, such as work role commitment. By examining the influence of ethnicity, we find evidence for the potential importance of factors beyond work and family, such as cultural values in general. Moreover, although being an Asian American may aggravate the relationship between work role commitment and WIF, self-esteem has the potential to buffer it. Indeed, existing work–family research (e.g., French et al., 2018) identifies various resources and demands—such as work role commitment, cultural differences, and self-esteem—that impact work–family interference. However, it does not tease out the interplay among these resources and demands. Our research contributes to the work–family literature by showing how resources and ecological conditions can combine to affect employees’ perceptions of work–family interference.

Third, although individuals with high self-esteem tend to have a better sense of well-being (Baumeister, 1993), there has not been sufficient study of how self-esteem in Asian Americans can alleviate the extent to which work role commitment is associated with work–family interference. Although Asian Americans tend to have low self-esteem, given the heterogeneity of Asian Americans, our findings demonstrate that Asian Americans’ self-esteem can serve as a personal resource to alleviate WIF that is due to heightened work role commitment. Our findings thus contribute to the Asian American literature by identifying self-esteem as an important personal resource in this context.

Fourth, although research has examined topics such as the vocational choice and career development of Asian Americans (Tu & Okazaki, 2021) and the “bamboo ceiling” (e.g., Kawahara et al., 2013)—an invisible barrier that impedes Asian Americans’ upward mobility in the organization (Kim & Zhao, 2014)—there is a general lack of understanding about Asian Americans’ work experiences (Jun & Wu, 2021). Much research has sampled Asian American young people, but the focus of these studies is the domain of education (Lee & Zhou, 2020). Consequently, we know less about Asian Americans’ work experiences and whether the findings from the educational context—regarding the role of the “model minority” and the influence of cultural heritage—extend to working adults. We thus contribute by showing that the influence of the narrow success frame of Asian Americans extends well beyond their childhood or school years.

Practical Implications

Given that self-esteem is an important personal resource that can help Asian Americans reduce the influence of work role commitment on WIF, it would be beneficial for both organizations and managers to bolster the self-esteem of their Asian American workers. Often, self-esteem results from one’s assessment of the extent to which one lives up to internalized cultural standards of value (Pyszczynski et al., 2004). Asian Americans’ relatively low self-esteem is often because their narrow success frame makes them more likely to feel discouraged when faced with challenges due to competing roles. Research shows that both Asian American students and professionals feel burdened by the stereotype of a “model minority,” which holds them to higher standards than other groups, including White Americans (Zhou & Lee, 2017). The “bamboo ceiling” sometimes forces Asian Americans to work harder to avoid feeling like an ethnic outlier, a role that results in low self-esteem.

To help Asian Americans avoid feeling like an ethnic outlier, organizations would be wise to create a culture of equity, diversity, and inclusion in which all employees feel they have value and a sense of belonging. To prevent Asian American employees from feeling that they must work harder than their White American counterparts to receive the same recognition or promotion, organizations must have clear non-discrimination policies and hold managers accountable to ensure that all employees are treated respectfully and have access to professional development and growth opportunities. Mentoring programs that foster cross-cultural engagement among employees can be a powerful means by which to affirm the value of cultural differences. Managers themselves can play a pivotal role in enhancing the self-esteem of their Asian American employees by helping them to set challenging yet achievable goals and providing regular feedback that recognizes their progress. With the support of organizational and managerial efforts to enhance their self-esteem, Asian American employees would have more resources with which to handle their work–family interface.

Limitations and Future Research

There are a number of limitations to this study that have implications for future research. First, we cannot conclusively infer causality since this is a cross-sectional study. Future research could adopt a longitudinal approach to delineate the actual temporal ordering among these constructs, and experimental research would allow for a study of causality. Second, we only used self-report data. Although this data collection approach can be highly useful in assessing perceptions (e.g., WIF; Spector, 1994), it may be prone to common method bias, which tends to inflate main effects and makes it harder to detect interactions (Evans, 1985). However, we were able to detect the hypothesized moderating effects, indicating that common method bias is probably not present in our sample (Siemsen et al., 2010). Nevertheless, we conducted an additional statistical check based on Lindell and Whitney’s (2001) correlational marker method of introducing a marker variable to assess the likelihood of common method bias. This marker needs to be theoretically unrelated to our dependent variable and measured by the same type of instrument as the variables in our study. We selected behavioral cultural intelligence (Ang et al., 2007) as a marker variable. This is a 5-item scale of 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 5 (“strongly agree”) (α = .86). A sample item is, “I vary the rate of my speaking when a cross-cultural situation requires it.” The analysis revealed that the significant correlations between our substantive variables remained significant, even after adjusting for common method variance using the marker variable. Although it is unlikely that common method bias has distorted our results, we encourage future researchers to collect data on work role commitment and WIF from spouses as well, given that they might provide a comprehensive understanding of the work–family interface.

