Gender and work–family conflict: Testing the rational model and the gender role expectations model in the Spanish cultural context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gutek, Searle, and Klepa (1991) proposed two models to explain the gender differences in work-family conflict: the rational model and the gender role expectations model. Both models have mostly been tested on American and Canadian samples, and have obtained partial support. Given the cultural differences between North American countries and Spain, we should question whether the two models are equally applicable to Spanish society or whether one of them captures Spanish men and women's experience of work-family conflict better than the other. So, the aim of this study is to test which of the models better explains the gender differences in work-family conflict in the Spanish cultural context (or if, indeed, the two models apply equally well). Given the typical cultural dimensions of Spanish society, we expected to find greater support for the gender role expectations model than for the rational model. However, the results obtained in this study indicated that, while the rational model can explain the gender differences that were found, the gender role expectations model cannot capture Spanish people's work-family conflict experiences. The results are interpreted in terms of cultural dimensions characteristic of the Spanish context.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".