This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Services Download to citation manager PubMed PubMed Citation

Work–Family Conflict and Retirement Preferences

¹ Department of Sociology, University of Wisconsin–Madison.
² Department of Sociology and California Center for Population Research, University of California, Los Angeles.

Address correspondence to James M. Raymo, Department of Sociology, University of Wisconsin, 1180 Observatory Drive, Madison, WI 53706. E-Mail: jraymo{at}ssc.wisc.edu

	Abstract

TOP Abstract Methods Results Discussion References

 
Objectives. This study investigates relationships between retirement preferences and perceived levels of work–family conflict.

Methods. Using the large sample of 52–54-year-old respondents to the 1992 Wisconsin Longitudinal Study, we estimated multinomial logistic regression models of preferences for partial and full retirement within the next 10 years. We examined the association between retirement preferences and perceived work–family conflict, evaluated the extent to which work–family conflict was a mediating mechanism between stressful work and family circumstances and preferences to retire, and explored potential gender differences in the association between work–family conflict and preferring retirement.

Results. Work–family conflict was positively related to preferences for both full and partial retirement. Yet work–family conflict did not appear to mediate relationships between stressful work and family environments and retirement preferences, nor did significant gender differences emerge in this association.

Discussion. Our analyses provide the first direct evidence of the role played by work–family conflict in the early stages of the retirement process, although we were not able to identify the sources of conflict underlying this relationship. Identifying the sources of this conflict and the psychological mechanisms linking work–family conflict to retirement preferences is an important task for future researchers.

CONCURRENT trends toward earlier retirement, greater variability in retirement timing, and increases in women's labor force participation have stimulated research on later life work from a life course perspective (e.g., Han & Moen, 1999; Szinovacz, Ekerdt, & Vinick, 1992). This research has focused on clarifying ways in which the retirement process reflects the interdependence of work and family spheres and the mutual influences of family members. It has been shown, for example, that net of individual characteristics, the timing and nature of retirement are influenced by spouse's characteristics (Henretta, O'Rand, & Chan, 1993) and by the provision of physical care and financial support to family members (Dentinger & Clarkberg, 2002).

Work–family conflict is one important dimension of the interdependence of life spheres that has been largely neglected in prior research on retirement, however. Perceived conflict between work and family life has received considerable attention among family scholars (for recent reviews of this literature, see Greenhaus & Parasuraman, 1999; Perry-Jenkins, Repetti, & Crouter, 2000) and clearly contributes to the context in which retirement decisions are made, but no studies of the retirement process have directly examined the role of work–family conflict. Furthermore, retirement research that has investigated the presumed sources of such conflict has focused almost exclusively on the spillover of family-related stress into work life, while paying little or no attention to the potential ramifications of work-related stress spilling over into family life. This is a surprising omission in light of efforts made in the broader work–family literature to distinguish work stress spillover into family life from family stress spillover into work life (e.g., Frone, Russell, & Cooper, 1992).

In the present study, we used data from the Wisconsin Longitudinal Study (WLS) to advance understanding of the retirement process in three ways. First, we provide a direct assessment of whether and how work–family conflict is associated with preferences for partial or full retirement. Measured as 52–54-year-old individuals' desired work status 10 years in the future, retirement preferences represent a potentially important, yet understudied, component of the retirement process. We considered both spillover of family stress into work life (family-to-work conflict) and spillover of work stress into family life (work-to-family conflict). Second, we examined the extent to which stressful family circumstances and job characteristics work through perceptions of work–family conflict to influence retirement preferences. Finally, we explored potential gender differences in the association between preferences to retire and perceptions of work–family conflict.

