49 • let. 62, 1/2025 • The Indian Earning Couple – Role Stressors, Inter-Role Conflict and Moderation Impact … 49 • let. 62, 1/2025 03 Volety NAGA SREEDHAR, Parameswar NAYAK, Nadindla SRIVIDYA* THE INDIAN EARNING COUPLE – ROLE STRESSORS, INTER-ROLE CONFLICT AND MODERATION IMPACT OF WORKPLACE SOCIAL SUPPORT** Abstract. Due to a lack of support resources, the nature of family and work settings causes Indian earning couples to experience an imbalance while performing their work and family roles. The study developed and tested a model for investigating the moderation impact of two such social support resources in the workplace – supervisor and co-worker – on the inter-role conflict faced by an Indian earning couple. Data were collected and ana- lysed in relation to 676 members of earning couples from 11 major Indian cities using snowball sampling. An interesting finding is that even though both Work Overload (WO) and Family Overload (FO) contribute signific- antly as role stressors, the individual variable impact created by WO is less effective than FO on inter-role conflict. Although workplace social support showed a moderating effect on inter-role conflict, on the individual vari- able level co-worker and supervisor support less effectively moderated the inter-role conflict created by FO compared with WO. Practical implica- tions of the study are outlined with respect to business and future research directions. Keywords: role stressors, work overload, family overload, supervisor sup- port, co-worker support, inter-role conflict, indian earning couple. INTRODUCTION The Indian economy’s privatisation and globalisation have brought consid- erable changes. In the 21 st century, urban areas in India have seen employment * Volety Naga Sreedhar, Research Scholar, Birla School of Management, Birla Global University, Bhubaneswar, India, e-mail: Sreedhar.vn@gmail.com; Parameswar Nayak, PhD, Professor, Birla School of Management, Birla Global University, Bhubaneswar, India; Nadindla Srividya, PhD, Professor, Institute of Engineering and Management, Kolkata, India. * * Re s ea r c h a r ti cl e . DOI: 10.51936/tip.62.1.49 50 TEORIJA IN PRAKSA • Volety NAGA SREEDHAR, Parameswar NAYAK, Nadindla SRIVIDYA 50 TEORIJA IN PRAKSA opportunities grow, necessitating the migration of workers, including women, to those locations. Urbanisation has also created a new economic context in which husband and wife have become family breadwinners (Sánchez-Mira 2021). How- ever, their inflexible work hours mean that modern urban workplaces leave individuals with limited or no options for managing work–life balance. Work- places have often overlooked the family roles played by their workforce (Beard- shaw 2004). Technological advancements and global competition have added to work demands, pushing employees to increase their work delivery pace (Valcour 2007). Driven by technological advancements and organisational interventions, employees working in modern organisations can perform work anytime and from any location. This possibility provided by technology has eroded work and life boundaries, increasing the chances of inter-domain spillovers and more fre- quent influences (Ashforth, Kreiner, and Fugate 2000). For a long time, the traditional Indian joint family system was a vital social institution that prioritised collective well-being over individual aspirations. Its foundational structure was crucial for ensuring its members’ emotional and economic stability. Joint families provided a robust framework supporting chil- dren and elderly family members, showing remarkable adaptability and resili- ence amid changing societal norms (Gopalakrishan 2021; Sudha G Hiremath 2023). By distributing household responsibilities equitably, with women man- aging domestic duties and men focusing on working outside and earning, joint families fostered strong familial bonds, reduced individual stress, and created an environment of security that nurtured emotional and mental well-being (Joshi and Sheorey 2019; S. Singh 2020). The rise of dual-income households, driven by earning couples, has led to a shift in Indian family structures from collectivist joint families to individualistic nuclear arrangements. The transition has lowered reliance on extended family networks and reshaped family dynamics. Balancing work–life responsibilities alongside dual careers often leads to role strain, limited family bonding, and greater stress, negatively affecting earning couples’ well-being (Gopalakrishan 2021; Arsi 2020). The growing participation of women in the workforce has disrupted tra- ditional gender roles, adding complexity to family dynamics as couples have struggled to balance career aspirations and household responsibilities (Arsi 2020; S. Singh 2020). The nuclear family model, which often lacked intergener - ational support, left earning couples solely responsible for managing child-rear- ing and elder care together with professional commitments. This led to emo- tional isolation, increased mental health challenges and weaker social support systems (Sudha G Hiremath 2023) The under-involvement of spouses (Natarajan and Thomas 2002), particularly men, with children and family members, also increased stress on the family and work fronts. Large numbers of women participating in the Indian labour market created earning couples. The demanding job roles and cross-domain influences have 51 • let. 62, 1/2025 • The Indian Earning Couple – Role Stressors, Inter-Role Conflict and Moderation Impact … 51 • let. 62, 1/2025 kept earning couples more occupied with work, preventing them from spending quality time with their families. Demanding work roles have altered the fam- ily structure and compositions, neglecting the boundaries of work and family aspects and the typical factors in work-family conflicts (Yucel, Şirin, and Baş 2023). Working simultaneously and full-time, both partners started to make demands in the work and family domains. The constant rise in demands led to overloads, making it harder for earning couples to balance work and fam- ily aspects (Hill et al. 2001). Earning couples’ engagement in conflicting roles caused role overloads, resulting in inter-role conflicts (Greenhaus and Beutell 1985; Nimmi et al. 2023; Mellor and Decker 2020). Cultural bondings, societal norms and economic factors unique to India compound the challenges earning couples face in balancing their work and fam- ily responsibilities. Most studies on Indian earner couples’ work-family-related inter-role conflict focused primarily on general experiences with work–family conflicts (Baral 2020; Buddhapriya 2009; Uttam et al. 2011). Existing research on earning couples provides a good snapshot of workplace characteristics and job-related aspects as antecedents to work–family conflict (Michel et al. 2011; Kundu et al. 2016). Studies have examined the role of individual variables like cultural norms, work–life enrichment, organisational support, gender roles, and family support in moderating the impact of inter-role conflict caused by work and family overloads. Nevertheless, the relationship between role stressors, such as work and family overload, and inter-role conflict remains underexplored. In addition, previous studies have not sufficiently examined how workplace sup- port variables, like co-worker support, supervisor support and organisational policies, moderate the impact of role stressors on inter-role conflict. The need for empirical studies on work–family conflict in countries where the family as an institution is very strong and women’s participation in work is growing is also noted in the literature (Poelmans 2011). A family with both the husband and wife making an income is still a new concept in India (Jyothi and Neelakantan 2014). Noting the limited studies and the rising trend of earning couples in the Indian context, the study examines role stressors (work and family overload) as predictors of inter-role conflict among Indian earning couples. Also investigated is whether workplace support (supervisor, co-worker, and organisational policy support) moderates the inter-role conflict these stressors cause. LITERATURE AND THEORETICAL BACKGROUND Several theories provide insights into work–family reconciliation. In the Indian context, cultural, societal and institutional factors influence individu- als’ ability to balance their work and familial roles. The role conflict theory highlights the challenges posed by competing demands between work and family roles, notably for women in dual-earner households (Valk Reimara and Srinivasan Vasanthi 2011). The ecological systems theory (Urie Bronfenbrenner 52 TEORIJA IN PRAKSA • Volety NAGA SREEDHAR, Parameswar NAYAK, Nadindla SRIVIDYA 52 TEORIJA IN PRAKSA 1979) examines the influence of external systems such as family, workplace, and cultural norms on individuals, stressing the role of societal expectations in shap- ing work–family dynamics in India (Parveen Kalliath, Kalliath, and Chan 2017). The social exchange theory underscores the reciprocity between family mem- bers, such as providing emotional and practical support, which helps to reconcile professional and domestic roles (Rajadhyaksha and Velgach 2015). The gender role ideology emphasises the persistence of traditional gender roles that often restrict women’s career progress and impose greater caregiving