Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2021 Apr 23.
Published in final edited form as: J Fam Econ Issues. 2019 Sep 21;41(1):158–171. doi: 10.1007/s10834-019-09647-x

Unpartnered Mothers’ Work–Family Conflict and Parenting Stress: The Moderating Effects of Nonstandard Work Schedules

Woosang Hwang 1, Eunjoo Jung 2
PMCID: PMC8064407  NIHMSID: NIHMS1068470  PMID: 33897229

Abstract

Using the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study dataset, we examined the moderating effects of nonstandard work schedules on the association between work-family conflict and parenting stress among unpartnered mothers one year after childbirth. A multiple-group analysis was conducted to examine the interaction between a latent continuous variable (work-family conflict) and observed categorical variables (four types of work schedules: daytime weekday, daytime weekend, nighttime weekday, and nighttime weekend). Results showed that unpartnered mothers’ work-family conflict was positively associated with their parenting stress, regardless of their work schedules. In addition, unpartnered mothers’ nonstandard work schedules moderated the association between work-family conflict and parenting stress. Contrary to our expectations, however, the negative effects of work-family conflict on parenting stress were alleviated in unpartnered mothers who worked nighttime compared to those who worked daytime weekend. This result indicates that working nights can be a strategy by which unpartnered mothers can balance work and family life. Specifically, using informal caregiving support, unpartnered mothers can have a respite from parenting by working nonstandard hours. Implications are discussed in terms of the importance of researchers’ and policymakers’ attention regarding unpartnered mothers’ work and parenting issues.

Keywords: unpartnered mothers, work-family conflict, parenting stress, nonstandard work schedules, Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study

In 2013, 40.6% of all children in the United States were born to unmarried mothers (Martin et al. 2015). Children living with unpartnered mothers (mothers who are unmarried and not cohabiting with a partner) are exposed to a higher risk of developmental and health problems, compared with children living with cohabiting families (Waldfogel et al. 2010). One of the biggest challenges for unpartnered mothers is remaining employed. In order to earn an income sufficient to raise young children, their participation in the labor market is necessary. Consequently, unpartnered mothers are pressed to manage work and family roles on their own, which leads to increased parenting stress (Copeland and Harbaugh 2005). However, work-family researchers have overlooked the association between unpartnered mothers’ work-family conflict and parenting stress across their work environments. Given that approximately half of unpartnered mothers with low levels of income and education are working evenings, nights, and weekends (Joshi and Bogen 2007), less is known regarding how and why unpartnered mothers’ work schedules intensify or dissipate the negative effects of their work-family conflict on parenting stress. The present study uses the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study (FFCWS)—a nationally representative dataset mostly including unmarried parents and their children in the United States—to examine whether unpartnered mothers’ work schedules serve as a moderating factor in the association between work-family conflict and parenting stress. We provide a moderation model (see Figure 1), which will be described in detail and in a stepwise manner.

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

The Hypothesized Model.

Theoretical Background

Unpartnered Mothers’ Parenting Stress and Work-Family Conflict

Parenting stress is defined as “the aversive psychological reaction to demands of being a parent” (Deater-Deckard 1998, p. 315). According to the parenting stress model (Abidin 1992), maternal parenting stress is associated with poorer child developmental outcomes. Therefore, many researchers have focused on factors predicting parenting stress and have conceptualized three determinants: parental characteristics, child characteristics, and contextual factors (Crnic and Low 2002; Deater-Deckard 2003). However, researchers have mainly investigated child and parental characteristics and tended to pay less attention to contextual factors such as work-related sources of parenting stress (Nomaguchi and Johnson 2013), especially with regard to the struggle between work and family domains.

This study focuses on work-family conflict as a work-related source of parenting stress among unpartnered mothers. Greenhaus and Beutell (1985) defined work-family conflict as “a form of inter-role conflict in which the role pressures from the work and family domains are mutually incompatible in some respect” (p. 77). Work-family conflict was initially conceptualized as having three dimensions: time-based conflict (time devoted to one role makes it difficult to carry out another role), strain-based conflict (strain produced by one role makes it difficult to carry out another role), and behavior-based conflict (specific behaviors required in one role make it difficult to carry out another role) (Greenhaus and Beutell, 1985). Given that unpartnered mothers are required to manage work and parenting roles on their own, it is highly likely that unpartnered mothers experience the above three types of conflicts (e.g., time pressure, fatigue, and role conflicts between worker and mother). As a result, unpartnered mothers would perceive high levels of work-family conflict, which leads to their greater parenting stress. In addition, if work-family conflict is strongly related to individuals’ family lives in addition to their psychological well-being (Bianchi and Milkie 2010), excessive demands on unpartnered mothers in the workplace would make it difficult to carry out their caregiving roles for young children in the family domain (Ciabattari 2007), which arouses parenting stress.

Previous studies have found that unpartnered mothers are exposed to higher levels of parenting stress due to a lack of coping resources that would alleviate tensions involving mental health and stress (Cooper et al. 2009; Copeland and Harbaugh 2005). In a similar vein, studies have found that unpartnered mothers are likely to perceive greater work-family conflict due to their poorer working conditions (e.g., high job demands, lack of job controls, and job instability), which weaken their ability to fulfill family demands (Berryhill and Durtschi 2017; Ciabattari 2007). Nomaguchi and Johnson (2013) and Vieira and colleagues (2012) found that work-family conflict is positively associated with parenting stress among married and employed mothers, indicating that mothers who report high levels of work-family conflict experience greater parenting stress. However, the association between work-family conflict and parenting stress has not been studied among unpartnered mothers. In order to improve the well-being of unpartnered mothers and their children, it is necessary to investigate how work-family conflict is associated with parenting stress. We hypothesized that unpartnered mothers’ work-family conflict would be positively associated with their parenting stress (path a).

The Moderating Roles of Nonstandard Work Schedules

Over the last few decades, an increasing number of women have entered low-wage and less-skilled jobs in the leisure, hospitality, and service industries, which require working at difficult times such as nights or weekends (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 2005). These types of work schedules are termed nonstandard work schedules and are defined as any work outside the typical 8 a.m.−5 p.m., Monday through Friday work schedule (Presser 2003). The effects of nonstandard maternal work schedules on individual and familial outcomes have been widely studied because an increasing number of women have entered the work force, requiring nonstandard working hours (Bianchi and Milkie 2010; Presser and Ward 2011). With this foundation, Wittmer and Martin (2010) focused on nonstandard work schedules as a moderator of the association between employees’ work-family conflict and their psychological well-being. They found that employees’ nonstandard work schedules can exacerbate the negative effects of work-family conflict on their psychological well-being. This finding is consistent with the job demands-control model (Karasek 1979). According to this theoretical perspective, a work environment comprises two dimensions: job demands and job control. Job demands include heavy workloads, unexpected tasks, and time pressure that creates emotional tension, whereas job control is considered to be the employees’ ability to control their work activities (Hwang and Ramadoss 2017). Given that one characteristic of nonstandard work schedules is high job demands regarding time and energy strain as well as low job control regarding resources and schedule flexibility, employees who work nonstandard hours tend to perceive greater work-family conflict and experience more emotional exhaustion than those who work standard hours (Wittmer and Martin 2010).