Theoretical Background and Previous Research
The focus on work–family interface as a context for developing preferences regarding retirement flows naturally from the life course perspective, which emphasizes the mutual influences of family members and the interdependence of life spheres in shaping outcomes across individual lives (Bengtson & Allen, 1993; Elder, 1994). The current study's focus on preferences as an important component of the early stages of the retirement process also fits well with the life course perspective's emphasis on the role of human agency in shaping life outcomes (Elder). It seems particularly appropriate to emphasize preferences in the context of the decreasing institutionalization of the retirement process (Han & Moen, 1999) and the associated increase in the role of individual planning for retirement. Surprisingly, however, previous research has paid little attention to preferences, focusing instead on expectations or intentions to retire by a given age. This limits researchers' understanding of the processes underlying retirement transitions, which presumably result from the combined influence of preferences and perceived constraints. Whereas constraints posed by objective circumstances such as financial circumstances and pension incentives clearly influence retirement intentions and expectations (Ekerdt, DeViney, & Kosloski 1996; Fronstin, 1999), we would expect that subjective conditions, such as perceptions of work–family conflict, are more relevant to the formation of preferences.

The life course perspective also highlights the importance of understanding human lives in historical context. In the present study, we investigated the retirement preferences of a single cohort of men and women born mainly in 1939. This is a cohort that entered adulthood at a time when women were expected to remain in the home after childbearing, but one that also experienced tremendous shifts in women's work and family roles over the course of their adult lives. Women in this cohort married early and had relatively high levels of fertility, but they also re-entered the labor market after raising their children at higher rates than did their mothers. At midlife, this "family then job" cohort of women (Goldin, 2004) thus formed preferences for future work and retirement in the context of unique experiences balancing work and family responsibilities.

Work and Family Influences on Retirement Preferences
Work–family conflict is defined as a situation in which "participation in the work (family) role is made more difficult by virtue of participation in the family (work) role" (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985, p. 77). Commonly cited sources of work-to-family conflict include long work hours, inflexible work schedules, low job autonomy, physically and cognitively demanding work, and the need to work under time pressure, whereas sources of family-to-work conflict include children living at home, spouse's poor health, time spent on family work (e.g., caregiving), and poor spousal relations (e.g., Grzywacz & Marks, 2000). An understanding of how family and job contexts influence preferences to retire requires more than a cataloguing of particular characteristics of an individual's environment, however. It is essential to also understand how work and family are experienced by the individual. Unless these potentially stressful work and family characteristics are actually perceived as stressful or as sources of work–family conflict, it is unlikely that they will contribute to a desire to retire.

Family stress and retirement
A growing body of research points to the importance of family context for understanding retirement decisions. For example, retirement tends to be earlier among those who provide physical care to aging parents (Dentinger & Clarkberg, 2002; Pavalko & Artis, 1997); similarly, some studies have found spouses' health problems to accelerate retirement (Hayward, Friedman, & Chen, 1998; Pienta, 2003; Szinovacz & DeViney, 2000). Interestingly, retirement is also found to be earlier for those in more satisfactory marriages (Szinovacz & DeViney) and for those who place greater value on time spent with their spouse (Coile, 2003), but later among those who provide financial support to dependent children (Pienta, 2003; Szinovacz, DeViney, & Davey, 2001). The fact that many of these family characteristics are also associated with elevated levels of family-to-work conflict suggests that spillover of family stress into work may be an important mediator of the association between selected aspects of the family environment and preferences to retire. For example, obligations associated with caregiving may interfere with performance at work and increase the desirability of retirement for some individuals. Yet individuals who have other sources of family stress, such as marital discord, may perceive work as a haven from a stressful family environment (e.g., Hochschild, 1997). Although much theorizing about why researchers should expect family obligations to influence retirement relates to work–family conflict (e.g., Szinovacz et al., 2001), explicit examinations of linkages between perceived family-to-work conflict and the retirement process have yet to be conducted.

Work stress and retirement
In contrast to research on the family correlates of retirement, interpretations of relationships between job characteristics and retirement have paid little attention to the experience of work–family conflict. This is surprising, given the well-documented linkages between stressful job characteristics and early retirement and evidence that work-to-family conflict is both more common—and more negatively associated with outcomes such as job satisfaction and life satisfaction—than is family-to-work conflict (Greenhaus & Parasuraman, 1999). Employment in occupations characterized by low autonomy, physically demanding work, and limited flexibility is associated with earlier retirement (Hayward, Grady, Hardy, & Sommers, 1989). These occupational influences on retirement have typically been interpreted as a reflection of workers' evaluation of the relative attractiveness of retirement and continued work. Simply stated, "workers will retire from unpleasant, difficult jobs at a different rate from pleasant, easy jobs" (Hurd & McGarry, 1993, p. 1). Hazardous and physically demanding jobs are also thought to promote early retirement indirectly by adversely affecting health (Hayward et al., 1989). The fact that many of these same job characteristics have been identified as strong correlates of work-to-family conflict suggests that part of the observed relationship between stressful occupational characteristics and early retirement may work via the spillover of work-related stress into family life. This possibility has received remarkably little attention in the retirement literature, however, and explicit examinations of linkages between perceived levels of work-to-family conflict and the retirement process have yet to be conducted.