responsibilities on them (Smita and Rajadhyaksha 2004). The work-family enrichment theory explores the possibility of a positive spillover between work and family domains, particularly among women entrepreneurs who find personal fulfilment through dual engagement (Sehgal and Khandelwal 2020). Cultural collectivism illustrates how the interdependence and shared responsibilities within Indian families can support and constrain work–family balance, reflecting the complex dynamics of collectivist societies (Raina, Ollier-Malaterre, and Singh 2020). The inter-role conflict that work and family conflict creates can be a stressor (Zhang, Rasheed, and Luqman 2020). Stressor-related frameworks traditionally relied on role theory to deal with work roles. However, role theory places less emphasis on family roles, which are critical in analysing any impact of inter- role conflict (Barnett and Gareis 2006) in the Indian context. This led to the Conservation of Resources (COR) theory proposed by Hobfall (Hobfoll 1989), which considers assets or resources, being selected for this study. According to the COR theory, stress happens at work and in the family due to asset erosion, mostly in one domain, causing resource imbalances (Hobfoll 1989) that eventu- ally affect other domains and roles. Every individual possesses a finite number of resources. The consumption of resources in one domain (work) results in a short- age of resources in another domain (family). The resource shortage adds to the likelihood of a conflict emerging between the two domains (Ribeiro et al. 2023). When dealing with work and family roles, individuals may lose resources like time and energy, which leads to stress and role conflicts (Grandey and Cropan- zano 1999). The COR theory states that work-related outcomes can be forecasted based on the resources available to employees, and any adverse work events will result in resource depletion. Therefore, the study used COR theory to derive its model based on the role stressors described below. Earning couples often encounter role overloads since they play multiple roles in their family and professional lives. Work and family roles are important (Grandey, Cordeiro, and Crouter 2005). Different behaviour is expected in each role, which has its own challenges and demands. The desire to play several roles efficiently, effectively and simultaneously causes conflicts and stress (Grönlund and Öun 2010). Managing these roles with minimum conflict results in satisfac- tion and positive experiences (Clark 2000). Still, these roles establish substantial role overloads in family and work areas (Matthews et al. 2013), creating role con- flicts. 53 • let. 62, 1/2025 • The Indian Earning Couple – Role Stressors, Inter-Role Conflict and Moderation Impact … 53 • let. 62, 1/2025 Role conflict occurs when an individual simultaneously performs multiple varying roles. The demands arising from one role are inconsistent and conflict with another role being played by the individual at the same time (Vatharkar and Aggarwal-Gupta 2020). The demands or overloads created by discordant roles lead to inter-role conflicts. Work and family are two domains that often have conflicting interests, caus- ing inter-role conflicts. Managing and balancing aspects of these two domains at once with equal efficiency is daunting. Switching between family and work frequently leads to inter-role conflict (Zedeck and Mosier 1990). One-third of the earning couples who visited the American Association of Marriage and Family Therapy reported work–family issues related to balance (Haddock and Bowling 2008). In the case of an earning couple, inter-role conflict operates in two direc- tions for each partner, i.e., the family role can interfere with work, and the work role can interfere with the family (Grzywacz and Demerouti 2013). Due to this, researchers started identifying inter-roles via the lens of role overloads and the conflicts created by these overloads. Indian earning couples generally encounter two forms of role overload: work overload and family overload, which leads to inter-role conflict, otherwise known as work–family conflict (WFC) and family–work conflict (FWC) (Gutek et al. 1991). Work–family conflict (WFC) occurs when the demands and responsibilities of work roles, such as long work hours and prolonged working weeks, are incom- patible with the family domain (Allen 2001), thereby creating conflict. In terms of earning couples, work–family conflicts are more due to work infiltrating into family boundaries. Family–work conflict (FWC) arises from family role events intervening in work-related roles, such as being unable to attend to office responsibilities because of a medical exigency in the family (Byron 2005; Viswesvaran, Sanchez, and Fisher 1999). Inter-role conflicts arising from role stressors (work and family overloads) are associated with a range of adverse outcomes (Yavas, Babakus, and Karatepe 2008; Esson et al. 2004). The workplace is the exact place or location where an employee performs their job. An employee spends over one-third of their life in the workplace. The work - place is also an important social space after one’s home. Social support comes from various sources in the workplace, such as supervisors and co-workers (Parasuraman, Greenhaus, and Granrose 1992). Workplace social support acts as a coping resource that can ease the adverse effects of stressors encountered in work and family domains (Parasuraman, Greenhaus, and Granrose 1992; Thomas and Ganster 1995). Such social support also acts as a buffer and reduces the impact of psychological strain created by stressors (Ganster, Fusilier, and Mayes 1986). Supervisors and co-workers provide a supportive environment that helps improve productivity and maintain work–life balance. 54 TEORIJA IN PRAKSA • Volety NAGA SREEDHAR, Parameswar NAYAK, Nadindla SRIVIDYA 54 TEORIJA IN PRAKSA With the workplace becoming ever more competitive and demanding, employees are becoming more vulnerable to inter-role conflict. Employees have begun looking at various resources and support systems to address the conflicts arising from the roles in which they are involved. One potential source of work- place social support is co-workers. A co-worker is a hierarchical peer (Raabe and Beehr 2003) who tends to use the same workspace, either shares or performs similar duties, and is an integral part of work life. A co-worker who is a confid- ant can enrich the work–life experience (Thomas W. H. Ng and Sorensen 2008) by providing support, easing the workload, and making the workplace environ- ment more palatable (Neves and e Cunha 2018). Co-worker support contributes significantly to strain reduction (Terry A. et al. 2000), job satisfaction (L. Duch- arme and Martin 2000), decreases occupational stress (L. J. Ducharme, Knud- sen, and Roman 2007), and reduces psychological distress caused by the work environment (Sloan 2012). The support co-workers provide makes the work environment better (L. et al. 2000), lowers work-related burnout (Constable and Russell 2010), and helps to reduce work–family conflicts (Blom et al. 2014). One form of workplace social support is supervisor support (Parasuraman, Greenhaus, and Granrose 1992). Such support can be described as “supervisor behaviour towards employees to achieve a balance between their responsibilities at work and home” (Thomas and Ganster 1995). Yet, supervisor support can also be viewed as the extent to which an employee perceives that their supervisor appreciates their contribution to the work and cares about their family’s well-be- ing (Eisenberger et al. 2002). Supervisors help employees boost their perform- ance and assist them in coping with complex work situations. They also help alleviate work stress, which otherwise creates inter-role conflict. Any support received by employees empowers them to perform their work roles effectively and may also impact their family roles. RESEARCH PROBLEM With an increasing number of women joining the workforce, Indian earning couples are struggling to balance their family and work responsibilities. They are experiencing more significant conflicts from the demands to share family responsibilities (Haworth and Lewis 2010). Concerns related to inter-role con- flict are thus becoming more important. This makes it necessary to understand the effect of the support co-workers and supervisors provide in reducing inter- role conflict (Allen 2001). RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS AND MODEL The study aims to answer two key questions: Is there any relationship between role stressors (work overload and family overload) and inter-role conflict? Can the support that supervisors and co-workers provide offset the harmful effects of role stressors and lower their impact on inter-role conflict? 