Although the moderating effects of nonstandard work schedules on the association between work-family conflict and parenting stress have not been studied, previous studies partially explain the moderating role of nonstandard work schedules. For example, nonstandard maternal work schedules are related to high levels of work-family conflict (Barnett et al. 2008; Davis et al. 2008) and parenting stress (Grzywacz et al. 2011; Joshi and Bogen 2007). In addition, physically and emotionally exhausted mothers who work nonstandard hours are unlikely to be fully involved in parenting tasks (Minnotte 2016). Unmarried mothers with young children are especially likely to work nonstandard hours (Han 2008), and unpartnered mothers are particularly vulnerable to the detrimental effects of nonstandard work schedules due to a lack of social and familial resources (Ciabattari 2007; Li et al. 2014). Considering that previous studies mainly focused on nonstandard work schedules as a determinant of child and family well-being (Li et al. 2014; Perrucci et al. 2007), investigating the moderating role of nonstandard work schedules is important for researchers to expand the spectrum of work and family studies. Therefore, we address whether the negative effects of work-family conflict on parenting stress differ according to unpartnered mothers’ work schedules.

Researchers have pointed out that a nighttime work schedule is more harmful to individual and familial well-being compared to other work schedules because it disturbs biorhythms and sleep cycles (Costa 2003; Pilcher et al. 2000). In particular, employed mothers who work at night are vulnerable to fatigue and work-related stress, which interrupts their parenting behaviors (Grzywacz et al. 2011; Li et al. 2014). In addition, mothers with a weekend work schedule have higher levels of role conflicts between work and family domains than others because of difficulty finding formal childcare during work hours (Joshi and Bogen 2007). Recently, a study showed that less educated and trained unmarried mothers tend to work more than one type of nonstandard schedule (Dunifon et al. 2013). When unmarried mothers have multiple nonstandard work schedules, it can create more complex and unique work and family difficulties compared with those who work a single type of nonstandard work schedule. In other words, it is possible that multiple nonstandard work schedules such as nighttime and weekend work schedules can intensify the negative effects of work-family conflict on parenting stress. However, many studies have utilized a dichotomous measure of work schedule (working nonstandard work schedules or not) for convenience (Li et al. 2014), which ignores the different characteristics of work schedules and the cumulative effects of multiple nonstandard work schedules. To address this gap in the literature, we merged evening work schedules and night work schedules into nighttime and then classified unpartnered mothers’ nonstandard work schedules into four subcategories (daytime weekday, daytime weekend, nighttime weekday, and nighttime weekend) and then simultaneously tested the moderating effects on the association between unpartnered mothers’ work-family conflict and parenting stress. We hypothesized that unpartnered mothers’ nonstandard work schedules would moderate the association between work-family conflict and parenting stress (path b). Specifically, we predicted that high work-family conflict would be associated with greater parenting stress for unpartnered mothers who work nighttime than for those who work daytime. In addition, we predicted that high work-family conflict would be associated with greater parenting stress for unpartnered mothers who work weekends than for those who work weekdays. Therefore, we hypothesized that high work-family conflict would be associated with greater parenting stress for unpartnered mothers who work nighttime weekend than for those who work other schedules.

Control Variables

This study incorporated 12 control variables under three categories significantly related to mothers’ parenting stress: personal characteristics (age, education, and race), work characteristics (annual income, weekly working hours, and full-time status), and family characteristics (number of children, using daycare, using kinship care, living with parents, financial support from fathers, and financial support from others). According to the parenting stress literature (Abidin 1992; Crnic and Low 2002; Deater-Deckard 2003), mothers’ socioeconomic status is related to their perceived parenting stress levels. Younger mothers with a first child experienced higher levels of parenting stress than older mothers with more than one child due to lack of experience and knowledge of parenting experiences, as well as psychological and psychosocial immaturity (Chang and Fine 2007; Östberg and Hagekull 2000). Low-income and less-educated mothers working at jobs with poor working conditions tend to experience greater parenting stress than others because of their insufficient support from both the work and family domains (Berryhill and Durtschi 2017; Cooper et al. 2009). With regard to race, previous studies have consistently argued that African-American and Hispanic mothers are more exposed to substandard socioeconomic conditions compared to white mothers, such as high number of out-of-wedlock births (Hummer and Hamilton 2010; Tschoepe 1999), low income, poor occupational environments (Nomaguchi and House 2013; Odom et al. 2013), and living in risky communities (Lamis et al. 2014). As a result, African-American and Hispanic mothers tend to experience greater parenting stress than mothers from other racial groups (Cardoso et al. 2010; Nomaguchi and House 2013).

Unpartnered mothers who live with their parents can receive more instrumental and emotional support from parents than those who live alone, which is helpful in alleviating mental health problems and parenting stress (Cooper et al. 2009; Sigle-Rushton and McLanahan 2002). Nonmaternal care (child care and kinship care) is another important variable for unmarried mothers, as it alleviates the burden of parenting (NICHD Early Child Care Research Network 1997). Financial support from babies’ fathers and financial support from others, excluding fathers, is also important for providing unpartnered mothers with familial resources for alleviating their parenting stress (Cooper et al. 2009; Sigle-Rushton and McLanahan 2002).

Method

Participants

We derived the data from the first and second waves of the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study (FFCWS), which is following a cohort of approximately 5,000 children who were born to either nonmarital or marital parents between 1998 and 2000 in 20 large U.S. cities. At baseline (Wave 1), 4,898 mothers were interviewed by phone after childbirth in the hospital and again approximately one year later (Wave 2) (see Reichman et at. 2001). The present study focused on a subsample of unmarried and employed mothers. We identified 2,934 unmarried mothers who reported a nonmarital status in both Waves 1 and 2, and from those we selected 2,218 employed mothers who returned to work after childbirth in Wave 2 (excluding 716 non-employed mothers) because this study addresses unmarried, employed single mothers as a target sample. Then we excluded 408 mothers from two cities who did not participate in the survey regarding parenting stress and mothers who did not answer the question regarding cohabitation information. In addition, we excluded 881 unmarried cohabiting mothers living with a baby’s biological father or a partner. Therefore, the final sample included 929 unpartnered mothers who were not living with the biological father of their child(ren).

Measurements

Parenting stress.

