Is Multitasking a Crossover Stressor? The Spillover and Crossover Dynamics of Spousal Work-family Multitasking and Its Link to Psychological Distress

Abstract

Research has well-established the spillover effects of work-family conflict on health along with its crossover effects on other family members. However, no study to my knowledge has examined the crossover effects of spousal work-family multitasking on their partner’s mental health. This study seeks to advance research by documenting the relationship between perceptions of spousal work-family multitasking and the respondents’ psychological distress along with the intervening mechanisms that explain this pattern. Drawing on five waves of panel data from the Canadian Work, Stress, and Health Study (2011–2019, n = 2,147 respondents), the results reveal that when respondents perceive their spouse to engage in work-family multitasking very often, the respondents report elevated levels of distress. The association between spousal work-family multitasking and respondents’ distress is explained by perceptions of spousal work-to-family conflict and respondents’ family-to-work conflict. The implications of these results are discussed in light of crossover stress and role theory, the stress process model, and work-family boundary theories.

Keywords

spousal work-family multitasking crossover stress mental health spousal work-to-family conflict family-to-work conflict

Introduction

Scholars have long been interested in the spillover effects of work into family and personal life—a dynamic that has seen a renewed sense of urgency given the dramatic changes to work and family roles in recent years (Milkie, Chung, and Jaga 2023). Much of this research focuses on the work- and family-related antecedents of work-family conflict and its consequences for health and well-being (Allen et al. 2020; Bellavia and Frone 2005; Greenhaus and Beutell 1985). However, less is known about the health consequences of work-family multitasking—which reflects the extent that workers perform both work- and home-related tasks simultaneously while at home (Desrochers and Sargent 2004; Schieman and Young 2015). Blurring work and nonwork roles in the form of multitasking is becoming more prevalent with the growing adoption of information and communication technology that enables workers to be accessed more easily outside regular working hours and locations (Chung 2022).

On top of research on the spillover effects that occurs when stressors in the work domain impact the individual’s engagement and role functioning in their home life, some research has also examined the crossover effects of work-family conflict on other family members (Young, Schieman, and Milkie 2014; Yucel and Latshaw 2020). This research typically examines the crossover effects of spousal work-family conflict on the other partner’s well-being. However, to my knowledge, there has been limited research attention examining the crossover effects of spousal work-family multitasking (SPWFMT) on their partner’s mental health. The lack of research on the crossover effects of work-family multitasking is surprising given that many workers in today’s fast-paced work environment feel the pressure to multitask to get everything done in time (Chung 2022; Weintraub, Pattusamy, and Dust 2019), leaving unanswered questions about its consequences for the mental health of loved ones. To advance research on the crossover effects of SPWFMT, the present study draws on the stress process model to examine the ways that perceptions of SPWFMT are linked to the respondents’ levels of psychological distress through key intervening mechanisms: perceptions of spousal work-to-family conflict and the respondents’ family-to-work conflict. While using dyadic data obtaining reports from both spouses about their levels of multitasking and work-family conflict would be ideal, the perception of these spousal behaviors and experiences also matters above and beyond these objective accounts in terms of shaping one’s own behaviors in the work-family interface and mental health outcomes (Scheibling et al. 2023; Stevens, Kiger, and Riley 2006; Young et al. 2014).

At the same time, the present study attends to potential gender differences in these dynamics of crossover stress in light of both long-standing and recent evidence about the influence of gender in the allocation of roles in work-family life (Collins et al. 2021; Lyttelton, Zang, and Musick 2023). While prior research has examined the possible gendered crossover effects of work-family conflict (Yucel and Latshaw 2020), the dearth of research investigating gender differences in the crossover effects of work-family multitasking is surprising given that men and women diverge in the nature and frequency of multitasking in general (Offer and Schneider 2011; Zaiceva 2023).

In addition, most of the prior research on the impact of work-family multitasking has been cross-sectional, and therefore has not utilized research designs that can capitalize on within-person changes in SPWFMT and corresponding changes in respondents’ psychological distress to establish stronger evidence for these crossover and spillover processes. The present study draws on panel data to address this and uses fixed effects regression techniques to control for all time-stable characteristics that might otherwise bias the observed associations, as described in further detail below. Therefore, the present study seeks to answer the following research questions:

Are perceptions of SPWFMT associated with the respondents’ psychological distress?

Do perceptions of spousal work-to-family conflict and respondents’ family-to-work conflict help explain how SPWFMT is linked to the respondents’ distress?

Do any of these associations differ by gender?

Literature Review

SPWFMT as a Source of Crossover Stress

SPWFMT is a core indicator of role blurring (Schieman and Young 2015; Voydanoff 2005), as workers blur the boundaries between work and nonwork life by performing both work and home tasks simultaneously while at home. While multitasking supposedly allows workers to get their work and nonwork responsibilities completed in a shorter period of time, research also indicates that multitasking is fraught with stress, time pressure, and diminished task performance given the divided attention and fragmented time dedicated to each task (Craig and Brown 2017; Lyttelton et al. 2023; Offer and Schneider 2011; Powell and Craig 2015; Voydanoff 2005). In line with this negative characterization of multitasking, Scott Schieman and Marisa C. Young (2015:762) identified work-family multitasking as “one of the key sources of stress in everyday life.” Given this prior research, it is possible that SPWFMT represents a source of stress with the potential to crossover to their partners.

Crossover stress refers to an inter-individual transmission process whereby one individual’s stressful experiences can influence a loved one’s stress and well-being (Westman 2001). Crossover stress is deeply embedded in the conceptual framework of role theory as the fulfillment of multiple roles impacts not only the individuals performing these roles but also other members within these role sets (Kahn et al. 1964). While role theory recognizes the connections between role incumbents in different roles, border and boundary theories sharpen this focus to the boundaries between work and family roles (Ashforth, Kreiner, and Fugate 2000; Clark 2000). Border/boundary theories identify the spouse as an especially influential domain member in the home who plays a pivotal role in the dynamics of boundary management, such as the level of segmentation or integration of work and family roles. While many workers prefer to operate somewhere between the opposing extremes of completely segmented versus integrated work and family roles, how well these align with other important domain members matters for the potential of crossover stress to occur.