The Current Research
Despite growing interest in understanding the formation of retirement plans (e.g., Fronstin, 1999) and the clear theoretical relevance of work–family conflict, investigators know very little about whether and how work–family conflict might influence retirement preferences. For several reasons, this represents an important gap in researchers' understanding of attitudes toward retirement. First, stressful life circumstances may be particularly salient in the development of preferences to retire. In the early stages of the retirement process, many people do not have a good understanding of the details of their social security and pension provisions (Gustman & Steinmeier, 1999) and do not have well-formed expectations about the age at which they will retire (Ekerdt, Hackney, Kosloski, & DeViney, 2001). However, the pre-retirement years are also a time during which job responsibilities may be high, changes in health may increase the physical burden of work (Daly & Bound, 1996), and provision of informal care to aging parents may overlap with continuing obligations to support financially dependent children (Bengtson, Rosenthal, & Burton, 1996).

Second, because policy initiatives are likely to have the greatest impact on behavior when directed at early stages of the retirement process (Pienta & Hayward, 2002), relationships between work–family conflict and retirement preferences are potentially of great relevance. In the context of rapid population aging, there is a growing policy interest in promoting extended labor force attachment (e.g., Fronstin, 1999; Quinn & Burkhauser, 1994). If work–family conflict is found to be an important correlate of preferences to retire, and if the sources of this conflict can be identified, policies directed at ameliorating this conflict (e.g., family care leave, flexible work schedules) may promote longer attachment to the labor force, just as workplace accommodation of health impairments appears to facilitate continued employment (Daly & Bound, 1996).

Third, clarifying the role of work–family conflict in the formation of retirement preferences may enhance researchers' understanding of gender differences in the retirement process. Gender differences in retirement outcomes have often been interpreted as a reflection of men's primary identification as economic provider and women's role as family caretaker (Dentinger & Clarkberg, 2002; Pienta & Hayward, 2002; Szinovacz & DeViney, 2000), but little is known about the role played by work–family conflict. Evidence that women perform the bulk of family and household responsibilities (Bianchi, Milkie, Sayer, & Robinson, 2000) and that they are more likely to be in "bad" jobs that may not provide work–family accommodation or benefits (Kalleberg, Reskin, & Hudson, 2000) points to the potential relevance of work–family conflict as a key to understanding gender differences in the retirement process. Although most studies have found that women do not tend to experience higher levels of work–family conflict than men (Greenhaus & Parasuraman, 1999; but see also Frone, Russell, & Cooper, 1992), it does appear that women are more likely to change patterns of work when faced with work–family conflict (Greenhaus & Parasuraman).

Hypotheses
Based on this theoretical and empirical background, we put forth three hypotheses. First, assuming that retirement is viewed as a potential solution to conflict between work and family responsibilities, family-to-work conflict and work-to-family conflict will both be positively associated with preferences to retire (Hypothesis 1). Previous research and theory do not, however, suggest whether these relationships will be stronger with respect to preferences for full retirement or for partial retirement. Second, we hypothesize that perceived work–family conflict will mediate the relationship between stressful work and family characteristics and preferences to retire (Hypothesis 2). Relationships between work–family conflict and preferences to retire should therefore be attenuated when sources of work–family conflict are controlled. Similarly, relationships between stressful work and family characteristics and preferences to retire should be attenuated once perceived work–family conflict is controlled. Finally, we expect that the association between work–family conflict and preferences to retire will be stronger for women than for men (Hypothesis 3).