To assess parenting stress, the FFCWS used four questions derived from the Child Development Supplement of the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PDIS-CDS; Mainieri and Grodsky 2006). Studies have demonstrated the reliability and validity of this parenting stress measure in low-income mothers (see Ryan et al. 2009). In this study, parenting stress was measured using four items from the second wave: (a) “Being a parent is harder than I thought it would be,” (b) “I feel trapped by my responsibilities as a parent,” (c) “I find that taking care of my child(ren) is much more work than pleasure,” and (d) “I often feel tired, worn out, or exhausted from raising a family.” The respondents answered on a 4-point scale ranging from strongly agree (1) to strongly disagree (4). For the present study, these four items were reverse-coded, with higher scores reflecting greater parenting stress. All items were utilized as indicators for the latent construct for parenting stress (α =.61). Given that the reliability score was low, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis to demonstrate how well the four indicators represented the parenting stress construct (Brown 2006). Results showed that the confirmatory factor analysis model was a good fit for the data (χ2(2) = 4.128, CFI =.997, RMSEA =.024), and that four indicators significantly supported the parenting construct (factor loadings ranged between .52 and .57; p <. 001). In addition, previous studies based on the FFCWS measured parenting stress using the same four items (Cardoso et al. 2010; Cooper et al. 2009; Nomaguchi and Johnson 2016; Sampson et al. 2015). Therefore, we utilized the above four items without further modifications as a measure of parenting stress.

Work-family conflict.

Work-family conflict was measured using three items from the second wave: (a) “My shift and work schedule (cause/caused) extra stress for me and my child;” (b) “Where I (work/worked), it (is/was) difficult to deal with child care problems during working hours,” and (c) “In my work schedule I (have/had) enough flexibility to handle family needs.” The respondents answered on a 4-point scale ranging from never (1) to always (4). In this study, the third item (c) was reverse-coded; thus, higher scores reflect greater work-family conflict. All items were utilized as indicators for the latent construct of work-family conflict (α =.61). Similar to the parenting stress measure, because of the low reliability, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis to demonstrate how well the three indicators represented the work-family conflict construct (Brown 2006). Given that the confirmatory factor analysis model with three indicators was a fully saturated or just-identified model (a perfectly fitting model with zero chi-square and zero degrees of freedom; Kenny et al. 2006), we checked the factor loadings. Results showed that three indicators significantly supported the work-family conflict construct (factor loadings ranged between.48 and .68; p <. 001). Additionally, previous studies based on the FFCWS also measured work-family conflict using the same three items (Berryhill and Durtschi 2017; Ciabattari 2007; Nomaguchi and Johnson 2013). Therefore, we feel that the use of these three items as a measure of work-family conflict without revision is consistent with prior research and otherwise justified. A cross-tabulation of participants’ responses of work-family conflict items and their work schedule categories is presented in Appendix A.

Nonstandard work schedules.

FFCWS measured whether respondents sometimes worked any nonstandard work hours using three binary variables (response options included no [0] and yes [1]) at the second wave: evenings (work from 6 p.m. to 11 p.m.), nights (from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m.), and weekends. These three options were not mutually exclusive because the FFCWS allowed respondents to choose multiple options for nonstandard work schedules. Based on this data, we combined the evenings and nights categories into a nighttime category and then created four categories of work schedules that were mutually exclusive: (a) daytime and weekday (n = 314), (b) daytime and weekend (n = 215), (c) nighttime and weekday (n = 99), and (d) nighttime and weekend (n = 301).

Control variables.

Respondents’ age (in years), education (ordinal measure ranging from less than high school [1] to completed college or graduate school [4]), and three binary variables involving racial categories (white, black, and Hispanic; no [0]; yes [0]) were measured in the first wave. In the second wave, respondents’ number of hours worked per week, full-time status (part-time [0]; full-time [1]), annual income, and number of children were measured. In addition, five binary variables with responses including no (0) or yes (1) were also measured at the second wave: whether mothers lived with parents, whether mothers used daycare, whether mothers used kinship care, whether mothers received financial support from fathers, and whether mothers received financial support from others. The annual income variable was logarithmically transformed, and other control variables were mean-centered. In addition, all control variables were linked to the latent construct of parenting stress.

Data Analysis

We employed descriptive analysis and bivariate correlation analyses using SPSS 22.0 to examine the means, standard deviations, and correlations among study variables. Additionally, we employed a one-way ANOVA (F-test) with a Bonferroni post-hoc test to compare the characteristics of study variables across four categories of work schedule.

To test the interaction between a latent continuous variable (work-family conflict) and an observed categorical variable (four types of work schedules: daytime weekday, daytime weekend, nighttime weekday, and nighttime weekend), we employed multi-group analysis using AMOS 22.0. In this analysis, a categorical variable of work schedules represented four groups; thus, the moderating effect of work schedules was examined regarding whether the regression parameter for the latent construct of work-family conflict predicting parenting stress varied across four groups (Muthén and Asparouhov 2003). We followed the standard steps of multiple-group analysis (Brown 2006). First, we tested the hypothesized model with control variables for four types of work schedules groups separately. If one of the models did not acceptably fit the data, it was not deemed necessary to conduct further analysis. Second, we tested the measurement invariance to evaluate whether the factor loadings of the latent variable indicators were equivalent across four groups. If the chi-squares between the equal form model (factor loadings were not constrained as equal) and the equal factor loadings model (factor loadings were constrained as equal) were not significantly different, it would indicate that the measurements of work-family conflict and parenting stress were invariant across four groups. Based on the measurement invariance test, we examined the first hypothesis, that unmarried mothers’ work-family conflict would be positively associated with parenting stress. Third, we tested structural invariance to evaluate whether the regression path from work-family conflict to parenting stress was equivalent or not equivalent for one group versus the others. If the chi-squares between the unconstrained model (regression path from work-family conflict to parenting stress was not constrained as equal) and the constrained model (regression path from work-family conflict to parenting stress was constrained as equal) were significantly different, it would indicate that path coefficients were different across groups. Based on the structural invariance test, we examined the second hypothesis, that unmarried mothers’ nonstandard work schedules would moderate the association between work-family conflict and parenting stress. We utilized the comparative fit index (CFI value greater than .95 indicates a good model fit) and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA value below .06 indicates a good model fit) to evaluate the model fits (Hu and Bentler 1999).

The range of missing data regarding study variables was less than 1% in the final sample. To account for the missing data, full information maximum likelihood estimation (FIML) was used so that all cases and missing data patterns in the analysis could be considered. This method does not impute missing values; instead, all observed information is utilized to produce the maximum likelihood estimation of parameters. Thus, it can avoid biased estimates compared with listwise deletion, pairwise deletion, or mean substitution (Acock 2005).