Conclusion

Our findings offer several contributions to research on Asian Americans and the work–family literature. First, our study demonstrates that, when self-esteem is low, Asian Americans differ from White Americans in managing the work–family interface. This finding goes beyond existing work–family literature that has mainly focused on White Americans. Second, moving beyond the singular focus on role commitment within the work–family literature, we demonstrate that both ethnicity and self-esteem are important and yet complex inputs to the work–family interface. While Asian Americans’ narrow success frame makes them more prone to WIF than their White American counterparts, when they are committed to their work role, self-esteem is an important personal resource. Self-esteem buffers against the influence of work role commitment on WIF, such that Asian Americans with high self-esteem are not more prone to WIF than their White American counterparts.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Author Biographies

Yu-Shan Hsu is an Assistant Professor at the John Molson School of Business, Concordia University, Canada. She is interested in understanding what can facilitate work and life experiences of employees and their families working and living abroad. Her research has been published in various outlets such as Human Resource Management, Journal of Business and Psychology, Personnel Review, International Journal of Human Resource Management, International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, and Journal of Global Mobility, among others.

Mihaela Dimitrova is an Associate Professor at the Vienna University of Economics and Business, Austria. Her research interests center around global work experiences. In particular, her focus is on the management of global employees, cross-cultural management as well as employees’ proactive behavior and thriving in international environments. Her work has appeared in the Journal of International Business Studies, Journal of Organizational Behavior, and Journal of World Business, among others.

Margaret A. Shaffer is the Michael F. Price Chair of International Business at the Price College of Business, The University of Oklahoma, United States. Her research interests are in the areas of global mobility, expatriation, and work–life interplay. Her publications have appeared in various journals, including the Academy of Management Review, Academy of Management Journal, Journal of Applied Psychology, Personnel Psychology, Journal of Management, and Journal of International Business Studies. She is an associate editor for the Journal of Global Mobility and serves on several editorial boards.

Gloria J. Miller is a Professor at the College of Business, Austin Peay State University, Clarksville, Tennessee, United States. Her research interests include cultural intelligence, diversity, human resources, plagiarism, and ethics. Her research has been published in a variety of journals, including Journal of Business Ethics, Organizational Dynamics, and Journal of Ethical and Legal Issues, among others.

References

Aiken

West

(1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Sage.

Allen

T. D.

French

K. A.

Dumani

Shockley

K. M.

(2015). Meta-analysis of work–family conflict mean differences: Does national context matter? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 90, 90–100.

Amatea

E. S.

Cross

E. G.

Clark

J. E.

Bobby

C. L.

(1986). Assessing the work and family role expectations of career-oriented men and women: The life-role salience scales. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48, 831–838.

Amstad

F. T.

Meier

L. L.

Fasel

Elfering

Semmer

N. K.

(2011). A meta-analysis of work–family conflict and various outcomes with a special emphasis on cross-domain versus matching-domain relations. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 16(2), 151–169.

Ang

Van Dyne

Koh

K. Y.

Templer

K. J.

Tay

Chandrasekar

N. A.

(2007). Cultural intelligence: Its measurement and effects on cultural judgment and decision making, cultural adaptation and task performance. Management and Organization Review, 3(3), 335–371.

Aycan

(2008). Cross-cultural approaches to work-family conflict. In Whitehead

D. L.

Lero

D. S.

Korabik

(Eds.), Handbook of work-family integration (pp. 353–370). Academic Press.

Bankston

C. L.

Zhou

(2002). Being well versus doing well: Self-esteem and school performance among immigrant and nonimmigrant racial and ethnic groups. International Migration Review, 36(2), 389–415.

Baumeister

R. F.

(1993). Preface to self-esteem: The puzzle of low self-regard, edited by Baumeister

Roy F.

Plenum.

Bellah

R. N.

Madsen

Sullivan

W. M.

Swidler

Tipton

S. M.

(1985). Habits of the heart: Individualism and commitment in American life. University of California Press.

10.

Berg

I. K.

Jaya

(1993). Different and same: Family therapy with Asian-American families. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 19(1), 31–38.

11.