	METHODS

TOP Abstract Methods Results Discussion References

 
Sample
We evaluated these hypotheses by using data from the large sample of 52–54-year-old men and women in the 1992 WLS. The WLS was well suited to our purposes because it contains a measure of retirement preferences, a series of questions designed to measure work stress spillover into family and family stress spillover into work, and extensive information on the work and family characteristics of respondents. Furthermore, the cohort design of the WLS effectively controlled for age, an important dimension of variation in attitudes toward retirement (Ekerdt, Kosloski, & DeViney, 2000).

The WLS is a long-term study of a random sample of 10,317 men and women who graduated from Wisconsin high schools in 1957. The 1992 survey included both a telephone interview (87% response rate) and a mail questionnaire (70% response rate). Our base sample consisted of the 6,865 (out of 9,741) surviving members of the original sample who completed both components of the survey. After limiting our focus to respondents working full time (defined as at least 25 hours per week) in public or private sector wage and salary jobs, the sample size was reduced to 4,470. Our analytical sample consisted of the 4,106 respondents who had no missing data on any of the variables used in the analysis. These were the most appropriate data for our purposes; however, it is important to recognize that, because the large majority of respondents to the 1992 survey were White, lived in or near Wisconsin, and had at least a high school education, our results may not be generalizeable to the entire population of similarly aged Americans. We are unaware of any reasons to expect results to differ by region of residence, but relationships between family characteristics and retirement behavior do vary by race and ethnicity (Honig, 1996; Pienta, 2003). It is also important to note that, by focusing on full-time employees, our sample overrepresented the more career-oriented women in this cohort. The 1992 WLS also did not collect information on some economic characteristics (e.g., expected value of social security benefits, availability of health insurance after retirement, and provision of disability insurance coverage) that were associated with retirement expectations in previous studies that used data from the Health and Retirement Study (e.g., Fronstin, 1999; Honig; Pienta & Hayward, 2002).

Measures
Retirement preferences
The dependent variable was a measure of whether respondents preferred to be fully, partially, or not at all retired 10 years in the future. The precise wording of the question was: "If you were free to choose, what would you like to be doing 10 years from now, in terms of your work? Would you like to be working full time, working part time, not working, retired, or something else?" Because nearly all respondents were 52–54 years old at the time of the survey, the dependent variable reflected desire to retire at or before peak ages of retirement (i.e., ages 62–65). Alternatively, preferences for retirement can be interpreted as distaste for extended labor force attachment beyond typical ages of retirement. As is shown in Table 1, the large majority of the WLS sample preferred to retire by age 62–64, only 15% hoped to be working full time in 10 years, 23% hoped to be working part time, and 62% preferred not to be working at all.

In addition to the theoretical relevance and methodological advantages, there is strong empirical rationale for focusing on retirement preferences. For example, the measure of preferences used in the present study is strongly correlated with the widely used measure of respondents' subjective expectation of working full time beyond age 62 on a 0–10 scale (where 0 = no chance and 10 = absolutely certain). This measure of expectations, also included in the 1992 WLS survey, has a mean value of 7.9 for those preferring to work full time in 10 years, 4.7 for those preferring to work part time, and 2.8 for those preferring not to work at all. Furthermore, preliminary work-history data from the 2004–2005 WLS survey show that the present measure of preferences and common indicators of retirement expectations are equally good at predicting actual retirement outcomes. Observed work status in 2002 corresponded with the preferred work status articulated in the 1992 survey for 50% of respondents to the new WLS survey. If full and partial retirement are collapsed into one category, the proportion who successfully realized preferences increases to 72%. These figures are very similar to the correspondence between expectations and outcomes as documented in earlier studies (e.g., Anderson, Burkhauser, & Quinn, 1986; Dwyer, 2001).

Work–family measures
The two independent variables of central interest in this analysis were indices of perceived levels of work-to-family conflict and family-to-work conflict (we present details on variable construction along with descriptive statistics in Table 1). Each index ranged in value from 3 to 15 and was constructed such that higher values corresponded to a higher degree of perceived conflict. The sample correlation between the two dimensions of work–family conflict was.41. Consistent with prior research, we saw higher levels of work stress spilling over into family life than family stress spilling over into work (mean values were 8.0 and 6.5, respectively).