Results

Descriptive Analysis

Results of the descriptive analysis are presented in Table 1. Unpartnered mothers’ parenting stress was not significantly different across four types of work schedule. However, unpartnered mothers who worked nighttime and weekend reported higher work-family conflict than those who worked daytime weekday (F = 3.13, p =.025). Regarding control variables, unpartnered mothers who worked daytime weekdays were more educated than unpartnered mothers who worked daytime weekend or nighttime weekend (F = 4.91, p <.01). In addition, unmarried mothers who worked daytime weekday used more daycare than those who worked nighttime weekend (F = 3.58, p =.013). With regards to the results of the correlation analysis (not presented in Table 1), unpartnered mothers’ work-family conflict positively correlated with their parenting stress, regardless of work schedule (Daytime weekday: r =.23, p < .001; Daytime weekend: r = .28, p < .001; Nighttime weekday: r = .21, p = .034; Nighttime weekend: r = .17, p < 01).

Table 1.

Results of the Descriptive Analysis

Daytime Weekday(A; n = 314) Daytime Weekend(B; n = 215) Nighttime Weekday (C; n = 99) Nighttime Weekday (D; n = 301) F-test
Variables Range M SD M SD M SD M SD (post-hoc test)
Age - 24.36 5.60 23.17 5.21 23.19 5.33 22.95 5.32 4.11** (A > D)
Education 1 – 4 2.09 .96 1.86 .80 1.96 .88 1.84 .89 4.91** (A > B, D)
White 0 – 1 .13 .34 .10 .30 .13 .33 .12 .32 .48
Black 0 – 1 .61 .48 .73 .44 .70 .45 .67 .46 2.87* (B > A)
Hispanic 0 – 1 .22 .41 .14 .35 .13 .33 .16 .37 2.50
Annual income 0 – 1 23944.63 23777.66 19091.85 21807.21 21354.12 22929.64 23432.12 24326.83 2.15
Weekly working hour - 35.19 10.46 35.15 11.38 33.55 11.17 36.86 11.54 2.63* (ns)
Full-time status 0 – 1 .66 .47 .54 .49 .57 .49 .56 .49 2.97* (ns)
Number of children - 2.20 1.23 2.28 1.26 2.29 1.16 2.45 1.51 1.92
Using daycare 0 – 1 .26 .44 .19 .39 .15 .36 .17 .37 3.58* (A > D)
Using kinship care 0 – 1 .28 .44 .30 .46 .37 .48 .32 .47 1.24
Living with parents 0 – 1 .31 .46 .31 .46 .42 .49 .36 .48 1.76
Financial support from a baby’s father 0 – 1 .40 .49 .46 .50 .55 .49 .42 .49 2.57
Financial support from others 0 – 1 .45 .49 .48 .50 .52 .50 .55 .49 2.23
Work-family conflict 1 – 4 1.56 .66 1.60 .63 1.68 .79 1.72 .72 3.13* (D > A)
Parenting stress 1 – 4 2.26 .72 2.24 .72 2.21 .72 2.25 .67 .14
Open in a new tab

Note.

*

p < .05.

**

p < .01.

ns = Not significant on the .05 level.

Testing the Hypotheses

To test our hypotheses, a multi-group analysis was conducted (see Table 2). The results of the single-group analysis showed that four models based on unpartnered mothers’ four types of work schedules (Model 1: Daytime weekday; Model 2: Daytime weekend; Model 3: Nighttime weekday; Model 4: Nighttime weekend) fit the data well. Therefore, we conducted the measurement invariance test as the next step. The results showed that Model 5 (equal form; all factor loadings were not constrained as equal across four groups) and Model 6 (equal factor loadings; all factor loadings were constrained as equal across four groups) fit the data well. In addition, the chi-square difference between Models 5 and 6 was not statistically different (Δdf(1) = 7.788, p > .05). This result indicates that the measurements of work-family conflict and parenting stress were invariant across four groups; thus the measures had the same structure and meaning for unpartnered mothers, regardless of their work schedule. Based on Model 6, our first hypothesis—that unpartnered mothers’ work-family conflict would be positively associated with their parenting stress—was confirmed in four types of work schedule groups (Daytime weekday: β = .312, p < .001; Daytime weekend: β = .547, p < .001; Nighttime weekday: β = .269, p = .036; Nighttime weekend: β = .253, p < .01; not presented in Table 2). In other words, unpartnered mothers who perceived high levels of work-family conflict reported high levels of parenting stress, regardless of their work schedule.

Table 2.

Results of the Multiple Group Analysis

Model/Model description X2 df CFI RMSEA Model comparison ΔX2a Δdfb
Single Group Analysis
1. Daytime Weekday (A; n = 314) 128.805* 97 .977 .032
2. Daytime Weekend (B; n = 215) 120.854 97 .970 .034
3. Nighttime Weekday (C; n = 99) 121.281* 97 .935 .051
4. Nighttime Weekend (D; n = 301) 197.148*** 97 .916 .059
Measurement Invariance Test
5. Equal form 568.500*** 388 .951 .022
6. Equal factor loadings 576.288*** 403 .953 .022 6 vs. 5 7.788 15
Structural invariance Test
7. Model 6 with Work-family conflict → Parenting stress was constrained to be equal between A, B, C, and D 585.688*** 406 .951 .022 7 vs. 6 9.4* 3
8. Model 6 with Work-family conflict → Parenting stress was constrained to be equal between A and B 580.128*** 404 .952 .022 8 vs. 6 3.84 1
9. Model 6 with Work-family conflict → Parenting stress was constrained to be equal between A and C 576.782*** 404 .953 .022 9 vs. 6 .494 1
10. Model 6 with Work-family conflict → Parenting stress was constrained to be equal between A and D 577.507*** 404 .953 .022 10 vs. 6 1.219 1
11. Model 6 with Work-family conflict → Parenting stress was constrained to be equal between B and C 581.832*** 404 .952 .022 11 vs. 6 5.544* 1
12. Model 6 with Work-family conflict → Parenting stress was constrained to be equal between B and D 585.157*** 404 .951 .022 12 vs. 6 8.869** 1
13. Model 6 with Work-family conflict → Parenting stress was constrained to be equal between C and D 576.315*** 404 .953 .022 13 vs. 6 .027 1
Open in a new tab

Note:

a

= difference in χ2 values between models.

b

= difference in number of degrees of freedom between models.

*

p < .05.

***

p < .001.