55 • let. 62, 1/2025 • The Indian Earning Couple – Role Stressors, Inter-Role Conflict and Moderation Impact … 55 • let. 62, 1/2025 It is argued in this study that the workplace support provided by supervisors and co-workers is essential for dealing with the inter-role conflict created by work and family overload. The perceived support from co-workers and super- visors helps couples to manage aspects of their work and family. In line with the above, the study presents the following hypotheses: H 1: There is a positive relationship between role stressors and inter-role conflict. H 1(a) There is a positive relationship between work overload and inter-role conflict. H 1(b) There is a positive relationship between family overload and inter-role conflict. H 2 : Workplace support has a negative moderating effect on the relationship between role stressors and inter-role conflict. H 2(a) Supervisory support has a negative moderating effect on the relation- ship between work overload and inter-role conflict. H 2(b) Supervisory support has a negative moderating effect on the relation- ship between family overload and inter-role conflict. H 2(c) Co-worker support has a negative moderating effect on the relationship between family overload and inter-role conflict. H 2(d) Co-worker support has a negative moderating effect on the relationship between work overload and inter-role conflict. Conceptual model Figure 1: CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK OF ROLE STRESSORS AND INTER-ROLE CONFLICT AMONG EARNING COUPLES WITH WORKPLACE SOCIAL SUPPORT AS A MODERATOR Source: Researchers compilation. 56 TEORIJA IN PRAKSA • Volety NAGA SREEDHAR, Parameswar NAYAK, Nadindla SRIVIDYA 56 TEORIJA IN PRAKSA MATERIALS AND METHODS The study was conducted in 11 major Indian cities: Mumbai, Delhi, Ban- galore, Chennai, Ahmedabad, Chennai, Kolkata, Surat, Pune, Jaipur, and Bhubaneswar. The primary data for the research were collected from one mem- ber of earning couples with full-time employment and who was working in the organised sector and meeting the age criteria of 20–60 years. Using a structured questionnaire and snowball sampling technique, the researchers collected data from 676 respondents. The questionnaire was prepared after reviewing the rel- evant literature using the existing scales. The researcher pre-tested the drafted questionnaire. Based on the pre-test inputs, certain items in the questionnaire were re-worded and reframed to avoid response bias. Part 1 of the questionnaire consists of general demographic details, and part 2 of questions related to work overload, family overload, workplace social sup- port, and inter-role conflict. The five-point Likert work overload instrument developed by Price and Mueller (Price and Mueller 1981) and later modified by Iverson (Iverson and Roderick Dale 1992) was used to measure work over- load. The instrument consists of four questions. The five-point Likert family overload instrument developed by Thiagarajan (Thiagarajan, Chakrabarty, and Taylor 2006), a modified version of Michael D. Reilly’s (Reilly 1982) instrument, was used to measure family overload. The workplace social support aspects in the study are measured using co-worker and supervisor support. A multidi- mensional instrument on perceived social support (MSPSS) (Zimet et al. 2010) was used to measure workplace support. The MSPSS instrument is a 12-item, self-reporting inventory measuring perceived social support. The friends’ factor group part of the instrument is considered for co-workers and supervisors. The co-worker questions were interchangeably used by switching the word co-worker in each question to supervisor, and the seven-point Likert scale was appropriately modified to five points. A five-item Likert scale of work–family and family–work conflict instruments was used to measure inter-role conflict. The instruments consist of five items each and were proposed by RG Netemeyer (Netemeyer, Boles, and McMurrian 1996). The study relied on existing theories to develop hypotheses and a quantitative correlation approach to generalise the findings. DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION Demographic Data Analysis Even though the same number of questionnaires was distributed to par- ticipants across all 11 cities, the number of valid responses received from participants was not equal. The highest responses (65) were received from Bhubaneswar, Kolkata and Delhi, while the lowest (58) came from Ahmedabad, Mumbai, Pune and Surat. Among the 667 respondents, 55.6% (371) were female and 44.4% (296) were male. Most survey participants (465 or 69.7%) in the study fell into the age group 21–30 years, while 3% of the participants (20) were in the 57 • let. 62, 1/2025 • The Indian Earning Couple – Role Stressors, Inter-Role Conflict and Moderation Impact … 57 • let. 62, 1/2025 age group 51–60. The age group 21–30 represents young working people whereas 31–40 represents the middle-aged working group. The age bracket 21–40 is a working and earning group and broadly represents India’s modern workforce, which is made up of earner couples. Among the 667 respondents, 267 (40%) work in the public sector, while 400 (60%) work for private sector companies. These data align with the current trend of the private sector increasingly domin- ating the provision of employment opportunities. Descriptive Statistics Stress and inter-role conflict models are based upon the interactions of stress, strain, and various coping resources. The study examined work overload and family overload as role-based stressors as causal factors in inter-role conflict. It also considered the moderating/buffering effects of workplace social support on inter-role conflict. The respondents were given a Likert-scale questionnaire with a list of state- ments under each head, where 1 stands for strong disagreement with the state- ment and 5 for strong agreement. Since scale questions were used in the sur- vey, the data collected were distributed normally. Descriptive statistics such as mean, standard deviation, skewness etc. were therefore used to summarise the responses. Item mean scores indicated that the respondents showed neutral to strong agreement. The standard deviation indicated a variation among responses. Skewness and kurtosis are well within the range of acceptance, indicating that the data were normally distributed and not out of the curve. Scale Validity and Reliability The PCA model was initially run with all items in the questionnaire. Based on the results, factors with a loading of less than 0.30 and correlated with more than one factor were deleted in the following run to obtain a favourable Kais- er-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) value and total variance explained. Model Fit The KMO test was used to measure the sample adequacy for each variable in the research model, determine the suitability of the collected data for factor ana- lysis, and measure the proportion of variance among the variables in the given data set. KMO values closer to 1.0 are considered ideal, and values less than 0.5 are unacceptable. Bartlett’s test yielded a chi-square value of 13055.671 with 659 degrees of freedom and a significance value of .000 (< 0.05). Based on this, the given correl- ation matrix is not an identity matrix, and the matrix was factorable. Therefore, the result is significant. The variables are correlated and the data are suitable for factor analysis. 58 TEORIJA IN PRAKSA • Volety NAGA SREEDHAR, Parameswar NAYAK, Nadindla SRIVIDYA 58 TEORIJA IN PRAKSA The item communality test indicated that the communality values, ranging from 0.533 to 0.891, are above the cut-off values, which means the common factor retains the original information. To identify the underlying dimensions of the dataset in question, the total variance of the interconnected items was extracted by applying principal com- ponent analysis (PCA) using the varimax and Kaiser normalisation method for factor rotation. Compared with low-value variables, the high-value variables are represented in the common factor space. Low-value variables not represented in the common factor space were removed to eliminate performance variations. In addition, all the squared loadings were eliminated. The final sum of loading with eight components is 70.521%. Rotated component matrix Table 1: TABLE OF ROTATED COMPONENT MATRIX No Statement 1 2 3 4 5 1 My job requires me to work too fast. 0.865 2 My job leaves me with very little time to get everything done. 0.842 3 My job requires me to work very hard (physically or mentally). 0.828 4 I often have to work overtime. 0.822 5 The demands of my work interfere with my home and family life. 0.807 6 Due to work-related duties, I have to change my plans for family activities. 0.757 7 The conditions of my work life are excellent. 0.726 8 In my family life, I do not ever seem to have any time for myself. 0.85 9 In my family life, there are times when I cannot meet everyone’s expectations. 0.798 10 The demands of my family or spouse/partner interfere with work-related activities. 0.79 11 In my family life, I have to do things that I do not really have time and energy for. 0.768 12 Family-related strain interferes with my ability to perform job-related duties. 0.755 13 In my family life, I need more hours in the day to do all the things that are expected of me. 0.742 14 I can talk about my workplace problems with my co-worker. 0.798 59 • let. 62, 1/2025 • The Indian Earning Couple – Role Stressors, Inter-Role Conflict and Moderation Impact … 59 • let. 62, 1/2025 No Statement 1 2 3 4 5 15 I can count on my co-workers when things go wrong at the workplace. 0.786 16 My co-worker really tries to help me at the workplace 0.786 17 I have a co-worker with whom I can share my workplace joys and sorrows 0.753 18 I find real enjoyment in my job. 0.749 19 Most days, I am enthusiastic about my job. 0.711 20 I have a supervisor with whom I can share my workplace joys and sorrows. 