Research has identified possible reasons for how strains in the work-family interface can manifest as crossover stress. The allocation of paid and unpaid work in dual-earner couples is a site of negotiation, where couples co-construct the boundaries between work and home life—adjusting their own individual work and nonwork time in light of their partner’s time use and preferences (Brumley et al. 2024; Hu et al. 2023; Lyttelton et al. 2023). For instance, Sue C. Clark (2000) asserted that there can be considerable disagreement between domain members such as spouses about the configuration of the boundaries between work and family, especially regarding whether their partners should allow work (or family) to bleed into their family (or work) time. To the extent that a respondent disagrees with the nature or frequency of their spouse’s work-family multitasking activities, this may contribute to ongoing arguments or a general deterioration in the quality of the couple’s interactions, which would be linked to worse mental health for the respondent (Bakker, Demerouti, and Dollard 2008; Yucel and Latshaw 2020). Moreover, crossover stress may occur directly through an empathetic pathway, whereby one partner experiences the stress that their spouse feels as a result of caring for them and being emotionally invested in their well-being (Westman 2001; Westman and Etzion 2005). Although research on the crossover stress of SPWFMT is scarce, recent research has shown that women’s life-work role blurring—the extent to which workers are contacted by family matters while at work and multitask on work and home tasks while at work—is associated with lower relationship satisfaction for their partner, and this pattern was explained by women’s heightened psychological distress (Lagacé et al. 2024). Collectively, theory and evidence provide the rationale for the crossover stress hypothesis: SPWFMT should be associated with increases in respondents’ psychological distress.

SPWFMT and Stress Proliferation

The stress process model offers a compelling framework for examining the mechanisms that connect SPWFMT to their partner’s mental health. The concept of stress proliferation is particularly apt here. Stress proliferation captures the process whereby a primary stressor (SPWFMT) may generate secondary stressors which, in turn, are linked with mental health (Pearlin 1989). Drawing on this process of stress proliferation, the present study examines how SPWFMT may beget the following stressors: perceptions of spousal work-to-family conflict and respondents’ family-to-work conflict.

One pathway whereby SPWFMT might have a crossover effect on their partner’s distress is through perceptions of spousal work-to-family conflict. The notion of role scarcity within role theory is particularly relevant for understanding the experience of spousal work-to-family conflict, as an individual’s time, energy, and attention are limited resources, so respondents may perceive that when their partner fulfills one role, it may come at the expense of another role (Goode 1960). While research examining the link between SPWFMT and spousal work-to-family conflict is limited, it is well-documented that work-family multitasking tends to increase strains in the work-family interface (Schieman and Young 2010a, 2010b; Voydanoff 2005). Work-family multitasking contributes to work-to-family conflict since performing work and home tasks simultaneously increases the likelihood of distractions and undesired interruptions occurring across these domains (Ashforth et al. 2000; Voydanoff 2005). This spillover dynamic whereby work-family multitasking begets work-to-family conflict mirrors how SPWFMT is linked to spousal work-to-family conflict.

Perceiving one’s spouse to be engaging in frequent work-family multitasking might contribute to the perception that the spouse’s work role detracts from their time, energy, and attention available for family or home life. This is particularly true in situations where the spouse is multitasking and the other partner might realize that they are not receiving their spouse’s undivided attention (Schieman and Young 2015). This reflects the theoretical notion of permeability in border/boundary theories whereby the spouse is physically present in the home domain but psychologically or behaviorally preoccupied by another domain (Ashforth et al. 2000; Clark 2000). Therefore, evidence suggests that SPWFMT might contribute to the perception of lacking undistracted couple’s time which can be attributed to the spouse’s work role.

In line with this, the stress process model identifies spousal work-to-family conflict as a chronic stressor, and prior research provides abundant evidence indicating that when a spouse experiences work-to-family conflict, this can crossover to impact their partner’s well-being both directly due to empathetic feelings and by absorbing the spouse’s stress and indirectly through family-related stressors like interpersonal conflict and marital dissatisfaction (Bakker et al. 2008; Lu, Lu, and Du 2016; Shafer et al. 2018; Young et al. 2014; Yucel and Borgmann 2023; Yucel and Latshaw 2020). Taken together, research provides the justification for the spousal role conflict hypothesis: Part of the positive association between SPWFMT and the respondents’ distress will be explained by spousal work-to-family conflict.

Respondents’ family-to-work conflict represents another possible pathway that transmits the crossover stress of SPWFMT on the respondents’ psychological distress. Family-to-work conflict refers to the process whereby one’s family or personal life undermines the time, energy, and attention available for the work role (Yucel and Latshaw 2020). Although research examining the crossover effects of SPWFMT on their partner’s family-to-work conflict is scant, when spouses work from home—indicative of high integration between work and home life—this has been linked to more family-to-work conflict for their partner (Brumley et al. 2024). Moreover, Hu et al. (2023) found that among Chinese couples who both work from home sometimes, when a spouse completed more work tasks—signaling that they have less time for family-related responsibilities—the more their partner experiences family-to-work conflict. These studies provide some support for the argument that when spouses blur the boundaries between work and home life, their partners may experience more family-to-work conflict. When respondents perceive their spouse to be frequently work-family multitasking, they might empathize with their spouse’s work-family stress which could spill over to their work role and impact their ability to uphold work expectations (Westman and Etzion 2005). In addition, it is also possible that perceptions of SPWFMT generate additional stressors that influence the respondents’ family-to-work conflict. For instance, prior cross-sectional research found a positive association between spousal work-to-family conflict and family-to-work conflict (Young et al. 2014). To the extent that SPWFMT is linked with spousal work-to-family conflict, this represents a plausible pathway by which SPWFMT is linked with family-to-work conflict. However, it is also worth noting that part of the association between SPWFMT and respondents’ family-to-work conflict may be due to increasing disputes over boundary management and relationship strain (Fettro and Nomaguchi 2017; Stevens et al. 2007) which can undermine their capacity to focus in their work role. In these ways, perceiving frequent SPWFMT can crossover to initiate family-to-work spillover processes for the respondent.

Given that research consistently shows that family-to-work conflict is linked with worse health and well-being (Bellavia and Frone 2005; Minnotte and Yucel 2018; Young and Schieman 2012), this indicates that family-to-work conflict might be a conduit through which SPWFMT can crossover to their partner’s mental health. Based on these ideas, the present study advances the respondents’ family-to-work spillover hypothesis: The respondents’ levels of family-to-work conflict should partially mediate the association between SPWFMT and respondents’ distress.

Gender Differences in Crossover Effects

It is important to consider gender differences in the crossover effects specified above in light of variation in the meaning and expectations of work and family roles across men and women (Craig and Brown 2017; Simon 2020; Taylor 2015). Based on gender socialization, women tend to be more attuned and sensitive to others, taking on more of the labor involved in anticipating and monitoring others’ needs (Scheibling et al. 2023; Thomeer, Umberson, and Pudrovska 2013). Women’s greater awareness of their partner might be rooted in the nature of gender roles in the home where women are often expected to provide care, empathy, and emotional support (Ridgeway 2011; Rosenfield and Mouzon 2013; Simon 2020; Taylor 2015). These ideas suggest that women tend to be more distressed by the stressful experiences of their loved ones than men are (Anderson, Monden, and Bukodi 2022). Ultimately, these perspectives imply that women might be more adversely impacted by their partner’s work-family multitasking and role conflict. Prior research provides general empirical support for a gendered transmission of crossover stress (Craig and Brown 2017; Demerouti, Bakker, and Schaufeli 2005; Long and Voges 1987). These ideas and evidence provide the rationale for the traditional gender crossover hypothesis: SPWFMT will be more strongly associated with women’s psychological distress relative to men.