Budiman

Ruiz

N. G.

(2021). Asian Americans are the fastest-growing racial or ethnic group in the U.S. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/04/09/asian-americans-are-the-fastest-growing-racial-or-ethnic-group-in-the-u-s/

12.

Cast

A. D.

Burke

P. J.

(2002). A theory of self-esteem. Social Forces, 80(3), 1041–1068.

13.

Chen

Graham

(2018). Doing better but feeling worse: An attributional account of achievement—self-esteem disparities in Asian American students. Social Psychology of Education, 21(4), 937–949.

14.

Chen

Zhang

Jia

(2020). Effect of stretch goals on work–family conflict: Role of resource scarcity and employee paradox mindset. Chinese Management Studies, 14(3), 737–749.

15.

Claudat

White

E. K.

Warren

C. S.

(2016). Acculturative stress, self-esteem, and eating pathology in Latina and Asian American female college students. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 72(1), 88–100.

16.

Cohen

Wills

T. A.

(1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 98(2), 310–357.

17.

Cooper-Hakim

Viswesvaran

(2005). The construct of work commitment: Testing an integrative framework. Psychological Bulletin, 131(2), 241–259.

18.

Creed

W. D.

DeJordy

Lok

(2010). Being the change: Resolving institutional contradiction through identity work. Academy of Management Journal, 53(6), 1336–1364.

19.

Dugsin

(2001). Conflict and healing in family experience of second-generation emigrants from India living in North America. Family Process, 40(2), 233–241.

20.

Evans

M. G.

(1985). A Monte Carlo study of the effects of correlated method variance in moderated multiple regression analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 36(3), 305–323.

21.

French

K. A.

Dumani

Allen

T. D.

Shockley

K. M.

(2018). A meta-analysis of work–family conflict and social support. Psychological Bulletin, 144(3), 284–314.

22.

Frone

(2003). Work-family balance. In Quick

J. C.

Tetrick

L. E.

(Eds.), Handbook of occupational health psychology. American Psychological Association.

23.

Gecas

(1982). The self-concept. Annual Review of Sociology, 8(1), 1–33.

24.

Grandey

A. A.

Cropanzano

(1999). The conservation of resources model applied to work–family conflict and strain. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 350–370.

25.

Greenhaus

J. H.

Beutell

N. J.

(1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Academy of Management Review, 10(1), 76–88.

26.

Greenhaus

J. H.

Powell

G. N.

(2003). When work and family collide: Deciding between competing role demands. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 90(2), 291–303.

27.

Greenman

(2011). Asian American–White differences in the effect of motherhood on career outcomes. Work and Occupations, 38(1), 37–67.

28.

Grzywacz

J. G.

Marks

N. F.

(2000). Reconceptualizing the work-family interface: An ecological perspective on the correlates of positive and negative spillover between work and family. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 111–126.

29.

Hackett

R. D.

Lapierre

L. M.

Hausdorf

P. A.

(2001). Understanding the links between work commitment constructs. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58(3), 392–413.

30.

Haines

V. Y.

Harvey

Durand

Marchand

(2013). Core self-evaluations, work–family conflict, and burnout. Journal of Marriage and Family, 75(3), 778–793.

31.

Halbesleben

J. R.

Neveu

J. P.

Paustian-Underdahl

S. C.

Westman

(2014). Getting to the “COR” understanding the role of resources in conservation of resources theory. Journal of Management, 40(5), 1334–1364.

32.

Hobfoll

S. E.

(1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44(3), 513–524.

33.

Hobfoll

S. E.

(2001). The influence of culture, community, and the nested-self in the stress process: Advancing conservation of resources theory. Applied Psychology, 50(3), 337–421.

34.

Hobfoll

S. E.

(2011). Conservation of resource caravans and engaged settings. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 84(1), 116–122.

35.

Hobfoll

S. E.

(2012). Conservation of resources and disaster in cultural context: The caravans and passageways for resources. Psychiatry, 75(3), 227–232.

36.

Hobfoll

S. E.

Halbesleben

Neveu

J. P.

Westman

(2018). Conservation of resources in the organizational context: The reality of resources and their consequences. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 5, 103–128.

37.

Hsieh

Y. C.

(2004). Lodging managers perceptions of work and personal life balance [PhD Thesis, Purdue University].

38.

Hsin

Xie

(2014). Explaining Asian Americans’ academic advantage over whites. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8416–8421.

39.

Ishii-Kuntz

(2000). Diversity within Asian American families. Oxford University Press.

40.

Jun

(2021). Words that hurt: Leaders’ anti-Asian communication and employee outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 106(2), 169–184.