To examine the moderating effects of unpartnered mothers’ nonstandard work schedules on the association between work-family conflict and parenting stress, we conducted a structural invariance test. Results showed that Model 7 (equal factor loadings with regression path from work-family conflict to parenting stress was constrained as equal across four groups) had good model fits, and the chi-square comparison between Model 7 and Model 6 (equal factor loadings) was significantly different (Δdf(3) = 9.4, p = .024). This result indicates that the regression coefficients for work-family conflict and parenting stress significantly differed among the four groups. In other words, unpartnered mothers’ nonstandard work schedules moderated the association between work-family conflict and parenting stress, which supports the second hypothesis. To examine where the differences occurred between groups, we conducted structural invariance tests for the two groups separately (Models 8 through 13). Results showed that the nighttime weekday group significantly differed from the daytime weekend group (Model 11; Δdf(1) = 5.544, p = .018). In addition, the nighttime weekend group significantly differed from the daytime weekend group (Model 12; Δdf(1) = 8.869, p < .01). Specifically, the regression coefficient for work-family conflict and parenting stress was significantly lower in the nighttime weekday group (β = .269) and nighttime weekend group (β = .253) than in the daytime weekend group (β = .547) (not presented in Table 2). Consequently, contrary to our expectation, the negative effect of work-family conflict on parenting stress was lower in unmarried mothers who worked nighttime weekdays and weekends than in those who worked daytime weekends. The relationships between control variables and parenting stress across four nonstandard work schedule groups are presented in Appendix B.

Discussion

This study examined the relationship between work-family conflict and parenting stress among unpartnered mothers one year after childbirth. Specifically, we tested the possible moderating effects of four types of work schedule (daytime weekday, daytime weekend, nighttime weekday, and nighttime weekend) on the relationship between work-family conflict and parenting stress. In doing so, we were able to better understand the quality of life and work-family issues experienced by unpartnered mothers with young children.

Regarding the hypothesized model, our first hypothesis, that work-family conflict would be positively associated with parenting stress, was supported. That is, unpartnered mothers’ work-family conflict is a significant determinant of their level of parenting stress. Our finding verifies the direct association between work-family conflict and parenting stress in unpartnered mothers with young children predicted by the work-family conflict (Greenhaus and Beutell 1985) and parenting stress (Abidin 1992) theoretical perspectives. Our results extend previous research in that work-family conflict is associated with not only work-related and health-related outcomes (Allen et al. 2000; Bianchi and Milkie 2010), but also with parenting-related outcomes. In addition, our findings indicate that increased parenting stress as a result of the negative effects of work-family conflict is a common issue for unpartnered mothers, regardless of their work schedule.

Our second hypothesis, that unpartnered mothers’ nonstandard work schedules would moderate the association between work-family conflict and parenting stress, was also supported. Contrary to our expectation, however, the negative effects of work-family conflict on parenting stress were lower among unpartnered mothers who worked nighttime weekday or weekend schedules than among those who worked a daytime weekend schedule. Although the structural invariance test showed that the negative effect of work-family conflict on parenting stress was not significantly different between nighttime weekday and weekend groups and the daytime weekday group, the regression coefficient between work-family conflict and parenting stress was slightly lower in nighttime weekday and weekend groups than for the daytime weekday group. Consequently, our results indicate that working nighttime would be beneficial for unpartnered mothers, reducing the negative effects of work-family conflict on parenting stress. This finding contrasts with those of studies based on the job demands-control model (Karasek 1979), which found that that working nonstandard hours, especially night work schedules, increases work-related stress as well as reduces mothers’ physical and psychological capacity for focusing on parenting (Carlson et al. 2011; Li et al. 2014). In addition, this finding differs from our prediction that multiple nonstandard work schedules would be worse for unpartnered mothers than a single nonstandard work schedule. With regard to this unexpected yet intriguing finding, two explanations can be proposed.

First, it is possible that unpartnered mothers who work nighttime can take a break from their babies’ bedtime and feeding routines, one of the most stressful situations single parents face, using social and family support. Given that parenting a young child all day without respite causes considerable parenting stress (Hwang and Jung 2016), it is conceivable that unpartnered mothers may consider their nonstandard work schedules as a respite from parenting. That is, working nonstandard hours may be a strategy that unpartnered mothers use to balance their lives between the work and family domains. According to Presser (2003), dual-earner couples spontaneously synchronize nonstandard work schedules with their partners’ standard work schedule in order to maximize time spent with young children, a practice which is termed split shifts. Unpartnered mothers can utilize this strategy if they have informal caregivers who take care of children while unpartnered mothers work outside the home. Studies supported Presser’s argument that mothers who work nonstandard hours tend to rely on informal caregiving considerably more than those who work standard hours (Han 2004; Rachidi 2016). In the United States, unpartnered mothers who live in the city have less trouble finding informal caregiving during nights and weekends than those who live in rural areas. For example, in Washington D.C., many childcare facilities and babysitters provide extended care service hours on nights and weekends (Samuels 2012). Considering that the FFCWS collected data from 20 large city areas, working nonstandard hours may not be as burdensome and stressful for unpartnered mothers living in a large city as for those living in rural areas. Thus, unpartnered mothers’ nonstandard work schedules can alleviate the negative effects of work-family conflict on parenting stress. In addition, it is possible that unpartnered mothers who work multiple nonstandard work schedules focus more on their worker role as opposed to their mother role than those who work single nonstandard work schedules. However, this moderating effect could be misleading if we do not address unpartnered mothers’ time spent with their children. Unfortunately, the second wave from the FFCWS did not provide information on unpartnered mothers’ time spent with their children. Therefore, until such variables are considered, it is unwise to assume that nonstandard work schedules moderate the association between work-family conflict and parenting stress. Nevertheless, given that nonstandard maternal work schedules are known to be a risk factor impeding employed mothers’ well-being (Li et al. 2014; Perrucci et al. 2007), this study provides important empirical evidence that nonstandard work schedules could be beneficial to unpartnered mothers’ well-being.

A second explanation of our finding that working nighttime was beneficial for unpartnered mothers is that the second wave data from the FFCWS did not provide information on work schedules for primary and secondary jobs as well as the distribution of work hours across various work schedules. That is, although unpartnered mothers worked multiple nonstandard work schedules, it is not clear which work schedule was their primary or secondary work schedule. In addition, the FFCWS did not ask for specific information about the nature of participants’ multiple nonstandard work schedules. Therefore, this study was limited in its ability to identify unpartnered mothers’ various combinations of multiple nonstandard work schedules. It is likely that some of the unpartnered mothers in the nighttime weekend group worked weekday nights and weekend nights, while others only worked weekend nights. Given that working weekends is less deleterious and burdensome compared to working nights (Davis et al., 2008), unpartnered mothers who mainly work weekends and partially work nights would perceive less difficulties managing work and parenting roles than vice versa.

Although we provide two possible explanations regarding the counter-intuitive findings, the interpretation is somewhat depended on speculation rather than the data. For this reason, our results should be carefully interpreted, especially those regarding the beneficial effects of nighttime work schedules on unpartnered mothers’ parenting stress.