0.833 21 I can talk about my workplace problems with my supervisor. 0.78 22 I am satisfied with the progressive support extended by my supervisor towards meeting my work-life balance 0.768 23 I can count on my supervisor when things go wrong in the workplace. 0.735 24 My supervisor tries to help me at the workplace. 0.701 25 My job produces strain that makes it difficult to fulfil family duties. 0.796 26 The amount of time my job takes up makes it difficult to fulfil family responsibilities. 0.739 27 Things I want to do at home do not get done because of the demands my job puts on me. 0.731 28 I have to put off doing things at work because of demands on my time at home. 0.73 29 My home life interferes with my responsibilities at work, such as getting to work on time, accomplishing daily tasks, and working overtime. 0.719 Extraction method: principal component analysis Rotation method: Varimax with Kaiser normalisation Rotation converged in 7 iterations * Factors with loadings greater than 0.30 were considered for content validity and model fit Source: Researchers compilation. The rotated component matrix reduces the number of factors with a high loading. The rotation matrix, without any change, makes the interpretation easier. The table above shows the factors that were loaded under each construct. The Work Overload factor had a factor loading of between 0.865 and 0.726. The family Overload factor had factor loadings ranging from 0.850 and 0.742. Super- visor support had factor loadings of between 0.833 and 0.701. The factor describ- ing inter-role conflict had factor loadings of between 0.796 and 0.719. Overall, only those factors with factor loadings above 0.30 were considered to check the content validity and model fit. 60 TEORIJA IN PRAKSA • Volety NAGA SREEDHAR, Parameswar NAYAK, Nadindla SRIVIDYA 60 TEORIJA IN PRAKSA The items selected from the exploratory factor analysis (EFA) were checked for convergent validity and average variance extracted (AVE). The findings showed that the construct’s reliability is greater than required. The composite validity values across all of the dimensions exceeded 0.70, and the average vari- ance explained was above 0.500. Overall, the construct showed that the items are internally consistent, while variance was also found to be adequate. Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) Analysis In this study, a structural model, which incorporated all of the variables that were assessed in the calculation model, is used to test the hypotheses. Table 2: MODEL FIT SUMMARY Model NPAR CMIN Degrees of Freedom P CMIN/DF (χ2/df) Default model 33 101.739 33 0 2.083 Criteria <3.000 RMR, GFI Model RMR GFI AGFI RFI rho1 IFI Delta2 CFI RMSEA Default Model 0.079 0.935 0.871 0.897 0.904 0.928 0.073 Criteria <0.100 >0.80 Source: Researchers compilation. The table above displays the fundamental model fit statistics. The chi-square/ df (χ2/df) is within the acceptable range of <3 (2.083). The goodness of fit (0.935) is higher than the attributes proposed. In the boundary estimation, the root mean square residual (RMR) is 0.79. The model thus has appropriate measures of fit. Hypothesis Testing H 1 There is a positive relationship between role stressors and inter-role conflict. Table 3: COEFFICIENTS – H 1 Coefficients Model Unstandardised Coefficients Standardised Coefficients T Sig. B Std. Error Beta 1 (Constant) -8.13E-17 0.032 4.08 0 Role Stressors 0.555 0.032 0.555 17.209 0 a. Dependent variable: inter-role conflict Source: Researchers compilation. 61 • let. 62, 1/2025 • The Indian Earning Couple – Role Stressors, Inter-Role Conflict and Moderation Impact … 61 • let. 62, 1/2025 The sig. values in the above table are < 0.05 for role stressors, which means that role stressors (WO and FO) impact inter-role conflict and there is a signific- ant change in inter-role conflict due to role stressors. Hence, the analysis shows that role stressors will significantly change inter- role conflict. With a 1% rise in role stress, inter-role conflict will rise by 0.555 (B value), indicating a positive relationship. Accordingly, hypothesis (H1), which states that a positive relationship exists between role stressors and inter-role conflict, is supported. Hypothesis Analysis Related to Individual Role Stressors H 1(a) There is a positive relationship between work overload and inter-role con- flict. H 1(b) There is a positive relationship between family overload and inter-role con- flict. Table 4: COEFFICIENTS – H 1(A) Coefficients Model Unstandardised Coefficients Standardised Coefficients t Sig. B Std. Error Beta 1 (Constant) 2.00E-16 0.029 2.79 0.005 Work Overload 0.078 0.038 0.078 2.036 0.042 Family Overload 0.702 0.038 0.702 18.39 0 a. Dependent variable: inter-role conflict Source: Researchers compilation. The relationship between work overload and inter-role conflict (IRC) is pos- itive and significant (beta = 0.078, p = 0.042). This indicates that increased work overload leads to a modest rise in IRC. The relationship between family overload and IRC is strongly positive and highly significant (beta = 0.702, p < 0.001). This suggests that family overload is the dominant factor contributing to IRC, with a substantial effect size. The sig. value in the above table for work overload is 0.042, and for family overload it is 0.000, which is <0.05. The result indicates an impact of both work overload and family overload as role stressors (WO and FO) on inter-role con- flict. Individual role stressors cause a significant change in inter-role conflict. From the above analysis, a 1% rise in work overload will increase the inter- role conflict by 0.078 (B value), while a 1% rise in family overload will increase inter-role conflict by 0.702 (B value). 62 TEORIJA IN PRAKSA • Volety NAGA SREEDHAR, Parameswar NAYAK, Nadindla SRIVIDYA 62 TEORIJA IN PRAKSA It is interesting to see that even though WO and FO have significant contri- butions, WO is less effective than FO. The B value for WO is 0.078, indicating that inter-role conflict is impacted more by WO and is less severely impacted by FO. The B value of FO is 0.702, indicating a strong and positive relationship between IRC and FO, thereby revealing the higher importance of FO in inter- role conflict compared to WO. The above analysis shows that work overload and family overload have sig- nificant effects on inter-role conflict. When observed individually, work over- load positively impacted inter-role conflict. However, family overload showed a stronger positive association than work overload. H 1(a) There is a positive relationship between work overload and inter-role con- flict – Supported. H 1(b) There is a positive relationship between family overload and inter-role con- flict – Supported. Hypothesis Analysis Related to Moderation Variable H2: Workplace social support has a negative moderating effect on the rela- tionship between role stressors and inter-role conflict. Table 5: COEFFICIENTS A – H 2 Coefficients Model Unstandardised Coefficients Standardised Coefficients T Sig. B Std. Error Beta 1 (Constant) 0.011 0.033 0.33 0.741 Role Stressors 0.536 0.033 0.536 16.055 0 ZRS X ZWS -0.051 0.023 -0.073 -2.174 0.03 a. Dependent variable: inter-role conflict Source: Researchers compilation. The sig. value of the interaction term ZRoleStressors X ZWorkplaceSupport (ZRSXZWS) in the above table is 0.030, which is <0.05. Workplace support is hence a moderator variable that affects the relationship between independent variable role stressors and the dependent variable inter-role conflict. The negative B-coefficient value for the interaction predictor (workplace support) indicates that workplace support negatively affects inter-role conflict; namely, workplace support provided by co-workers and supervisors reduces inter-role conflict. The above analysis shows that workplace support (moderators) will signific - antly change inter-role conflict. The moderator variable workplace support will reduce the impact of inter-role conflict created by role stressors. 