41.

Kam

Mendoza

Masuda

(2019). Mental health help-seeking experience and attitudes in Latina/o American, Asian American, Black American, and White American college students. International Journal for the Advancement of Counselling, 41(4), 492–508.

42.

Kawahara

D. M.

Pal

M. S.

Chin

J. L.

(2013). The leadership experiences of Asian Americans. Asian American Journal of Psychology, 4(4), 240–248.

43.

Kim

B. S.

Atkinson

D. R.

Yang

P. H.

(1999). The Asian values scale: Development, factor analysis, validation, and reliability. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 46(3), 342–352.

44.

Kim

C. H.

Zhao

(2014). Are Asian American women advantaged? Labor market performance of college educated female workers. Social Forces, 93, 623–652.

45.

Kreiner

G. E.

Hollensbe

E. C.

Sheep

M. L.

(2006). Where is the “me” among the “we”? Identity work and the search for optimal balance. Academy of Management Journal, 49(5), 1031–1057.

46.

Lee

Zhou

(2014). The success frame and achievement paradox: The costs and consequences for Asian Americans. Race and Social Problems, 6(1), 38–55.

47.

Lee

Zhou

(2017). Why class matters less for Asian-American academic achievement. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 43(14), 2316–2330.

48.

Lee

Zhou

(2020). The reigning misperception about culture and Asian American achievement. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 43(3), 508–515.

49.

Lindell

M. K.

Whitney

D. J.

(2001). Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 114–121.

50.

Lobel

S. A.

(1991). Allocation of investment in work and family roles: Alternative theories and implications for research. Academy of Management Review, 16(3), 507–521.

51.

Gilmour

Kao

S. F.

Huang

M. T.

(2006). A cross-cultural study of work/family demands, work/family conflict and wellbeing: The Taiwanese versus British. Career Development International, 11, 9–27.

52.

Luthar

S. S.

Ebbert

A. M.

Kumar

N. L.

(2021). Risk and resilience among Asian American youth: Ramifications of discrimination and low authenticity in self-presentations. American Psychologist, 76(4), 643–657.

53.

Massey

D. S.

Charles

C. Z.

Lundy

G. F.

Fischer

M. J.

(2003). The source of the river: The social origins of freshmen at America’s selective colleges and universities. Princeton University Press.

54.

Masterson

Sugiyama

Ladge

(2021). The value of 21st century work–family supports: Review and cross-level path forward. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 42(2), 118–138.

55.

Mercado

M. M.

(2000). The invisible family: Counseling Asian American substance abusers and their families. The Family Journal, 8(3), 267–272.

56.

Miller

M. J.

Yang

Farrell

J. A.

Lin

L. L.

(2011). Racial and cultural factors affecting the mental health of Asian Americans. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 81(4), 489–497.

57.

Molina

J. A.

(2021). The work–family conflict: Evidence from the recent decade and lines of future research. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 42(1), 4–10.

58.

Neff

K. D.

(2011). Self-compassion, self-esteem, and well-being. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 5(1), 1–12.

59.

Oxford Dictionaries. (2013). Ethnicity. Oxford dictionaries.com dictionary. Retrieved December 13, 2020, from https://web.archive.org/web/20130505015249/http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/ethnicity?q=ethnicity

60.

Park

S. Y.

Lee

Cheah

C. S.

(2021). The long-term effects of perceived parental control and warmth on self-esteem and depressive symptoms among Asian American youth. Children and Youth Services Review, 126, 105999.

61.

Pearlin

L. I.

Menaghan

E. G.

Lieberman

M. A.

Mullan

J. T.

(1981). The stress process. Journal of Health and Social behavior, 22(4), 337–356.

62.

Perry-Jenkins

Gerstel

(2020). Work and family in the second decade of the 21st century. Journal of Marriage and Family, 82(1), 420–453.

63.

Pew Research Center. (2012). The rise of Asian Americans. Pew Research Center.

64.

Pyszczynski

Greenberg

Solomon

Arndt

Schimel

(2004). Why do people need self-esteem? A theoretical and empirical review. Psychological Bulletin, 130(3), 435–468.

65.

Rashid

W. E. W.

Nordin

M. S.

Omar

Ismail

(2012). Work/family conflict: The link between self-esteem and satisfaction outcomes. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 65, 564–569.

66.

Rosenberg

(1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton University Press.

67.

Rothbard

N. P.

Edwards

J. R.

(2003). Investment in work and family roles: A test of identity and utilitarian motives. Personnel Psychology, 56, 699–730.