We also drew upon the work–family conflict literature to define several measures of potentially stressful work and family circumstances. Job characteristics associated with higher levels of work-to-family stress include long work hours, need for intense concentration or attention, exposure to dangerous conditions, the need to work under time pressure, and frequent job-related travel. If these work characteristics influence preferences to retire via higher levels of work stress spillover into family life, we would expect their estimated coefficients to attenuate once levels of work-to-family conflict are controlled. Family characteristics associated with higher levels of family-to-work stress include the presence of coresident children, caregiving obligations, spouse's poor health, and low marital quality. If these family characteristics influence preferences to retire via higher levels of family stress spillover into work, we would expect their estimated coefficients to attenuate once levels of family-to-work conflict are controlled. In supplementary analyses (results available upon request), we confirmed that these work and family characteristics were all significantly associated with higher levels of perceived work–family conflict.

Control variables
All models also controlled for several variables that previous research has found to influence retirement expectations and outcomes. Higher hourly wages and health insurance coverage increase the costs of retirement and should thus be negatively related to preferences to retire. Early pension eligibility and net worth increase the feasibility of retirement and should thus be positively related to preferences to retire. Poor health, which reduces both the desirability and feasibility of continued work, should also be positively associated with preferences to retire. Prior research suggests that preferences to retire should be lower among those with higher educational attainment and higher among government employees (relative to those employed in the private sector; Honig, 1996). Finally, based on evidence that spouses tend to synchronize their retirement timing (e.g., Blau, 1998; Henretta et al., 1993), we expected that having a working spouse (versus having a non-working spouse or not having a spouse) would be associated with a lower probability of preferring retirement.

Methods
We evaluated our hypotheses by estimating a series of multinomial logistic regression models. We estimated a single model for men and women because initial exploratory analyses indicated that adding the full set of interactions with gender did not significantly improve model fit. We also considered potential violations of the assumption of independence of irrelevant alternatives, but Hausman tests showed no difference in coefficients for either full or partial retirement when the other alternative was not available. The dependent variable in all models was the log odds of preferring either to be working part time or not to be working at all relative to working full time 10 years later (at age 62–64).

We began by documenting the baseline relationship between perceived work–family conflict and preferences to retire, net of the control variables. Significant positive values for the two measures of work–family conflict would be consistent with Hypothesis 1. We then estimated a parallel model in which we replaced measures of work–family conflict with family and work characteristics. Our primary interest here was to assess the baseline association between these observed characteristics of families and jobs and preferences to retire.

Next, we estimated a model that included both measures of perceived work–family conflict and stressful family and job characteristics. If the association between perceived work–family conflict and preferences to retire did indeed reflect established sources of work–family conflict (Hypothesis 2), we expected attenuation in the magnitude and significance of coefficients for work–family conflict in Model 1 and coefficients for stressful family and job characteristics in Model 2. Finally, in order to assess whether the association between work–family conflict and preferences to retire was stronger among women than men (Hypothesis 3), we added an interaction between work–family conflict and gender to Model 3. Finding that Model 4 fit the data better than Model 3 would indicate that the association between work–family conflict and preferences to retire differed by gender.

	RESULTS

TOP Abstract Methods Results Discussion References

 
In Table 2, we present results from the multinomial logistic regression analyses of retirement preferences. In order to facilitate interpretation, we have presented the exponentiated values of estimated coefficients. Results from the baseline model (Model 1) indicated that higher levels of work-to-family conflict were associated with higher odds of preferring both partial and full retirement within 10 years. A 1-point increase in the index of work-to-family conflict was associated with approximately 5% higher odds of preferring either retirement status rather than continued full-time work. We also found that family-to-work conflict was associated with preferences to retire, although this relationship was statistically meaningful only in the case of preferences for partial retirement (vs continued full-time work). The control variables were generally associated with preferences to retire in expected ways. For example, receiving health insurance from one's employer, being eligible for an employer-sponsored pension after age 62, and having post-secondary education were all associated with lower odds of preferring full or partial retirement. Being female, having a higher net worth, being eligible for an employer-sponsored pension by age 62, having impaired health, and being a government employee (rather than a private wage and salary worker) were all positively associated with preferences to retire. Interestingly, the relationship between preferences to retire and work–family conflict was independent of these correlates of preferences. The magnitude and significance of coefficients for work–family conflict in Model 1 were identical to those from a model without any other covariates.

In Model 3, we included both perceived work–family conflict and observed characteristics of families and jobs. Likelihood ratio tests indicated that this model fit the data significantly better than models that included either observed characteristics of families and jobs or perceptions of work–family conflict alone (i.e., Models 1 and 2). Yet controlling for the array of observed characteristics of families and jobs considered here did not explain the association between perceived work–family conflict and preferences to retire (Model 3 vs Model 1). Similarly, we saw little change in the association between preferences to retire and observed characteristics of families or jobs once perceived work–family conflict was controlled (Model 3 vs Model 2). After controlling for perceived work–family conflict, the odds of preferring full retirement 10 years in the future were now significantly lower (odds ratio = 0.76) for individuals who were married but who reported not feeling very close to their spouses than for individuals who felt very close to their spouses. Although we had hypothesized that marital stress spilling over into work would increase preferences for retirement, the results suggest instead that work may be perceived as a refuge from a dissatisfying family life (Hochschild, 1997).

Finally, we explored potential gender differences in the associations between perceived work–family conflict and preferences for retirement. Results of Model 4 indicate that the association between family-to-work conflict and preferences for partial retirement (vs continued full-time work) may be stronger for women than for men. With respect to work-to-family conflict, however, our results suggest that if any association does exist, it may in fact be stronger among men than among women. Yet the result of our overall likelihood ratio test indicated that adding the terms for the interaction between gender and work–family conflict did not significantly improve the overall fit of the model (likelihood ratio ² = 7.79 (4), p =.10). We thus conclude that the association between perceived work–family conflict and preferences to retire did not differ significantly by gender. Separate Wald tests for the interaction of gender first with work-to-family conflict and then with family-to-work conflict (not shown here) similarly indicate that gender differences in the coefficients of each of these separate dimensions of work–family conflict were not statistically meaningful at the p <.05 level of significance.

	DISCUSSION

TOP Abstract Methods Results Discussion References

 
Consistent with the first hypothesis, we found that individuals who reported relatively higher levels of perceived work-to-family and family-to-work conflict also tended to have stronger preferences to retire by age 62–64. Although the second hypothesis posited that perceptions of work–family conflict would mediate the effects of observed characteristics of families and jobs, the results instead pointed to largely independent effects of perceived work–family conflict and observed characteristics of work and family environments. Indeed, some of the stressful job characteristics included in the models, such as long work hours and frequent need for concentration, were negatively associated with preferences to retire and thus could not mediate the positive relationship between perceived work–family conflict and preferences to retire. It is possible that important sources of work–family conflict particular to this age group have not been addressed in the existing studies of work–family conflict at younger ages that guided our selection of stressful work and family characteristics. Alternatively, it may be that individual variation in coping skills is more important than actual characteristics of work and family arrangements in determining the relationship between perceptions of work–family conflict and retirement preferences. The general pattern of results we observed might reflect heterogeneity in the capacity to balance competing midlife work and family demands, with some individuals being more sensitive to perceived conflict between life spheres and others more capable of balancing potentially stressful combinations of responsibilities. Finally, in contrast to the third hypothesis, which posited that the association between perceived work–family conflict and preferences to retire would be stronger for women than for men, we found only limited evidence of gender differences. Our analyses cannot, however, address the possibility that the absence of gender differences may reflect the early (i.e., prior to 1992) transition to part-time work or full retirement among women whose labor supply was most sensitive to work–family conflict. It is also possible that significant gender differences in the relationship between retirement preferences and stressful work and family circumstances do not work through perceptions of work–family conflict. Future researchers should examine whether documented gender differences in the work and family correlates of retirement outcomes (e.g., Dentinger & Clarkberg, 2002) are also apparent at early stages of the retirement process.