In contrast to the traditional gender perspective, men and women might be becoming more similar in their performance of work and family roles, especially as men and women now have more similar rates of labor force participation (Statistics Canada 2023). Studies have also shown that men have increased their involvement in family life, so there is greater convergence in domestic tasks in the present than there was in the past (Aumann, Galinksy, and Matos 2011; Dermott 2008; Doucet 2006). Reflecting this greater equality in the involvement in both work and nonwork roles, it is possible that men may be as likely as women to recognize and feel distressed by their SPWFMT or role conflict. In fact, more recent studies examining the crossover stress that occurs within the work-family interface has not found significant differences between men and women (Young et al. 2014; Yucel and Borgmann 2023; Yucel and Latshaw 2020). Taken together, this suggests that there might not be a gender difference in the crossover stress of SPWFMT. Figure 1 illustrates the conceptual framework.

Figure 1.

Conceptual framework with the hypothesized relationships between spousal work-family multitasking, spousal work-to-family conflict, respondents’ family-to-work conflict, and respondents’ psychological distress.

Overall, the present study investigates (1) the focal association between perceptions of SPWFMT and respondents’ psychological distress, (2) the potential mediating roles of perceived spousal work-to-family conflict and respondents’ family-to-work conflict in this focal association, and (3) whether any of these relationships differ between men and women.

Methods

Sample

To answer the research questions, this study analyzes five waves of data from the Canadian Work, Stress, and Health Study (CAN-WSH), a national sample of working Canadians from 2011 to 2019, with respondents contacted every two years. This longitudinal study is well-suited for addressing these research objectives because it was explicitly designed to evaluate how work-family life is linked with health outcomes. The sampling frame consists of a regionally stratified unclustered random probability sample that was generated from random-digit-dial methods. Interviews were conducted via telephone, using both landlines and cellphones. In Wave 1, the final sample consisted of 6,004 respondents, with a response rate of approximately 40 percent. Follow-up interviews were conducted with 4,423 respondents two years after the initial interview, yielding a retention rate of 74 percent. Wave 3 yielded 3,805 respondents (63.4 percent retention of Wave 1). Wave 4 includes 3,378 respondents (56.3 percent retention). Lastly, Wave 5 followed up with 3,157 respondents (52.6 percent retention). Analyses were restricted to (1) respondents who are married or cohabiting, and (2) the spouse is working. The sample size for the fixed effects models is 2,147 respondents, whereby every respondent contributes between two and five observations over the course of the study period for a total of 7,116 person-wave observations.

Measures

Dependent variable

Psychological distress is a seven-item index that is measured by assessing the frequency of the following experiences in the past month: anxious or tense, nervous, worry a lot about little things, have troubles keeping your mind on what you were doing, feel restless or fidgety, sad or depressed, and hopeless. Response choices were coded as: (1) None of the time, (2) A little of the time, (3) Some of the time, (4) Most of the time, and (5) All of the time. Responses were averaged; higher scores indicate more distress (α = .84).

Independent variables

Perceptions of spousal work-family multitasking is measured with one item that asks respondents: “In the last three months, how often did your spouse (or partner) try to work on job tasks and home tasks at the same time while at home?” Response choices were coded as: (1) Never, (2) Rarely, (3) Sometimes, (4) Often, and (5) Very often.

Perceptions of spousal work-to-family conflict is measured with one item that asks: “In the last three months, how often did your spouse’s (or partner’s) job interfere with home or family life?” Response choices were: (1) Never, (2) Rarely, (3) Sometimes, (4) Often, and (5) Very often.

Respondents’ family-to-work conflict is a four-item index that assessed the following experiences over the past three months: “How often did your family or personal life keep you from doing as good a job at work as you could?”“How often did your family or personal life keep you from concentrating on your job?”“How often did your family or personal life drain you of your energy you needed to do your job?” and “How often did you not have enough time for your job because of your family or personal life?” Response choices were: (1) Never, (2) Rarely, (3) Sometimes, (4) Often, and (5) Very often. Higher average scores indicate more family-to-work conflict (α = .87).

Control variables

The analyses also control for time-varying characteristics, including survey wave, respondents’ work-family multitasking (RWFMT), job pressure, schedule control, job autonomy, challenging work, job authority, work location, work hours, education, personal income, occupation, job sector, parental status, whether the respondent provides care to an unhealthy relative, spouse’s work hours, and the division of domestic labor.

