the negative effects of everyday hassles.
How might family members buffer others from the effects of the everyday hassles they encounter? Repetti and Wood’s (e.g., 1997b) early research suggested that parents’ behavioral and emotional withdrawal may actually protect children from the transmission of their parents’ negative work experiences. Another early study (Bolger et al., 1989) found that when husbands experienced greater-than-usual demands at the workplace, they performed less household labor and childcare when they returned home, and their wives compensated for their withdrawal by performing more of the work at home. The parallel pattern did not occur when wives experienced overloads at work. When wives experienced overloads at work, they too performed less work at home (i.e., behavioral withdrawal), but their husbands did not reciprocate by performing more. Bolger et al. (1989) label this an “asymmetry in the buffering effect” (p. 182) and suggest that, in the short term, wives’ stepping in for husbands may alleviate husbands’ stress and avoid the transmission of stress from husbands’ daily hassles to children. However, this short-term adaptive process may prove harmful over time for families—most particularly for wives. Coping in this manner in repeated instances over time may be one factor in explaining the consistent finding that marriage benefits the emotional health of men more than that of women (Amato, Johnson, Booth, & Rogers, 2003). To the extent that women’s emotional health plays a key role in child well-being (Demo & Acock, 1996), a pattern of asymmetrical buffering may be detrimental for children in families as well.
Additionally, several researchers have inquired as to how patterns of emotional transmission from daily hassles in the workplace to home vary based on the quality of the marital relationship (Schulz et al., 2004; Story & Repetti, 2006). Story and Repetti (2006) found that both husbands and wives in higher-conflict marriages were more likely than their peers in less conflicted marriages to express anger toward their spouse and withdraw from family interaction on evenings following stressful days at work. Similarly, Schulz et al. (2004) found that husbands in more satisfying marriages were less likely than maritally dissatisfied husbands to express anger or criticism toward their wives following emotionally upsetting days at work. Taken together, this research suggests that husbands and wives in higher conflict families are more likely to express negative feelings toward their spouses following high-stress days. Spouses in these families also frequently withdraw from family interaction following difficult workdays, perhaps in an attempt to disengage from further negative interactions.
One unexpected finding indicated that some wives in more satisfying marriages actually withdraw more and express more anger following demanding days at work than do wives in less satisfying marriages (Schulz et al., 2004). The authors suggest that a more satisfying marital relationship may create a context in which husbands encourage wives to express their frustrations as a way of coping. It may be that more maritally satisfied husbands facilitate wives’ temporary withdrawal from family interactions by increasing their own involvement with childcare and housework so that their wives can recuperate (e.g., “Mommy needs some time to relax and unwind because she had a hard day at work.”). In turn, wives in more satisfying marital relationships may feel freer than their maritally dissatisfied counterparts to express anger and withdraw from family interaction after difficult workdays because their husbands are willing to hear their complaints and increase their supportive behavior. This research suggests that the nature of the marital relationship may affect the extent to which everyday hassles at work spill over into family interactions and that these patterns may vary by gender. Similarly, the results of other studies suggest that additional family vulnerabilities or strengths (e.g., child conduct problems, overly controlling parenting) may influence the extent to which daily hassles transfer to family stress (Larson & Gillman, 1999; Margolin, Christensen, & John, 1996).
Research from a 10-year, multisite qualitative study suggests that buffering children from the effects of parents’ everyday hassles may be a luxury afforded to only middle-class and more affluent families (Dodson & Dickert, 2004). In their study of low-income families, Dodson and Dickert (2004) found that parents engaged children, most typically eldest daughters, in childcare and housework tasks as a strategy to compensate for the inflexible work hours, low wages, and nonstandard shifts of working-poor parents. Whereas studies of both working- and middle-class families have found that girls, more than boys, assume household labor responsibilities when mothers’ work demands are high (e.g., Crouter, Head, Bumpus, & McHale, 2001), low-income families differ in that girls’ contributions to family labor are essential for family survival because the demands of parents’ work render mothers and fathers unavailable to attend to even the most basic everyday hassles of family life. In this way, parents’ workplace demands have direct impacts on eldest daughters’ daily experiences in that these girls must contend with the everyday hassles and responsibilities customarily assigned to parents. As a teacher of the low-income adolescent girls participating in Dodson and Dickert’s (2004) study observed, “They have to take their little brother to the bus stop in the morning and sometimes that means getting to school late or they are babysitting … they are like little mothers” (p. 326). One 15-year-old daughter’s own words illustrate that the girls themselves are keenly aware of their responsibilities as childcare providers and assistant housekeepers: “I have to take care of the house and take care of the kids and I don’t go outside. I have to stay home. They have to go to work so I take over” (p. 324).
The results of Dodson and Dickert’s (2004) study suggest that although this adaptive strategy has both short-term benefits (e.g., children are cared for and housework is completed) and long-term benefits (e.g., family cohesion or loyalty, higher levels of social responsibility for adolescents), families use it at considerable cost to eldest daughters. When eldest daughters assume responsibility for the everyday hassles associated with family care, their own education and goals are secondary to the needs of the family. In Dodson and Dickert’s study, teachers, parents, and the girls themselves described lost opportunities for education and extracurricular involvement and, perhaps most disconcerting, lost hope for the eldest daughters’ futures.
A relatively new line of research has examined the influence of information and communication technology (ICT) on everyday hassles, including how it may help buffer families from daily hassles or how it may create additional everyday hassles by blurring the lines between work and home. In some ways, the use of ICT can be viewed as an adaptive process that provides support for handling everyday hassles. A recent qualitative study demonstrated that for some couples the use of ICT makes it easier to manage daily schedules, communicate work and family needs, and organize their own and their family’s time. For example, in Golden’s (2013) qualitative study, an employee from a high tech organization in the Northeast reflected on managing daily routines with ICT:
If it’s something like a doctor’s appointment, or even an after-hours event I have. I’ll put it on there [virtual calendar system] just so when I look at my calendar, it’s there as a reminder that, hey, you’ve gotta go do this tonight or Saturday morning don’t forget to take the car in … My wife and I also use a function of [e-mail] which, there’s a shared calendar function.
Similarly, Golden (2013) found that individuals use ICT to increase their work flexibility (e.g., by completing some work tasks from home), manage doing work from home (e.g., answering e-mails in nonwork hours), and remain available to family demands during work hours (e.g., accepting instant messages, e-mails, or calls from spouse and children). Although workplace flexibility may benefit family well-being, technology-enabled flexibility (e.g., via cell phones, tablets, home-accessible e-mail) may also increase the potential of work to impede on family life for those “fortunate” enough to have it (e.g., Golden, 2013; Heijstra & Rafnsdottir, 2010). Therefore, although ICT may at times buffer the impact of everyday hassles, it may also contribute to family stress.
ICT blurs the boundaries between work and home by providing 24/7 access and availability to interact with individuals or tasks previously segregated into work and home spaces. This increased technology may make it difficult for workers to disconnect from work at home (Chelsey & Johnson, 2015; Golden, 2013; Madden & Jones, 2008), especially for employees with high levels of ambition and involvement in their work or those whose identity is tied to their career (Boswell & Olson-Buchanan, 2007). Even individuals who do not actively complete work tasks from home may become distracted by work during family