63 • let. 62, 1/2025 • The Indian Earning Couple – Role Stressors, Inter-Role Conflict and Moderation Impact … 63 • let. 62, 1/2025 Accordingly, the hypothesis that workplace support negatively moderates the relationship between role stressors and inter-role conflict is supported. Hypothesis Analysis Related to Individual Workplace Support Elements H 2(a) Supervisor support has a negative moderating effect on the relationship between work overload and inter-role conflict. H 2(b) Supervisor support has a negative moderating effect on the relationship between work overload and inter-role conflict. H 2(c) Co-worker support has a negative moderating effect on the relationship between family overload and inter-role conflict. H 2(d) Co-worker support has a negative moderating effect on the relationship between family overload and inter-role conflict. Table 6: COEFFICIENTS – H 2(A) Coefficients Model Unstandardised Coefficients Standardised Coefficients T Sig. B Std. Error Beta 1 (Constant) 0.004 0.031 0.123 0.902 ZWOXZWPS_SS -0.05 0.064 -0.072 -0.783 0.034 ZFOXZWPS_SS 0.086 0.067 0.104 1.273 0.203 ZFOXZWPS_CS 0.037 0.068 0.047 0.547 0.585 ZWOXZWPS_CS -0.304 0.071 -0.422 -4.298 0 Work Overload (WO) -0.128 0.041 -0.128 -3.139 0.002 Family Overload (FO) -0.608 0.039 -0.608 -15.668 0 a. Dependent variable: inter-role conflict Source: Researchers compilation. Based on the results, Work Overload (WO), Family Overload (FO), the inter- action terms Work Overload X Workplace Supervisor Support (ZWOXZWPS_ SS,) and Work Overload X Workplace Co-worker Support ZWOXZWPS_CS have a significant relationship with inter-role conflict (p value < 0.05). The inter - action terms Family Overload X Workplace Supervisor Support ZFOXZWPS_ SS, Family Overload X Workplace Co-worker Support ZFOXZWPS_CS have a less significant relationship with inter-role conflict (p value > 0.05). The analysis reveals that family overload (FO) is the most significant predictor of inter-role conflict (IRC), with a strong standardised coefficient (beta = –0.608, p < 0.001) and a large negative impact, followed by work overload (WO) (beta = –0.128, p = 0.002), which also contributes significantly to IRC. Co-worker 64 TEORIJA IN PRAKSA • Volety NAGA SREEDHAR, Parameswar NAYAK, Nadindla SRIVIDYA 64 TEORIJA IN PRAKSA support in managing work overload (ZWOXZWPS_CS) shows a notable mit- igating effect (beta = –0.422, p < 0.001), indicating its importance. In contrast, supervisor and co-worker support in family overload contexts (ZFOXZWPS_ SS, ZFOXZWPS_CS) do not significantly influence IRC (p = 0.203 and p = 0.585, respectively). These results emphasise that family responsibilities have a more critical role in exacerbating IRC compared to work-related stressors. Moderation impact created by individual variables of workplace support Supervisor Support (SS) The sig. value in the above table for the interaction variables ZWOXZWPS_SS is 0.034, which is <0.05 with a negative beta value (-0.050), and for ZFOXZWPS_ SS it is 0.203 with a positive beta value (0.086), which is > 0.05. The results Indic- ated supervisory support has a significant impact on moderating the inter-role conflict created by work overload when compared with family overload. Super- visor support effectively reduces the inter-role conflict caused by work overload. Therefore, the hypotheses that: H 2(a) Supervisory support has a negative moderating effect on the relationship between work overload and inter-role conflict – is supported. H 2(b) Supervisory support has a negative moderating effect on the relationship between family overload and inter-role conflict – is not supported. Co-worker Support (CS) The sig. values in the above table for the interaction variables ZFOXZWPS_ CS and ZWOXZWPS_CS are 0.585 and 0.000, respectively. The p value for the interaction variable ZFOXZWPS_CS (0.585) is > 0.05, with a beta value of 0.037. This indicates that co-worker support does not moder- ate the inter-role conflict created by family overload. This means that hypothesis H 2(c) – co-worker support has a negative moderat- ing effect on the relationship between family overload and inter-role conflict – is not supported. The p-value for the interaction variable ZWOXZWPS_CS (0.000) is < 0.05 with a beta value of –0.304, which means that co-worker support has an impact on moderating the inter-role conflict created by work overload. Co-worker support can thus be considered a moderator variable affecting the relationship between the independent variable, work overload, and the dependent variable (inter-role conflict). The negative B-coefficient value of –0.304 means that co-worker sup - port negatively impacts the inter-role conflict created by work overload. Hence, hypothesis H 2(d) – co-worker support has a negative moderating effect on the relationship between work overload and inter-role conflict – is supported. 65 • let. 62, 1/2025 • The Indian Earning Couple – Role Stressors, Inter-Role Conflict and Moderation Impact … 65 • let. 62, 1/2025 DISCUSSION India has a unique culture and value system (Banerjee 2008). With the eco- nomy thriving and surging to new heights, more women traditionally engaged in family care are taking up full-time employment. The full-time employment of women leads to increased earnings for couples, contributing to economic growth and changed family dynamics (Gujan Mishra 2021). Earning couples joining the workforce bring new challenges, including work–life balance (N Sharma 2023). The study’s findings highlight the extent to which the two important role stressors to which earning couples are exposed daily result in inter-role conflict, notably in the Indian context where cultural expectations and dual responsibil- ities amplify these challenges (P Kalliath, Kalliath, and V Singh 2011; Vashisht, Punj, and Vashisht 2022). In the Indian context, the interplay of work–family balance and traditional gender roles creates unique challenges. Women in India often experience higher levels of work–family conflict due to entrenched societal norms that allocate a disproportionate share of household responsibilities to them. This imbalance significantly intensifies the burden of simultaneously managing household and professional responsibilities (Vijayalakshmi, Nirmala, and Subasree 2023) and affects well-being. Gender differences observed in Indian society also have an impact on work–family conflicts and affect job performance and well-being (Komal, Aastha, and Muskan 2013) and work–family stress negatively affects job satisfaction across genders (T. Singh, Singh, and Singh 2012). Family-friendly policies adopted by organisations in India often fail to address the special challenges faced by women, causing increased stress and attrition rates (Vyas 2023). Social support, especially from the family, is emerging as a crucial moderating factor for alleviating the stress associated with work–family conflicts, and familial support enhances productivity and reduces stress among Indian working women (Kundra et al. 2023). This exploratory study covered 676 professionals whose spouses are also working (earning couples) to understand the relationship between the work and family overloads they have experienced and their impact on inter-role conflict. The findings reveal that native cultural aspects like strong family centrality and traditional gender-specific roles, combined with work and family demands, cre- ate high role demands, leading to inter-role conflicts. The coefficient analysis related to the relationship between role stressors (work overload and family overload) indicated that, with all other factors remaining constant, for every unit increase in role stressors, inter-role conflict increases by 0.555 units. The beta value 0.555 indicated a strong positive relationship, show- ing that greater role stress adds to inter-role conflict. While both work overload and family overload significantly predicted inter-role conflict, work overload has a weaker positive relationship (beta = 0.078) with inter-role conflict compared to family overload (beta = 0.702). The above analysis confirms the relationship between role stressors and 66 TEORIJA IN PRAKSA • Volety NAGA SREEDHAR, Parameswar NAYAK, Nadindla SRIVIDYA 66 TEORIJA IN PRAKSA inter-role conflicts. Role stressors have a significant and positive impact on inter- role conflict; and thus hypotheses H 1, H 1(a) and H 1(b) are supported. Data analysis with reference to the moderation effect of workplace social support variables in lowering the impact of inter-role conflict created by role stressors indicated that a one-unit increase in role stressors increases inter-role conflicts by 0.536 (with other factors being assumed to be constant). The beta value of the moderator variable workplace support (ZRSXZWS) is –0.073. This b value indicates a negative relationship and that a one-unit increase in the moder- ator variable decreases the impact of inter-role conflict by 0.0731 units, support- ing Hypothesis 2. When individual moderation aspects of supervisor support (SS) and co-worker variables in relation to reducing the role stressors’ impact on inter- role conflict were tested, a significant impact created by supervisor support in moderating the inter-role conflict due to work overload (beta value –0.050) was found when compared with family overload (beta value 0.203) and the same was also found to be true in the case of co-worker support, i.e., supervisor support and co-worker support could not moderate the impact created by a family over- load on inter-role conflict, both effectively moderated and negated by the impact created by the work-overload stressor on inter-role conflict based on the analysis, hypothesis H 2(a) and H 2(d) were supported and H 2(c) and H 2(d) were not supported. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS In line with the its objectives, the study examined the relationship between role stressors (work overload and family overload) and inter-role conflict and the moderating influence of workplace social support on the relationship. The findings concerning the relationship between role stressors (work over - load and family overload) and inter-role conflict reveal that both work and fam- ily overloads impact inter-role conflict. The respondents agreed that the role stressors (WO and FO) are responsible for inter-role conflict. While both role stressors contributed to inter-role conflict, it is worth noting that the respondents perceived a higher level of inter-role conflict due to family overload than work overload. These findings are contrary to research findings from the Western world (Parasuraman et al. 1996; Frone, Yardley, and Markel 1997) where respondents perceived higher work–family conflicts than family– work conflicts. The acceptance of work overload is because the typical Indian employee puts extensive effort into their work, shows a greater sense of ownership towards work, and values their work more than their personal life. Indian workers strongly believe that the workplace is a ladder for future opportunities and the only means for financially securing the family (Somaiya 2010). Family overload is considered to be an obstacle in discharging work respons- ibilities effectively. Additional family responsibilities, such as caring for elders, childcare, attending their children’s academic activities, and other unplanned 67 • let. 62, 1/2025 • The Indian Earning Couple – Role Stressors, Inter-Role Conflict and Moderation Impact … 67 • let. 62, 1/2025 family activities, often conflict with their work responsibilities. Work overload creates a smaller impact on inter-role conflict compared to family overload, which can be related to the fact that work interference with the family is almost accepted in Indian society, and the family system is not supposed to cause hindrances while performing work-related activities. The higher level of inter-role conflict due to family overload can be associ- ated with the collective culture found in India, which stresses strong family ties, communal decision-making, and shared responsibilities. As a culture, Indian women are expected to take care of domestic work and caregiving activities. Those respondents who perceived a higher level of inter-role conflict due to family overload can be theoretically associated with cultural theories of collect- ivism and the theory of ecological systems. While cultural theories of collect- ivism examine how societal values prioritise group cohesion, interdependence, and collective well-being over individual autonomy and self-interest, collectivist cultures, like those in many Asian countries, including India, emphasise strong family ties, communal decision-making, and shared responsibilities. These val- ues often shape individual behaviours, roles, and interpersonal dynamics. The theory explains how cultural norms (the macrosystem) and workplace–family interactions (the mesosystem) create role conflicts. For instance, in India cul- tural expectations of caregiving often lead to family overload, influenced by macrosystemic values and interactions on the microsystem level. Ecological systems theory (Bronfenbrenner 1979) explains human develop- ment as being influenced by multiple environmental systems interacting with one another. Bronfenbrenner categorised these systems into five nested layers, highlighting the importance of immediate and broader environmental influ- ences. Microsystems refer to the immediate environment where an individual interacts directly, such as the family, workplace or school. Mesosystems con- sider interactions between microsystems, such as how workplace demands inter- act with family responsibilities, influencing an individual’s ability to manage their roles effectively. Exosystems include systems that indirectly influence an individual, like a spouse’s workplace policies or community norms, which can exacerbate family or work overload. The macrosystem represents the overarch- ing cultural, social and economic systems, such as collectivist cultural values in India that underscore familial obligations and societal expectations, and the chronosystem examines the dimension of time, accounting for changes over an individual’s life or generational shifts in cultural or societal roles. Both theories explain how cultural norms and workplace–family interactions create role conflicts. For instance, in India cultural expectations of caregiving often lead to family overload, influenced by macrosystemic values and interac- tions on the microsystem level, rather than work overload. The observations concerning the impact created by workplace support in moderating the effect of role stressors on inter-role conflict reveal that work- place support effectively moderates and reduces the inter-role conflict arising 68 TEORIJA IN PRAKSA • Volety NAGA SREEDHAR, Parameswar NAYAK, Nadindla SRIVIDYA 68 TEORIJA IN PRAKSA from both work and family overloads. However, the moderation impact created by individual aspects, i.e., supervisor support, co-worker support, and organisa- tional policy support that constitute workplace support, is different. A supervisor’s support cannot moderate or reduce the impact of work or fam- ily overload on inter-role conflict. Both co-worker support and organisational policy support effectively moderated and reduced the inter-role conflict created by work overload but were not found to be effective in moderating family over- load. The results concerning moderation effects may be attributed to the fact that the support offered by the supervisor and co-worker is more aligned with work-related aspects. The above analysis allows the conclusion that the study was able to success- fully explore and establish a relationship between role stressors and inter-role conflict. The study also successfully explored the moderating impact of work - place support in reducing inter-role conflict. Using the COR theory model, the study provided insights into the complex and multifaceted interplay of role stressors (work and family overload) and inter-role conflict. The study results help to understand the dynamics of role stressors, moderating variables, and their impact on inter-role conflict. The res- ults also emphasise the importance of workplace support systems like super- visor, co-worker, and organisational policy support in buffering the adverse effects of inter-role conflict caused by work and family overloads. Results of the study additionally provide critical inputs for developing various organisational interventions and policies that enhance employee well-being and productivity. Organisations can leverage the theoretical framework offered by this study to design support systems that reduce the negative impacts of role stressors and inter-role conflicts. The findings of this study demonstrate the near generalisability of results to other developing nations like India. However, future research could explore gender-specific dynamics by using gender as a control variable or by modelling work–family stress and social support effects separately for men and women. In addition, there is a need to examine how external support systems, such as extended family and community networks, influence stress mitigation in the Indian sociocultural landscape. Future research could also probe further into the issues of inter-role con- flict among Indian earning couples by considering additional or different sets of moderating variables. Comparative studies could be carried out to determine the impact of inter-role conflict faced by earning couples in various industry seg- ments, across various countries, and on various levels of management. This research work could be developed further by correlating the study find - ings with other HR initiatives and processes like employee engagement, training, rewards, and recognition processes. While this study is cross-sectional, a longit- udinal study could be performed in the future to ascertain the causal status of the variables examined. A joint family structure is still prevalent in India, and 69 • let. 62, 1/2025 • The Indian Earning Couple – Role Stressors, Inter-Role Conflict and Moderation Impact … 69 • let. 62, 1/2025 thus a comparative study to determine the varying levels of inter-role conflict of earning couples in nuclear and joint family arrangements would be an interest- ing future area of study. BIBLIOGRAPHY Allen, Tammy D. 2001. “Family-Supportive Work Environments: The Role of Organizational Perceptions.« Journal of Vocational Behavior 58 (3): 414–35. https://doi.org/10.1006/ JVBE.2000.1774. Arsi, Antari Ayuning. 2020. “Etnografi Long Distance Marriage (LDM) Pada Keluarga Dual Car- rier.« Komunitas 12 (1): 141–49. https://doi.org/10.15294/KOMUNITAS.V12I1.23575. Ashforth, Blake E., Glen E. Kreiner, and Mel Fugate. 2000. “All in a Day’s Work: Boundaries and Micro Role Transitions.« The Academy of Management Review 25 (3): 491. https://doi. org/10.2307/259305. Banerjee, Saikat. 2008. “Dimensions of Indian Culture, Core Cultural Values and Marketing Implications: An Analysis”. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal 15 (4): 367–78. https://doi.org/10.1108/13527600810914157. Baral, Rupashree. 2020. “Comparing the Situation and Person-Based Predictors of Work–Fam- ily Conflict among Married Working Professionals in India”. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion 39 (5): 479–95. https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/edi-01-2019-0040/ full/html. Barnett, Rosalind C., and Karen C. Gareis. 2006. “Role Theory Perspectives on Work and Family.” In: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, 209–21. https://psycnet.apa.org/re- cord/2006-00550-010. Beehr, Terry A., Steve M. Jex, Beth A. Stacy, Marshall A. Murray. 2000. “Work Stressors and Coworker Support as Predictors of Individual Strain and Job Performance”. Journal of Or- ganizational Behavior 21 (4): 391–405. Blom, Victoria, Magnus Sverke, Lennart Bodin, Gunnar Bergström, Petra Lindfors, and Pia Svedberg. 