68.

Settles

I. H.

(2004). When multiple identities interfere: The role of identity centrality. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(4), 487–500.

69.

Shaffer

M. A.

Joplin

J. R. W.

Hsu

Y. S.

(2011). Expanding the boundaries of work-family research: A review and agenda for future research. International Journal of Cross-Cultural Management, 11, 221–268.

70.

Shockley

K. M.

Douek

Smith

C. R.

P. P.

Dumani

French

K. A.

(2017). Cross-cultural work and family research: A review of the literature. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 101, 1–20.

71.

Siemsen

Roth

Oliveira

(2010). Common method bias in regression models with linear, quadratic, and interaction effects. Organizational Research Methods, 13(3), 456–476.

72.

Spector

P. E.

(1994). Using self-report questionnaires in OB research: A comment on the use of a controversial method. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15(5), 385–392.

73.

Spector

P. E.

Cooper

C. L.

Poelmans

Allen

T. D.

O’Driscoll

Sanchez

J. I.

Siu

O. L.

Dewe

Hart

De Moreas

L. F. R.

Ostrognay

G. M.

Sparks

Wong

(2004). A cross-national comparative study of work-family stressors, working hours, and well being: China and Latin America versus the Anglo world. Personnel Psychology, 57, 119–142.

74.

Spector

P. E.

Allen

T. D.

Poelmans

S. A. Y.

Lapierre

L. M.

Cooper

C. L.

O’Driscoll

Sanchez

J. I.

Abarca

Alexandrova

Beham

Brough

Ferreiro

Fraile

C.-Q.

Moreno-Velázquez

Pagon

Pitariu

Salamatov

. . .Widerszal-Bazyl

(2007). Cross-national differences in relationships of work demands, job satisfaction, and turnover intentions with work-family conflict. Personnel Psychology, 60(4), 805–835.

75.

Steinberg

(1996). Beyond the classroom. Simon & Schuster.

76.

Stryker

Serpe

R. T.

(1994). Identity salience and psychological centrality: Equivalent, overlapping, or complementary concepts? Social Psychology Quarterly, 57, 16–35.

77.

Tram-Quon

Leung

(2017). Developing minority leaders: Key success factors of Asian Americans. Asian American Journal of Psychology, 8(2), 142–155.

78.

ten Brummelhuis

L. L.

Bakker

A. B

. (2012). A resource perspective on the work–home interface: The work–home resources model. American Psychologist, 67(7), 545–556.

79.

M. C.

Okazaki

(2021). What is career success? A new Asian American psychology of working. American Psychologist, 76(4), 673–688.

80.

US Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2021). Labor force characteristics by race and ethnicity, 2020. https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/race-and-ethnicity/2020/home.htm

81.

Vaziri

Wayne

J. H.

Casper

W. J.

Lapierre

Greenhaus

Amirkamali

(2021). A meta-analytic investigation of the personal and work-related antecedents of work–family balance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 43, 662–692. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2594

82.

Wayne

J. H.

Randel

A. E.

Stevens

(2006). The role of identity and work-family support in work-family enrichment and its work-related consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69(3), 445–461.

83.

Wei

T. Y.

Russell

D. W.

Mallinckrodt

Liao

K. Y. H.

(2008). Moderating effects of three coping strategies and self-esteem on perceived discrimination and depressive symptoms: A minority stress model for Asian international students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 55(4), 451–462.

84.

Xanthopoulou

Bakker

A. B.

Demerouti

Schaufeli

W. B.

(2009). Reciprocal relationships between job resources, personal resources, and work engagement. Journal of Vocational behavior, 74(3), 235–244.

85.

Yang

Chen

C. C.

Choi

Zou

(2000). Sources of work-family conflict: A Sino-US comparison of the effects of work and family demands. Academy of Management Journal, 43(1), 113–123.

86.

Yoo

H. C.

Miller

M. J.

Yip

(2015). Validation of the internalization of the Model Minority Myth Measure (IM-4) and its link to academic performance and psychological adjustment among Asian American adolescents. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 21(2), 237–246.

87.

Zhou

Lee

(2015). The Asian American achievement paradox: Culture, success, and assimilation. In Zhou

Lee

(Eds.), The Asian American achievement paradox (pp. 179–199). Russell Sage Foundation.

88.

Zhou

Lee

(2017). Hyper-selectivity and the remaking of culture: Understanding the Asian American achievement paradox. Asian American Journal of Psychology, 8(1), 7–15.