Strategies for Coping With Work–Family Conflict: The Distinctive Relationships of Gender Role Ideology Anit Somech and Anat Drach-Zahavy University of Haifa Study 1, with 266 employed parents, identified 8 coping strategies: super at home, good enough at home, delegation at home, priorities at home, super at work, good enough at work, delegation at work, and priorities at work. Study 2, with 679 employed parents, demonstrated a moderating effect of sex and gender role ideology in the relationship between coping strategy and work–family conflict. Specifically, the relationships between coping strategies (i.e., good enough at home, good enough at work, and delegation at work) and work interference with family were moderated by sex and gender role ideology. Regarding family interference with work, the relationships between coping strategies (i.e., good enough at home and good enough at work, delegation at home and delegation at work, and priorities at home) and family interference with work were moderated by sex and gender role ideology. Keywords: work–family conflict, coping strategy, gender role ideology, employed parents The growing number of women in the labor force and the rise in the number of dual-earning families and single- parent families intensifies the realization that more individ- uals have to handle simultaneously two domains of life: family and work (e.g., Baltes & Heydens-Gahir, 2003; Eby, Casper, Lockwood, Bordeaux, & Brinley, 2005; Westman & Etzion, 2005). Conflict and strain often arise for the individual who participates in both these domains because role expectations in them are frequently incom- patible. This phenomenon is known as work–family con- flict (WFC; e.g., Eby et al., 2005; Greenhaus & Powell, 2006; Mesmer-Magnus & Viswesvaran, 2005). Although the literature (e.g., Milliken, Martins, & Morgan, 1998; Perry-Smith & Blum, 2000) has focused on the ways in which organizations can manage the situation in such forms as child care assistance, flexible working hours, and family leave, very few formal societal supports exist (Perry-Smith & Blum, 2000; Treas & Widmer, 2000). Many employees, especially those working in smaller companies, do not enjoy benefits such as flex time, on-site day care, sabbaticals, and informal support networks. Fur- thermore, many jobs are not suitable for alternative ar- rangements such as job sharing. Therefore, the ability to cope with the stress arising from the simultaneous de- mands of work and family might, at least partially, be a function of the individual’s capabilities (Baltes & Hey- dens-Gahir, 2003; Burley, 1994; Pratt & Rosa, 2003). Whereas research has ascertained the general, stress- reducing properties of coping (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984), it has hardly specified the unique styles that individuals use to deal with WFC or identified among these styles the ones that are associated with lower levels of conflict. We suggest that the effectiveness of these coping styles to decrease WFC is related to socialization and gender role attitudes, which might influence the success of the pre- ferred coping choices in decreasing WFC. Accordingly, we conducted two studies; the first set out to develop a measure for specific bidirectional coping strategies—those for work interference with family (WIF) and those for family interference with work (FIW). The second study applied the measure yielded by the first to probe the effec- tiveness of these coping strategies on decreasing WIF and FIW, with respect to sex and gender role ideology. Study 1: WFC Coping Strategies—Scale Development Conceptual Framework and Literature Review WFC WFC is defined as “a form of interrole conflict in which role pressures from the work and family do- mains are mutually incompatible in some respect” (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985, p. 77). The general demands of each role include the responsibilities, Anit Somech, Faculty of Education, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel; Anat Drach-Zahavy, Faculty of Health and Welfare, University of Haifa. We thank the team of Project 3535 for providing a challenging work environment and for constructive com- ments that inspired us in developing this article. Correspondence concerning this article should be ad- dressed to Anit Somech, Faculty of Education, University of Haifa, Mount Carmel, Haifa, Israel 31905. E-mail: anits@construct.haifa.ac.il Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 2007, Vol. 12, No. 1, 1–19 Copyright 2007 by the American Psychological Association 1076-8998/07/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/1076-8998.12.1.1 1