Our analyses provide insights into an important, yet previously undocumented, influence on retirement preferences but also suggest areas for future research. For example, we considered negative aspects of the interdependence of work and family lives, but a substantial literature also indicates that participation in work (family) roles can enhance participation in family (work) roles (e.g., Greenhaus & Parasuraman, 1999; Grzywacz & Marks, 2000). Future investigators should consider the potential association between such role enhancement and retirement preferences. Preferences are conceptually different from expectations but appear to be equally good predictors of subsequent outcomes and should thus be considered an important part of the early stages of the retirement process. Future researchers should focus directly on the relationship between preferences and outcomes in order to investigate which individuals are best able to realize their preferences and how the ability to realize retirement preferences shapes emotional well-being in later midlife. Differences between preferences and expectations for retirement is also likely to be a fruitful area for future research, and incongruence between preferences and expectations may again be associated with emotional well-being in important ways.

The men and women of the WLS provide insight into the future retirement experiences of the much larger baby boom cohorts, who are themselves moving closer to retirement ages. Yet it is important to keep in mind that baby boomers have tended to employ very different strategies for balancing work and family obligations over the course of their lives. In contrast to their "family then work" female counterparts of the WLS cohort considered here, the baby boomers were more likely to combine work and family throughout their childbearing years. Understanding the implications of this shift for perceptions of work–family conflict, and for the family and work contexts of retirement, will be an important area for future research. The results presented here provide a valuable empirical building block upon which to base such work.

	Acknowledgments

 
The research reported herein was supported by the College of Letters and Science and the Graduate School of the University of Wisconsin–Madison. Computation was carried out using facilities of the Center for Demography and Ecology at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, which are supported by Center Grants from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the National Institute on Aging. Data from the Wisconsin Longitudinal Study used in this analysis are publicly available at http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/wlsresearch/.

	Footnotes

 
Decision Editor: Charles F. Longino, Jr., PhD

Received for publication January 4, 2005. Accepted for publication July 4, 2005.

	References

TOP Abstract Methods Results Discussion References

 

• Anderson, K. H., Burkhauser, R. V., Quinn, J. F. (1986). Do retirement dreams come true? The effect of unanticipated events on retirement plans. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 39,518-526.
• Bengtson, V., Allen, K. (1993). The life course perspective applied to families over time. In P. G. Boss, W. J. Doherty, R. LaRossa, W. R. Schumm, & S. K. Steinmetz (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theories and methods: A contextual approach (pp. 469–499). New York: Plenum Press.
• Bengtson, V., Rosenthal, C., Burton, L. (1996). Paradoxes of families and aging. In R. H. Binstock & L. K. George (Eds.), Handbook of aging and the social sciences (4th ed., pp. 253–282). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
• Bianchi, S. M., Milkie, M. A., Sayer, L. A., Robinson, J. P. (2000). Is anyone doing the housework? Trends in the gender division of household labor. Social Forces, 79,191-228.
• Blau, D. M. (1998). Labor force dynamics of older married couples. Journal of Labor Economics, 16,595-629.
• Coile, C. (2003, March). Retirement incentives and couples' retirement decisions (CRR Working Paper No. 2003–04). Chestnut Hill, MA: Center for Retirement Research at Boston College.
• Daly, M. C., Bound, J. (1996). Worker adaptation and employer accommodation following the onset of a health impairment. Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences, 51B,S53-S60.[Abstract]
• Dentinger, E., Clarkberg, M. (2002). Informal caregiving and retirement timing among men and women: Gender and caregiving relationships in late midlife. Journal of Family Issues, 23,857-879.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Dwyer, D. S. (2001, September). Planning for retirement: The accuracy of expected retirement dates and the role of health shocks (CRR Working Paper No. 2001–08). Chestnut Hill, MA: Center for Retirement Research at Boston College.
• Ekerdt, D. J., DeViney, S., Kosloski, K. (1996). Profiling plans for retirement. Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences, 51B,S140-S149.[Abstract]
• Ekerdt, D. J., Hackney, J., Kosloski, K., DeViney, S. (2001). Eddies in the stream: The prevalence of uncertain plans for retirement. Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences, 56B,S162-S170.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Ekerdt, D. J., Kosloski, K., DeViney, S. (2000). The normative anticipation of retirement by older workers. Research on Aging, 22,3-22.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Elder, G. H. (1994). Time, human agency, and social change: Perspectives on the life course. Social Psychology Quarterly, 57,4-15.
• Frone, M. R., Russell, M., Cooper, M. L. (1992). Prevalence of work–family conflict: Are work and family boundaries asymmetrically permeable? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 137,23-29.
• Fronstin, P. (1999). Retirement patterns and employee benefits: Do benefits matter? The Gerontologist, 39,37-47.[Abstract]
• Goldin, C. (2004, March). The long road to the fast track: Career and family (NBER Working Paper No. 10331). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
• Greenhaus, J. H., Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Academy of Management Review, 10,76-88.
• Greenhaus, J. H., Parasuraman, S. (1999). Research on work, family, and gender: Current status and future directions. In G. N. Powell (Ed.), Handbook of gender and work (pp. 391–412). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Grzywacz, J. G., Marks, N. F. (2000). Family, work, work–family spillover, and problem drinking during midlife. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62,336-348.
• Gustman, A. L., Steinmeier, T. L. (1999, September). What people don't know about their pensions and Social Security: An analysis using linked data from the Health and Retirement Study (NBER Working Paper No. 7368). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
• Han, S.-K., Moen, P. (1999). Clocking out: Temporal patterning of retirement. American Journal of Sociology, 105,191-236.
• Hayward, M. D., Friedman, S., Chen, H. (1998). Career trajectories and older men's retirement. Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences, 53B,S91-S103.[Abstract]
• Hayward, M. D., Grady, W. R., Hardy, M. A., Sommers, D. (1989). Occupational influences on retirement, disability, and death. Demography, 26,393-409.[Medline]
• Henretta, J. C., O'Rand, A. M., Chan, C. G. (1993). Joint role investments and synchronization of retirement: A sequential approach to couples' retirement timing. Social Forces, 71,981-1000.
• Hochschild, A. R. (1997). The time bind: When work becomes home and home becomes work. New York: Metropolitan Books.
• Honig, M. (1996). Retirement expectations: Differences by race, ethnicity, and gender. The Gerontologist, 36,373-382.[Abstract]
• Hurd, M., McGarry, K. (1993, December). The relationship between job characteristics and retirement (NBER Working Paper No. 4558). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
• Kalleberg, A. L., Reskin, B. F., Hudson, K. (2000). Bad jobs in America: Standard and nonstandard employment relations and job quality in the United States. American Sociological Review, 65,256-278.
• Mutchler, J. E., Burr, J. A., Pienta, A. M., Massagli, M. P. (1997). Pathways to labor force exit: Work transitions and work instability. Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences, 52B,S4-S12.[Abstract]
• Pavalko, E. K., Artis, J. E. (1997). Women's caregiving and paid work: Causal relationships in late midlife. Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences, 52B,S170-S179.[Abstract]
• Perry-Jenkins, M., Repetti, R. L., Crouter, A. C. (2000). Work and family in the 1990s. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62,981-998.
• Pienta, A. M. (2003). Partners in marriage: An analysis of husbands' and wives' retirement behavior. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 22,340-358.[Abstract]
• Pienta, A. M., Hayward, M. D. (2002). Who expects to continue working after age 62? The retirement plans of couples. Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences, 57B,S199-S208.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Quinn, J. F., Burkhauser, R. V. (1994). Retirement and labor force behavior of the elderly. In L. G. Martin & S. H. Preston (Eds.), Demography of aging (pp. 50–101). Washington DC: National Academy Press.
• Szinovacz, M., Ekerdt, D. J., Vinick, B. H., (Eds.). (1992). Families and retirement. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
• Szinovacz, M. E., DeViney, S. (2000). Marital characteristics and retirement decisions. Research on Aging, 22,470-498.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Szinovacz, M. E., DeViney, S., Davey, A. (2001). Influences of family obligations and relationships on retirement: Variations by gender, race, and marital status. Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences, 56B,S20-S27.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Services Download to citation manager PubMed PubMed Citation