RWFMT is measured by assessing the following experience in the past three months: “How often do you try to work on job tasks and home tasks at the same time while you are at home?” Response choices were: (1) Never, (2) Rarely, (3) Sometimes, (4) Often, and (5) Very often. Job pressure is measured as a three-item index, and a sample item includes: “In the past three months, how often did the demands of your job exceed the time you have to do the work?” Response choices were: (1) Never, (2) Rarely, (3) Sometimes, (4) Often, and (5) Very often. The items were averaged to create the job pressure index; higher scores indicate more job pressure (α = .86). Schedule control is measured as a two-item index, and a sample item includes: “How much control do you have in scheduling your work hours?” Response choices were coded as: (1) None, (2) Very little, (3) Some, (4) A lot, and (5) Complete control. The items were standardized because of different response choices and then averaged so that higher scores indicate more schedule control (α = .78). Job autonomy is measured as a three-item index, and a sample item includes: “I have the freedom to decide what I do on my job.” Response choices were coded as: (1) Strongly disagree, (2) Somewhat disagree, (3) Somewhat agree, and (4) Strongly agree. The responses were averaged to create the job autonomy index so that higher scores indicate more job autonomy (α = .79). Challenging work is measured as a five-item index, and a sample item includes: “My job requires that I keep learning new things.” Response choices were coded as: (1) Strongly disagree, (2) Somewhat disagree, (3) Somewhat agree, and (4) Strongly agree. The responses were averaged to create the challenging work index, whereby higher scores indicate more challenging work (α = .78). Job authority is measured as a three-item index, and a sample item includes: “Do you have the authority to hire or fire others?” Respondents who answered “yes” were coded as 1, and responses across the three items were summed so that higher scores indicate more job authority (α = .70). Work location is measured with a single item asking: “Which of the following best describes the location of your work?” The response choices were coded into the following categories: (1) those who work mainly away from home at a fixed location, (2) those who work mainly at home, (3) mainly on the road, (4) at various client or customer locations, or (5) something else. Work hours contrast those who work 40–49 hours (reference category) versus the following categories: (1) those who work fewer than 30 hours, (2) 30–39 hours, and (3) 50 or more hours. Education is coded so that respondents who earned less than a BA degree (reference category) are contrasted with those who earned a BA degree or higher. Personal income contrasts those who earned $25,000–$49,999 (reference category), with the following categories: (1) those who earned less than $25,000, (2) $50,000–$74,999, (3) $75,000–$99,999, and (4) $100,000 or more. Occupation is coded to contrast those who are in technical occupations, sales, administrative support, service, and production (reference category) to those who are professionals and executives. Job sector contrasts those who work in the private for profit sector (reference category) with the following categories: (1) employed by government, (2) nonprofit organization, or (3) self-employed/business owner. Parental status is coded to contrast respondents without children at home (reference category) versus those with children at home. Frequency of caregiving was measured with a single item that asked: “How often in the last three months have you provided help or assistance to a relative or family member because of their health problems or disability?” Response choices were: (1) Never, (2) Rarely, (3) Sometimes, (4) Often, and (5) Very often. Spousal work hours was based on the respondents’ report which contrast those who work 40–49 hours (reference category) versus the following categories: (1) Those who work fewer than 30 hours, (2) 30–39 hours, and (3) 50 or more hours. Division of domestic labor is measured as a five-item index whereby respondents were asked about the distribution of the following household tasks between themselves and their spouse: (1) preparing meals, (2) laundry, (3) cleaning house, (4) shopping for groceries, and (5) dishes. Response choices were coded as: (1) You always do it, (2) You usually do it, (3) Both you and your spouse do it, (4) Your spouse usually does it, or (5) Your spouse always does it. Higher scores indicate that spouses perform more domestic tasks (α = .73).

Analytic Plan

The analyses employ fixed effects regression techniques given its ability to capitalize on within-individual variation in the focal variables over time to control for all unobserved time-stable confounders. Hausman tests indicated that there were significant differences in the coefficients obtained from fixed effects models and random effects models—revealing that there are time-stable confounders that are correlated with the independent variables in the models.

The fixed effects analyses proceed in two parts. First, Table 2 examines the relationship between SPWFMT and each of the intervening variables: spousal work-to-family conflict and respondents’ family-to-work conflict. Second, Table 3 presents the fixed effects analyses for the focal association between SPWFMT and respondents’ psychological distress whereby Model 1 establishes the relationship between SPWFMT and distress. Model 2 adds respondents’ own work-family multitasking to assess whether the association between SPWFMT and distress holds net of respondents’ own multitasking behavior. It is important to control for respondents’ own work-family multitasking given that it is likely correlated with their spouse’s work-family multitasking. In addition, since partners do not always have complete insight into each other’s experiences, respondents may perceive that their spouse’s experiences mirrors their own—a tendency referred to as assumed similarity bias (Kenny and Acitelli 2001; Young et al. 2014). Model 3 builds on Model 2 by adding spousal work-to-family conflict to assess whether this mechanism explains part of the association between SPWFMT and distress. Model 4 further extends Model 2 by adding respondents’ family-to-work conflict to test its mediating role. Finally, Model 5 incorporates both spousal work-to-family conflict and respondents’ family-to-work conflict simultaneously. To assess possible gender differences in the association between SPWFMT and distress or any of the intervening mechanisms, the analyses test several two-way interactions.

In additional sensitivity analyses, the results also accounted for attrition and missing data. These additional robustness checks included an inverse probability of attrition weight in the models which was created by estimating the probability that the respondent participated in the final wave of the CAN-WSH based on their sociodemographic characteristics, working conditions, strains in the work-family interface, psychological distress, and self-rated health. By taking the inverse of these probabilities, this procedure gives higher weights to the wave 1 respondents who had a lower likelihood of participating in the final wave—compensating for their underrepresentation in Wave 5. Moreover, to help alleviate concerns over missing data, additional robustness checks used multiple imputation by chained equations with 10 imputations. In this procedure, the outcome variables were used in the imputation procedure to help predict the missing values for other variables, but respondents who were missing on the dependent variable were dropped when conducting the fixed effects regression analyses (Von Hippel 2007). These sensitivity checks reveal that the substantive pattern of results does not change when accounting for attrition or missing data (results available upon request).

Results

Table 1 displays the descriptive statistics for all pooled Wave 1 to Wave 5 variables used in the analysis, highlighting any significant differences between men and women. Women report significantly higher levels of distress than men. Women also report more family-to-work conflict and perceive their spouses to have higher levels of spousal work-to-family conflict. Men perceive their spouses engage in more SPWFMT than women perceiving their spouses doing so. In addition, women report a more polarized response pattern in their own work-family multitasking, whereby women are more likely to report “Never” multitasking and “Very often” multitasking relative to men. A complete summary of descriptive statistics and gender differences can be found in Table 1.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics for Focal Variables, Pooled Wave 1 to Wave 5.

	Total sample		Women		Men
Variables	M or %	SD	M or %	SD	M or %	SD
Psychological distress***	2.09	.63	2.14	.65	2.02	.60
RFWC***	1.87	.74	1.90	.76	1.82	.70
SPWFC***
Never	31.25		29.66		33.68
Rarely	34.82		31.92		39.24
Sometimes	23.10		24.89		20.38
Often	8.18		9.94		5.49
Very often	2.64		3.59		1.21
SPWFMT***
Never	36.79		39.95		31.97
Rarely	25.48		23.31		28.78
Sometimes	23.30		22.00		25.27
Often	10.44		10.59		10.21
Very often	3.99		4.14		3.76
RWFMT***
Never	40.54		41.82		38.60
Rarely	25.03		23.56		27.26
Sometimes	21.66		21.21		22.33
Often	9.19		9.20		9.18
Very often	3.58		4.21		2.62
Job pressure***	3.09	1.06	3.13	1.06	3.02	1.05
Schedule control***	.01	.88	−.078	.89	.16	.86
Job autonomy***	2.98	.78	2.92	.79	3.07	.75
Challenging work	3.37	.58	3.38	.57	3.35	.61
Job authority***	.98	1.08	.82	.99	1.22	1.17
Work location***
Away from home at a fixed location	75.01		80.30		66.96
Mainly at home	8.94		9.29		8.40
Mainly on the road	4.57		2.49		7.73
Client/customer locations	9.43		6.12		14.46
Something else	2.05		1.79		2.45
BA or higher***	60.55		62.75		57.21
Income***
<$25,000	8.42		11.90		3.12
$25,000–$49,999	29.09		35.93		18.68
$50,000–$74,999	26.28		25.15		28.00
$75,000–$99,999	18.23		16.04		21.55
≥$100,000	17.99		10.99		28.64
Parent	53.11		52.76		53.63
Work hours***
<30 hours	14.28		20.19		5.28
30–39 hours	28.25		34.83		18.22
40–49 hours	39.63		33.99		48.21
≥50 hours	17.85		10.99		28.29
Professional***	49.23		47.33		52.11
Job sector***
Private for profit	43.86		38.65		51.79
Government	34.20		40.49		24.64
Nonprofit	6.21		8.31		3.01
Self-employed	15.73		12.55		20.56
Spousal work hours***
<30 hours	11.48		5.36		20.81
30–39 hours	20.81		14.39		30.59
40–49 hours	45.87		52.11		36.37
≥50 hours	21.84		28.15		12.23
Division of domestic labor***	2.69	.80	2.31	.66	3.27	.63
Frequency of caregiving***
Never	37.65		37.72		39.06
Rarely	22.86		21.05		25.63
Sometimes	21.26		22.00		20.13
Often	9.27		9.76		8.54
Very often	8.95		10.48		6.63
Sample size	2,147		1,294		853
Person-wave observations	7,116		4,295		2,821