2014. “Work-Home Interference and Burnout: A Study Based on Swedish Twins”. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 56 (4): 361–66. https://doi. org/10.1097/JOM.0000000000000128. Bronfenbrenner, Urie. 1979. The Ecology of Human Development. Cambridge: Harvard Uni- versity Press. Buddhapriya, Sanghamitra. 2009. “Work-Family Challenges and Their Impact on Career De- cisions: A Study of Indian Women Professionals”. Vikalpa: The Journal for Decision Makers 34 (1): 31–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/0256090920090103. Byron, Kristin. 2005. “A Meta-Analytic Review of Work-Family Conflict and Its Antecedents”. Journal of Vocational Behavior 67 (2): 169–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JVB.2004.08.009. Clark, Sue Campbell. 2000. “Work/Family Border Theory: A New Theory of Work/Family Bal- ance”. Human Relations 53 (6): 747–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726700536001. Constable, Joseph F., and Daniel W. Russell. 2010. “The Effect of Social Support and the Work Environment upon Burnout among Nurses.« Journal of Human Stress 12 (1): 20–26. https:// doi.org/10.1080/0097840X.1986.9936762. Ducharme, Lori J., Hannah K. Knudsen, and Paul M. Roman. 2007. “Emotional Exhaustion and Turnover Intention in Human Service Occupations: The Protective Role of Coworker Sup- port.« Sociological Spectrum 28 (1): 81–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/02732170701675268. Ducharme, Lorij, and Jack K. Martin. 2000. “Unrewarding Work, Coworker Support, and Job 70 TEORIJA IN PRAKSA • Volety NAGA SREEDHAR, Parameswar NAYAK, Nadindla SRIVIDYA 70 TEORIJA IN PRAKSA Satisfaction: A Test of the Buffering Hypothesis.” Work and Occupations 27 (2): 223–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/0730888400027002005. Eisenberger, Robert, Florence Stinglhamber, Christian Vandenberghe, Ivan L. Sucharski, and Linda Rhoades. 2002. “Perceived Supervisor Support: Contributions to Perceived Organ- izational Support and Employee Retention”. Journal of Applied Psychology 87 (3): 565–73. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.3.565. Esson, Patrice L., John J. Donovan, Chair J. Roseanne Foti, and Neil M. A. Hauenstein. 2004. “Consequences of Work-Family Conflict: Testing a New Model of Work-Related, Non-Work- Related and Stress-Related Outcomes.« MA Thesis. Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. http://hdl.handle.net/10919/9959. Frone, Michael R., John K. Yardley, and Karen S. Markel. 1997. “Developing and Testing an Integ- rative Model of the Work-Family Interface”. Journal of Vocational Behavior 50 (2): 145–67. https://doi.org/10.1006/JVBE.1996.1577. Ganster, Daniel C., Marcelline R. Fusilier, and Bronston T. Mayes. 1986. “Role of Social Support in the Experience of Stress at Work”. Journal of Applied Psychology 71 (1): 102–10. https:// doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.71.1.102. Gopalakrishan, Karunanithi. 2021. “Changing Scenario of Family System in India: An Analysis Against the Backdrop of Changing Social Values.« International Journal of Social Sciences 10 (1): 51-62. https://doi.org/ 10.46852/2249-6637.01.2021.7 Grandey, Alicia A., and Russell Cropanzano. 1999. “The Conservation of Resources Model Ap- plied to Work-Family Conflict and Strain”. Journal of Vocational Behavior 54 (2): 350–70. https://doi.org/10.1006/JVBE.1998.1666. Grandey, Alicia A., Bryanne L. Cordeiro, and Ann C. Crouter. 2005. “A Longitudinal and Mul- ti-Source Test of the Work–Family Conflict and Job Satisfaction Relationship”. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 78 (3): 305–23. https://doi.org/10.1348/ 096317905X26769. Greenhaus, Jeffrey H., and Nicholas J. Beutell. 1985. “Sources of Conflict between Work and Fam- ily Roles.« The Academy of Management Review 10 (1): 76. https://doi.org/10.2307/258214. Grönlund, Anne, and Ida Öun. 2010. “Rethinking Work-Family Conflict: Dual-Earner Policies, Role Conflict and Role Expansion in Western Europe.« Journal of European Social Policy 20 (3): 179–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/0958928710364431. Grzywacz, Joseph G., ed., and Evangelia Demerouti, ed. 2013. New Frontiers in Work and Fam- ily Research, January. London: Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203586563. Gujan Mishra. 2021. Work-Family Conflict and Family-Friendly Policies for Working Women in India. Morrisville: Lulu Publication. Haddock, Shelley A., and Stephanie Weiland Bowling. 2008. “Therapists’ Approaches to the Normative Challenges of Dual-Earner Couples”. Journal of Feminist Family Therapy 13 (2/3): 91–120. https://doi.org/10.1300/J086V13N02_06. Haworth, John, and Suzan Lewis. 2010. “Work, Leisure and Well-Being”. British Journal of Guid- ance and Counselling 33 (1): 67–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/03069880412331335902. Hill, E. Jeffrey, Alan J. Hawkins, Maria Ferris, and Michelle Weitzman. 2001. “Finding an Extra Day a Week: The Positive Influence of Perceived Job Flexibility on Work and Family Life Balance.« Family Relations 50 (1): 49–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1741-3729.2001.00049.X. Hiremath, Sudha G. 2023. “Changing Dynamic of Marriage and Family Urban in India: A Soci- ological Perspective in Dharwad District”. IJFMR – International Journal for Multidisciplin- ary Research 5 (6): 1-10. https://doi.org/10.36948/IJFMR.2023.V05I06.10395. 71 • let. 62, 1/2025 • The Indian Earning Couple – Role Stressors, Inter-Role Conflict and Moderation Impact … 71 • let. 62, 1/2025 Hobfoll, Stevan E. 1989. “Conservation of Resources: A New Attempt at Conceptualizing Stress”. American Psychologist 44 (3): 513–24. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.3.513. Iverson, Roderick Dale. 1992. Employee Intent to Stay: An Empirical Test of a Revision of the Price and Mueller Model. PhD thesis. Iowa City: The University of Iowa. Jhunjjhunwala, Soniya. 2010. “Review of Indian Work Culture and Challenges Faced by Indians in the Era of Globalisation.« Interscience Management Review 3 (1): 67-82. https://www. researchgate.net/publication/346754109. Joshi, Gauri, and Pratima Sheorey. 2019. “Whose Decision Is It Anyways? The Changing Pur- chasing Patterns of Indian Families.« International Journal of Asian Business and Informa- tion Management (IJABIM) 10 (4): 21–30. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJABIM.2019100102. Jyothi, P ., and Sita Neelakantan. 2014. “Quality of Work Life and Academic Dual-Career Couples” IOSR Journal of Business and Management 16 (1): 62–66. Kalliath, Parveen, Thomas Kalliath, and Christopher Chan. 2017. “Work–Family Conflict, Fam- ily Satisfaction and Employee Well-Being: A Comparative Study of Australian and In- dian Social Workers”. Human Resource Management Journal 27 (3): 366–81. https://doi. org/10.1111/1748-8583.12143. Kalliath, Parveen, Thomas Kalliath, and Varsha Singh. 2011. “When Work Intersects Family: A Qualitative Exploration of the Experiences of Dual Earner Couples in India.« South Asian Journal of Management 18 (1): 37-59. Komal, Deshwal, Gupta Aastha, and Kararha Muskan. 2013. “Gender Differences in Work Family Conflict and Its Relationship with Work Performance.« International Journal of Indian Psy- chology, 9 (3): 2173–82. https://doi.org/10.25215/0903.207. Kundra, Shradha, Naman Sreen, and Rohit Dwivedi. 2023. “Impact of Work from Home and Family Support on Indian Women’s Work Productivity During COVID-19.« Vikalpa 48 (1): 39–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/02560909231162918. Kundu, Subhash C., Rina S. Phogat, Saroj Kumar Datta, and Neha Gahlawat. 2016. “Impact of Workplace Characteristics on Work-Family Conflict of Dual-Career Couples”. International Journal of Organizational Analysis 24 (5): 883–907. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijoa-01-2015- 0840. Matthews, Russell A., Doan E. Winkel, and Julie Holliday Wayne. 2013. “A Longitudinal Examina- tion of Role Overload and Work–Family Conflict: The Mediating Role of Interdomain Trans- itions.« Journal of Organizational Behavior 35 (1): 72–91. https://doi.org/10.1002/JOB.1855. Mellor, Steven, and Ragan Decker. 2020. “Multiple Jobholders with Families: A Path from Jobs Held to Psychological Stress through Work-Family Conflict and Performance Quality.« Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal 32 (1): 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10672- 020-09343-1. Michel, Jesse S., Lindsey M. Kotrba, Jacqueline K. Mitchelson, Malissa A. Clark, and Boris B. Baltes. 2011. “Antecedents of Work–Family Conflict: A Meta-Analytic Review.« Journal of Organizational Behavior 32 (5): 689–725. https://doi.org/10.1002/JOB.695. Natrajan, Rajeswari, and Volker Thomas. 2002. “Need for Family Therapy Services for Middle- Class Families in India.« Contemporary Family Therapy 24 (3): 483–503. https://doi.or- g/10.1023/A:1019819401113. Netemeyer, Richard G., James S. Boles, and Robert McMurrian. 1996. “Development and Valid- ation of Work-Family Conflict and Family-Work Conflict Scales”. Journal of Applied Psycho- logy 81 (4): 400–10. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.81.4.400. Neves, Pedro, and Miguel Pina e Cunha. 2018. “Exploring a Model of Workplace Ostracism: The 72 TEORIJA IN PRAKSA • Volety NAGA SREEDHAR, Parameswar NAYAK, Nadindla SRIVIDYA 72 TEORIJA IN PRAKSA Value of Coworker Humor.