The present study has several limitations that are worth noting. First, we did not include unmarried mothers cohabiting with a partner or a baby’s biological father in the study because of the small sample size in the subcategories of nonstandard work schedules. There were only 77 unmarried cohabiting mothers who worked nighttime weekdays in our sample. That is not sufficient to conduct a multiple group analysis using structural equation modeling (Kline, 2005). For this reason, this study only included unpartnered mothers. Unmarried mothers’ family structure—for example, whether or not their child(ren)’s father lives with them—influences their quality of life (Sigle-Rushton and McLanahan 2002). In addition, unmarried mothers who face economic uncertainty and childrearing issues are more likely to form cohabitation relationships with their babies’ fathers or their partners out of necessity (Joshi et al. 2009). Therefore, additional studies are necessary to focus on the association between work-family conflict, parenting stress, and nonstandard work schedules across unmarried mothers’ family structures.

A second limitation of this study is that it merged evening work schedules and night work schedules into nighttime work schedules because of the small sample size in the subcategories of nonstandard work schedules. For example, the number of unpartnered mothers who worked night and weekday work schedules is 17 and night and the number who worked weekend work schedules is 30, which is not sufficient to conduct a multiple group analysis using structural equation modeling (Kline, 2005). Consequently, we did not address the heterogeneous characteristics of unpartnered mothers’ evening and night work schedules in the study.

A third limitation is that the reliability of the independent and dependent variables was not all that high, with an alpha coefficient regarding work-family conflict and parenting stress of approximately .60. One possible adverse consequence is that low reliability could distort regression coefficients between work-family conflict and parenting stress and decrease confidence in the regression result because of higher rates of errors (Rothman 2007). Furthermore, only two published papers utilized the work-family conflict measure in the FFCWS without mentioning information on its validity. Therefore, further research is required to test the validity of the FFCWS’s work-family conflict measure in comparison to other well-known measures such as Carlson and et al.’s (2000) multidimensional measure of work-family conflict and Netemeyeret al.’s (1996) work-family conflict scales.

Fourth, although the FFCWS is a nationally representative dataset in the United States, participants were only recruited from 20 large urban areas. In addition, the FFCWS included a relatively young sample. Although this study focused on unmarried and employed mothers, their weekly working hours are close to 40 hours per week, which is similar to full-time employees’ working hours. It is possible that unmarried mothers in rural areas have a different socioeconomic status, including age and working hours. Therefore, the results of this study cannot be generalized to unmarried mothers in rural areas.

Fifth, this study included limited information regarding financial and childcare support, which were measured by binary variables. Although the FFCWS provides the amount of financial support from fathers or others and daily use hours of childcare or kinship care, this study could not utilize these variables in the analysis because of a large amount of missing data. In addition, as we mentioned earlier, the FFCWS did not provide data on unmarried mothers’ time spent with their children or the amount of time used in formal and informal support for taking care of their children. Therefore, more detailed information regarding unmarried mothers’ support from formal and informal settings is required in the FFCWS.

Sixth, this study did not examine the interrelationship between work-family conflict and parenting stress. Although the present study focuses on the unidirectional relationship from work-family conflict to parenting stress, it could be seen as an antecedent of work-family conflict. Therefore, additional studies are needed to investigate possible bidirectional effects among the aforementioned variables.

Lastly, our main variables were based on second-wave results from the FFCWS because the data did not provide information regarding participants’ transitions to nonstandard work schedules over time. Because of its cross-sectional design, our study cannot identify causal relationships among the study variables.

Limitations notwithstanding, we found that unpartnered mothers’ work-family conflict is a significant determinant of parenting stress one year after childbirth. Furthermore, we found that nighttime work schedules have some positive benefits for unpartnered mothers, reducing the negative effects of work-family conflict on parenting stress. On the basis of these results, implications can be derived for the work and family domains. In the work domain, first, methods to reduce unpartnered mothers’ work-family conflict should be considered by employers and policymakers. Employers are encouraged to make workplaces more family-friendly for unmarried mothers, and policymakers should investigate what kinds of support are effective for facilitating these changes in the workplace. Second, given that previous organizational benefits (e.g., family-friendly programs) are designed for full-time employees working standard hours and ignore many unpartnered mothers, who are engaged in part-time jobs working nonstandard hours, methods to expand organizational and social support for part-time unmarried mothers should be developed.

In the family domain, researchers and policymakers should consider unpartnered mothers’ childcare arrangement issues when they work nonstandard hours. Surprisingly, to the best of our knowledge, no published quantitative or qualitative studies have attempted to provide any useful perspectives on childcare arrangement issues among unpartnered mothers working night hours. Consequently, we lack knowledge of what childcare arrangements unpartnered mothers utilize during nights and weekends and how difficult they find it to make childcare arrangements while working nonstandard hours. Based on empirical evidence from the research, policymakers need to develop effective social support for unpartnered mothers working nonstandard hours, such as financial aid to increase the number of childcare facilities and babysitters available to provide night and weekend care service. Expanding early childhood care and services and providing longer hours in programs, including head-start programs in communities with unpartnered mothers working night hours, could possibly be another option that will provide children and families with better access to needed services and resources.

Unpartnered mothers’ well-being is an important issue, not only for their children’s developmental success, but also for maintaining a healthy society. In this respect, this study suggests the need for more careful attention to unpartnered mothers working nonstandard hours, which, to the best of our knowledge, has not yet been explored in the published literature. To support their balance of work and family life, more empirical evidence should be gathered by researchers to inspire implementation of an adequate childcare policy for unpartnered mothers in our society.

Acknowledgments

The project described was supported by Award Numbers R25HD074544, P2CHD058486, and 5R01HD036916 awarded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development or the National Institutes of Health.

Appendix

Appendix A.

A Cross-tabulation of Work-Family Conflict and Work Schedule Categories

Work Schedule Categories
Work-Family Conflict Scale Items Daytime Weekday n (%) Daytime Weekend n (%) Nighttime Weekday n (%) Nighttime Weekend n (%) Total n (%)
Q1. My shift and work schedule (cause/caused) extra stress for me and my child Never 206 (66.9) 133 (63.0) 54 (54.5) 131 (43.5) 524 (57.0)
Sometimes 73 (23.7) 56 (26.5) 30 (30.3) 125 (41.5) 284 (30.9)
Often 13 (4.2) 12 (5.7) 10 (10.1) 22 (7.3) 57 (6.2)
Always 16 (5.2) 10 (4.7) 5 (5.1) 23 (7.6) 54 (5.9)
Total 308 (100.0) 211 (100.0) 99 (100.0) 301 (100.0) 919 (100.0)
Q2. Where I (work/worked), it (is/was) difficult to deal with child care problems during working hours Never 232 (75.1) 152 (71.7) 73 (73.7) 202 (67.1) 659 (71.6)
Sometimes 53 (17.2) 44 (20.8) 17 (14.1) 63 (20.9) 174 (18.9)
Often 11 (3.6) 8 (3.8) 3 (3.0) 12 (4.0) 34 (3.7)
Always 13 (4.2) 8 (3.8) 9 (9.1) 24 (8.0) 54 (5.9)
Total 309 (100.0) 212 (100.0) 99 (100.0) 301 (100.0) 921 (100.0)
Q3. In my work schedule I (have/had) enough flexibility to handle family needs (Reverse-coded item) Always 175 (56.6) 118 (55.7) 57 (57.6) 166 (55.3) 516 (56.1)
Often 39 (12.6) 19 (9.0) 6 (6.1) 30 (10.0) 94 (10.2)
Sometimes 58 (18.8) 58 (27.4) 24 (24.2) 79 (26.3) 219 (23.8)
Never 37 (12.0) 17 (8.0) 12 (12.1) 25 (8.3) 91 (9.9)
Total 309 (100.0) 212 (100.0) 99 (100.0) 300 (100.0) 920 (100.0)
Open in a new tab

Appendix B.