Note. Asterisks reflect significant gender differences based on t-tests or chi-square tests. RFWC = respondents’ family-to-work conflict, SPWFC = spousal work-to-family conflict, SPWFMT = spousal work-family multitasking, RWFMT = respondents’ work-family multitasking.

†

p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001 (two-tailed test).

Table 2 examines the ways that perceptions of SPWFMT are linked with each of the intervening variables. We see that increases in the frequency of SPWFMT are positively—and strongly—associated with increases in spousal work-to-family conflict (SPWFC; e.g., SPWFMT very often: b = 1.189, p <.001), net of all control variables. In additional sensitivity analyses using fixed effects ordinal logistic regression models, this finding is robust whereby perceptions of SPWFMT are still positively and significantly linked with perceptions of SPWFC. Finally, SPWFMT is positively linked with respondents’ family-to-work conflict (RFWC; e.g., SPWFMT very often: b = .201, p < .001). Importantly, as seen in Model 2, perceptions of SPWFC is also positively associated with respondents’ family-to-work conflict (e.g., SPWFC very often: b = .297, p < .001). When adding SPWFC to the model, the size of the coefficient for SPWFMT very often is reduced but remains statistically significant (b = .101, p < .05).

Table 2.

Fixed Effects Regressions Predicting Intervening Variables.

Variables		RFWC
	SPWFC	Model 1	Model 2
SPWFMT
(REF = Never)
Rarely	.310***	.071**	.042^†
Sometimes	.564***	.100***	.046^†
Often	.815***	.145***	.065*
Very often	1.189***	.201***	.101*
SPWFC
(REF = Never)
Rarely			.089***
Sometimes			.189***
Often			.308***
Very often			.297***

Note. Regression coefficients are shown in table. All models control for the following: survey wave, respondents’ work-family multitasking, job pressure, schedule control, job autonomy, challenging work, job authority, work location, work hours, education, personal income, occupation, job sector, parental status, frequency of caregiving for unhealthy relative, spouse’s work hours, and the division of domestic labor. All models have 2,147 respondents contributing a total of 7,116 person-wave observations. SPWFMT = spousal work-family multitasking; SPWFC = spousal work-to-family conflict; RFWC = respondents’ family-to-work conflict.

†

p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001 (two-tailed test).

Table 3 reports the results estimating how within-individual changes in perceptions of SPWFMT are linked to respondents’ distress. In Model 1, we observe that SPWFMT is positively associated with the respondents’ psychological distress, but only when multitasking very often (b = .114, p < .01), net of all control variables. This result provides support for the crossover stress hypothesis, whereby perceptions of SPWFMT are associated with increases in the respondents’ distress. In Model 2, we observe that the positive association between SPWFMT and respondents’ distress remains statistically significant after adding RWFMT to the model (e.g., SPWFMT very often: b = .095, p < .05). Moreover, we see that RWFMT is positively associated with their own distress (e.g., RWFMT very often b = .102, p < .01).

Table 3.

Fixed Effects Regressions Predicting Psychological Distress.

Variables	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4	Model 5
SPWFMT(REF = Never)
Rarely	.008	.003	−.008	−.008	−.015
Sometimes	.035	.024	−.002	.008	−.089
Often	.015	−.003	−.040	−.026	−.050^†
Very often	.114**	.095*	.045	.061^†	.030
RWFMT(REF = Never)
Rarely		.013	.012	−.017	−.016
Sometimes		.052*	.052*	.007	.009
Often		.099***	.100***	.039	.043
Very often		.102**	.101**	.035	.037
SPWFC(REF = Never)
Rarely			.032^†		.018
Sometimes			.095***		.065***
Often			.142***		.092***
Very often			.152***		.103*
RFWC				.165***	.159***
Job pressure	.130***	.126***	.125***	.114***	.113***
Schedule control	−.003	−.005	−.005	−.005	−.005
Job autonomy	−.045***	−.047***	−.048***	−.049***	−.049***
Challenging work	−.091***	−.091***	−.089***	−.081***	−.080***
Job authority	−.011	−.013	−.015	−.014	−.015
Work location(REF = Away from home at a fixed location)
Mainly at home	.088*	.066^†	.060	.063^†	.060^†
Mainly on the road	−.003	−.013	−.089	−.017	−.014
Client/customer locations	.037	.031	.030	.035	.034
Something else	.047	.039	.039	.034	.034
BA or higher	.021	.023	.021	.013	.012
Income(REF = $25,000–$49,999)
<$25,000	.005	.005	.003	.008	.007
$50,000–$74,999	−.027	−.027	−.028	−.026	−.027
$75,000–$99,999	−.054	−.055^†	−.056^†	−.045	−.046
≥$100,000	−.012	−.013	−.012	−.005	−.005
Parent	−.001	−.005	−.010	−.026	−.029
Work hours(REF = 40–49 hours)
<30 hours	.044	.043	.038	.054*	.050^†
30–39 hours	.031	.032^†	.024	.033^†	.028
≥50 hours	.056*	.050*	.054*	.061**	.063**
Professional	.033	.031	.033	.032	.033
Job sector(REF = Private for profit)
Government	.069*	.072*	.069*	.086**	.084**
Nonprofit	.092*	.096*	.096*	.099*	.099*
Self-employed	.002	−.001	−.003	−.007	−.009
Spousal work hours(REF = 40–49 hours)
<30 hours	.008	.008	.015	.021	.024
30–39 hours	.001	−.001	.004	.003	.007
≥50 hours	.031	.032	.018	.025	.016
Division of domestic labor				−.016	−.013
Frequency of caregiving(REF = Never)
Rarely	.038*	.037*	.034*	.025	.024
Sometimes	.023	.023	.018	.001	−.002
Often	.111***	.109***	.104***	.065**	.064**
Very often	.117***	.111***	.106***	.028	.027
Survey wave(REF = 2011)
2013	−.026^†	−.024^†	−.024^†	−.026^†	−.025^†
2015	−.012	−.011	−.010	−.015	−.014
2017	.003	.005	.006	.000	.001
2019	.013	.015	.014	.008	.008

Note. Regression coefficients are shown in table. All models have 2,147 respondents contributing a total of 7,116 person-wave observations. SPWFMT = spousal work-family multitasking; RWFMT = respondents’ work-family multitasking; SPWFC = spousal work-to-family conflict, RFWC = respondents’ family-to-work conflict.

†

p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001 (two-tailed test).

In Model 3, perceptions of spousal work-to-family conflict (SPWFC) is associated with higher levels of respondents’ distress (e.g., SPWFC very often: b = .152, p < .001), and this renders the coefficient for SPWFMT very often to be no longer significant (b = .045, p > .05). The inclusion of perceptions of SPWFC in the model explains approximately 53 percent of the baseline effect of SPWFMT very often on the respondents’ distress, and the Sobel test indicates that this mediation process is significant (Z = 3.4, p < .001). SPWFC demonstrates yet another form of a crossover stressor which helps explain why SPWFMT is associated with the respondents’ distress—a pattern of results that aligns with the spousal role conflict hypothesis.

In Model 4, respondents’ family-to-work conflict is positively associated with their own distress (b = .165, p < .001), and the coefficient for SPWFMT very often becomes marginally significant (b = .061, p < .1). The Sobel test provides support for the role of respondents’ family-to-work conflict as a mediator here (Z = 4.1, p < .001). This indicates that perceptions of SPWFMT are linked to respondents’ distress partly because of its association with respondents’ family-to-work conflict—a pattern that supports the respondents’ family-to-work spillover hypothesis.

In Model 5, we observe that the association between perceptions of SPWFMT and respondents’ distress is no longer significant after accounting for both SPWFC and respondents’ family-to-work conflict. In addition, both SPWFC and respondents’ family-to-work conflict are significantly associated with elevated levels of distress net of each other.

When assessing gender differences in the associations between SPWFMT and SPWFC, respondents’ work-to-family conflict, and distress, none of the interaction effects were significant. These results (available upon request) suggest that men and women experience a similar impact of SPWFMT on strains in the work-family interface and distress.

Discussion

Dual-earner families are becoming increasingly common (Statistics Canada 2016), so it is essential for researchers to investigate how dual-earner couples manage the intersection between work and family life. The surge in technology that allow workers to work anytime and anywhere has spurred many couples to juggle both work and family roles—even performing tasks from these two distinct roles at the same time (Chung 2022). By examining the crossover dynamics of perceptions of SPWFMT, the present study advances understanding about the complexities of performing multiple roles simultaneously in the work-family interface and its associations with a loved one’s own behaviors and mental well-being. Drawing on five waves of panel data while taking into account all time-stable confounders, the present study uncovered key patterns: (1) perceptions of SPWFMT were found to be positively associated with the respondents’ psychological distress, (2) perceptions of spousal work-to-family conflict was a crucial mechanism that connected perceptions of SPWFMT the respondents’ mental health, and (3) respondents’ family-to-work conflict also partly explained how perceptions of SPWFMT were linked to respondents’ distress. In this effort, the present study highlights multifaceted spillover and crossover dynamics linking SPWFMT to the respondents’ distress and evaluates any potential gender differences in these processes. The implications of these findings are interpreted below in light of crossover stress, the stress process model, and border/boundary theories of the work-family interface.

The pattern of results in the present study speak to the theoretical notion of crossover stress, whereby one individual’s stressful experiences can transfer to their partner and shape their behaviors and emotions, including their health and well-being (Westman and Etzion 2005). Is SPWFMT a crossover stressor? The findings reveal that it can be—at least indirectly through perceptions of spousal work-to-family conflict and respondents’ family-to-work conflict. While some argue that multitasking in general may boost productivity and efficiency, research also indicates the potential consequences of multitasking for fragmented attention, increased stress, and worse mental health (Craig and Brown 2017; Offer and Schneider 2011). Border/boundary theories posit that role-blurring activities like work-family multitasking signify high integration between work and family roles and help ease the transition between these domains, but blurring these boundaries makes it more likely for inter-role conflict to occur (Ashforth et al. 2000; Clark 2000). The present study advances research on the harmful effects of work-family multitasking by examining its potential to contribute to crossover stress, and the findings indicate that perceptions of SPWFMT are linked to higher levels of respondents’ distress through key intermediary pathways.

Consistent with the idea of stress proliferation in the stress process model, there are pivotal secondary stressors that connect the perceptions of SPWFMT to the respondents’ mental health. Results revealed that perceptions of spousal work-to-family conflict and respondents’ family-to-work conflict are the core secondary stressors that propagate the health-harming effect of SPWFMT. While the observed positive association between perceptions of SPWFMT and spousal work-to-family conflict reflects a spillover process, the finding that SPWFMT is positively associated with respondents’ family-to-work conflict indicates a crossover process. Moreover, the interrelationship among the intervening variables is an important part of the indirect crossover stress effect of SPWFMT on psychological distress. For instance, some of the association between SPWFMT and respondents’ family-to-work conflict is attributable to perceptions of spousal work-to-family conflict. These direct and indirect links between work-family stressors among couples and their rippling effects on mental health highlight the importance of integrating research on crossover stress and border/boundary theories with the insights of stress proliferation embedded in the stress process model.

Given the theoretical framing around traditional gender perspectives, it was somewhat surprising that the results did not reveal any gender differences in the focal associations. On the one hand, while women tend to be more attuned to the emotions of others and hence potentially more affected by their spouse’s multitasking, it is also possible that men might be more bothered by their spouse violating gendered expectations about providing undivided family care. If these were both operating for participants in the sample, then they might function as countervailing forces that cancel each other out to produce the nonsignificant differences between men and women. On the other hand, these nonsignificant findings also align with gender egalitarian perspectives, suggesting that the crossover stress from SPWFMT affects men and women similarly. Alongside women’s considerable strides in the labor force over the past few decades, men have increased their involvement in more domestic-related tasks (Doucet 2006), so there might be a growing trend toward a fairer allocation of responsibilities in the home sphere. Recent evidence has tended to produce more mixed findings on the gendered allocation of time spent fulfilling work, family, and domestic responsibilities (Lyttelton et al. 2023). It is possible that the observations from this current study reflect greater convergence in the meaning and enactment of work and family roles for men and women—at least when it comes to appraising their spouse’s multitasking activities.