« International Journal of Stress Management 25 (4): 330–47. https://doi.org/10.1037/STR0000069. Nimmi, P. M., Geetha Jose, Maria Tresita Paul Vincent, and Anjali John. 2023. “Workplace Bully- ing, Engagement and Employability: Moderating Role of Organization-Based Self-Esteem.« Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal 35 (3): 417–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/ S10672-022-09420-7. Parasuraman, Saroj, Jeffrey H. Greenhaus, and Cherlyn Skromme Granrose. 1992. “Role Stressors, Social Support, and Well-Being among Two-Career Couples.« Journal of Organ- izational Behavior 13 (4): 339–56. https://doi.org/10.1002/JOB.4030130403. Parasuraman, Saroj, Yasmin S. Purohit, Veronica M. Godshalk, and Nicholas J. Beutell. 1996. “Work and Family Variables, Entrepreneurial Career Success, and Psychological Well-Being.« Journal of Vocational Behavior 48 (3): 275–300. https://doi.org/10.1006/JVBE.1996.0025. Poelmans, Steven. 2011. “Individual and Organizational Issues in Work-Family Conflict. A Re- search Agenda”. SSRN Electronic Journal, December. https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.887903. Price, James L., and Charles W. Mueller. 1981. Professional Turnover: The Case of Nurses. Lon- don: Springer Dodrecht. Raabe, Babette, and Terry A. Beehr. 2003. “Formal Mentoring versus Supervisor and Coworker Relationships: Differences in Perceptions and Impact”. Journal of Organizational Behavior 24 (3): 271–93. https://doi.org/10.1002/JOB.193. Raina, Mahima, Ariane Ollier-Malaterre, and Kamlesh Singh. 2020. “Happily Exhausted: Work Family Dynamics in India”. Occupational Health Science 4 (1–2): 191–211. https://doi. org/10.1007/S41542-020-00059-0. Rajadhyaksha, Ujvala, and Sofiya Velgach. 2015. “What Is a Better Predictor of Work-Family Conflict in India? – Gender or Gender Role Ideology.« In: Work and Family Interface in the International Career Context, Liisa Mäkelä and Vesa Suutari (eds.), 71–93. Cham: Springer. Reilly, Michael D. 1982. “Working Wives and Convenience Consumption.« Journal of Consumer Research 8 (4): 407–18. https://doi.org/10.1086/208881. Ribeiro, Neuza, Daniel Gomes, Ana Rita Oliveira, and Ana Suzete Dias Semedo. 2023. “The Impact of the Work-Family Conflict on Employee Engagement, Performance, and Turnover Intention”. International Journal of Organizational Analysis 31 (2): 533–49. https://doi. org/10.1108/IJOA-02-2021-2646. Sehgal, Aakanksha, and Preetam Khandelwal. 2020. “Work–Family Interface of Women En- trepreneurs: Evidence from India.« South Asian Journal of Business Studies 9 (3): 411–28. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAJBS-11-2019-0213. Sharma, Neeti. 2023. “Dual-Earner Families: Conflict or Enrichment in Work-Life.« OPUS: HR Journal, 14 (1): 1–24. . Singh, Supriya. 2020. “The Gender and Morality of Money in the Indian Transnational Family.« In: Money and Moralities in Contemporary Asia, Lan Anh Hoang and Cheryll Alipio (eds.), 161– 86. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9789048543151-008. Singh, Tripti, Avantika Singh, and Prabha Singh. 2012. “Relationship of Stress and Job Satisfac- tion: A Comparative Study of Male and Female of Dual Career Teacher Couples of India.« SSRN Electronic Journal, September. https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2144720. Sloan, Melissa M. 2012. “Unfair Treatment in the Workplace and Worker Well-Being.« Work and Occupations 39 (1): 3–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/0730888411406555. Smita, Swati, and Ujvala Rajadhyaksha. 2004. “Tracing a Timeline for Work and Family Re- search in India”. Economic and Political Weekly 39 (17): 1674-80. 73 • let. 62, 1/2025 • The Indian Earning Couple – Role Stressors, Inter-Role Conflict and Moderation Impact … 73 • let. 62, 1/2025 Thiagarajan, Palaniappan, Subhra Chakrabarty, and Ronald D. Taylor. 2006. “A Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Reilly’s Role Overload Scale.« Educational and Psychological Measure- ment 66 (4): 657–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164405282452. Thomas W. H. Ng, and Kelly L. Sorensen. 2008. “Toward a Further Understanding of the Re- lationships Between Perceptions of Support and Work Attitudes: A Meta-Analysis”. Group and Organization Management 33 (3): 243–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601107313307. Thomas, Linda Thiede, and Daniel C. Ganster. 1995. “Impact of Family-Supportive Work Vari- ables on Work-Family Conflict and Strain: A Control Perspective”. Journal of Applied Psy- chology 80 (1): 6–15. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.80.1.6. Uttam, Kumar Panda. 2011. “Role Conflict, Stress and Dual Career Couples: An Empirical Study.« The Journal of Family Welfare 57 (2): 72–88. Valk, Reimara, and Srinivasan Vasanthi. 2011. “Work–Family Balance of Indian Women Software Professionals: A Qualitative Study.« Iimb Management Review 23 (1): 39–50. https://doi. org/10.1016/J.IIMB.2010.10.010. Vashisht, Sakshi, Nidhi Punj, and Ravi Vashisht. 2022. “A Qualitative Analysis of Experiences of Work-Life Integration of Dual Career Couples.« International Journal of Business and Globalisation 31 (2): 216–28. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBG.2022.125953. Vatharkar, Poonam Shripad, and Meenakshi Aggarwal-Gupta. 2020. “Relationship between Role Overload and the Work–Family Interface”. South Asian Journal of Business Studies 9 (3): 305–21. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAJBS-09-2019-0167. Vijayalakshmi, S., T. Nirmala, and R. Subasree. 2023. “An Analysis of Work Life Balance and Men- tal Health of Women in India during Work from Home with Special Reference to IT Sector”. Asian Review of Social Sciences 12 (1): 29–33. https://doi.org/10.51983/ARSS-2023.12.1.3337. Viswesvaran, Chockalingam, Juan I. Sanchez, and Jeffrey Fisher. 1999. “The Role of Social Sup- port in the Process of Work Stress: A Meta-Analysis.« Journal of Vocational Behavior 54 (2): 314–34. https://doi.org/10.1006/JVBE.1998.1661. Vyas, Lina. 2023. “Experiences of Working Women in India under Family-Friendly Policies: Straight from the Horse’s Mouth.« Journal of Asian Public Policy 18 (1): 77–98. https://doi. org/10.1080/17516234.2023.2191802. Yavas, Ugur, Emin Babakus, and Osman M. Karatepe. 2008. “Attitudinal and Behavioral Con- sequences of Work-family Conflict and Family-work Conflict”. International Journal of Ser- vice Industry Management 19 (1): 7–31. https://doi.org/10.1108/09564230810855699. Yucel, Ilhami, Muhammed Sabri Şirin, and Murat Baş. 2023. “The Mediating Effect of Work Engagement on the Relationship between Work–Family Conflict and Turnover Intention and Moderated Mediating Role of Supervisor Support during Global Pandemic.« Interna- tional Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 72 (3): 577–98. http://dx.doi. org/10.1108/IJPPM-07-2020-0361. Zedeck, Sheldon, and Kathleen L. Mosier. 1990. “Work in the Family and Employing Organiza- tion.« American Psychologist 45 (2): 240–51. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.45.2.240. Zhang, Yue, Muhammad Imran Rasheed, and Adeel Luqman. 2020. “Work–Family Conflict and Turnover Intentions among Chinese Nurses: The Combined Role of Job and Life Satisfac- tion and Perceived Supervisor Support”. Personnel Review 49 (5): 1140–56. Zimet, Gregory D., Nancy W. Dahlem, Sara G. Zimet, and Gordon K. Farley. 2010. “The Multi- dimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support”. Journal of Personality Assessment 52 (1): 30–41. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327752JPA5201_2. 74 TEORIJA IN PRAKSA • Volety NAGA SREEDHAR, Parameswar NAYAK, Nadindla SRIVIDYA 74 TEORIJA IN PRAKSA INDIJSKI PAR Z DVEMA DOHODKOMA – STRESNI DEJAVNIKI ZARADI DRUŽBENIH VLOG, KONFLIKT VLOG IN MODERATORSKI UČINEK PODPORE SOCIALNEGA OKOLJA NA DELOVNEM MESTU Povzetek. Indijski pari z dvema dohodkoma zaradi pomanjkljivih virov pod- pore v družinskem in delovnem okolju doživljajo neravnovesje pri opravljanju svojih družinskih in delovnih vlog. V raziskavi smo razvili in preizkusili model raziskovanja moderatorskega učinka dveh virov podpore na delovnem mestu – podpora nadrejenega in podpora sodelavca – na konflikt med vlogama, s katerim se sooča indijski par z dvema dohodkoma. Zbrali in analizirali smo podatke 676 oseb, ki sestavljajo par z dvema dohodkoma iz 11 večjih indijskih mest, pri čemer smo vzorec pridobili z metodo snežne kepe. Kljub temu da k stresu zaradi družbe- nih vlog kot dejavnika pomembno prispevata tako preobremenjenost z delom kot preobremenjenost z družino, je zanimiva ugotovitev ta, da je učinek posameznih spremenljivk pri preobremenjenosti z delom na konflikt med vlogami manjši kot pri preobremenjenosti z družino. Čeprav se je pokazalo, da ima podpora na de- lovnem mestu moderatorski učinek na konflikt med vlogama, se je na ravni posa- meznih spremenljivk pokazalo, da ima podpora sodelavcev in nadrejenih manjši moderatorski učinek na konflikt med vlogami pri preobremenjenosti z delom v primerjavi z družino. Izpostavili smo praktične posledice študije, kar zadeva delo, in usmeritve za prihodnje raziskave. Ključne besede: stresni dejavniki zaradi družbenih vlog, preobremenjenost z delom, preobremenjenost z družino, podpora nadrejenega, podpora sodelavcev, konflikt med vlogami, indijski par z dvema dohodkoma.