Associations Between Control Variables and Parenting Stress in Model 6 (Equal Factor Loadings)

Parenting stress
Control variables Daytime Weekday β Daytime Weekend β Nighttime Weekday β Nighttime Weekend β
Age −.062 −.139 −.164 −.203*
Education −.053 −.141 −.098 −.001
White .149 .139 −.494 .112
Black .285 .278 −.397 .053
Hispanic .173 .121 −.534* .049
Annual income .032 .007 .101 −.061
Weekly working hour −.055 −.127 −.148 −.077
Full-time status −.028 .136 −.065 .007
Number of children .033 .084 .197 .168*
Using daycare .016 .033 .042 .064
Using kinship care .120 −.016 .051 −.005
Living with parents −.086 −.159 .159 −.005
Financial support from a baby’s father −.103 .012 .283* .052
Financial support from others .167* .021 −.081 −.067
Open in a new tab
*

p < .05.

Footnotes

Disclaimer: This manuscript has not been published and is not under consideration for publication elsewhere. All of the authors listed in the byline have agreed to the byline order.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Contributor Information

Woosang Hwang, Aging Studies Institute, Syracuse University, NY, USA

Eunjoo Jung, Department of Human Development and Family Science, Syracuse University, NY, USA

References

  1. Abidin RR (1992). The determinants of parenting behavior. Journal of Clinical Child sychology, 21, 407–412. doi: 10.1207/s15374424jccp2104_12 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Acock AC (2005). Working with missing values. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 1012–1028. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2005.00191.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Allen TD, Herst DE, Bruck CS, & Sutton M (2000). Consequences associated with work-to-family conflict: A review and agenda for future research. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5(2), 278–308. doi: 10.1037/1076-8998.5.2.278 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Barnett RC, Gareis KC, & Brennan RT (2008). Wives’ shift work schedules and husbands’ and wives’ well-being in dual-earner couples with children: A within-couple analysis. Journal of Family Issues, 29(3), 396–422. doi: 10.1177/0192513X07305346 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  5. Berryhill MB, & Durtschi JA (2017). Understanding single mothers’ parenting stress trajectories. Marriage and Family Review, 53(3), 227–245. doi: 10.1080/01494929.2016.1204406 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Bianchi SM, & Milkie MA (2010). Work and family research in the first decade of the 21st century. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 705–725. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00726.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  7. Brown TA (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
  8. Cardoso JB, Padilla YC, & Sampson M (2010). Racial and ethnic variation in the predictors of maternal parenting stress. Journal of Social Service Research, 36(5), 429–444. doi: 10.1080/01488376.2010.510948 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Carlson DS, Grzywacz JG, Ferguson M, Hunter EM, Clinch CR, & Arcury TA (2011). Health and turnover of working mothers after childbirth via the work–family interface: An analysis across time. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(5), 1045–1054. 10.1037/a0023964 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Carlson DS, Kacmar KM, & Williams LJ (2000). Construction and initial validation of a multidimensional measure of work–family conflict. Journal of Vocational behavior, 56(2), 249–276. 10.1006/jvbe.1999.1713 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  11. Chang Y, & Fine MA (2007). Modeling parenting stress trajectories among low-income young mothers across the child’s second and third years: Factors accounting for stability and change. Journal of Family Psychology, 21(4), 584–594. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.21.4.584 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Ciabattari T (2007). Single mothers, social capital, and work–family conflict. Journal of Family Issues, 28(1), 34–60. doi: 10.1177/0192513X06292809 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Cooper CE, McLanahan SS, Meadows SO, & Brooks‐Gunn J (2009). Family structure transitions and maternal parenting stress. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71(3), 558–574. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2009.00619.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Copeland D, & Harbaugh BL (2005). Differences in parenting stress between married and single first time mothers at six to eight weeks after birth. Issues in Comprehensive Pediatric Nursing, 28(3), 139–152. doi: 10.1080/01460860500227556 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Costa G (2003). Shift work and occupational medicine: An overview. Occupational Medicine, 53, 83–88. doi: 10.1093/occmed/kqg045 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Crnic KA, & Low C (2002). Everyday stresses and parenting. In Bronstein MH (Eds.), Handbook of parenting: Volume 5. Practical issues in parenting (2nd ed., pp.243–267). Mahwah, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. [Google Scholar]
  17. Davis KD, Benjamin G W, Pirretti AE, & Almeida DM (2008). Nonstandard work schedules, perceived family well‐being, and daily stressors. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70(4), 991–1003. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2008.00541.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Deater-Deckard K (1998). Parenting stress and child adjustment: Some old hypotheses and new questions. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 5(3), 314–332. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2850.1998.tb00152.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Deater-Deckard K (2003). Parenting stress. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. [Google Scholar]
  20. Dunifon R, Kalil A, Crosby DA, Su JH, & DeLeire T (2013). Measuring maternal nonstandard work in survey data. Journal of Marriage and Family, 75(3), 523–532. doi: 10.1016/j.ehb.2012.04.009 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Greenhaus JH, & Beutell NJ (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Academy of Management Review, 10(1), 76–88. doi: 10.5465/AMR.1985.4277352 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Grzywacz JG, Daniel S,S, Tucker J, Walls J, & Leerkes E (2011). Nonstandard work schedules and developmental generative parenting practices: An application of propensity score techniques. Family Relations, 60(1), 45–59. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3729.2010.00632.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Han WJ (2004). Nonstandard work schedules and child care decisions: Evidence from the NICHD study of early child care. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19(2), 231–256. doi: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2004.04.003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. Han WJ (2008). Shift work and child behavioral outcomes. Work, Employment and Society, 22(1), 67–87. doi: 10.1177/0950017007087417 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Hu LT, & Bentler PM (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1–55. doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Hummer RA, & Hamilton ER (2010). Race and ethnicity in fragile families. The Future of Children, 20(2), 113–131. doi: 10.1353/foc.2010.0003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Hwang W, & Jung E (2016). Does Paid Maternity Leave Affect Infant Development and Second‐Birth Intentions? Family Relations, 65(4), 562–575. 10.1111/fare.12214 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  28. Hwang W, & Ramadoss K (2017). The job demands–control–support model and job satisfaction across gender: The mediating role of work–family conflict. Journal of Family Issues, 38(1), 52–72. 10.1177/0192513X16647983 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  29. Joshi P, & Bogen K (2007). Nonstandard schedules and young children’s behavioral outcomes among working low‐income families. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69(1), 139–156. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2006.00350.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  30. Joshi P, Quane JM, & Cherlin AJ (2009). Contemporary work and family issues affecting marriage and cohabitation among low‐income single mothers. Family Relations, 58(5), 647–661. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3729.2009.00581.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Karasek RA (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications for job redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 285–308. doi: 10.2307/2392498 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  32. Kenny DA, Kashy DA, & Cook WL (2006). Dyadic data analysis. New York City, NY: Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