Before concluding, there are some limitations of the present study that deserve consideration. First, the analyses do not definitively rule out reverse causality. It is possible that individuals experiencing distress may become more sensitive to their spouse’s work-family multitasking behaviors. However, the framing provided by the stress process model highlights how differential exposure to stressors contributes to disparities in mental health. Future research should consider using structural equation modeling, especially in conjunction with a longitudinal design like diary studies that follows up with participants over much shorter periods of time to better understand how daily changes in SPWFMT contribute to crossover stress while identifying the key intervening mechanisms that produce these links. Second, fixed effects analyses use within-individual variation over time to estimate the focal relationships, so these results exclude respondents who did not perceive changes in the frequency of their spouse’s work-family multitasking over the study period. Third, SPWFMT was measured using a single item based on the respondents’ perceptions. While this single item taps into the frequency of work-family multitasking, multiple items are preferred for greater reliability and validity. Moreover, the language of this single-item measure orients respondents’ attention to how often they multitask on both work and home tasks “while at home”; future research should consider additional items that capture respondents’ multitasking that occurs outside of the home, including checking emails or taking a work-related call during a family outing.

Despite the aforementioned limitations, the present study provides novel insights into how perceptions of SPWFMT are indirectly linked with the respondents’ mental health. The findings indicate that perceptions of spousal work-to-family conflict and respondents’ family-to-work conflict are key pathways that generate the link between SPWFMT and the respondents’ psychological distress. The present study demonstrates the benefits of synthesizing ideas from the stress process model and the border/boundaries of the work-family interface to identify the processes through which crossover stress is detrimentally linked to the mental health of loved ones. In this effort, the present study underscores how work-family multitasking within dual-earning couples is another potential source of crossover stress.

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Philip Badawy

References

Allen

Tammy D.

French

Kimberly A.

Dumani

Soner

Shockly

Kristen M.

2020. “A Cross-national Meta-analytic Examination of Predictors and Outcomes Associated with Work-family Conflict.” Journal of Applied Psychology 105:539–76.

Anderson

Lewis R.

Monden

Christiaan W. S.

Bukodi

Erzsébet

. 2022. “Stressful Life Events, Differential Vulnerability, and Depressive Symptoms: Critique and New Evidence.” Journal of Health and Social Behavior 63:283–300.

Ashforth

Blake E.

Kreiner

Glen E.

Fugate

Mel

. 2000. “All in a Day’s Work: Boundaries and Micro Role Transitions.” The Academy of Management Review 25:472–91.

Aumann

Kerstin

Galinsky

Ellen

Matos

Kenneth

. 2011. “The New Male Mystique.” Families and Work Institute. https://cdn.sanity.io/files/ow8usu72/production/251245fa4de08d1cb6ff22475edb45e017d60bdd.pdf.

Bakker

Arnold B.

Demerouti

Evangelia

Dollard

Maureen

. 2008. “How Job Demands Affect Partners’ Experience of Exhaustion: Integrating Work-family Conflict and Crossover Theory.” Journal of Applied Psychology 93:901–11.

Bellavia

Gina M.

Frone

Michael R.

2005. “Work-family Conflict.” Pp. 113–48 in Handbook of Work Stress, edited by Barling

Kelloway

E. K.

Frone

M. R.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Brumley

Krista M.

Montazer

Shirin

Pineault

Laura

Maguire

Katheryn

Baltes

Boris

. 2024. “Remote Work and Work-family Conflict during COVID-19: Individual and Crossover Effects among Dual-earning Couples.” Socius 10:1–19.

Chung

Heejung

. 2022. The Flexibility Paradox: Why Flexible Working Leads to (Self-) Exploitation. Bristol, UK: Policy Press.

Clark

Sue C.

2000. “Work/Family Border Theory: A New Theory of Work/Family Balance.” Human Relations 53:747–70.

10.

Collins

Caitlyn

Ruppanner

Leah

Landivar

Liana C.

Scarborough

William J.

2021. “The Gendered Consequences of a Weak Infrastructure of Care: School Reopening Plans and Parents’ Employment During the COVID-19 Pandemic.” Gender & Society 35:180–93.

11.

Craig

Lyn

Brown

Judith E.

2017. “Feeling Rushed: Gendered Time Quality, Work Hours, Nonstandard Work Schedules, and Spousal Crossover.” Journal of Marriage and Family 79:225–42.

12.

Demerouti

Evangelia

Bakker

Arnold B.

Schaufeli

Wilmar B.

2005. “Spillover and Crossover of Exhaustion and Life Satisfaction among Dual Earning Parents.” Journal of Vocational Behavior 67:266–89.

13.

Dermott

Esther

. 2008. Intimate Fatherhood: A Sociological Analysis. London, England: Routledge.

14.

Desrochers

Stephan

Sargent

Leisa D.

2004. “Boundary/Border Theory and Work-family Integration.” Organization Management Journal 1:40–48.

15.

Doucet

Andrea

. 2006. Do Men Mother? Fathering, Care, and Domestic Responsibility. Toronto, ON, Canada: University of Toronto Press Inc.

16.

Fettro

Marshall N.

Nomaguchi

Kei

. 2017. “Spousal Problems and Family-to-work Conflict among Employed US Adults.” Journal of Family & Economic Issues 39:277–96.

17.

Goode

William J.

1960. “A Theory of Role Strain.” American Sociological Review 25:483–96.

18.

Greenhaus

Jeffrey H.

Beutell

Nicholas J.

1985. “Sources of Conflict between Work and Family Roles.” The Academy of Management Review 10:76–88.

19.

Jia

Chiang

Jack T.

Liu

Yihao

Wang

Zheng

Gao

Yating

. 2023. “Double Challenges: How Working from Home Affects Dual-earner Couples’ Work-family Experiences.” Personnel Psychology 76:141–79.

20.

Kahn

Robert

Wolfe

Donald M.

Quinn

Robert P.

Snoek

Diedrick

Rosenthal

Robert A.

1964. Organizational Stress: Studies in Role Conflict and Ambiguity. New York: Wiley.

21.

Kenny

David A.

Acitelli

Linda K.

2001. “Accuracy and Bias in the Perception of the Partner in a Close Relationship.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 80:439–48.

22.

Lagacé

Martine B.

Lachance-Grzela

Mylène

Ross-Plour

Mylène

Brassard

Audrey

. 2024. “The Explanatory Role of Psychological Distress in the Link Between Role Blurring and Relationship Satisfaction: A Dyadic Study.” Journal of Marital and Family Therapy 51:1–19.

23.

Long

Nigel R.

Voges

Kevin E.

1987. “Can Wives Perceive the Source of Their Husbands’ Occupational Stress?” Journal of Occupational Psychology 60:235–42.

24.

Chang-qin

Jing-Jong

Dan-yang

. 2016. “Crossover Effects of Work-family Conflict among Chinese Couples.” Journal of Managerial Psychology 31:235–60.

25.

Lyttelton

Thomas

Zang

Emma

Musick

Kelly

. 2023. “Parents’ Work Arrangements and Gendered Time Use during the COVID-19 Pandemic.” Journal of Marriage and Family 85:657–73.

26.

Milkie

Melissa A.

Chung

Heejung

Jaga

Ameeta

. 2023. “Work—family Justice—Meanings and Possibilities: Introduction to the Work and Family Researchers Network Special Issue.” Community, Work & Family 23:525–42.

27.

Minnotte

Krista L.

Yucel

Deniz

. 2018. “Work-family Conflict, Job Insecurity, and Health Outcomes among US Workers.” Social Indicators Research 139:517–40.

28.

Offer

Shira

Schneider

Barbara

. 2011. “Revisiting the Gender Gap in Time-use Patterns: Multitasking and Well-being among Mothers and Fathers in Dual-earner Families.” American Sociological Review 76:809–33.

29.

Pearlin

Leonard I.

1989. “The Sociological Study of Stress.” Journal of Health and Social Behavior 30:241–56.

30.

Powell

Abigail

Craig

Lyn

. 2015. “Gender Differences in Working at Home and Time Use Patterns: Evidence from Australia.” Work, Employment and Society 29:571–89.

31.

Ridgeway

Cecilia L.

2011. Framed by Gender: How Gender Inequality Persists in the Modern World. New York: Oxford University Press.

32.

Rosenfield

Sarah

Mouzon

Dawne

. 2013. “Gender and Mental Health.” Pp. 277–96 in Handbook of the Sociology of Mental Health. 2nd ed., edited by Aneshensel

C. S.

Phelan

J. C.

Bierman

New York: Springer.

33.

Scheibling

Casey

Young

Marisa

Milkie

Melissa A.

Schieman

Scott

. 2023. “Gender, Work, and the Family’s Morning Rush Hour: The Strain Associated with Preparing Children for the Day.” Community, Work, and Family 1–18. doi:10.1080/13668803.2023.2298313.

34.

Schieman

Scott

Young

Marisa C.

2010a. “Is There a Downside to Schedule Control for the Work-family Interface?” Journal of Family Issues 31:1391–1414.

35.

Schieman

Scott

Young

Marisa C.

2010b. “The Demands of Creative Work: Implications for Stress in the Work-family Interface.” Social Science Research 39:246–59.

36.

Schieman

Scott

Young

Marisa C.

2015. “Who Engages in Work-family Multitasking? A Study of Canadian and American Workers.” Social Indicators Research 120:741–67.

37.

Shafer

Emily F.

Kelly

Erin L.

Buxton

Orfeu M.

Berkman

Lisa F.

2018. “Partners’ Overwork and Individuals’ Wellbeing and Experienced Relationship Quality.” Community, Work, and Family 21:410–28.

38.

Simon

Robin W.

2020. “Gender, Emotions, and Mental Health in the United States: Patterns, Explanations, and New Directions.” Society and Mental Health 10:97–111.

39.

Statistics Canada. 2016. “The Rise of the Dual-earner Family with Children.” Retrieved April 10, 2025 (https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11-630-x/11-630-x2016005-eng.htm).

40.

Statistics Canada. 2023. “Unemployment Rate, Participation Rate and Employment Rate by Sex, Annual.” Retrieved April 10, 2025 (https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1410032702).

41.

Stevens

Daphne P.

Kiger

Gary

Riley

Pamela J.

2006. “His, Hers, or Ours? Work-to Family Spillover, Crossover, and Family Cohesion.” The Social Science Journal 43:425–36.

42.

Stevens

Daphne P.

Minnotte

Krista L.

Mannon

Susan E.

Kiger

Gary

. 2007. “Examining the ‘Neglected Side of the Work-family Interface’: Antecedents of Positive and Negative Family-to Spillover.” Journal of Family Issues 28:242–62.

43.

Taylor

John

. 2015. “Gender Orientation and the Cost of Caring for Others.” Society and Mental Health 5:49–65.

44.

Thomeer

Mieke B.

Umberson

Debra

Pudrovska

Tetyana

. 2013. “Marital Processes around Depression: A Gendered and Relational Perspective.” Society and Mental Health 3:151–69.

45.

Von Hippel

Paul T.

2007. “Regression with Missing Ys: An Improved Strategy for Analyzing Multiply Imputed Data.” Sociological Methodology 37:83–117.

46.

Voydanoff

Patricia

. 2005. “Consequences of Boundary-spanning Demands and Resources for Work-to Conflict and Perceived Stress.” Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 10:491–503.

47.

Weintraub

Jared

Pattusamy

Murugan

Dust

Scott B.

2019. “Mindful Multitasking: Disentangling the Effect of Polychronicity on Work-home Conflict and Life Satisfaction.” The Journal of Social Psychology 159:497–502

48.

Westman

Mina

. 2001. “Stress and Strain Crossover.” Human Relations 54:717–51.

49.

Westman

Mina

Etzion

Dalia

. 2005. “The Crossover of Work-family Conflict from One Spouse to the Other.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 35:1936–57.

50.

Young

Marisa

Schieman

Scott

. 2012. “When Hard Times Take a Toll: The Distressing Consequences of Economic Hardship and Life Events within the Family-work Interface.” Journal of Health and Social Behavior 53:84–98.

51.

Young

Marisa

Schieman

Scott

Milkie

Melissa A.

2014. “Spouse’s Work-to Conflict, Family Stressors, and Mental Health among Dual-earner Mothers and Fathers.” Society and Mental Health 4:1–20.

52.

Yucel

Deniz

Borgmann

Lea-Sophie

. 2023. “Work-family Conflict and Depressive Symptoms among Dual-earner Couples in Germany: A Dyadic and Longitudinal Analysis.” Social Science Research 104:1–15.

53.

Yucel

Deniz

Latshaw

Beth A.

2020. “Spillover and Crossover Effects of Work-family Conflict among Married and Cohabiting Couples.” Society and Mental Health 10:35–60.

54.

Zaiceva

Anzelika

. 2023. “Multitasking.” Pp. 1–29 in Handbook of Labor, Human Resources and Population Economics, edited by Zimmermann

K. F.

Cham, Switzerland: Springer.