  33. Kline RB (2005). Methodology in the social sciences. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York, NY, US: Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
  34. Lamis DA, Wilson CK, Tarantino N, Lansford JE, & Kaslow NJ (2014). Neighborhood disorder, spiritual well-being, and parenting stress in African American women. Journal of Family Psychology, 28(6), 769–778. doi: 10.1037/a0036373 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Li J, Johnson SE, Han WJ, Andrews S, Kendall G, Strazdins L, & Dockery A (2014). Parents’ nonstandard work schedules and child well-being: A critical review of the literature. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 35(1), 53–73. doi: 10.1007/s10935-013-0318-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Mainieri T, & Grodsky M (2006). The panel study of income dynamics-child development supplement: User guide supplement-I. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research. Retrieved November 30, 2017, from http://psidonline.isr.umich.edu/CDS/CDS1_UGSupp.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  37. Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Osterman MJ, Curtin SC, & Mathews T. J. Births.(2013). Final data for 2013. National Vital Statistics Reports, 64(1), 1–65. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Minnotte KL (2016). Extending the job demands–resources model: Predicting perceived parental success among dual-earners. Journal of Family Issues, 37(3), 416–440. 10.1177/0192513X13518777 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  39. Muthén B, & Asparouhov T (2003). Modeling interactions between latent and observed continuous variables using maximum-likelihood estimation in Mplus. Mplus Web Notes, 6, 1–9. [Google Scholar]
  40. Netemeyer RG, Boles JS, & McMurrian R (1996). Development and validation of work–family conflict and family–work conflict scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(4), 400–410. 10.1037/0021-9010.81.4.400 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  41. NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (1997). Familial factors associated with the characteristics of nonmaternal care for infants. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 59, 389–408. doi: 10.2307/353478 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  42. Nomaguchi K, & House AN (2013). Racial-ethnic disparities in maternal parenting stress: The role of structural disadvantages and parenting values. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 54(3), 386–404. 10.1177/0022146513498511 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Nomaguchi K, & Johnson W (2013). Employment, work-family conflict, and parenting stress among economically disadvantaged fathers. Fragile Families Working Paper, 1445, 1–40. Retrieved from http://crcw.princeton.edu/workingpapers/WP13-04-FF.pdf [Google Scholar]
  44. Nomaguchi K, & Johnson W (2016). Parenting stress among low-income and working-class fathers: The role of employment. Journal of Family Issues, 37(11), 1535–1557. doi: 10.1177/0192513X13518777 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Odom EC, Vernon-Feagans L, & Crouter AC (2013). Nonstandard maternal work schedules: Implications for African American children’s early language outcomes. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 28(2), 379–387. doi: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2012.10.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Östberg M, & Hagekull B (2000). A structural modeling approach to the understanding of parenting stress. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 29(4), 615–625. 10.1207/S15374424JCCP2904_13 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Perrucci R, MacDermid S, King E, Tang CY, Brimeyer T, Ramadoss K, ... & Swanberg J (2007). The significance of shift work: Current status and future directions. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 28(4), 600–617. [Google Scholar]
  48. Pilcher JJ, Lambert BJ, & Huffcutt AI (2000). Differential effects of permanent and rotating shifts on self-report sleep length: A meta-analytic review. Sleep, 23, 155–163. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Presser HB (2003). Working in a 24/7 economy: Challenges for American families. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation. [Google Scholar]
  50. Presser HB, & Ward BW (2011). Nonstandard work schedules over the life course: A first look. Monthly Labor Review, 134(7), 3–16. [Google Scholar]
  51. Rachidi A (2016). Child care assistance and nonstandard work schedules. Children and Youth Services Review, 65, 104–111. 10.1016/j.childyouth.2016.03.023 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  52. Reichman NE, Teitler JO, Garfinkel I, & McLanahan SS (2001). Fragile families: Sample and design. Children and Youth Services Review, 23(4), 303–326. doi: 10.1016/S0190-7409(01)00141-4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  53. Rothman SB (2007). Understanding Data Quality through Reliability: A Comparison of Data Reliability Assessment in Three International Relations Datasets. International Studies Review, 9(3), 437–456. 10.1111/j.1468-2486.2007.00698.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  54. Ryan RM, Tolani N, & Brooks-Gunn J (2009). Relationship trajectories, parenting stress, and unwed mothers’ transition to a new baby. Parenting: Science and Practice, 9(1–2), 160–177. 10.1080/15295190802656844 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Sampson M, Villarreal Y, & Padilla Y (2015). Association between support and maternal stress at one year postpartum: Does type matter? Social Work Research, 39(1), 49–59. doi: 10.1093/swr/svu031 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  56. Samuels R (2012, March 9). Late-night care fills a need for parents. The Washington Post.Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/late-night-care-fills-a-need-for-parents/2012/03/02/gIQAfaYR1R_story.html [Google Scholar]
  57. Sigle-Rushton W, & McLanahan S (2002). The living arrangements of new unmarried mothers. Demography, 39(3), 415–433. doi: 10.1353/dem.2002.0032 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Tschoepe GJ (1999). Rational choice and out-of-wedlock births among African American females: The influence of AFDC and unemployment. The Social Science Journal, 36(1), 93–101. 10.1016/S0362-3319(99)80006-8 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  59. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2005). Workers on flexible and shift schedules in 2004 summary. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/news.release/flex.nr0.htm [Google Scholar]
  60. Vieira JM, Ávila M, & Matos PM (2012). Attachment and parenting: The mediating role of work‐family balance in Portuguese parents of preschool children. Family Relations, 61, 31–50. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3729.2011.00680.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  61. Waldfogel J, Craigie T, & Brooks-Gunn J (2010). Fragile families and child wellbeing. Future of Children, 20(2), 87–112. doi: 10.1353/foc.2010.0002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Wittmer JL, & Martin JE (2010). Emotional exhaustion among employees without social or client contact: The key role of nonstandard work schedules. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(4), 607–623. 10.1007/s10869-009-9153-x [DOI] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES